II. Theoretical Part
Analyzing Discourse
Discourse and Discourse Analysis
Prior to embarking on a complicated journey of discourse analysis in the practical part, it is important to define just what discourse is and how it is analyzed. According to the linguist Guy Cook, discourse is anything communicated: a speech, a conversation, a written note for a friend or an article in paper. Simply put, discourse is “language in use” (7). While discourse is basically anything we say, discourse analysis is then “the search for what gives discourse coherence” (6). Interestingly, what matters with discourse analysis “is not its conformity to rules, but the fact that it communicates and is recognized by its receivers as coherent” (7). This non-conformity to rules, Cook continues, “leads us to the disturbing conclusion that there is a degree of subjectivity,” which without a doubt makes academic analysis difficult, to say the least (7). To eliminate this problem and to prevent any problems with proposition-based representation of discourse content (Brown 116), complete speeches and their background were analyzed so that the speaker’s intended meaning might be uncovered.
As the language experts George Yule and Gillian Brown claim, “the analysis of discourse … cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms independent of the purposes or functions which those forms are designed to serve in human affairs” (1). In other words, discourse analysis takes into consideration as many influencing factors as possible to arrive at an objective conclusion. While it is necessary to venture out to other fields, such as history, social studies, politics etc., to study discourse, scholars “must always be careful to return to the main concern” (Cook 13).
The Methods of Discourse Analysis
Discourse analysis is a complex task, which can be accomplished by using various methods and approaches, depending on the user and his/her precise purpose of the analysis. Similarly, opinions of linguists vary. According to linguist David Crystal, “we approach a text with various levels in mind and try to organize our material in their terms” (20). Brown and Yule emphasize that the “discourse analyst necessarily takes a pragmatic approach to the study of language in use… That is, in using such terms as reference, presupposition, implicature and inference” (27). In their Discourse Analysis, context, topic, staging and coherence are discussed in detail and will also appear in the practical part of this paper, but with appropriate relevance. In his other work, Pragmatics, Yule stresses the importance of pragmatic perspective focused on “aspects of what is unsaid or unwritten (yet communicated)” and uses explicit connection between sentences or elements of textual organization (84).
So while paying attention to the pragmatic perspective and all its elements, the first step is to explain and describe in theory the graphical, phonetic, lexical, grammatical, stylistic and discourse levels of the texts. Next, all but the phonetic and graphical levels will be put into practice in the practical part of the thesis in order to “compose a single linguistic picture of a text as a whole, the synthesis of the information … discovered from … earlier analysis into levels” (Crystal 22). It is entirely possible that only two levels out of five might dominate certain sections of the analysis, since not all the multi-level features occur in all text or the features that do occur may not be significant enough to be described in detail (20).
The Levels of Discourse Analysis
Graphical Level
The graphical level focuses on the visual representation of discourse, generally its printed version. The graphical level is particularly important in certain areas of discourse, such as poetry, newspapers, classifieds, banners and other areas where it is necessary to affect the recipient by a visual impact. By arranging words in a certain manner and order we can emphasize or to diminish meaning of words and thus alter the actual message itself. The discourse materials for this thesis are political speeches, where the graphical representation existed originally in the form of a printed newspaper article and nowadays is available on a website. However, graphical levels will not be a subject of this analysis as all representations of these speeches were and are identical and will not impact in any major way their discourse analysis.
Phonetic Level
As Crystal states, phonetics “studies the characteristics and potential utility of human vocal noise” (16). In other words, phonetics focuses on the audible features of a discourse produced by the speaker and received by the hearer, such as pronunciation, pauses, tone, pitch, volume, melody and rhythm of the voice. Phonetic analysis is for these reasons only applicable to a spoken discourse, unless there is a speech transcription available. Though the discourse materials for this thesis are speeches, and a phonetic analysis would certainly reveal many interesting insights, this essay will only deal with a discourse analysis of the written records.
Lexical Level
Unlike phonetic of graphical levels that will not be a part of the discourse analysis, lexical analysis will be an important part of this study. Words or lexis are the basic building blocks of any discourse, all the more so in the case of political speeches. Politicians weigh each word carefully to direct the listener or reader towards their pre-mediated direction of interest. By choosing complicated or simple vocabulary, colloquial or formal expressions they are conveying their message to their audience. This thesis will focus on the “choice of specific lexical items in a text and their meaning” (Crystal 19) such as religious vocabulary, words of Greek or Latin origin and formal as well as colloquial expressions. It will examine in particular if these expressions remained unchanged over time, if they disappeared or evolved into a newer version.
Grammatical Level
Crystal emphasizes that “grammar is the central part of linguistics,” and as such should also be analyzed in detail (18). Grammatical levels consist of studying syntactical devices used, examining the length and type of sentences and identifying verb tenses and word forms used. The focus is on syntax as it is the “study of the relationship between linguistic forms, how they are arranged in sequence, and which sequences are well formed” (Yule 4). This will help not only with stylistic analysis but with determining the style of each speech and possible differences between them. According to Dontcheva-Navratilova, “grammatical complexity may be achieved at the level of phrases,” therefore the analysis will focus on horizontal complexity, such as pre-modifiers and post-modifiers and vertical complexity, which includes the presence of subordinate clauses within a modifier, for example appositive phrases (69).
Stylistic Level
An excellent summary of what stylistics is about is presented by Crystal: “the aim of stylistics is to analyze language habits with the main purpose of identifying, … those features which are restricted to certain kinds of social context; to explain, where possible, why such features have been used, as opposed to other alternatives; and to classify these features into categories based upon a view of their function in the social context” (10). For speech analysis, style is quite important as politicians can have their own style, or to the contrary, can copy a style of another politician to show who they identify with. As Cook points out, “when the function is to convey information, an inappropriate style can impede it”. In other words, “when style is inappropriate, communication breaks down” (114). The function of speeches will be discussed in a later section of the thesis (language of speeches); however, whether or not a style is impeding the purpose of a speech will be the focus of stylistic analysis.
Discourse Level: Text Structure
In order to see how text is structured, what are the functions of each paragraph and how all the units of the text work together as a whole, it is important to first identify the connecting points within text, representing cohesion, and to determine the logical flow of the text, representing coherence.
Cohesion
Rather than individual sentences, this analysis concentrates on texts (in this case speeches) in their entirety. Therefore, it is important to keep in mind that “within a text the meaning of each sentence depends on its environment including its cohesive relations with other sentences” (Halliday and Hasan 30). Identifying the elements of cohesion enables the investigation of “the linguistic means whereby a text is enabled to function as a single meaningful unit” (30). The following example demonstrates the elements of cohesion by showing how one sentence is connected with another, in this case, by means of anaphoric reference:
Did the gardener water my hydrangeas?
He said so.
(Halliday and Hasan 14)
The word he points back to the word gardener; the word so points back to the verb water, so thanks to the presence of both items, the referring item and the item that refers back to it, the reader understands the meaning. Halliday and Hasan label each single instance of cohesion, such as those above, as a tie, the purpose of which is to connect individual parts of text (3). The means of cohesion are generally divided into two parts: grammatical, such as reference, substitution, ellipsis and conjunction, or lexical, such as vocabulary. Both will be dealt with later in the practical part.
Pragmatic Level
Brown and Yule are, without doubt, big supporters of the pragmatic approach in discourse analysis. They “emphasize that the discourse analyst necessarily takes a pragmatic approach to the study of language in use,” meaning, “using such terms as reference, presupposition, implicature and inference” (27). Reference, as already discussed in the previous section, means referring to something else outside of the text. Presupposition represents the speaker’s assumption about the hearer’s acceptance of the statement. Implicature denotes anything the speaker implies, suggests or means as opposed to what the speaker literally says. Inference is what the hearer employs in order to arrive at an interpretation for an utterance (29-33). All mentioned terms will be demonstrated later in the practical part.
Accepting both positive and negative effects of personal bias, it is essential to admit that “only pragmatics allow humans into the analysis” as opposed to purely rule-driven studies, such as grammar or lexicology (Yule 4). Indeed, “different individuals pay attention to different aspects of text,” incorporating all their biases and perspectives into the analysis of the text (Brown 11). However, the big advantage of pragmatics is that “it tends to focus specifically on aspects of what is unsaid or unwritten (yet communicated) within the discourse being analyzed” (Yule 84). In the language of politics (such as speech), the pragmatic approach is extremely useful as reading between the lines is one of the essential tools used to decode true meaning.
Coherence
What ties symbolize for cohesion, coherence represents for pragmatics. As defined by Yule, coherence is the familiar and expected relationships in experience that are used to connect the meanings of utterances, even when those connections are not explicitly made (128). While cohesion uses well-described rules for what constitutes a tie, the rules in what constitutes a coherent text are much more relaxed. The crucial element here is who is speaking to whom, where or when, pointing out an important principle that “meaning varies with context” (Cook 28). Indeed, the following sentence can mean various things to various people.
The window is open.
(Cook 28)
Used by a mother in the middle of the night can indicate a worry. Declared by a president in a speech can represent a metaphorically expressed challenge or demand. As demonstrated, not all texts are coherent at all times to all readers/hearers. Only when placed into correct cultural, historical, religious and political context, can the discourse be well understood as meaningful and coherent.
The Language of Speeches
Though speeches are generally considered spoken discourse, this assumption is not quite accurate, especially nowadays. Beard confirms that “the real audiences are the millions who will either read about the speeches in the newspaper/see them on the radio and television” (37). In fact, speeches are a unique example of discourse that is at first written, and later usually spoken, having an audience among readers as well as hearers. This model of mixed media, described by David Crystal, is actually gaining in popularity, thanks to new technologies like the Internet, and applies also to lectures, plays, commentator notes or news bulletins.
General Distinction Between Spoken and Written Language
According to Crystal, “spoken and written language may be defined by reference to two distinct but overlapping sets of linguistic and non-linguistic characteristics, conveniently summarized by the labels speech and writing” (69). Speech is almost always transient and there is “no going back and changing or restructuring our words” (Cook 115). It is also less planned or unplanned, less socially structured, unaided by writing and more reciprocal. Written discourse on the other hand is usually planned, socially structured, aided by writing and less reciprocal and more permanent (116). However “much more important”, says Dontcheva-Navratilova, “is the functional difference between spoken and written language” (Grammatical 66). The purpose of speech is mainly to socialize and to connect people, fulfilling the phatic and emotive functions of language. Writing, on the other hand, realizes mainly the referential and partly the connative and metalingual functions, as it “keeps records of cultural knowledge, literature… historical and scientific facts” and other information (Grammatical 66).
Spoken Language
Aside from the difference in functions, the most obvious distinction between spoken and written discourse is that speech adds an entire phonetic and phonological dimension that can be added to multi-level discourse analysis. All aspects of sound such as rhythm, pitch, volume or intonation, as well as paralinguistic features such as gestures, mimics or expression can be evaluated. The hearer is able to receive factual information as well as an emotive background that adds to and clarifies the speaker’s ideas. Particular emphasis, a pause or a tone change or an accent, can play an important role in interpretation and can change the way the hearer responds. Besides all the prosodic features in speech, it also contains non fluency elements, such as pauses and fillers, simpler structures, monitoring features (so, well), interaction features (I think, you know), informal language and repetitiveness (Dontcheva-Navratilova Grammatical 67). Spoken language is also highly inexplicit, thanks to the background information known to both speaker and hearer and the immediate feedback they can exchange during conversation.
Written language
The obvious observations at hand are the relative permanence of written discourse, its formality, distance from the speaker, greater opportunity for use of various grammatical or literary features and also its greater lexical density. Though the writer of discourse does not have the option of immediate feedback, he or she has the opportunity to select linguistic devices that are the most suitable for the topic of the discourse. Also, “the segmentation of written language is performed by punctuation and paragraphing” and contains generally more complex, explicit structures without repetition, monitoring or interactive features (Grammatical 68).
Rhetoric
More than two millenia ago, the Greek philosopher Aristotle “wrote extensively on the ‘art’ of rhetoric, seeing it as an important part of human activity” (Cook 35). As defined originally by Aristotle, rhetoric was an art of speaking applicable to all human communication, without distinction of topic or purpose. Over time, rhetoric became associated with politics, government and persuading people. Interestingly, another Greek philosopher, Plato suspected rhetoric was rather an art of manipulation than of innocent communication. Whether or not rhetoric involves dishonest manipulation is a question of the speaker’s conscience, but the “rhetoric as described by Aristotle still seems to have great significance in the world of persuasion” (Assmundson 7).
As part of the definition of rhetoric, Aristotle identified three means of persuasion, ethos, pathos and logos, which need to be present in order to successfully persuade the audience. As Assmundson suggests, a rhetorician “can control the art of rhetoric only if s/he discovers the available mean of persuasion,” which is to say that the bases for persuasion are never the same (7). This thesis will focus on identifying those means of persuasion in discourse (the corpus) to determine if they remained the same or evolved over time.
Ethos
As the root of the word suggests, ethos “involves making the speaker seem credible… by displaying practical intelligence, a virtuous character, and good will” (Assmundson 8). When persuading by means of ethos, a speaker attempts to appeal to the audience by his/her flawless personality and correct moral stance. In order to identify ethos in discourse, it is necessary to search for words or expressions describing the speaker’s integrity, intentions or character. Expressions such as: I believe, I’m convinced, let me assure you, etc., indicate the speaker’s stance and conviction. The issue of credibility is complicated though, as “the ability to seem like a credible person and to keep the audience in a sympathetic mood is achieved through persuasiveness, not knowledge,” which implies that it is necessary to search for expressions of confidence and persuasion within the discourse, but also outside of it (8). A general historical, cultural and political background from the time of each speech will be taken into consideration as it can provide further outside details on the speaker or the discourse.
Pathos
Reminiscent of the word empathy, “pathos can be described very shortly as the process of creating positive emotions and connotations in the minds of listeners … because “emotions have the power to modify our judgments” (Assmundson 8). Quite likely, a positive suggestion will be more readily accepted by a hearer/reader, than a message with a negative connotation. In order to find the means of persuasion via pathos in a discourse, it is essential to search for positive, uplifting and energizing expressions, words and ideas, as well as any comments that make the hearer/listener feel good. For example, expressions of praise, encouraging plans, verbs such as achieve, success, accomplish, and words such as together, we, family generate a positive response and help maintain an optimistic mood. Unlike the means of pathos, the means of ethos are present within the discourse itself.
Logos
Logos “is simply persuasion through reasoning. It is the principle of convincing by using arguments that appear to be or are logical” (Assmundson 8). This part of persuasion is perhaps the easiest one to detect within the discourse, as the speaker uses if-then expressions, concrete numbers, results and data or specific plans and theories that outline the speaker’s ideas.
Linguistic Features of Political Speeches
Political speech is an incredibly complex work of well-chosen words, timely ideas, proper emphasis, smooth delivery and charming personality, all selected to persuade the audience. Where general speeches are written to often simply inform the listener, a political speech has, aside from the informative agenda, also a persuasive function. The short and famous utterance by U.S. astronaut Neil Armstrong on the moon presents many of the typical features of political speeches:
One small step for man: one giant leap for mankind.
(Beard 39)
The literal/metaphorical contrast of small step/giant leap in italics, the lexical repetition of one is underlined, and the semantic repetition of man/mankind is in bold. The following excerpt from British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s acceptance speech demonstrates additional features of political speeches:
Where there is discord, may we bring harmony.
Where there is error, may we bring truth.
Where there is doubt, may we bring faith.
Where there is despair, may we bring hope.
(Beard 40)
This example includes several underlined contrastive pairs: discord/harmony, error/truth, doubt/faith and despair/hope. In italics is the frequent repetition of verb phrases ‘where there is’ and ‘may we bring’. The use of existential there, particularly with the adverb where, causes a delay of the subject and its subsequent emphasis.
This passage can also be considered a soundbite, which is comprised of “carefully engineered excerpt{s}, which the speakers hope in advance will receive attention” (Beard 37). Also important is the use of the pronoun we, which connects the speaker with the audience. However, as Dontcheva-Navratilova warns, “when taken in isolation from the linguistic context in which they occur, self reference personal pronouns cannot function as sufficient indicators of the speaker’s opinions, attitudes and relations to the audience” (Some functions 9).
The History of Inaugural Speeches
The inauguration of the President of the United States takes place every time a new presidential term begins. The ceremony has only one mandatory element, which is the swearing of the oath of office by the president-elect. However, over the years, other celebratory elements have been added to this ceremony, creating an entire day of special events. Aside from a parade or a dance ball in the evening, the newly sworn president also delivers a speech, called an inaugural address. In front of the Capitol Building, with the Chief Justice, the Vice President and the public as witnesses, the new president delivers his address, during which he outlines the plans for the new term. The following information is a brief description of the political, historical, cultural and social circumstances surrounding the inauguration of the presidents, whose speeches will serve as the corpus for the discourse analysis. The above mentioned information about the history of inaugural speeches as well as all information in sections 7.1-7.6 was taken from the website Bartleby.com and the Unfinished Nation by historian Alan Brinkley.
Andrew Jackson (Democrat)
Andrew Jackson gave his second inaugural address on 4 March 1833 to a large group inside the Hall of the House of Representatives. He was in poor health at the time, in part due to the stress of doing battle against the Second Bank of the United States. Jackson had also just dealt with a nullification crisis, during which South Carolina threatened to leave the union over a tariff issue. He had also signed the Indian Removal Act into law in 1830 and at the time of his address was overseeing the removal of the Indians to reservations west of the Mississippi River. One tribe that refused to move was the Seminoles of Florida, prompting the start of the Second Seminole War in 1835.
Abraham Lincoln (Republican)
Abraham Lincoln gave his second inaugural address on 4 March 1865, just over one month before his assassination, in front of the Capitol in Washington D.C. At that time, the Civil War was almost four years old, but the end was near. Petersburg, Virginia was under siege by Ulysses S. Grant and his Union army, and the Confederate capital of Richmond was in real danger. Lincoln knew the war would soon end, and his thoughts had turned to reconciliation. He was strategizing over how to bring the southern states back into the Union. He wanted to punish the South, but not so much that it would make reconciliation impossible. At the time of his address, he was considering the idea of letting the southern states back into the Union if 10% of the population of a state would pledge loyalty to the United States.
The Lincoln Exception
Though each selected speech is highly individual, Lincoln’s speech should be considered as an exception for the following reasons: As noted above, the Civil War had been underway for almost four years and therefore consumed Lincoln’s utmost attention. Lincoln himself admitted that:
Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest, which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented
As a result, the speech is only 708 words long, and chiefly deals with the topic of the war and God. No other issues, domestic, international, economic or political were being discussed. The speech will be analyzed in detail in later sections, but these exceptions should be taken into consideration.
William McKinley (Republican)
William McKinley gave his second inaugural address on 4 March 1901 on a platform in front of the Capitol building. In six months, he too would be assassinated, but at the moment, he and the country were celebrating America’s victory in the Spanish American War, which had begun in 1898. Thanks to the victory, the U.S.A. had gained Spanish territories all around the world, including Puerto Rico and the Philippines. It was this war that finally reunited the North and the South. McKinley won re-election also because during his first term he had managed to get the United States out of an economic depression that had begun in 1893. McKinley was also president during a time of great technological advancement and unease associated with this advancement.
Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat)
Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave his second inaugural address on the grounds of the Capitol building on 20 January 1937. Roosevelt was president during the Great Depression and in his first term had implemented the New Deal, with its “Alphabet Soup” programs, as a means of combating the depression. He also gave weekly “fireside chats” on the radio to calm the public and to prevent panic. Roosevelt suffered from Gillain-Barre syndrome and as a result was paralyzed from the waist down, but he gave press conferences and important speeches standing up, using metal leg braces to support himself. Also at the time of his address, F.D.R. was facing the rising threat of fascism in Europe and the threat of a war between Japan and China. This address is the first one in the corpus that would have been listened to nationwide on the radio.
Richard Nixon (Republican)
Richard Nixon gave his second inaugural address on 20 January 1973 on a pavilion erected in front of the Capitol building in Washington D.C. The Watergate scandal had begun in June 1972, and Nixon resigned in August 1974, but Nixon’s second inaugural address came before he was implicated in the scandal. The big issue of the day was the Vietnam War, which the U.S. had been involved in since 1961. Nixon had promised to get the U.S. out of the war during his first term, but instead, like his predecessors, he escalated the war. This address is the first one in the corpus that would have been viewed by a nationwide audience on television.
Bill Clinton (Democrat)
William Jefferson Clinton gave his second inaugural address on 20 January 1997 on the grounds of the U.S. Capitol building. It was the first inaugural address to be broadcast over the internet, and it can be viewed now on the popular Internet video site Youtube. It was a time of economic prosperity and a balanced budget. Although unbeknownst to the public, Clinton had survived an assassination attempt in the Philippines in 1996 and had already entered into an affair with a White House intern.