1schaffner_christina_editor_analysing_political_speeches

Page 20

P number of paragraph; Be Beatrix; Kn Knesset; II Israel

(in the column divided into I (Israel)or J (Jewish people)); Nl Netherlands/Dutch.

both the people of my husband and myself, as your, the Knesset's, people] peoples. . .'.

(2) In my analysis of the first paragraph I noted already that the Queen considers the Knesset representative of both Israel (as a state) and the Jewish people. Table 3 shows that this double representation is quite systematic in her address, in this case, however, with respect to the use of the second person pronouns (you and your).In the column Il,we find a systematic reference to the Jewish people in general in Paragraphs 2-7; from Paragraph 8 onward, reference to Israel (as a state) is predominant. This has mainly to do with the thematic development of the Queen's address. This development is shown in Table 4, in which the main point of each paragraph is summarised.

Table 4 Thematic structure of Beatrix' address p thematic content

1From Knesset to both Israel and Jewish people, and their rich and long history

2 Jewishfor history is relevant for the Netherlands: their history was a model

the Dutch history

3 Historical evidence for 2

4 Jewish immigrants in the Netherlands from 1600 onward: mutual benefit 5 Amsterdamwith as a pars pro toto for 4: history of Amsterdam is interwoven

Jewish history; Jewish nickname for Amsterdam

6 Fate of the Jews in the Netherlands, from 1940-45. Dutch people did not enough for the salvation of the Dutch Jews

7 6 is a warning against racism and discrimination

8 Relationship between Israel and the Netherlands after 1948; Dutch enthousiasm and solidarity

9 Evaluation of the history of Israel in the past 50 years

10Conflict in the Middle East, esp. between Israel and the Palestinians 11Hope and moral as to this conflict; Western Europe as a model for the

Middle East

12General positive evaluation of Israel; hope for the future 13Knesset is symbol of democracy; ritual gratitude

It appears that the address consists of three parts:

(a) The first part (Paragraphs 1-9) emphasises the historical development of the relationship between the Netherlands and the Jews, or Israel.

Page 21

After the Queen has stated that Jewish history was considered an ideal model by the Dutch (Paragraph 2-3), the development of their relationship is described in three phases. First, the phase in which Jewish immigrants became an inherent part of Dutch society (Paragraph 4-5), second, the phase in which a large part of the Dutch Jewish population was destroyed (Paragraph 6-7), and third, the phase of the official relationship between the states, after Israel had become independent in 1948. Thus, the state visit to Israel is considered an occasion on which not just two states, but rather, two peoples, are represented. This is shown, once more, in the final sentence of the address: '. . . relationship between our peoples, which has held firm now for four centuries'.

(b)In the second part 26 of her speech, the Queen focuses on the conflict in the Middle East (Paragraphs 10-11). As is shown in Table 3, the Queen uses a few first person pronouns, alternating those with general references to 'everyone who follows your efforts', 'the whole world remembers', or 'people have been moved by the suffering'. As an outsider to Israel, the Queen thus seems to adopt here a perspective that represents more than just her own point of view, or the point of view of the Netherlands. As a part of this general perspective, there is some moralising in the Queen's words. She states what is best to do in this conflict. Consider formulations such as: 'steps along the right road', 'developments in the delicate but necessary peace-process', 'Once peace is concluded reconciliation must follow', and 'It also demands that mistrust which has grown between them be overcome'. Furthermore, at the end of paragraph 11 the Queen offers post-war developments in Western Europe as a model to the Knesset.

(c)The third part of the address (Paragraphs 12-13) is its ritual closing. This closing section starts by explicitly addressing the members of the Knesset. Paragraph 12 is an eulogy of Israel, in which she wishes it well. (There is some discrepancy in tone between the moralising of Paragraph 11 and the best wishes of Paragraph 12.) In the final sentence of 12, the Queen addresses her audience in their own language.27 The final paragraph is focused on the Knesset itself, and on its way of symbolising democracy. Again, stating this symbolic value gives rise to a moralistic utterance: 'This chamber calls to mind that the only solutions for your country are democratic solutions'.28 The Queen links her own presence in the Knesset to this utterance. She expresses gratitude for her reception.

(3)For more than one reason, Paragraph 6 is rather remarkable. The oscillation between formulations is most conspicuous here. We find the following formulations:

(a)Not necessary to call to mind here, in this place,the horrors.

(b)Our country's Jewish population.

(c)Most of our Dutch Jews.

(d)We know that many of our fellowcountrymen . . . stood by their threatened fellow men.

Page 22

(e)During our visit to Yad Vashem.

(f)We also know that . . . the people of the Netherlands could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow-citizens.

A first implication of (a) is, that the horrors are well known. A second, more specific, implicationnotably coming from the stressing of 'here in this place', i.e. the Knessetis, that the horrors are well known here.In (b) and (c), the first person plural indicates that the speaker takes a point of view representing the Netherlands. In (d), however, there is a contradiction. Firstly, the represented country is split up into two parts: 'many of our fellowcountrymen who stood by' are the exceptional ones, as opposed to 'the people of the Netherlands' (see (f)). Secondly, the Queen remains representative of both parts. Both (d) and (f) open with 'We know.

. .'. However, the function of these similar formulations is different. In (d), the formulation acknowledges and honours the actions of these Dutchmen. This is reinforced in (e), where the Queen mentions Israeli recognition 'remembered forever' of these persons. (Note in passing, that the reference of our in (e) is again shifted to the Queen herself.) In (f), however, 'we also know' admits the fact that the Dutch in general failed to help. Uttered by the Queen, these words count as a Dutch admission of failure. Why did the Queen say this on this particular occasion? To whom are her words addressed? The ratified audience are the Knesset. Neither the Knesset, nor Israel as a state, have been involved in the situation of the Dutch Jews during the war. Nonetheless, the Queen's reference to the fate of the Jews in Holland fits in with the chosen perspective on a state visit which represents not just two states, but rather two peoples. Remember that these two peoples belong to the intended receivers (R3) of her message. In that sense, her words are uttered in the name of the Netherlands, and at the same time aimed at being received by Dutch society.

(4) So far, I have focused on pronouns and formulations as indicative of the Queen's footing. Of course, other aspects are relevant as well. In particular, the interactional moves or acts as performed by the Queen deserve attention. It is, at least on the surface, clear that she performs almost no explicit actions other than making statements. The horizontal box of Figure 1 would allow her to become interactional in a way that she does not. Apparently, the operation of the two vertical boxes prevents her from doing so. No promises, invitations, or greetings, are uttered by the Queen. She is the mouthpiece of the Institutionthe incumbent of the Kingdom.

Most of her sentences have a descriptive form. Hence, the address consists predominantly of 'representative speech acts' 29 (Searle, 1976; Levinson, 1983: 240-1). However, it does not have a reporting function. In Paragraph 6, the repeated formulation 'we know' is an exception to this, although the formulation might even be left out without changing the tone of the address too much. To the acknowledgement of Dutch failure, no interactional gesture of apology is added. In Paragraph 7, in which the moral consequences of Paragraph 6 are addressed, the dominant formulations remain descriptive: 'it is an urgent duty', and 'these memories are an incitement to

Page 23

us all'. The duty and the incitement are stated; the Queen refrains from ordering or inciting.

The only explicit interactional moves are expressions of gratitude in Paragraph 13. Here is the only use of the first person singular. It thus appears that interaction occurs mainly at the level of the represented parties. On that level, the interaction takes place rather in the form of presuppositions or in implications, than in explicit acts. Thus, the description of Israel as a model for the Dutch in Paragraph 2, is an implicit compliment. Likewise, the reference to relevant symbols such as the Old Testament or the use of Hebrew (see Note 27) are means of paying tribute.

(5) Questions P3 and P4 from Table 1 have not yet been answered. To whom does the Queen's address belong? With whom did it originate? Who forged the means?

As a contrast to questions P1 and P2, these two questions appear rather elusive. As for P4, it is not possible to obtain an answer from the text itself. Information about the 'production process' of the text is needed. In a case like this, such information is not obtainable. It belongs to the 'aura' of the head of state, in particular a Queen, that such information is not provided. The text is the Queen's text. Nonetheless, it is safe to suppose that this text was produced in a complex way. Advisors from the Netherlands Information Service, and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, would have been consulted. From a formal point of view, such a text would have been approved by the Dutch Government, since the ministers are liable for the King's actions.

Part of the Queen's address focuses on the conflict in the Middle East (Paragraphs 10 and 11). In these paragraphs, the desirability, even necessity, of the peace process are emphasised. At the same time, the Queen not only shows concern for Israeli interests, but for Palestinian as well. (I have already noted that there is some discrepancy here with the ritual Paragraph 12.) It must be assumed that the wording of these paragraphs originated from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 30

Question P3 may be answered on the basis of the text itself. Earlier I concluded that in the first person pronoun, both the Queen herself, and the Dutch people, or the Netherlands, are merged. The Queen addressing the Knesset does not display a personal authority, but a symbolic and collective authority. She is speaking in the name of the country she represents. If her address succeeds, it contributes to the relationship between the two countries. (This is, in fact, what is presupposed in the final sentence of her address.) If it had failed, it would have harmed that relationship. In line with what I noted above, the tendency to replace direct acts by descriptions which state the necessity of those acts, invokes an abstract authority behind the text. The Queen lends her voice to that authority.

I have also noted above that the Queen acknowledged the general Dutch failure to help the Dutch Jews during World War II. This acknowledgement on such an occasion implies that she is acknowledging it in the name of the Netherlands. At the same time, however, her words are aimed at Dutch society. The point of view expressed here is not generally accepted within

Page 24

that society. According to a reconstruction by a Dutch journalist (Verhey, 1995), this point of view is advocated by the Queen herself. Nevertheless, the text of the address does not make clear any differences between what the Queen adheres to as a person, and what she is saying officially, endorsed by the government of the Netherlands. In a sense, the consequence of being representative is the eclipse of the individuality of the speaker.

Conclusion

In this paper, I have presented an analysis along Goffmanian lines. Although Erving Goffman did not provide the precise analytical tools, I have developed these according to the directions he set out. I have shown the relevance of the concept footing, especially in its elaboration by Levinson. Both Goffman and Levinson point out that the notion of speaker is misleadingly simple, and needs to be examined more closely. Such an examination has been the guideline of this analysis. The analysis itself has shown that there is an intricate relationship between the speaker of a representative political text, its formulations, and what is represented.

The concept of footing is thus clearly relevant to the analysis of political communication. It is especially fruitful to analyse the footing of political communication of the formal representative kind I have discussed in this paper, since the discourse analytic phenomena related to footing put a sharp focus on what is represented in political communication, both as it relates to the speaker and to the audience. Part of political communication takes place on the explicit level of the message. An important part occurs on the level of what the speaker's footing presupposes as to representativeness.

The analysis has limitations as well. Only one text has been analysed. A systematic picture of the management of representativeness in official addresses is not offered. Furthermore, the focus of the analysis has been on the text, not on its presentation. I have argued that there is a good reason for doing that: the text has been written, and is read aloud at the ceremony. It is disseminated through media representatives by means of the written press release. Nevertheless, the written text does not 'count' in itself, it derives its value from the Queen's speaking of that text.

Nor has the focus of the analysis been on the reception. The reception of the addressfirst by the Knesset as the ratified audience, second by the intended receivers through the mediais not identical with the text itself. In the reception, selection takes place. Some aspects of the address are highlighted, other aspects go unnoticed. Whenever one wants to study the reception, the analysis as presented here is significant as a point of departure.

Notes

1. I focus here on national representation. Many other forms of representation may be considered as well. In fact, each institution implies for persons within that institution, that under appropriate circumstances they have to represent that institution. The socio-psychological concept of identity is closely related to representation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966).

2. These officially staged forms of representation evoke emotions, and often they are intended to do so. The playing or singing of the national anthem on solemn occasions

Page 25

may make people sob. Of course, feelings and these representative symbols are interlinked. When a protester wishes to insult an enemy country, its flag, or a puppet representing its head of state are burnt. Or consider the way in which two groups of tourists in Spain started a fight after using a national symbol as a provocation (as reported in de Volkskrant on July 30, 1996): 'The riot started when a group of thirty Dutchmen, each of them according to police ''very drunk'', started to sing the Dutch anthem in a bar. As a reaction to that, German tourists started to sing their anthem. The singing resulted in fighting'.

3.A clear example of national feelings projected onto an economically determined process may be found in the case of the mother-corporation DASA withdrawing its financial support from the aerospace company, Fokker. DASA is a German corporation, whereas Fokker is Dutch. In Dutch newspapers, DASA's actions were described as a German betrayal of Holland.

4.In due course, such private schemes may very well become officially acknowledged. Consider for example the way in which jobs have become representative of male/female or majority/ethnic minorities ratios.

5.The fact that Roba considered herself representative of African women when talking to journalists, did not prevent her from being representative of Ethiopia at the official ceremony. As a contrast, consider the case of two black American athletesWootie Smith and John Carlos, winners of the gold and silver medals in the 200 metersraising their black gloved fists at the 1968 Mexico Olympics at the cérémonie protocollaire,while the US anthem was played. They chose to make a gesture representative of the Black Power movement, not of the USA. The country considered them a disgrace. The dual role demands that not only does one have to be good at sports but good at representing one's country as well.

6.I focus here on (incumbents of) representative functions, and their language use. This presupposes that they speak novel, non-canonical texts. One might ask which texts, regardless of speaker or source, have representative functions. The text of national anthems, the text of the Constitution, words spoken by founding fathers or national heroes are cases in point. Where religion is concerned, there are canonical holy texts.

7.In view of Kohl's denial to have said what Newsweek reported, the magazine published the following transcript of the Kohl interview: 'Ich bin kein Narr, ich halte ihn [= Gorbatschow] nicht für einen Liberalen. Es gibt genug Narren in der westlichen Welt zwischen Journalisten und Politikern. Die Frau Gorbatschow ist eine attraktive Frau, die reist nach Paris und kauft sich natürlich Kleider in Paris. Das hat doch damit überhaupt nichts zu tun. Das ist ein moderner kommunistischer Führer. Der war nie in Kalifornien, nie in Hollywood, aber versteht was von PR. Der Goebbels verstand auch was von PR.[Laughter] Man muß doch die Dinge auf den Punkt bringen'.(quoted in Der Spiegel 1986 No. 46). ('I'm not stupid, I don't regard Gorbachev as a liberal. There are enough fools in the West, amongst journalists and politicians. Mrs Gorbachev is an attractive woman who travels to Paris and, of course, buys herself a few dresses. But this has nothing to do with it. He is a modern Communist leader. He