A critical discourse analysis on Barack Obama''''s race speech = Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán bài diễn văn về chủng tộc của Barack Obama. M.A Thesis Linguistic: 60 22 15

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIESLÊ NỮ THU HẰNG A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ON BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH PHÂN TÍCH

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ NỮ THU HẰNG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

ON BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH

(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN

BÀI DIỄN VĂN VỀ CHỦNG TỘC CỦA BARACK OBAMA)

MA COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 60.22.15

HÀ NỘI - 2010

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HA NOI COLLEGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES DEPARTMENT OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

LÊ NỮ THU HẰNG

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

ON BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH

(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN

BÀI DIỄN VĂN VỀ CHỦNG TỘC CỦA BARACK OBAMA)

MA COMBINED PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics

Code: 60.22.15

Supervisor: Assoc Professor, TRẦN HỮU MẠNH, PhD

HÀ NỘI - 2010

CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES iv

ABBREVIATIONS v

CONTENTS vi

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Scope of the study 2

3 Aims of the study 2

4 Methodology 3

5 Design 5

6 Significance of the study 5

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6

CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW 6

1.1 What is CDA? 6

1.2 Concepts of CDA and clarifications 8

1.2.1 Critical, Ideology, Power and Dominance, Racism 8

1.2.2 Discourse and racism 10

1.3 CDA in the world and in Vietnam 11

1.3.1 CDA in the world 11

1.3.2 CDA in Vietnam 13

1.4 Fairclough’s analytical framework 14

1.5 Systemic Functional Grammar and its role in CDA 18

CHAPTER 2: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF BARACK OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH 22

2.1 Context of the speech 22

2.1.1 Sociocutural and historical context 22

2.1.2 Barack Obama’s campaign and Reverend Wright’s controversy 23

2.2 Discourse analysis 29

2.2.1 Vocabulary analysis 29

2.2.1.1 Experiential value of words 29

2.2.1.2 Relational value of words 33

2.2.1.3 Expressive value of words 37

2.2.1.4 Metaphors 41

2.2.2 Grammar analysis 43

2.2.2.1 Experiential value of grammar 43

2.2.2.2 Relational value of grammar 47

2.2.2.3 Expressive value of grammar 50

2.2.3 Macro-structure and argumentative strategy analysis 52

2.2.4 Rhetoric techniques analysis 58

2.3 Interpretation 61

2.3.1 Situational context 61

2.3.2 Intertextual context 64

2.3.2.1 Obama’s race speech in relation with his previous speeches and the collective language 64

2.3.2.2 Presuppositions and speech acts 68

2.4 Explanation 71

2.4.1 The determination of social structures on Obama’s discourse 71

2.4.2 The effects of the discourse on social structures 73

PART C: CONCLUSION 75

1 Summary of the discourse analysis 75

2 Conclusion 78

3 Implications and suggestions for further study 78

REFERENCES 79 APPENDIXES

Appendix 1: Barack Obama’s speech on race “A more perfect union” ………I Appendix 2: Transitivity analysis ………XI Appendix 3: Barack Obama’s announcement for presidency……… XXXIII

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES

LISTS OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Dimensions of discourse and discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1995a: 98) 14

Figure 2: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119) 16

Figure 3: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136) 18

Figure 4: Examples of Material clauses 19

Figure 5: Examples of Mental clauses 19

Figure 6: Examples of Relational clauses 20

Figure 7: Examples of Verbal clauses 20

Figure 8: Example of Behavioral process 21

Figure 9: Example of Existential clause 21

Figure 10: Summary of transitivity analysis 43

LISTS OF TABLES Table 1: The Preamble 53

Table 2: The race problem in the campaign 54

Table 3: The current situation 55

Table 4: The solutions 56

ABBREVIATIONS

CDA: Critical discourse analysis

MLK: Martin Luther King

JFK: John Fitzgerald Kennedy

RFK: Robert Fitzgerald Kennedy

PART A: INTRODUCTION

Barack Hussein Obama, the Illinois Senator, was elected the 44th president of the United States on Tuesday, 3 November, 2008, ―sweeping away the last racial barrier in politics with ease as the country chose him as its first black chief executive‖ (The New York Times, 4,

November, 2004) The Guardian commented: ―What is not open to doubt is that Mr Obama's win is a milestone in America's racial and cultural evolution.‖ (The Guardian, Wednesday 5

November 2008, italics mine) Obama's campaign was marked by his eloquent speeches, passionate supporters and worldwide fanfare for the Democratic candidate In speech after speech, Barack Obama ―fired up‖ millions of enthusiastic supporters with his compelling rhetoric and charismatic presence

However, during his campaign, Obama had to face a fraught moment: while his campaign was conducted to transcend the issue of race and try to build a coalition of racial and ethnic groups favoring change, his longtime pastor Jeremiah Wright declared that ―God damn America‖ for its mistreatment of blacks and that the country had provoked the September,

11, 2001 attacks The incendiary excerpts of Wright’s sermons dominated airwaves and generated great anger among white Americans, threatening to undermine Obama’s promise

to bind up racial and political divisions Being between the devil and the deep blue sea, Obama decided to give a speech His campaign said that he wrote the speech himself overnight two days before he delivered it

His race speech ―A more perfect union‖ on Tuesday, March 18th, 2008 in Philadelphia is considered historic by the American mass media and drew praise of American people and the political spectrum The speech electrified the whole America and stimulated millions of comments on televisions, radio talk shows, newspapers, websites, blogs, and discussions in offices, academic institutions and churches all over America Commentators employed a lot

of words to describe the speech: ―eloquent, brilliant, exemplary, sweeping, stirring, moving, passionate, emotional, courageous, gutsy, sophisticated, exceptional, breathtakingly

unconventional, etc‖ The speech tactfully ―rescued‖ Obama from the scandal, stably consolidated his position as a heavy candidate for presidency, and more importantly, opened

up a national conversation about race – a very sensitive topic that people only ―tiptoe‖ around It did help him lift up the racial barrier on the way to obtain the highest powerful position as the chief commander of the United States of America

Therefore, the speech proves to be worthy of close study to find out the power of the language by Barack Obama - a black politician - in the fight against racism and inequality The study is an attempt to clarify why the speech was such a success, how Obama handled his language to obtain power and contribute significantly to change social reality The study

is an effort to give an explanation to the unbelievable success of the Illinois Senator in the USA society from linguistic point of view, under the light of Critical Discourse Analysis

The analysis of Barack Obama’s race speech is restricted in verbal aspects of the speech and some characteristics of the United States context at the time the speech was given Paralinguistic factors are also important in the effect of a discourse, but they exceed the limits of an M.A thesis Hence, these factors are excluded

The speech is quite long; it contains 4,909 words and lasts 37 minutes Therefore, I just investigate the most salient linguistic aspects of the speech such as vocabulary, some grammatical properties (transitivity, pronouns, modality), textual features (macro-structure, rhetoric techniques) and some pragmatic traits Themes and mood are not examined

The proposed study serves the following aims:

- First, to examine the political discourse Barack Obama’s race speech from CDA perspectives with a view to uncovering how he exercises ideology and obtains his power, how he persuades people through his language use, what has made the speech great and what the relations between Obama’s individual language and the USA collective language are

- Second, to promote critical thinking of language users and learners in approaching political discourse by raising their awareness the role of language - a sharp weapon in power and ideology struggles to create social changes

In order to achieve these aims, the research questions are:

1 How are Obama’s power and ideology manifested in terms of linguistic features such as lexicon, grammar, macro-structure, pragmatic properties and rhetoric techniques? How can these linguistic features contribute to the eloquence of the speech?

2 What are the relations between the production and interpretation of the discourse in terms of situational context and intertextual context? What are the relationships of Obama’s invidual language and the collectival language?

3 How is the speech constituted by social structures? And what are the effects of the speech on social structures?

Approach and methods

This study is attached to Fairclough's approach with the reason that his analytical framework founded on SFL has been one of the most comprehensive frameworks of CDA It covers in

details three levels of discourse analysis: Description, Interpretation and Explanation This framework will be described more clearly in Part B, Chapter 1, section 1.4 Fairclough’s analytical framework

When carrying out Fairclough’s three stages, I resort to both quantitative and qualitative methods, with the dominance of the later In Description stage, these two methods will be

carried out to examine some linguistic features and their use in the speech Quantitative method will be used to analyze linguistic features such as the vocabulary, the pronouns, processes etc in terms of quantity Qualitative method will be employed to assess the effects

of such linguistic features to express power, ideology and create the persuasiveness of the

speech In Interpretation stage, qualitative method will be applied to do socio-cultural,

historical factors analysis and pragmatic analysis in order to clarify the social, historical and

cultural relations between Obama and the contemporary U.S society, how these relations

influence the creation and reception of the discourse In Explanation stage, qualitative

method will also be made use of to find out how the discourse is determined by society and what influences the speech might have on Obama invidually and the US society in general

Data collection

Firstly, the race speech is collected from the website www.obamaspeeches.com Next, some

of Obama’s previous speeches are collected They are The Keynote Address at the Democratic National Convention 2004 and Announcement for President, February 2007

The former marked the first appearance of Obama as a rising star on the political stage The latter is related to the content of the analyzed discourse Particularly, it is said that Obama’s

language echoes many orators in the past, so some famous speeches are selected: I have a dream (Martin Luther King), the Cooper Union Speech and the Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln), the Address to a Greater Houston (John F Kennedy) Lastly, some

related online articles are also compiled from Internet to get more insight in the production and interpretation of the text, as well as evaluate the effects of the speech on social processes They are articles from the most popular websites such as The Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, etc

Data analysis

First of all, the major features of context are provided so that the readers can understand more about the appearance of the speech Then, the speech will be analyzed in three stages

In Description stage, the speech will be interpreted in terms of discoursal features, which

include lexical, grammatical characteristics, macro-structure and rhetoric techniques In

Interpretation stage, the speech will be investigated in terms of situational context and

intertextual context Situational context will be looked at from social, cultural, and historical features With regard to intertextual context, the race speech will be put in the links with

some of Obama’s previous related speeches and other speeches by Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King and John Kennedy Besides, pragmatic analysis will reveal how effectively Obama employs presuppositions and speech acts to convey his ideology and messages to the

audience In Explanation stage, the impacts of the discourse on American society in terms

of the fight against racism and the securing Obama’s power will be discussed

5 Design

The study comprises three parts They are:

PART A: INTRODUCTION This part contains the rationale, scope, aims, methodology and the significance of the study

PART B: DEVELOPMENT This main part includes two chapters Chapter 1 Literature review includes a description of CDA, some basic concepts of CDA, a summary of CDA works in the world and in Vietnam and a procedure of doing CDA Chapter 2 A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama's race speech comprises four main sections: Section 2.1 mentions the major contextual features of the speech: where, when, how and why Section 2.2 analyzes the linguistic features Section 2.3 interprets discourse practices This section will investigate the discourse situational context and intertextual context Section 2.4

explains the relationship between the discourse processes and social processes

PART C: CONCLUSION This part presents a summary of the main findings, draws

conclusions and makes some implications on language teaching Additionally, appendixes and references are enclosed

The study tries to explain what has led to the eloquence of the race speech and indicate how the power and ideology of Barack Obama, - are realized in terms of linguistic features Next, the study is also hoped to clarify the role of the individual Obama to the USA in terms of his language use in the fight against racism in particular and in the struggle for political power in general The study is a contribution to find out the role of language in maintaining and attaining power of the politician Barack Obama – who rocketed from political obscurity to become the first black African American to head the ticket of a major political party and finally became the first black President of the United States of America The results of the study is hoped to make readers more aware of the powerful strength of language in the ideological struggle in order to achieve more equality and more power in contemporary society

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

CHAPTER 1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Over the past 20 years or more, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has emerged as one of the greatest interests of specialists in linguistics CDA considers discourse (or language in use) to

be socially constitutive as well as socially conditioned Because discourse is a consequence

of society, it brings forth significant issues of power ―Discursive practices may have major ideological effects – that is, they can help produce and reproduce unequal power relations between (for instance) social classes, men and women, and ethnic/cultural majorities and minorities – through the ways in which discourse practices represent things and position people‖ (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 258)

Thus, CDA is particularly concerned about the people who suffer most from inequalities and critically analyzes the language use of powerful people, who take responsibility for such inequalities and have the means and opportunity to make improvements of social conditions Critical discourse scholars take interest in getting more insight into the crucial role of discourse in the reproduction of dominance and inequality and the struggles of power Their hope is change through critical understanding Academics have shown their presence and contributions in large processes of change such as class struggles, decolonization, the Civil Rights movements and Women’s movements (van Dijk, 1993a: 253) Nowadays, globalization, knowledge-based economy and wars against terrorism are important features

of the new era we are living in And CDA has the task to study the role of discourse in these processes and the effects of discourse to social changes (Nguyen Hoa, 2006: 238)

Van Dijk (1998a) states that CDA is a field that is engaged with studying and analyzing language in use (both spoken and written texts) to reveal the discursive sources of power, dominance, inequality or bias It investigates how these discursive sources are sustained and

reproduced in specific social, political and historical contexts Similarly, Fairclough (1993: 135) defines CDA as:

discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideological shaped by relations of power and struggles over power, and to explore how the opacity

of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony

Weiss and Wodak (2003: 15) maintain that CDA is ―fundamentally interested in analyzing opaque as well as transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power and control as manifested in language In other words, CDA aims to investigate critically social inequality as it is expressed, constituted, legitimized, and so on, by language use‖ From linguistic dimension, Nguyễn Hoà (2006: 40) argues that the main object of CDA is

discourse itself, not social relations He strongly emphasizes that analysis of linguistic features should be the focus of CDA CDA practitioners must take into consideration the

descriptions of linguistic features, structures and orders at all levels in order to disclose how

they are utilized in discourse practices and socio-cultural practices to preserve and secure power and social relations Besides, he also stresses that discourse analysis must pay

attention to both presences and absences in text, such as presupposition and implication

Fairclough and Wodak (1997: 271-280) summarize the main tenets of CDA as follows:

1 CDA addresses social problems

2 Power relations are discursive

3 Discourse constitutes society and culture

4 Discourse does ideological work

5 Discourse is historical

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

The practical techniques of CDA are derived from various disciplinary fields It is a shared perspective encompassing a range of approaches such as linguistics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, conversational analysis, rhetorics, ethnography, etc CDA uses analytic tools from these fields to address persistent questions about larger, systemic relations of power and social relations CDA distinguishes itself in the way that it requires CDA practitioners to take

a clear-cut political-social standpoint in doing analysis

1.2 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‖,

―power‖, ―dominance‖, ―racism‖, etc

Critical

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:

9) According to van Dijk (2003: 352), ―crucial for the critical discourse analysts is the explicit awareness of their role in society‖ That means critical discourse analysts take explicit position in understanding, exposing and ultimately resisting social inequality In a similar vein, Wodak (2002: 9) asserts: ―Basically, ―critical‖ could be understood as having distance to the data, embedding the data in the social context, taking a political stance explicitly, and having a focus on self-reflection as scholars doing research‖

Ideology

CDA treats ideology as an important means of constructing and supporting unequal power relations However, there exist many various concepts of ideology because it is studied from different angles: sociology, philosophy, political economics, linguistics, etc For Thomson (1990), a sociologist, ―ideology refers to social forms and processes within which, and by means of which, symbolic forms circulate in the social world‖ In my study, I apply the definition of ideologies proposed by Van Dijk (1995: 17, 18) as follows:

Ideologies are the basic frameworks for organizing the social cognitions shared by members of social groups, organizations or institutions In this respect, ideologies are both cognitive and social (… ) As

systems of principles that organize social cognition, ideologies are assumed to control, through the minds of the members, the social reproduction of the group Ideologies mentally represent the basic characteristics of a group, such as their identity, tasks, goals, norms, values, position and resources

Van Dijk essentially perceives discourse analysis as ideology analysis, because ideologies are typically expressed and reproduced in discourse and communication (van Dijk, 1995: 17) This is what Fairclough and Wodak mean when they contend that discourse can do ideological work, regarding ideologies as particular ways of representing and constructing society which reproduce unequal relations of power, relations of dominance and exploitation (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997: 275) Therefore, one of the aims of CDA is to ―demystify‖ discourses by deciphering ideologies

Power and Dominance

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

(members of) one group over (those of) other groups Such control may pertain to action and cognition: that is, a powerful group may limit the freedom of action of others, but also influence their minds (…) Modern and often more effective power is mostly cognitive, enacted by persuasion, dissimulation or manipulation, among other strategic ways to change the mind of the others in one’s own interests‖ (van Dijk, 1993a: 254, italics mine)

It is the managing the mind of others that is a crucial function of text and talk (ibid) This is the point where CDA joins in CDA seeks to make transparent the relationship between language and social power: language indicates and manifests power; language takes part in contention to obtain power; language can also challenge or defy power; overturn it or change distributions of power in the short and long term (Wodak, 2002: 4)

Dominance is seen as ―the exercise of social power by elites, institutions or groups, that

results in social inequality, including political, cultural, class, ethnic, racial and gender

inequality‖ ‖(van Dijk, 1993a: 250) The term refers to ―power abuse‖ in ―breaches of laws,

rules and principles of democracy, equality and justice by those who wield power‖ (van Dijk, 1993a: 255) In contemporary society, discourse can be handled as a useful means to persuasively enact dominance through controlling the minds of the others by making them

comply out of their own free will Hence, CDA gives particular attention to the relationship between dominance and discourse

Racism

According to van Dijk (2002: 145), racism is a complex societal system of ethnically or

―racially‖ based dominance and its resulting inequality Racism system includes social and cognitive subsystems The social subsystem is formed by social practices of discrimination and relationships of power abuse by dominant groups, organizations and institutions The cognitive subsystem is mentally involved with biased models of ethnic events and interactions, which are rooted in racist prejudices and ideologies Discourse is thought to play

a fundamental role in this cognitive aspect of racism

1.2.2 Discourse and racism

Racism – a kind of inequality that ethnic/minority people have to confront - is one of the most popular topics of critical discourse analysts Discourse plays a prominent role in production and reproduction of racism, in the ways it represents, transmits and legitimates ethnic or racial stereotypes and prejudices Wodak and Reisigl argue:

The starting point of a discourse analytical approach to the complex phenomenon of racism is to realize that racism, as both social practice and ideology, manifests itself discursively On the one hand, racist opinions and beliefs are produced and reproduced by means of discourse; discriminatory exclusionary practices are prepared, promulgated, and legitimated through discourse On the other hand, discourse serves to criticize, delegitimate, and argue against racist opinions and practices, that is, to pursue 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 makes great contributions in his studies on discourse and racism He examines elite discourse in the mass media, education, politics and business to disclose inherent, institutional racism (van Dijk 1987, 1991, 1993b, 1997, 2002) He asserts that discourse occupies a noticeable role in the reproduction of racism, ―especially in contemporary information societies, discourse lies at the heart of racism‖ (van Dijk, 2002: 145)

Among the means of public communication, political discourse occupies a significant part in the issue of racism, because it is involved in legislation and policymaking in ethnic affairs, and it has great influences on public opinion through the mass media as well Politicians may effectively contribute not only to the reproduction of racism but also to the struggles of anti-racism In such a context, black politicians’ discourse is significant in the fight against racist ideologies and activities

1.3 CDA in the world and in Vietnam

1.3.1 CDA in the world

Evolution of CDA

The late 1970s saw the emergence of Critical Linguistics (CL), which was developed by a group of linguists and literary theorists at the University of East Anglia (Fowler et al., 1979, Kress & Hodge, 1979) CL scholars assume that ideology is encoded in texts and this can manipulate the reader and/or mystify textual subject matter (O’Halloran, 2003: 14), and their target was showing how ideology and ideological processes are manifested as systems of

linguistic characteristics and processes, whether or not intentional, by forming CL’s analytical tools based on Halliday’s SFL

Further developments

The term Critical Linguistic (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often used interchangeably Recently the term CDA has been preferred and is being used to denote the theory formerly identified as CL Fairclough (1995b) has raised two issues with earlier works

in CL The first is that CL did not adequately take into account the role of audiences and their interpretations of discourse possibly different from that of the analyst The second is that CL did not pay enough attention to the intertextual analysis of texts Mentioning these limitations largely reflect shifts of focus and developments of CDA theory However, CDA still does not have a unitary theoretical framework, because CDA is an interdisciplinary perspective involving with many approaches

Some directions in CDA

Van Dijk with Socio-cognition model

Teun van Dijk is among the best-known CDA scholars Van Dijk (1995a) considers discourse analysis as ideology analysis His approach of ideology analysis is a triangle

consisting of society – cognition – discourse analysis What distinguishes Van Dijk’s

approach from other CDA approaches is that he emphasizes cognitive analysis For him, it is socio-cognition – social cognition and personal cognition – that mediates between society and discourse (van Dijk, 2001: 113-115).Van Dijk takes care of examining the properties of

language in discourse that can vary as a function of social power He suggests concentrating

on the following linguistic markers: stress and intonation, word order, lexical style,

coherence, local semantic moves, topic choice, speech acts, schematic organization, rhetoric figures, syntactic structures, preposition structures, turn takings, repairs and hesitation He

further puts forward the steps in a CDA analysis (Wodak and Meyer, 2001: 26)

Ruth Wodak with Discourse Sociolinguistics

According to Wodak (1996: 3):

Discourse Sociolinguistics …is a sociolinguistics which not only is explicitly dedicated to the study of the text in context, but also accords both factors equal importance It is an approach capable of identifying and describing the underlying mechanisms that contribute to those disorders in discourse which are

embedded in a particular context – whether they be in the structure and function of the media, or in institution such as a hospital or a school – and inevitably affect communication

Wodak introduces a new approach which is known as the discourse historical method The term historical means an effort ―to integrate systematically all available background

information in the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of a written or a spoken text‖ (Wodak, 1995: 209) It is focusing on the historical contexts of discourse in the process

of explanation and interpretation that sets off Wodak’s approach from other CDA paradigms

Norman Fairclough and the Systemic Functional Grammar Approach

Fairclough’s theory has been significant to the growth of CDA in recent years His approach directs at contributing ―to the general raising of consciousness of exploitive social relations, through focusing upon language‖ (Fairclough, 1989: 4) Fairclough maintains that CDA should be used as a resource in struggles against exploitation and domination (Wodak, 2006: 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

…together within a single theoretical and analytical framework, setting up a dialogue between them‖ However, Fairclough’s main focus is intertextuality, ―how in the production and interpretation of a text people draw upon other texts and text types which are culturally available to them‖ (Fairclough, 1998: 143) Fairclough proposes a three-dimensional

framework, including text (spoken, written or involving semiotic modalities), discourse practices (the process of text production, distribution and consumption) and socio-cultural practices (social and cultural structures which frame discourse practices and texts)

(Chuliaraki and Fairclough, 1999: 113)

1.3.2 CDA in Vietnam

CDA now is a subject in English postgraduate curriculum in Vietnam However, as far as I

know, CDA is still new to Vietnamese learners of English The book “Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán Lý luận và phương pháp” by Nguyễn Hoà (2006) seems to be the only and

greatest study about CDA in Vietnam The book introduces quite fully theories and approaches in CDA, Nguyen Hoa’s study is an endeavor to contribute to the development of

CDA in Vietnam and has raised attention among English lecturers and learners Apart from, there are some M.A theses on CDA in College of Foreign Languages, Vietnam National University, Hanoi Out of these theses, Trần Hồng Vân and Nguyễn Thị Thu Hà’s research were published on the Tạp chí Ngôn ngữ of Vietnam National University, Hanoi

Among MA theses on CDA in Vietnam, there seems to have been no study related to discourse on race by black politicians yet My study on Obama’s race speech is an attempt to bring about some understandings on the relations between discourse, power and racism from the language use by the politician Barack Obama Under the light of linguistics, the study will help to partly provide an answer for the Obama mania, not only in the USA but also in many countries in the world

1.4 Fairclough’s analytical framework

Fairclough’s analysis consists of three components: Description, Interpretation and Explanation Linguistic properties of texts are described, the relationship between the productive and interpretative processes of discursive practice and the texts is interpreted, and the relationship between discursive practice and social practices is explained The dimensions

of Fairclough’s method of analysis are shown in Figure 1.1:

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

Description (text analysis)

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

―cues‖ in the text

The first level of discourse analysis is Description, which deals with formal properties of the

text Fairclough (2001: 91-116) states ten questions and their subquestions based on the three sections of vocabulary, grammar and textual structure

A Vocabulary

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?

4 What metaphors are used?

B Grammar

5 What experiential values do grammatical features have?

 What type of process and participant predominate?

 Is agency unclear?

 Are processes what they seem?

 Are nominalizations used?

 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?

C Textual structures

9 What interactional conventions are used?

 Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?

10 What larger scale structures does the text have?

The framework is constructed through three values: experiential, relational and expressive

Experiential value is connected with the worldview of the discourse producer Relational value is associated with what social relationships between the text producer and the participants are created and sustained in discourse Finally, expressive value is related to how the text producer evaluates what is 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:

Figure 2: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001: 119)

In the right-hand column of the diagram are six domains of interpretation The two upper domains are involved with the interpretation of context, while the four lower domains are

associated with the interpretation of text In the left-hand column are major elements of MR which work as interpretative procedures The central column is the range of Resources which are drawn upon for each of the domains of interpretation on the right

The upper section relates to the interpretation of context: situational context and intertextual context Situational context is interpreted partly on external cues – features of the physical

situation, properties of participant – and partly on aspects of participants’ MR Fairclough

states four questions that associate with four main dimensions of the situation: what’s going

on (activity, topic, purpose), who’s involved, what relationships are at issue and what’s the role of language in what’s going on Intertextual context is interpreted on the basis of

assumptions which previous discourses the current one is linked to Intertextuality is

Fairclough’s main interest Intertextuality is the shaping of texts' meanings by other texts It can refer to an author’s borrowing and transformation of a prior text or to a reader’s referencing of one text in reading another Fairclough distinguishes between 'manifest intertextuality' and 'constitutive intertextuality,' (Fairclough 1992: 117) The former signifies intertextual elements such as presupposition, negation, parody, irony, etc The latter signifies the interrelationship of discursive features in a text, such as structure, form, or genre Constitutive Intertextuality is also referred to interdiscursivity

The third level of analysis is Explanation, which is associated with how a discourse is

shaped by social structures and what reproductive effects the discourse can have on those structures, maintaining or changing them These determinations and effects are acted with

MR mediator: social structures make up MR, which in turn form discourses, and discourses have impacts on preserving or modifying MR, which later have influences on social structures, sustaining or altering them The analyst is supposed to find out how the process of producing and interpreting discourse are determined by the social and institutional structures that contextualize a situation; and how social processes and practices are manifested in discourse and work ideologically to create effects on existing power relations Institutional and social structures are relations of power, and the social processes and practices are processes and practices of social struggle Discourse is seen as a part of social struggles Explanation, therefore, includes two dimensions involving with the emphasis on processes of struggle or relations of power The analyst may focus on the social effects of discourse on structures, on creativity and on the future Or she may concentrate on the social

determination of discourse – on what power relationships form discourse, and on the past –

on the results of past struggles The analysis of both social effects and social determination should be carried out at three levels: societal, institutional and situational, as shown clearly in Figure 3 below:

Figure 3: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001: 136)

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?

1.5 Systemic Functional Grammar and its role in CDA

Fairclough’s analytical model focuses on the multifunctional linguistics theory embodied in Halliday’s (1978, 1994) Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) The term ―systemic‖ refers to the view that language is ―a network of systems or interrelated sets of options for making meaning‖ (Halliday, 1994: 15) The term ―functional‖ indicates that the approach is

concerned with meaning, on the contrary with ―formal grammar‖, which is related with word classes such as noun and verbs SFG stresses that language cannot be isolated from meaning;

it considers functions and semantics as the basis of human language and communicative activity SFG looks at how language acts upon social context and is constrained and influenced by this social context CDA analysts also investigate this dialectical relationship

Situational Institutional

Societal Societal

Institutional

Situational

MR Discourse MR

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

SFG considers that ―language is it is as because of its function in the social structure‖ (Halliday, 1973: 65, cited from O’Halloran, 2003: 16) For Halliday, language serves three

overarching functions – the metafunctions: ideational, interpersonal and textual Each

function is about a different aspect of the world and is concerned with a different mode of meaning of clauses

The ideational function is about the natural world in the broadest sense, including the world

in our own minds Language is used to represent people, objects, events and states of affairs

in the world The ideational function is concerned with clauses as representations and realized through the Transitivity system In the transitivity system, a clause is analyzed into Process, Participants and Circumstances In English, six process types are recognized: Material, Mental, Relational, Verbal, Behavioral and Existential Material process is the process of doing and happening, involving physical actions such as running, throwing, cooking, and so on Any material process has an Actor, and in many cases, it has a second

participant called Goal For example:

Figure 4: Examples of material clauses

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

Sensor Process: Mental (cognition) Phenomenon

Sensor Process: Mental (perception) Phenomenon

(adapted from Thompson, 1996: 84, 85)

Relational process - process of being - serves to characterize and identify entities Relational

process is subdivided into Attribute and Identifying In Attribute process, an entity has some quality ascribed or attributed to it, and participants related are Carrier and Attribute In Identifying process, something has an identity assigned to it, and participants related are Identified (Token) and Identifier (Value) For example:

Figure 6: Examples of Relational clauses

(adapted from Thompson, 1996: 87)

Verbal process - the process of saying - involves with the participants Sayer, Reveiver,

Target and Verbiage For instance:

Figure 7: Examples of Verbal clauses

(adapted from Thompson, 1996: 95)

Behavioral process - the process of physiological and psychological behavior (typically

human being)- concerns with only one participant: Behaver For example:

Carrier Process: Relational Attribute

Identified (Token) Process: Relational Identified (Value)

Sayer Process: Verbal Receiver Verbiage

The report criticized Lilly‘s quality-control procedure

Sayer Process: Verbal Target

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

(adapted from Halliday, 1994: 143)

The interpersonal function is about the social world Language is used to establish and

maintain social relationship between the speaker and the listener, to influence the others and to express the speaker’s attitudes to the world This function is concerned with clauses as

exchanges and realized through the Mood structure In mood structure, a clause is analyzed into Mood and Residue, with the mood element further analyzed into Subject and Finite

The textual function is about the verbal world, especially the flow of information in a text To

carry out the two above metafunctions, language is organized in a cohesive and appropriate manner The textual function is grammar of binding linguistic elements together into a whole

and combining this with contexts It is concerned with clauses as messages and realized through Theme and Rhyme

Besides the metafunctions, macro-structure of text is also of great importance in analyzing text For Halliday, the macro-structure shows the relations between blocks of sentences and the global organization of texts In rhetoric speeches, macro-structure plays a significant role in arranging arguments in order to create eloquence and powerful persuasiveness

SFG ―enables us to analyze any passage and relate it to its context in the discourse, and also to the general background of the text: who it is written for, what is its angle on the subject matter and so on‖ (Halliday, 1994: 34) Therefore, SFG is a helpful analytical tool to systematically find out the relationship between the texture of texts and their social contexts

Behaver Process: Behavioral

Process: Existential Existent Circumstance

CHAPTER 2

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF BARACK

OBAMA’S RACE SPEECH

2.1 Context of the speech

2.1.1 Sociocutural and historical context

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 1999) and Tom Delay (Republican Party House Majority Leader 2003-2005) contributed greatly to the partisanship in the United States The Republicans’ purpose is not to make America a better place but to make Bill Clinton – the Democratic president – a failure, so that they can win the next election When George W.Bush came into power, he promised to be ―a uniter, not a divider‖, but his actions and words left the country bitterly divided

1995-In his book The audacity of hope (2006), Obama describes American politics as follows;

―The country was divided, and so Washington was divided, more divided politically than any time since before World War II Both the presidential election and various statistical measures appeared to bear out the conventional wisdom Across the spectrum of issues, Americans disagreed: on Iraq, taxes, abortion, guns, the Ten Commandments, gay marriage, immigration, trade, education policy, environmental regulation, the size of government, and the role of the courts Not only did we disagree, but we disagreed vehemently, with partisans on each side of the divide unrestrained in the vitriol they hurled at opponents‖ (pp 20-21)

―We think about faith as a source of comfort and understanding but find our expressions of faith sowing division; we believe ourselves to be a tolerant people even as racial, religious, and cultural tensions roil the landscape And instead of resolving these tensions or mediating these conflicts, our politics fans them, exploits them, and drives us further apart‖ (pp 29)

In such a context, Barack Obama’s voice of unity and empathy is unusual but successful He first raised this voice in the Keynote Address at the National Democratic Convention 2004, which electrified Americans It was the language that few politicians were speaking at that time In the following years, Obama continued to speak that language of stressing the commons and inspiring the nation

2.1.2 Barack Obama’s campaign and Reverend Wright’s controversy

The attraction of Obama was that although he was still unknown on the national politics stage, he was one of the few voices who could speak about uniting the country It is because

of his personality traits and his unusual biography At first, Obama inherits a mixed-race heritage with a Kenya-born black father and a white Kansas-bred mother Having a white mother means that he could connect a wider group of Americans His black half means that

he belongs to the African-American community and his voice certainly has great influences

on them His occupational background is another difference He had worked as a community organizer before he entered electoral politics, which means that he had helped lift up the spirit and solidify the relationships among members of a community Obama’s class and childhood experience constitute a third characteristic of distinction Obama was brought up

as a middle-class citizen After his father left the family, he was raised aboard in Indonesia

by his mother and his stepfather, and then he chose to come back to Hawaii and live with his grandparents Living in different cultures and traveling so much means that he could develop some intercultural skills, which enable him to see people’s needs and lives through different lens Finally, Obama is Ivy-League educated He graduated from Columbia University and finished a law degree at Harvard To conclude, what makes one think Obama un-American is

what makes him most American (in no other country on Earth my story is even possible)

Obama appeals overwhelmingly millions of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans Part of his charm is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity He is tall, handsome, well-dressed and blessed with a good voice By all accounts, Obama is a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan His story is perceived as the typical story of America and liked

by Americans Obama’s social and cultural identity has distinguished him from the vast majority of American politicians of all races and made his message of Unity and Change powerful and persuasive

Obama had been serving his first term as the Illinois Senator when delivering the race speech He suddenly became a rising star of Democrats overnight after he gave the famous Keynote Address at National Convention of Democratic Party 2004 Obama decided to announce presidency in 2007 and his main opponent was Hillary Clinton - one of the most powerful woman in the USA Obama built his campaign on the idea that he transcends race

and politics But race had become a polarizing factor in Obama's contest with Sen Hillary Clinton Early in the primary season, Clinton was criticized for comments that some thought diminished the role of black activists in the civil rights movement And her husband, former President Bill Clinton, came under fire for appearing to belittle Obama's appeal across racial lines One top Clinton backer, former vice presidential candidate Geraldine A Ferraro, suggested that Obama was succeeding because he was black And inflammatory comments made by his longtime friend and former pastor, the Rev Jeremiah Wright served as the last straw which forced Obama to give a speech on race

In his sermons, Wright had condemned the United States for its mistreatment to blacks and made other remarks that had been viewed as anti-American: ―The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people" He said in a 2003 sermon "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." In addition, he said on the Sunday after Sept 11, 2001 that the United States had brought on al Qaeda's attacks because of its own terrorism These extracted clips were shown on You Tube and were watched by millions of people, creating great offence to many white Americans This heavily inflicted on Obama’s campaign and might fatally damage Obama’s promise of unity and change Obama chose to attack the crisis head-on He wanted to immediately douse the crisis and significantly, and he viewed it as an opportunity to take a step forward in healing racial divisions Commentators said that Obama bet his political career with this speech

To evaluate the speech more exactly and carefully, we need to have a closer look at the problems and the constraints that Obama had to face in writing the speech Obama was under severe political attack, both from Republican conservatives and from the Clinton wing of his own party Here's what he was facing:

 Racial divisions and identity politics had been injected into the campaign by his opponents and the media The effect was to position him, as an African-American, as being opposed to the interests of whites and Hispanics

 Obama and his wife were under attack in terms of patriotism because of his foreign upbringing and his wife’s slip of the tongue that never before in her adult life she was

proud as an American In addition, there was a claim that he was really a Muslim and

he had strong ties 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.

(adapted from Lakoff, 2008)

In addition, Sen Obama coped with certain constraints on what he could say:

 He understands that people vote primarily on the basis of character and how he would govern on values, authenticity, trust and identity, and only secondarily on fine policy details He could not ignore the problems and hope they would go away Since he was being attacked on all these of character and governance issues, he had to confront them all

 He had been putting forth a vision of bipartisanship, in which he understands that

"conservatives" and "independents" often share fundamental American values with him Instead of giving up on his values, he finds those outside his party who share them His speech had to have such an appeal

 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

(adapted from Lakoff, 2008)

These problems and constraints played the role as a big test for the true mettle of the hopeful candidate Obama, which determined what he could say He was supposed to pass the test with his speech

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

How did Obama appear on the stage? He was franked by eight American flags He is tall and thin, as were the flagstaffs ―No picture of him could be taken without a flag shaped like him, without an identification of man and country‖ (Lakoff, 2008) The way Obama showed himself onstage made an impression on the spectators that he is a loyal, patriotic American The backdrop with large American flags helped strengthen his words and sent a positive message It was very "State of the Union", which made Obama look like and sound like a President

Photo from Getty Images Photo: Jessica Kourkounis for The New York Times

P Participants: Obama exercised his authority by deciding who could attend his speech

About 200 members of the clergy and local elected officials, mixed racial, were invited to National Constitution Center to hear him Obama was not going to make a large political applause ploy He needed a serious audience to sit still for his long speech He knew that millions would hear his speech; three television stations and other cable networks would broadcast it live; video clips and transcripts would be uploaded on You Tube, Facebook and other internet sites and would be listened and read for months Thus, the power of Obama was enhanced by the media and the enormous number of the listeners But who were the

target audiences? His words were oriented at a variety of constituencies, including:

- White working-class Americans: who were most shocked by Wright’s comments

and played a vital role in the primary and the general election The minister’s remarks most profoundly caused doubt among white voters as to whether Obama was "on their side"

- The black community: The potential that he might completely disown Reverend Wright, raised the same question among African Americans, who were waiting how

he would react to the black minister’s statements but not offend the black people

- Independent voters: who were truly swing voters and showed great interest in

Obama in the past The pastor’s statements made them wonder whether Obama was indeed committed to the core values of unity and hope that had been the central themes of his candidacy, as they believed

- Superdelegates: who would likely watch and see how he handled himself under

intense fire, how he could respond to crisis with cool, decisive, effective action as a strong leader, then they would decide whether to endorse him for the nomination

E Ends: The first political aim was to douse the Wright’s crisis and prevent the campaign

from being defined by racial disharmonies The second goal was to re-assure Obama’s supporters, both blacks and whites, about Obama’s presidential qualities, character and core values of unity and hope The last purpose, also most deeply, was to raise the problem beyond Wright’s case to talk about fundamental values of America and call for a national healing, which could help Obama win the nomination

A Act Sequence: Act Sequence is the form or order of the event Because this was a

political address, only Obama took the stage and there were no interactions between the speaker and the audience, except applause sometimes

K Key: Key is the clues that establish the ―tone, manner or spirit‖ of the speech Obama

addressed the audience in a very serious voice His face was cool but his tone was emotional

I Instrumentalities: Instrumentalities are forms and styles of speech The speech is a kind

of political discourse Therefore, the language is formal, full of political words and its grammar is standard

N Norms: Norms are social rules governing the event and the participants' actions and

reaction The speech was delivered in a very formal place and broadcast live on cable televisions Thus, the speaker spoke in a very polite way, and the audience was supposed not

to interrupt the speaker or make noise

G Genre: The speech is a kind of rhetoric address, which is designed to persuade people So

it was rich in rhetorical techniques such as repetition, parallel construction, juxtaposition and antithesis (comparing and contrasting), tricolon, alliteration, assonance and consonance

2.2 Discourse analysis

2.2.1 Vocabulary analysis

2.2.1.1 Experiential value of words

Experiential value involves with the world view – contents, knowledge and beliefs of the speaker Obama’s most notable language is used to emphasize his ideology of unity The following paragraph is extremely important in the speech:

I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together – unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction – towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren (lines 24-29)

This paragraph is the core of the speech The word same is repeated many times, combined with the synonym common, is targeted at underlining the shared things among the audience,

creating strong bonds between the speaker and the listeners and conveying the speaker’s

ideology of unity At the same time, the political words such as union, hopes, direction, better future serve to elevate patriotic and sympathetic sentiments among the audience Obama also puts the antonymous phrases different stories and common hopes together to

make a contrastive effect, bringing to the foreground the commons over the differences and sending his important message of working together to overcome challenges Obama has

transformed the great struggle to a cooperative activity That manifests the fundamental

difference between Obama’s ideology and other politicians’ ones Obama greatly disagreed with John Edwards and Hillary Clinton in Democratic primaries because both of them represented themselves as fighters They only want to give back to the Republicans what the Republicans have done to the Democrats Obama acknowledges differences but focuses on common hopes and common ends, drawing attention of the audience to their shared

American dream By doing that, he lays the base for uniting, which enables him to break

down barriers and build up close connections among a diverse, racially mixed audience The words in the paragraph contain all experiential, relational and expressive values

Noticeably, this speech makes use of rewording: using more words than necessary, many of

them having similar meanings, to get a point across (Fairclough, 2001)

Obama’s message of unity is reworded throughout the speech, becoming one of the most salient linguistic features The speaker uses union 11 times to refer to America, which means

he sees the country in terms of cooperation, not competition or isolation, of inclusiveness not divisiveness; of social responsibility for each other not just oneself Union is closely related

to Unity, since there cannot be a union without Unity Unity has been the bedrock of Obama’s

campaign, but this has been damaged by Wright’s comments Therefore, Obama needs to reassure American voters about his belief and faith At first, he quotes the historic document

- the Constitution: We the people, in order to form a more perfect union to affirm his

patriotism and communicate the ideal of unity This quote then becomes a recurring refrain

linking the parts of the speech Unity is instantiated repeatedly by many near synonymous phrases and words: solve together, work together, come together, do it together, find that common stake we all have in one another, serve together, fight together, bleed together, embracing the past, binding the old wounds, more than the sum of its parts – that out of many, we are truly one, coalition, reconciliation The rewording of unity reinforces the

significant theme of the discourse, insisting on the speaker’s ideology of bridging the

differences and solidifying the country Union is cemented with perfect (this word appears 11

times as verbs and adjectives), which shows the speaker’s ideology that only when Americans are united, can they make their union more perfect

Overwording is also used to denote the speaker's standpoint towards Wrigh's statements in

lines 60-62, 72-74, 77-78, 139-142, 248-253 Obama does not just write about Wright in a couple of paragraphs but weaves him throughout the entire speech He criticizes the pastor

severely numerous times This overwording ideologically means to distance Obama from the

pastor’s controversy remarks The remarks were so damaging to Obama’s campaign, in which he appeals an end to a bipartisan politics and calls for racial reconciliation Thus, Obama has to tackle with Wright’s words at length in order to stress his unambiguous condemnation, immediately cool down the scandal and soften the negative Below is one example:

- Reverend Wright‘s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together (lines 139-142)

The use of the near synonyms wrong, divisive, racially charged in the same sentence helps increase the evaluative degree At the same time, the antonymous pairs divisive – unity,

racially charged – come together are put side by side to set off the ideological contrast

between the minister’s division ideology and Obama’s solidarity ideology

Another ideological usage of overwording is found in the paragraph describing the black’s

experience of discrimination in education, housing, employment, labor unions and business

(lines 148-197) The strong words and phrases such as history of racial injustice, inequalities, disparities, brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, segregation, inferior, shame, frustration, cycle of violence, blight and neglect, legacy of defeat, without hopes or prospects, humiliation, fear, doubt, anger, bitterness, are deliberately put into use to frankly depict the

painful past from which the black had to suffer Obama talks about inferior education and the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students (line 155) Inferior

obviously proves the speaker’s critical attitude Pervasive is a significant choice of word: it

means the achievement gap is currently widespread and needs to be addressed and dealt with

Obama describes the concentrated pockets of poverty persists in so many of today’s urban

and rural areas (line 163) Persist is another ideological usage of word, revealing that the

poverty in black community is long-lasting and difficult to get rid of

Particularly, overwording is applied to bring into focus the fact that racial discrimination to blacks was supported by the law: legalized discrimination, where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property (line 158), segregation was still the law of the land and opportunities were systematically constricted (line 173) The law of the land

suggests that segregation was present not in a particular state but everywhere in the country

Constricted connotes the meaning of using violence in enacting that law Systematically

indicates that such constrictions were carried out by the whole bodies of the country: from the government to smaller institutions, from organizations to individuals Obama does not shy away but look directly the American people in the eye, discussing racial experience of

black community in straightforward terms He affirms that the black anger is justifiable: The anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races

(lines 195-197) In the fight against racism, Obama does not shirk the dark aspect of the national history; on the contrary, he directly addresses it and indirectly asks the white to understand the black anger No mainstream American politician in the last hundred years has had the courage to do as Obama has This was politically risky, because the idea of America

as a good and virtuous nation is politically present everywhere and Obama’s hard-nose words might offend the white, which might lead to the candidate’s loss That is why the speech is

praised as gutsy, brave, exceptional and breathtakingly unconventional

Obama not only candidly addresses black anger but he also honestly and sophisticatedly discusses what he calls white resentment Obama explains to blacks that working class and

middle class whites often don't feel very privileged in this society themselves, facing difficulties with employment, health care and education as blacks do He stresses the white’s

anxiety: They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; (…) and states straightforward that opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense (lines 203-205) Arousing the American dream and sharing the

worries of white listeners, Obama touches deep chords in their hearts He also affirms the

legitimacy of white resentment: to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns – this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding (lines 221-

223) Obama argues that the white must be understood just as the black must be This is really ideologically important This is the voice of a black politician publicly speaking empathy about white discontent, which concretizes his ideology of national harmony

The synonyms anger and resentment are used to describe the picture of race relations as the parallel existence of black anger and white resentment White resentment is an ideological

creativity of the speaker Obama does not raise strong voice against the white in the fight against racial discrimination Instead, he impartially analyzes the race complexity This nuanced perspective works helpfully to demonstrate the speaker’s understandings and sentiments to both sides who have anger against the other Obama strikes chords of the two races with his knowledge and empathy As a result, Obama tactfully builds good relationships of mutual understanding, trust and agreement to both blacks and whites; the two

sides have the feeling that the speaker is on their sides and respond mainly positively

Among the ideological words in the speech, particularly noteworthy is the adjective caring

Obama skillfully weaves the issue of race and with class struggle and makes a logical

connection between the movement to perfection – the long march - and his candidacy,

grounding his political campaign within the context of the broader struggle to realize democratic values:

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign – to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America.(lines 22-24)

Linking his campaign to the noble cause of building a better America is an effective way to

create advocacy from the audience (relational value) Most of the words are familiar in

political discourse What makes a crucial difference is caring, which embeds the empathy and responsibility to the others Obama indicates that caring should be a fundamental value for the country to hold, like just, equal, free and prosperous Caring is mentioned implicitly

through the discourse and prepared to fit smoothly with the call for race healing later He

talks about Rev Wright, his mentor, as a caring person who does God’s work on earth He talks about Ashley as a caring child who took care of her ill mother and as a caring person

who takes care of other people, which raises empathy for an old black man He calls for a

new politics which reflects the caring spirit: Let us be our sister’s keeper Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well (lines 268-270) His ideology of unity is firmly attached with caring value, in which people show their affection and helpfulness This association between unity and caring value works to

persuade people to close up to each other Thus, the word also bears the relational and expressive values The choice of word is very careful to load the speaker's ideology of empathy, which is essential to get beyond racial wounds

2.2.1.2 Relational value of words

With regards to the relational values of words - which express how participants in a discourse maintain and create their social relationships, the speech is replete with political and historical vocabulary which can resonate with the speaker’s audience – reflecting

common values, principles, beliefs, tradition and history in order to build a great sense of unity towards the listeners, both blacks and whites

Throughout the speech, political lexicon such as democracy, Declaration of Independence, Philadelphia convention, spring of 1787, founders, Constitution, equal citizenship under the law, liberty, justice, parchment, rights and obligations, protests and struggles, ideals, march, just, equal, free, caring, prosperous, presidency, decency, generosity, faith, union, unity, the proud flag, etc are meant to make powerful effect on the listeners, evoking them with noble

ideals and elevated sentiments

Particularly, the speaker resorts to many familiar evocations of national history when telling

his own story as an effective way to tie him firmly to the audience

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas I was raised with the help of

a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a

white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas I‘ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world‘s poorest nations I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave- owners – an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible (lines 32-40)

Obama’s background gave him a chance to speak to both sides of the racial issue in a way that probably no other American black politician could have done Telling the audience that his black father was a Kenyan, Obama subtly links his father’s story to the history of America That is a typical American immigrant story, characterized by great hope for a better future, education, hard work, and the attainment of the American dream This sets up the common ground with the audience, founding basis for close relationship with them The mention of his biracial heritage implies that since he does contain the blood of both races, he

symbolizes the unity of the country Besides, Obama’s references to shared history - the Depression, Patton’s Army and World War II, the bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth, blood of slaves and slave-owners – serve to connect him tightly with the

American audience Obama describes his family story to be deeply rooted in historical

periods of changes in America He states that his white grandfather… survived the Depression and later nobly served the country in Patton’s Army during World War II He says that his white grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, which suggests that she

also proudly served the country Tying national history to his family history enables him to establish a reputation for his family, building up his family’s image as ―just like any other patriotic American family‖ Additionally, by acknowledging that he is married to a black

woman who carries within her the blood of slaves and slave-owners - he implicitly criticizes

those who question his wife’s Michelle's patriotism, after she recently said "for the first time

in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country‖ Painting himself as a product of an

ingredient rich ―melting pot‖: the son of a Kenyan father and a white mother in Kansas, raised with the help of a white grandmother and a white grandfather, married to a black