The vietnam war syndrome in forrest gump movie scritp a critical discourse analysis

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OFPOST-GRADUATE STUDIES ---  ---TRỊNH THỊ VÂN THE VIETNAM WAR SYNDROME IN FORREST GUMP

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

- 

-TRỊNH THỊ VÂN

THE VIETNAM WAR SYNDROME

IN FORREST GUMP MOVIE SCRIPT:

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Hội chứng chiến tranh Việt Nam

trong kịch bản phim Forrest Gump:

Một phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán

MA THESIS – TYPE 1

Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201.01

Hanoi, 2019

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF

POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

- 

-TRỊNH THỊ VÂN

THE VIETNAM WAR SYNDROME

IN FORREST GUMP MOVIE SCRIPT:

A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Hội chứng chiến tranh Việt Nam

trong kịch bản phim Forrest Gump:

Một phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán

Trịnh Thị Vân January 05 th , 2019

I need I would also like to give thanks to all the lecturers at Faculty of graduate Studies for all their adorable knowledge which made me broaden mymind to the world of language Special thanks, finally, to my husband and myson who stand by me throughout the time I did my research, without whom Icould never be motivated enough to fulfil my work.

The fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975 is a turning point that put the VietnamWar into an end after 20 years of conflicts Considered the most controversialwar in the 20th century, the Vietnam War deeply divides the Americansociety Especially, it causes the Vietnam Syndrome which still is anobsession of American people until today The research is carried out on amovie script of one of the most famous Hollywood films about the Vietnam

War, Forrest Gump The collected data are analyzed on the basis Fairclough’s

three-dimensional framework for critical discourse analysis As a result, thestudy reveals the different aspects of the syndrome considered as apsychological trauma expressing in many factors such as the topic, the plot,the characters, the setting, the genre, the theme songs, and the language of thewhole movie Moreover, the movie script exposes a long period ofproblematic and tragic time in the history of the United States Hopefully, thestudy will be a firm ground for further CDA research on the same topic

Key words: critical discourse analysis, Vietnam Syndrome, movie script,

Vietnam War, American Studies

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

ABSTRACT iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS iv

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale of the study 1

2 Aims of the study 2

3 Scope of the study 3

4 Methods of the study 3

5 Background of the data 3

6 Design of the thesis 5

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 6

Chapter 1: Literature Review 6

1.1 The Vietnam Syndrome 6

1.2 Discourse and Discourse analysis (DA) 9

1.2.1 Definitions of Discourse 9

1.2.2 Discourse analysis 12

1.3 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) 14

1.3.1 History of CDA 14

1.3.2 Definitions of CDA 15

1.3.3 Aims of CDA 17

1.3.4 Key notions of CDA 17

1.3.5 Tenets of CDA 19

1.3.6 Fairclough’s approach to CDA 20

1.3.7 Differences between CDA and other approaches to DA 20

1.4 Review of previous works 21

Chapter 2: Methodology 23

2.1 Research objects 23

2.2 Research method 23

2.3 Research procedure 26

Chapter 3: Data analysis 28

3.1 Topic, plot, and characters 28

3.2 Setting and genre 31

3.3 Language 33

3.4 Theme songs 39

3.5 The symbol of Forrest’s running 41

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussions 45

4.1 How is the Vietnam War Syndrome reflected in the movie script from CDA perspective 45

4.2 What are the implications of the study for teaching the Vietnam War concerning texts 47

PART C: CONCLUSION 18

1 Summary of the study 48

2 Limitations of the study 48

3 Suggestions for further research 48

REFERENCES 50

PART A: INTRODUCTION

1 Rationale of the study

To be a young Vietnamese of the post-war generation, have you everraised a serious question about what happened to the generations of ourfathers and grandfathers during the Resistance War against America, that iscalled the Vietnam War in the US, from the 1950s to the 1970s? Or you onlyjust heard about a war in which Vietnam was against the American Empire’sinvasion And that the Americans brought tons of bombs and Agent Orange toflow down to our country, which made us be deep inside years of depressionand smokes of war The war, as all we know, has caused many disasters to ourcountry such as starvation, poverty, disability, homelessness, and etc Thegrief and loss of the war will last forever in the hearts of the Vietnamesegeneration after generation

In the United States today, ―Vietnam‖ is shorthand for their longestand most divisive foreign war, and it is often evoked as little more than apolitical or media cliché, a grip reference to a controversial war that endedbadly, a time of domestic turmoil, a history to be avoided in the future Formany Americans, the war’s meaning has been winnowed down to theVietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, DC where they stand in silence,filled with emotion, but unsure how to move beyond their private reflections

to a broader engagement with this daunting subject

They, the same as many young Vietnamese in our generation, are stillgoing to find the answers to the questions how the war began, why it bred somuch dissert or why it lasted so long As a result, many American filmmakersfrom Hollywood have worked for years to find out the reasons why the UnitedStates got bogged down in the war, also acted out the real nature of the

war under different points of view It has been 43 years since the last UScombat troops left Vietnam, but the conflict continues to play an outsized role

in American politics and popular culture From John Wayne’s stern-jawed

performance in the 1968 propaganda film The Green Berets to Robert Downey, Jr.’s antics in the 2008 meta-comedy Tropic Thunder, the war’s

complexity and social impact have made it an irresistible subject forgenerations of filmmakers and moviegoers

Among those, Forrest Gump, one of the most famous films about the

Vietnam War, is an epic American film detailing a history of an America thatwas locked in the revolving orbit of the Vietnam War Also, it clearly anddeeply indicates life of veterans coming back from the war who suffered from

a serious disease called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or theVietnam Syndrome Although in a speech on 1 March 1991 after the GulfWar (2 August 1990 – 17 January 1991), the US President George Bush

declared ―By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam Syndrome once and for all‖

(Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 1991, p.549), it actually does exist

in American veterans’ mind and soul who came back from the Vietnam War,and in the whole society as well

So how exactly the Vietnam Syndrome appears in the script of the

Forrest Gump movie, in order to find out the answer to this question, I manage to do a research called ―The Vietnam War Syndrome in “Forrest Gump” Movie Script: A Critical Discourse Analysis”.

2 Aims of the study

The research is able to argue the nature of the continuing effects of theVietnam War as reflected in American cinema and the extent to which theVietnam Syndrome is still relevant in American culture Another aim of this

study is to provide experiences in applying CDA methods into cinematic texts, especially movie scripts.

To fulfill these purposes, the study will answer the following research questions:

(1) How is the Vietnam War Syndrome reflected in “Forrest Gump” movie script from CDA perspective?

(2) What are implications of the study for teaching the Vietnam War

concerning texts?

3 Scope of the study

In the framework of the study, this thesis only focuses on analyzing the

Vietnam Syndrome represented in the script of the film Forrest Gump which

was released in 1994 by Paramount Pictures The factors such as the topic, theplot, the characters, the setting, the genre, the theme songs, and the language

of the movie are analyzed to figure out the syndrome hidden inside

4 Methods of the study

This research is conducted based on a Critical Discourse Analysisapproach which will be further discussed in the next sections The qualitativemethod and content analysis are applied for the research After collecting data

in the movie script, the analysis was exercised on the basis of Fairclough’s

three-dimensional framework: Description – Interpretation - Explanation.

Details of the analysis procedure are presented in the Methodology chapter

5 Background of the data

Among a series of films about the Vietnam War, Forrest Gump was

chosen because it is interesting - a six Academy Award winner Also, the film

is in English And, it is a film with a strong Vietnam War theme It not onlyshows the criticism of American involvement in the conflicts but also anextremely realistic Vietnam War combat scene It also presents a cozy view ofthe war by portraying it through Forrest’s innocent, uncritical, and child-likeeyes The film honors the army and portrays the soldiers as normal, decentyoung men who were doing their duty for America Forrest’s heroic actionsadd a patriotic view to American involvement in Vietnam and make the armyand soldiers look brave, loyal and chivalrous Their innocence is also shown

in their will to get home, creating sympathy for the US Forrest’s lack ofknowledge regarding the ―Vietcong‖ is suggestive to the lack of knowledgedisplayed by the whole army regarding the policy of containment

The conditions of war in the film are displayed as tough and theguerrilla warfare that takes place is shown to have a high human cost Themovie is only slightly critical of US involvement in Vietnam, but as it isshown entirely from the US perspective, it is a largely romantic and patrioticview of the army and the war

The Vietnam War was one of the most controversial armed conflictsduring the 20th century It ended in 1975 after 20 years of fighting and morethan 55,000 Americans and between three and four million Vietnamese dead.Unlike earlier wars, however, the Vietnam War did not unite the nation to acommon cause, but tore it apart Many people were against the war as theybelieved that the soldiers were only being sent to their deaths, and that the warwas not very productive for the United States Many of the soldiers returnedhome only to be called by protesters as "baby killers." The war first startedtowards the beginning of the Cold War when the United States attempted ateliminating any Communist Presence in Vietnam The main presidents duringthis war were President Lyndon B Johnson and President Nixon who were

known for authorizing hundreds of thousands of troops to be sent to Vietnam.President Nixon was known for his idea of "Vietnamization" where he wouldgradually bring troops from Vietnam home and end the war soon.

6 Design of the thesis

There are three main parts in this research paper

Part A - INTRODUCTION - presents the rationale, aims, scope,

methodology, background, and design of the thesis Part B -

DEVELOPMENT - consists of four chapters:

Chapter 1: Theoretical Framework and Literature Review

In this chapter, the brief introduction of the Vietnam Syndrome and thecontext of the film will be mentioned It also gives out the theoreticalbackground of CDA including brief introduction of the history, definition andmethodology

Chapter 2: Methodology

In this chapter, the theory of CDA in chapter 1 is applied in analyzing themovie script to uncover the relationship between power, ideology andlanguage

Chapter 3: Data Analysis

The collected data is analyzed in this chapter

Chapter 4: Findings and Discussion

In this chapter, the finding from the study is mentioned and discussion onthem is also indicated

Part C - CONCLUSION - summarizes the study and suggestions for further

studies

References

PART B: DEVELOPMENTChapter 1: LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 The Vietnam Syndrome

In fact, the term ―the Vietnam Syndrome‖ is used widely in America.However, the title of this study refers to the ―Vietnam War Syndrome‖because the author wants the readers to have the initial understanding aboutthe content of the thesis Therefore, ―the Vietnam War Syndrome‖ will beused changeably with ―the Vietnam Syndrome‖ as can be seen below

The Vietnam Syndrome, like other post-war syndromes, was first used

in early 1970s to describe the physical and psychological symptoms ofveterans coming back from the Vietnam War, later known scientifically asPost-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) By the end of 1970s, the VietnamSyndrome was no longer a purely medical term and it came to have a politicalmeaning, coined by Henry Kissinger and popularized by Ronald Reagan todescribe the US’s reluctance to send troops into combat situations overseas.This happened because the US was afraid that they would get bogged down in

a quagmire again, like they did in Vietnam, and this which would lead to aloss of support for the government

They argue that bad memories of the Vietnam War such as massiveprotests and riots, the Watergate scandals as well as images of killed andwounded soldiers and civilians, have caused the American people to distrustany type of foreign intervention As a result, any attempt by the United States

to engage in a military conflict would be viewed by the American people as

―another Vietnam.‖ American leaders were also afraid of involvement inother nations’ problems

The Vietnam Syndrome also led to many problems in American societyand people In other words, it is a problem of the whole society Manyveterans came back from Vietnam had been failed in efforts to have anordinary life More Vietnam veterans committed suicide due to psychologicalproblems after the war than those who had died during the war At least three-of-quarters in a million veterans become homeless or jobless.

Nearly 700,000 draftees who came from poorly educated backgroundhardly received honorable discharge Even worse, many Vietnam veteransfind it too challenging to get new jobs to maintain support for their family.There are many movies, documentaries and television programs depictingVietnam veterans’ difficult lives and their sad memories – what they sufferedwhen fighting in the war and how badly they were treated when they cameback from Vietnam

There are considerable debates whether the war in Iraq (2003) is

―another Vietnam‖ The appearance of that phrase has caused many to believethat Vietnam Syndrome is still alive After the Gulf War (1990 – 1991) and itsrelatively decisive victory, President George H W Bush declared that VietnamSyndrome was finally ―kicked‖: ―By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnamsyndrome once and for all‖ It is believed the U.S had recovered from thedisaster in Vietnam This idea is backed up by the broad support of government

in battles in Afghanistan and Iraq in first decade of 21st century However, thosesigns did not mean that the US had completely overcome the VietnamSyndrome American foreign policies are usually decided based on the politicalorientation of the incumbent president Presidents who are Democrats usually try

to avoid intervening abroad unless absolutely necessary For example, Americantroops were withdrawn from Somalia after Battle of Mogadishu in 1993 underBill Clinton’s tenure Barack Obama’s

administration was also careful when assessing problems in Libya and Syria

in 2013 They showed that Vietnam Syndrome still exists on Americanforeign policies to a certain extent Apparently, the United States decide thatthey would only use military force as a last resort – where national interest isclearly involved; when there is strong public support; and only if they couldachieve a relatively fast, inexpensive victory

Intrinsically, the Vietnam Syndrome is a collective psychologicalsickness caused by the conflicts between ideological powers and reality

By ideological powers we mean the belief in the ―Noble‖ AmericanValues, Dreams, Just Cause, Strength, etc These powers decide the way theyspeak, live, and behave in their life (Remember Thomas Paine’s statementthat the cause of the Americans is the cause of humanity) The reality is whatthey see: the American soldiers went to Vietnam to become ―baby killers‖,drop napalm, and to cause bloody massacres

The question is whether the American government continually tell lies

to their nation in committing all these awful actions that generatepsychological disorders in the whole country while and after the war

The demonstrations of the Vietnam Syndrome are different, but theessential is the doubt and disbelief of American people in the so-calledAmerican values They raise questions such as: Is America really such a freeand great country? Does the American Army go to Vietnam to liberate amiserable people from communists’ suppression? Does the merciful God exist

as they used to think? In general, it is their disillusions in the future and inlife They lose their directions to the future and do not know how to move on

The syndrome appears everywhere in every fields of American societyincluding in artworks, literature, newspapers, especially in movies, of which

the film Forrest Gump is a very interesting example.

1.2 Discourse and Discourse analysis

1.2.1 Definition of discourse

The Russian linguist, V.N.Volosinov is the first author to use the term

discourse in the sense we understand it today In his article ―Discourse in

Life and Discourse in Art‖ (1926), Volosinov claims that verbal text, whether

it is oral or written, constitutes only a part of the language communication.The other part is context The unit of language communication, therefore, innot sentence, that can be repeated, but utterance, that includes both thesentence and the context in which it is produced, is unique In the same way,text can be repeated, but discourse, that includes text and the context, isunique Volosinov put it clearly: ―verbal discourse is clearly not self-sufficient It arises out of an extra-verbal pragmatic situation and maintainsthe closest possible connection with that situation Moreover, such discourse

is directly informed by life itself and cannot be divorced from life withoutlosing its import.‖

According to Volosinov, in order to disclose the sense and meaning of

the discourse, we must understand the ―extra-verbal context‖ that makes the

utterance a meaningful locution for the listener The extra-verbal context ofthe utterance is comprised of three factors:

(1) the common spatial purview of the interlocutors,

(2) the interlocutor’s common knowledge and understanding of the

situation, and

(3) their common evaluation of that situation.

He points out the relation between the extra-verbal purview and theverbal discourse is that ―the discourse does not at all reflect the extra-verbalsituation in the way a mirror reflects an object Rather, the discourse hereresolves the situation, bringing it to an evaluative conclusion, as it were.‖

The behavioral utterance actively continues and develops a situation,adumbrate a plan for future action, and organize that action It always joinsthe participants in the situation together as co-participants who know,understand, and evaluate the situation in like manner The utterance,consequently, depends on their real, material appurtenance to one and thesame segment of being and gives this material commonness ideologicalexpression and further ideological development Thus, the extra-verbalsituation is far from being merely the external cause of an utterance – it doesnot operate on the utterance from outside, as if it were a mechanical force.Rather, the situation enters into the utterance as an essential constitutive part

of the structure of its import As a result, a behavioral utterance as ameaningful whole is comprised of two parts: (1) the part realized or actualized

in words and (2) the assumed part

Of course, context is known before Volosinov, but it was seen assomething outside and separate The new in Volosinov’s theory is that he seescontext as a constituting part of discourse

In another masterpiece written in the 1920s, Marxism and the

Philosophy of Language, Volosinov states that expression-utterance is

determined by the actual conditions of the given utterance – above all, by itsimmediate social situation Utterance is constructed between two sociallyorganized persons, and in the absence of a real addressee, an addressee ispresupposed in the person, so to speak, of a normal representative of thesocial group to which the speaker belongs (1986, p 85) He emphasized thatthe immediate social situation and the broader social milieu wholly determine– and determine from within, so to speak – the structure of an utterance (1986,p.86) The utterance is determined immediately and directly by theparticipants of the speech event, both explicit and implicit participants, in

connection with a specific situation That situation shapes the utterance,dictating that it sound one way and not another – like a demand or request,insistence on one’s rights or a plea for mercy, in a style flowery or plain, in aconfident or hesitant manner, or so on.

In the second half of the 20th century, Michael Foucault, a key theorist

in Europe about discourse analysis, defines discourse more ideologically as

―practices which systematically form the objects of which they speak.‖(1970: 49) He also announces that discourse is way of organizing knowledgethat structures the constitution of social relations through the collectiveunderstanding of the discursive logic and the acceptance of the discoursesocial fact For Foucault, the logic produced by a discourse is structurallyrelated to the broader episteme (structure of knowledge) of the historicalperiod in which it arises However, discourses are produced by effects ofpower within a social order, and this power prescribes particular rules andcategories which define the criteria for legitimating knowledge and truth

within the discursive order These rules and categories are considered a

priori; that is, coming before the discourse It is in this way that discourse

masks its construction and capacity to produce knowledge and meaning It isalso in this way that discourse claims an irrefutable a‒historicity Further,through its reiteration in society, the rules of discourse fix the meaning ofstatements or text to be conducive to the political rationality that underlies itsproduction Yet at the same time, the discourse hides both its capacity to fixmeaning and its political intentions It is as such that a discourse can maskitself as a-historical, universal, and scientific – that is, objective and stable In

―The Order of Things‖ (1970), he points out that in every society the

production of discourse is at once controlled, selected, organized andredistributed by a certain number of procedures whose role is to ward off its

powers and dangers, to gain mastery over its chance events, to evade itsponderous, formidable materiality.

Going even further, the postmodern thinkers, like Jacques Derrida,claim that discourse is the nature of the whole humane society: Everything isdiscourse In general, discourse refers to how we think and communicateabout people, things, the social organization of society, and the relationshipsamong and between all three Discourse typically emerges out of socialinstitutions like media and politics (among others), and by virtue of givingstructure and order to language and thought, it structures and orders our lives,relationships with others, and society It thus shapes what we are able to thinkand know any point in time In this sense, sociologists frame discourse as aproductive force because it shapes our thoughts, ideas, beliefs, values,identities, interactions with others, and our behavior In doing so it producesmuch of what occurs within us and within society

1.2.2 Discourse analysis

The term discourse analysis was first introduced by Zellig Harris

(1952) as a way of analyzing connected speech and writing Harris had twomain interests: the examination of language beyond the level of the sentenceand the relationship between linguistic and non-linguistic behavior Heexamined the first of these in most detail, aiming to provide a way fordescribing how language features are distributed within texts and the ways inwhich they are combined in particular kinds and styles of texts An early, andimportant, observation he made was that connected discourse occurs within aparticular situation – whether of a person speaking, or of a conversation, or ofsomeone sitting down occasionally over the period of months to write aparticular kind of book in a particular literary or scientific tradition There are,

thus, typical ways of using language in particular situations These discourses,

he argued, not only share particular meanings, they also have characteristiclinguistic features associated with them What these meanings are and howthey are realized in language is of central interest to the area of discourseanalysis

Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in which

language is used between people, both in written texts and spoken contexts.Whereas other areas of language study might look at individual parts oflanguage, such as words and phrases (grammar) or the pieces that make upwords (linguistics), discourse analysis looks at a running conversationinvolving a speaker and listener (or a writer's text and its reader) It is "thestudy of real language use, by real speakers in real situations," wrote Teun A

van Dijk in the Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol 4 (1985) The context

of the conversation is taken into account as well as what is said It can includewhere they are speaking and involves a social and cultural framework as well

as nonverbal cues, such as body language, and, in the case of textualcommunication, images and symbols

Brian Partridge in his book Discourse Analysis: An introduction (2012) defines that discourse analysis examines patterns of language across texts and

considers the relationship between language and the social and culturalcontexts in which it is used Discourse analysis also considers the ways thatthe use of language presents different views of the world and differentunderstandings It examines how the use of language is influenced byrelationships between participants as well as the effects the use of languagehas upon social identities and relations It also considers how views of theworld, and identities, are constructed through the use of discourse

According to Michael Foucault, discourse analysis, in contrast to theMarxist tradition (the ruling class produces the dominant discourses), is notconcerned with discovering the truth but the truth effects among differentdiscourses and practices, among complex power relations: ―In seeinghistorically how effects of truth are produced within discourses which inthemselves are neither true nor false What makes power hold good, whatmakes it accepted is simply the fact that it doesn’t only weigh on us as a forcethat says no, but that it traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure,forms knowledge, produces discourse.‖ (Foucault M., 1977).

1.3 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

1.3.1 History of CDA

In the 1970s, a form of discourse and text analysis that recognized therole of language in structuring power relations in society emerged At thattime, much linguistic research elsewhere was focused on formal aspects oflanguage which constituted the linguistic competence of speakers and whichcould theoretically be isolated from specific instances of language use(Chomsky, 1957) Where the relation between language and context wasconsidered, as in pragmatics (Levinson, 1983), with a focus on speakers’pragmatic/sociolinguistic competence, sentences and components of sentenceswere still regarded as the basic units Much sociolinguistic research at thetime was aimed at describing and explaining language variation, languagechange and the structures of communicative interaction, with limited attention

to issues of social hierarchy and power (Hymes, 1972) In such a context,attention to texts, their production and interpretation and their relation tosocietal impulses and structures, signaled a very different kind of interest Thework of Kress/Hodge (1979), Van Dijk (1985), Fairclough

(1989) and Wodak (ed.) (1989) serve to explain and illustrate the mainassumptions, principles and procedures of what had then become known asCritical Linguistics (CL).

An account of the theoretical foundations and sources of CL is given byKress (1990, 84-97) He indicates that the term CL was ―quite self-consciously adapted‖ (1990, 88) from its social-philosophical counterpart, as alabel by the group of scholars working at the University of East Anglia in the1970s (see also Wodak, 1996a, Blommaert / Bulcaen 2000) By the 1990s thelabel CDA came to be used more consistently to describe this particularapproach to linguistic analysis Kress (1990, 94) shows how CDA was by thattime ―emerging as a distinct theory of language, a radically different kind oflinguistics ―He lists the criteria that characterize work in the CDAparadigm, illustrating how these distinguish such work from other politicallyengaged types of discourse analysis Fairclough / Wodak (1997) took thesecriteria further and established 10 basic principles of a CDA program (seealso Wodak, 1996b)

1.3.2 Definitions of CDA

There are several identifiable ―schools‖ or groups within CDA, andnot all the points that will be made apply equally to all the groups orindividual practitioners It is particularly important to distinguish between theinitial British approaches embodied by Fairclough (1985, 1989) and Fowler(1991) and its later, more developed and coherent form explained inChouliaraki and Fairclough (1999); the so-called ―socio-cognitive model‖ ofcritical discourse analysis epitomized by van Dijk (1991) and his group; andthe Viennese ―discourse historical school‖ led by Wodak (Wodak et al 1990;Wodak 1996, 2007)

According to Van Dijk (2001, p.352), ―critical discourse analysis is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context.‖ He also figures out the aims of CDA are to focus primarily on social problems and political

issues, rather than on current paradigms and fashions More specifically, CDAfocuses on the ways discourse structures enact, confirm, legitimate,

reproduce, or challenge relations of power and dominance in society.

In Fairclough’s point of view (1995, pp 132-3), CDA is defined as

follows: ―By “critical” discourse analysis, I mean discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events, and texts (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations, and processes; to investigate how such practices, events, and texts arise out of and are ideologically 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.‖

In the opinion of Wodak (1996, p.16), CDA highlights the substantivelylinguistic and discursive nature of social relations of power in contemporarysocieties This is partly the matter of how power relations are exercised andnegotiated in discourse It is fruitful to look at both ―power in discourse‖,

―power of discourse‖, and ―power over discourse‖ in these dynamic terms

In summary, as a self-conscious movement with an explicit agenda, CDAabounds in definitions of what it purports to be and do These declarationsrange from the highly politicized: ―to explain existing conventions as theoutcome of power relations and power struggle‖ (Fairclough 1989: 2), to thealmost anodyne ―to answer questions about the relationships between

language and society‖ (Rogers 2005: 365), depending on the stance of theindividual researcher However, the general consensus is that CriticalDiscourse Analysis contains two essential elements: A more or less politicalconcern with the workings of ideology and power in society; and a specificinterest in the way language contributes to, perpetuates and reveals theseworkings Thus the more explicit definitions all emphasize the relationshipbetween language (text, discourse) and power (political struggle, inequality,dominance) ―CDA takes a particular interest in the relationship betweenlanguage and power ( ) This research specifically considers more or lessovert relations of struggle and conflict‖ (Weiss and Wodak 2002: 12).

1.3.3 Aims of CDA

Critical discourse analysis is a special approach in discourse analysiswhich focuses on the discursive conditions, components and consequences ofpower abuse by dominant groups and institutions It examines patterns ofaccess and control over contexts, genres, text, and talk, their properties, aswell as the discursive strategies of mind control It studies discourse and itsfunctions in society and the ways society, and especially forms of inequality,are expressed, represented, legitimated or reproduced in text and talk.Furthermore, CDA does so in opposition against those groups and institutionswho abuse their power, and in solidarity with dominated groups, e.g., bydiscovering and denouncing discursive dominance, and by cooperating in theempowerment of the dominated

1.3.4 Key notions of CDA

Key concepts needed for everyone to understand this new linguistic

approach are critical, power, and ideology.

The notion of critical in CDA program is understood very differently.

In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis (2001), Ruth Wodak states that critical is to be understood as having distance to the data, embedding the data

in the social, taking a political stance explicitly, and a focus on self-reflection

as scholar doing research CDA is critical in that it views discourse as a form

of social practice and criticizes the way discourse reproduces socio-politicalinequality, power abuse or dominance Nowadays, this term is also used morepopularly in everyday language to mean the use of rational thinking toquestion arguments or prevailing ideas

Fundamental and central to the discussions in most critical studies is

the notion of power Power is about relations of difference, and particularly

about the effects of differences of structures The constant unity of languageand other social matters ensures that language is entwined in social power in anumber of ways: language indexes power, expresses power, is involved wherethere is contention over and a challenge to power Power does not derive fromlanguage, but language can be used to challenge power, to subvert it, to alterdistribution of power in the short or long term Language provides a finelyarticulated means for differences in power in social hierarchical structures.CDA takes an interest in the ways in which linguistic forms are used invarious expressions and manipulations of power For CDA, language is notpowerful on its own – it gains power by the use powerful people make of it

Ideology is another important notion in the reference to critical theory’s

contribution to the understanding of CDA For Thompson (1990), ideologyrefers to social forms and processes within which, and by means of which,symbolic forms circulate in the social world According to Fairclough (2003,p.128), ―ideologies are representations of aspects of the world whichcontribute to establishing and maintaining relations of power, domination and

exploitation They may be enacted in ways of interaction and inculcated inways of being identities Analysis of texts is an important aspect ofideological analysis and crique‖ Simpson (1993, p.161) considers ideology is

―a mosaic of cultural assumptions, political beliefs, and institutionalpractices‖ Since language is regarded as the physical form of ideology andlanguage is thus an indispensable part of any attempt to study ideology.Ideology, for CDA, is seen as an important aspect of establishing andmaintaining unequal power relations

1.3.5 Tenets of CDA

Some of the tenets of CDA can already be found in the critical theory

of the Frankfurt School before the Second World War (Agger 1992b;Rasmussen 1996) Its current focus on language and discourse was initiatedwith the ―critical linguistics‖ that emerged at the end of the 1970s (Fowler

et al 1979; see also Mey 1985) CDA has also counterparts in ―critical‖developments in sociolinguistics, psychology, and the social sciences, somealready dating back to the early 1970s Besides, CDA may be seen as areaction against the dominant formal (often ―asocial‖ or ―uncritical‖)paradigms of the 1960s and 1970s

Critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want tounderstand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality Fairclough andWodak (1997: 271—80) 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

Of eight main principles above, the first tenet that CDA addressessocial problems such as discrimination, racism, class conflicts and post-warsyndromes are one of the most important and distinctive of CDA

1.3.6 Fairclough’s approach to CDA

The approach of Fairclough (1989: 42, 1995: 7) to CDA based on theidea that the use of language is a social practice He defined ―discourse‖ as aform of social practice which was created from ―a dialectical relationshipbetween a particular discursive event and the situations, institutions and socialstructures which frame it‖ (Fairclough and Wodak 1997: 258, Fairclough1995: 19) This dialectical relationship suggests that discourses are sociallyshaped but also shaping the social context (Fairclough 1993: 265) Discoursesare capable of reproducing and changing people’s knowledge, identity andsocial relations (Fairclough 1995: 18) At the same time, it is also constituted

by ideology, social practices, and structures Therefore, social context plays

an important role in CDA because particular social situations shape andinfluence discourses differently Thus, Fairclough reminded critical discourseanalysts to deliberately ―historicize‖ (Fairclough 1995: 19) their data so as to

be clear about the historical context of the analysis

1.3.7 Differences between CDA and other approaches to Discourse Analysis

According to Rebecca Rogers (2004, p.2), CDA distances itself fromother discourse analysis approaches because it includes not only a description

and interpretation of discourse in context, but also offers an explanation ofwhy and how discourses work.

Adam Jaworski and Nikolas Coupland (1999, p.33) also claim thedifference of CDA when comparing it to other traditions They argue thatseveral approaches to discourse have mainly descriptive aims with anintention of providing an exhaustive structural model of discourseorganization CDA is much more different than those This critical approach

to discourse really sets itself from descriptivism of this sort It foregrounds itsconcern with social constructionism and with the construction of ideology inparticular

Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (2009, p.2) indicate that the significantdifference between CDA and other DA approaches lies in the constitutiveproblem-oriented, interdisciplinary approach of the latter CDA is thereforenot interested in investigating a linguistic unit by itself but in studying socialphenomena which are necessarily complex and thus require a multi-methodical approach

1.4 Review of previous works

There have been many researches on the Vietnam Syndrome in theworld However, the CDA researches on this issue are not really plentiful In

2011, Laura Elizabeth from University of Glasgow conducted a study titled

―Kicking the Vietnam syndrome? Collective memory of the Vietnam War in fictional American cinema following the 1991 Gulf War‖ which concentrated

on the analysis of relationship between memory and history in fictional

American films after Gulf War 1991 In another study, ―Kicking the Vietnam Syndrome Narrative: Human Rights, the Nayirah Testimony, and the Gulf War‖ by Joseph Darda published by Johns Hopkins University Press (2017),

the author also tried to figure out that the Vietnam Syndrome still existed inAmerican society after a long time.

In Vietnam, there are many researchers conducting research on DA andCDA, especially Professor Nguyễn Hòa, Doctor Huỳnh Anh Tuấn, orProfessor Hoàng Văn Vân from University of Languages and InternationalStudies They are excellent authors of many international articles and studies

in the approach of CDA However, it seems that there is not still any studycarried out in the field of cinema, particularly in a movie script The topic ofthe Vietnam Syndrome is also not mentioned in any research Therefore, myCDA research on a movie script is new and potential to bring preciousinformation about the Vietnam Syndrome as well as the Vietnam War toreaders and learners