University of Mohaghegh Ardabili Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences
Department of Foreign Languages
Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment for the degree of M.A. in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Donald Trump’s Speeches on the Middle East and North Korea
By:
Farzin Naftchian
Supervisor:
Vali Mohammadi (Ph.D.)
Advisor:
Reza Abdi (Ph.D.)
February 2020
University of Mohaghegh Ardabili Faculty of Literature and Human Sciences
Department of Foreign Languages
A Critical Discourse Analysis of Donald Trump’s Speeches on the Middle East and North Korea
By:
Farzin Naftchian
Thesis submitted to Graduate Studies Office in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of
M.A. in Teaching English as a Foreign Language
Approved as: ………..
18 Feb 2020
Title and Author: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Donald Trump’s Speeches on the Middle East and
Signature Responsibility
Degree Name
Supervisor & Chairman Assisstant Professor
Dr. Vali Mohammadi
Advisor Associate Professor
Dr. Reza Abdi
Referee Assisstant Professor
Dr. Afseneh Saeedakhtar
North Korea / Farzin Naftchian Supervisor: Vali
Mohammadi, Ph.D.
Graduation date:
February, 2020 Number of pages: 91 Abstract
Human thought and the concrete understanding of words take shape not only through verbal interaction within texts, but also through the derivable experience of reality to which words belong (Van Leeuwen, 2008). Reality, though, can be manipulated by the usage of linguistic and socio- semantic categories from within discourse to shape meaning for the advancement of political ends.
In the present thesis, analytical tools provided by critical discourse analysis, namely Van Leeuwen’s (2008) network of social actors, Van Dijk’s (2006) ideological square, and strategies of legitimation provided by Van Leeuwen (2008) and Reyes (2011) are employed in order to unpack the meaning and ideology behind fabricated realities of language within political texts by analyzing two of Donald Trump’s Speeches on Middle East and North Korea. The data analysis revealed that Trump portrays various social actors involved in Middle East and North Korea differently by categorizing them under the dichotomy of ‘us’ versus ‘them’ and using different representational categories to create his own intended version of reality. This version of reality is further justified and naturalized by appealing to different strategies of legitimation. Unpacking these ideological patterns can contribute to raising consciousness which can lead to resisting these ideologies and exercises of power by political actors.
Findings of this study can have some implications for the studies in the field of critical discourse analysis.
Keywords: Critical discourse analysis, ideology, legitimation, politics, power, social actors
Table of Contents
List of Tables ...VIII List of Figures ... IX List of Abbreviations... X
Chapter One: Introduction ... 1
1.1. Preliminary Remarks ... 2
1.2. Statement of the Problem ... 3
1.3. Significance of the Study ... 4
1.4. Purpose of the Study ... 6
1.5. Research Questions ... 6
1.6. Definitions of the Key Terms ... 7
1.7. Limitattions and Delimitations ... 8
Chapter Two: Review of Literature ... 10
2.1. Introduction ... 11
2.2. Theoretical Framework ... 11
2.2.1. Discourse ... 11
2.2.2. Critical Discourse Analysis ... 13
2.2.3. Approaches to CDA ... 15
2.2.3.1. Norman Fairclough’s Approach ... 15
2.2.3.2. Ruth Wodak’s Discourse Historical Approach ... 16
2.2.3.3. Teun Van Dijk’s Socio-cognitive Approach ... 17
2.2.3.4. Theo Van Leeuwen’s Social Actor Approach ... 18
2.2.3.4.1. Exclusion: Suppression and Backgrounding ... 20
2.2.3.4.2. Inclusion: Activation and Passivation ... 21
2.2.3.4.3. Genericization and Specification ... 22
2.2.3.4.4. Assimilation and Individualization ... 22
2.2.3.4.5. Association ... 23
2.2.3.4.6. Indetermination and Differentiation ... 23
2.2.3.4.7. Nomination and Categorization ... 23
2.2.3.4.8. Impersonalization ... 25
2.2.3.4.9. Overdetermination ... 25
2.2.4. Legitimation ... 26
2.2.4.1. Van Leeuwen’s Legitimation Framework ... 28
2.2.4.2. Reyes’s Legitimation Framework... 29
2.3. Empirical Studies ... 31
Chapter Three: Methodology ... 40
3.1. Introduction ... 41
3.2. Corpus ... 41
3.3. Context of Speeches... 42
3.4. Analytical Framework ... 43
3.5. Procedures ... 43
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion ... 45
4.1. Introduction ... 46
4.2. Riyadh Summit Speech ... 46
4.2.1. Categories of Social Actors ... 46
4.2.1.1 Forces of Good ... 48
4.2.1.2 Saudi Arabia ... 50
4.2.1.3 Trump/USA ... 51
4.2.1.4 Forces of Terrorism ... 52
4.2.1.5 Iran ... 55
4.2.2. US Vs. Them Polarization ... 56
4.2.3. Strategies of Legitimation... 56
4.2.3.1. Legitimation Through Hypothetical Future ... 56
4.2.3.2. Legitimation Through Rationalization ... 58
4.2.3.3. Legitimation Through Voices of Expertise ... 59
4.2.3.4. Legitimation Through Moralization ... 60
4.2.3.5. Legitimation Through Emotions ... 60
4.3. South Korea National Assembly Speech ... 60
4.3.1. Categories of Social Actors ... 61
4.3.1.1 South Korea ... 62
4.3.1.2. Trump/USA ... 66
4.3.1.3. North Korean People ... 67
4.3.1.4. North Korean Regime ... 69
4.3.1.5. Kim Jung Un ... 72
4.3.2. US Vs. Them Polarization ... 73
4.3.3. Strategies of Legitimation ... 73
4.3.3.1. Legitimation Through Emotions ... 73
4.3.3.2. Legitimation Through Moralization ... 74
4.3.3.3. Legitimation Through Mythopoesis... 75
Chapter Five: Conclusion ... 76
5.1. Introduction ... 77
5.2. Middle East ... 77
5.3. North Korea ... 79
5.4. Suggestions for Further Research ... 81
5.4. Implications of the Study ... 82
References... 83
Appendices ... 92
Appendix 1 ... 93
Appendix 2 ... 102
VIII List of Tables
Table 4.1. Categories of Social Actors in Donald Trump’s Riyadh Speech
Table 4.2. Categories of Social Actors in Donald Trump’s South Korea National Assembly Speech
IX
List of Figures Figure 2.1. Social actor network
Figure 4.1. Most frequent words used in Riyadh summit speech
Figure 4.2. Most frequent words used in South Korea’s National Assembly speech
X
List of Abbreviations CDA: Critical Discourse Analysis
DA: Discourse Analysis
DHA: Discourse Historical Approach EFL: English as a Foreign Language ESP: English for Specific Purposes ISIS: Islamic State of Iraq and Syria ME: Middle East
NK: North Korea
USA: United States of America
Chapter One
Introduction
2
Chapter One Introduction 1.1. Preliminary Remarks
“I know words, I have the best words,” was a statement given by President Donald Trump while delivering a speech at the Hilton Head Island, South Carolina during the 2016 election campaign. Considering the boldness of his sentence within the general scope of politics and political discourse, it can be affirmed that Trump summarized one of the core principles of a successful political communication and policy-making. Successful policy- making cannot be achieved without successful persuasion, hence successful persuasion cannot be achieved without a meticulous choice of words that build a powerful speech, a speech that appeals to the majority of audiences and paves the way for politicians to achieve their aims and intentions. Words can have a strong influence on our attitudes, as Wareing (2004) mentions, the chosen words can affect people’s perception of the others and of themselves.
Politics can be defined as a struggle for power in order to put certain political, economic, and social ideas into practice (Bayram, 2010). In this process, as Bayram (2010) puts it, “language plays a crucial role, for every political action is prepared, accompanied, influenced and played by language” (p. 24). Language is not merely a tool for communication and it’s not simply a neutral medium for generating subject knowledge. It is indeed a form of social practice that acts to constitute as much as to reflect social realities (Silverman, 2000).
Politicians throughout ages have achieved success thanks to their skillful use of rhetoric, by which they aim to persuade their audience of the validity of their views through delicate and careful use of elegant and persuasive language (Jones & Peccei, 2004). Although the use of language is undeniably a pivotal part of politics, Fairclough (1995) notes that it can also:
CDA OF DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECHES ON ME AND NK 3 Misrepresent as well as represent realities, it can weave visions and imaginaries which can be implemented to change realities and in some cases improve human well-being, but it can also rhetorically obfuscate realities and construe them ideologically to serve unjust power relations (p. 1).
So we can come to this conclusion that ideologies are reflected in language and language plays a central role in the reproduction of ideologies, social identities, social relations, and power relations. In order to be able to understand and make sense of different ideologies, we must first analyze the language in use. Politicians take advantage of language not only to steer people’s thoughts and beliefs, but also to control their thoughts and beliefs.
The first step in resisting mind control and manipulation is finding and decoding ideologies that are hidden in different layers of language. Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is one of the fields of study that enables us to decode certain ideologies that reside in language. What CDA is and how it enables researchers to decipher ideologies, is going to be discussed in detail in Chapter Two of the present thesis.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Middle East has been a host of several catastrophic conflicts in the last few decades. It has witnessed a horror movie of violent military conflicts, humanitarian crises, political and social tensions, and serious human rights violations. The devastating wars in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, the emergence of the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group, disputes over Iran’s nuclear program, series of revolutions known as the Arab Spring and other conflicts altogether have been tearing the region apart with chaos and violence. The Korean peninsula is also a host of another regional conflict regarding North Korea’s nuclear program and missile launches. What Middle East and North Korea have in common is the presence of the United States of America (USA) as one of the major players involved in the aforementioned conflicts. As the president and the representative of the USA, Donald
CDA OF DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECHES ON ME AND NK 4 Trump’s political ideologies, if any, have implications and consequences for not only the USA but also the rest of the world. His ideologies and decisions can mitigate or exacerbate the situation in both Middle East and North Korea. Some might believe that Trump’s ideologies can add fuel to the fire of already existing conflicts in both regions.
Previous studies have mainly focused on the discourse of Donald Trump as a candidate during his 2016 presidential campaign (McClay, 2017), his inaugural speech (Chen, 2018) and issues like immigration (Akbar & Abbas, 2019), and racism (Afkhami, Abedini, Mahmoody & Bakhtiari, 2018). This study pays attention to the discourse of Donald Trump as the president of the USA during his first year in the office. Looking at Donald Trump’s eastern foreign policy, more specifically his discourse of Middle East and North Korea, through the lens of CDA can be an informative step in shedding some light on some of the out of sight ideologies and power relations behind the conflicts in both regions.
1.3. Significance of the Study
According to Fairclough (2017) “CDA combines critique of discourse and
explanation of how discourse figures in existing social reality as a basis for action to change reality” (p. 13). Fairclough’s statement gives rise to questions like how an academic work like the present study can change reality. Can studies of this nature change anything for the better? Fairclough (2017) provides an answer to these questions by stating:
CDA’s contribution is elucidating how discourse is related to other social elements (power, ideologies, institutions, etc.) and offering critique of discourse as a way into wider critique of social reality. But the objective is not just critique, it is change ‘for the better’. Academic critique alone cannot change reality, but it can contribute to political action for change by increasing understanding of existing reality and its problems and possibilities. Better understanding requires better explanations. CDA offers better explanatory understanding of relations between discourse and other components of social life. (p. 13)
CDA OF DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECHES ON ME AND NK 5 So, by increasing the understanding of the existing reality, the present study can
provide some insight into the ways discourse sustains the connections between language, power, and ideology. Thus, through creating awareness and raising consciousness, blind obedience and unintentional contributions to orchestrated ideologies may be avoided.
Furthermore, the present study can have implications for both students and analysts exposed to the American political discourses, specifically Donald Trump’s political discourse.
Analysts and students can find out the ideological significance of the representations of social actors and social actions in political discourse. This study can also pave the way for political analysts as well as discourse specialists to investigate the political bias in the American political speeches.
In addition, this study can foster critical language awareness and critical thinking in English as a Foreign Language (EFL) students. It can give EFL students the idea that there is much more to language than the naked eye can see and process. Careful and critical analysis of the language equipped with the lens of CDA can encourage students to pay more attention to language by attempting to read what lies between the lines. As Rahimi and Riasati (2011) state, one of the implications of CDA studies is “a call for the readers to be aware and conscious of different aspects of text production such as the writer's socio-political
background, the historical setting, and the cultural tendencies” (p. 111). These elements are the essential ingredients of critical thinking and self-actualization as the ultimate goal of all educational enterprise (Reichenbach, 2001). Finally this study can have some contributions to the field of English for Specific Purposes (ESP), more specifically English for political purposes.
1.4. Purpose of the Study
CDA OF DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECHES ON ME AND NK 6 The main purpose of this study is to place Donald Trump’s political discourse in the framework of CDA, since political speeches are highly constructed pieces of discourse. It’s expected to identify implicit ideological patterns embedded in the discourse as they are choreographed with specific purposes in mind. Furthermore, to uncover specific ways in which ideology is constructed, framed, and legitimated in the representations of social actors and social actions through political discourse. So this study attempts to shed some light on the possible asymmetrical patterns in representing a variety of social actors involved in Donald Trump’s discourse of Middle East and North Korea. The aforementioned social actors will be analyzed carefully to see if they are represented equally or if they are represented and
grouped differently. Moreover, possible strategies used to legitimize the reality created by Trump will also be taken into account.
1.5. Research Questions
The present study attempts to address the following questions:
Who are the main social actors involved in Donald Trump’s discourse of the Middle East and North Korea and how are they represented linguistically?
Are the linguistic representations of the social actors different from each other? If yes, what ideological assumptions can account for the difference?
Provided that social actors are represented and grouped differently, how is the
ideological positioning of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’ realized through the representations of social actors?
What legitimization strategies are employed by Donald Trump in order to justify and naturalize his version of reality through categorizing and representing different social actors?
1.6. Definition of Key Terms
CDA OF DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECHES ON ME AND NK 7 Critical discourse analysis: Wodak and Meyer (2001) provide the following
definition for CDA:
CDA may be defined as fundamentally concerned with 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, signaled, constituted, and legitimized, and so on by language use (p. 2).
Ideology: There are several definitions provided by different scholars for the term
‘ideology’ in the literature. Fairclough (2003) defines ideology as “representations of aspects of the world which contribute to establishing and maintaining relations of power, domination and exploitation” (p. 18). Van Dijk’s (1995) definition of ideology can also reflect the
essence of ideology by defining it as:
The interface between the cognitive representations and processes underlying discourse and action on the one hand, and the societal position and interests and social groups on the other hand. Ideologies mentally represent the basic social characteristics of a groups, such as their identity, tasks, goals, norms, values, positions and resources (p. 18).
Legitimation: It refers to the process by which speakers justify a behavior or decision in order to gain support and approval. Reyes (2011) explains that the process of legitimation happens through argumentation. That is, speakers form arguments that explain their actions, opinions or ideas to achieve the goal of receiving their interlocutor’s acceptance and support.
Politics: Politics is defined by Chilton (2004) as “a struggle for power between those who seek to assert and maintain their power and those who seek to resist it” (p. 3).
Power: A form of control exercised by individuals, groups or institutions over others (Chilton, 2004).
Social practice: As Van Leeuwen (2008) puts it, social practices are “socially regulated ways of doing things” (p. 6).
CDA OF DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECHES ON ME AND NK 8 Social actors: According to Van Leeuwen (2008), a social practice first of all needs a set of participants in certain roles (principally those of instigator, agent, affected or
beneficiary). Social actors are indeed the participants of social practices who are represented in English discourse.
1.7. Limitations and Delimitations
The nature of qualitative research often positions the role of the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection, analysis, and interpretation (Creswell, 2003). Since language is socially constructed and it’s never static, I am not immune to the process and product of these constructions. Therefore, the findings, interpretations, and conclusions are limited to that of the researcher. This can overshadow the objectivity of the study. Another point that can affect the objectivity of the study is the fact that I am, as a person who is living in Middle East, directly and indirectly influenced by the decisions made by Donald Trump. In order to tackle with the issue of objectivity, I strive to be as objective as possible in analyzing the speeches by relying on the tenets of CDA and appealing to the methodological
frameworks provided by CDA scholars.
Another point worth highlighting is the small size of the data analyzed in this research.
Due to the multiplicity of parameters and levels adopted for data analysis, I opted for exploring in depth a small sample from diverse angles simultaneously rather than analyzing larger samples with limited angles. This can influence the overall generalizability of the study.
Last but not least, political speeches analyzed in this study are written with the intent to be read aloud in front of large audiences. It’s not clear whether these speeches are written by Donald Trump himself or ghost writers.
When it comes to delimitations of the study, it’s worth mentioning that the scope of this study is limited to identifying various social actors and legitimation strategies in Donald
CDA OF DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECHES ON ME AND NK 9 Trump’s discourse of Middle East and North Korea in his early presidency. Due to the
limitations of time and space and because of the comprehensive nature of the methods used, using a bigger corpus was not possible. This study limits its focus on Donald Trump’s foreign policy of the East, more specifically Middle East and North Korea. So other issues regarding his overall foreign policy are not included in the study.
Chapter Two
Review of Literature
11 Chapter Two
Review of Literature 2.1. Introduction
This chapter begins with a discussion of the theoretical framework underlying CDA and this study. What ‘discourse’ is, some of the most important properties of discourse along with the definitions of discourse are discussed. Then, a critical aspect of discourse, namely CDA, is introduced, as suggested by different approaches. Some of the fundamental concepts related to CDA and this study, like ‘legitimation’, are also explained in detail. This chapter concludes by reviewing some of the related empirical studies in the literature.
2.2. Theoretical Framework
2.2.1. Discourse. The starting point of this chapter is an examination of the term
‘discourse’ and how it is used in most CDA studies. As early as the 1970s, the work of Foucault (1972), who was primarily obsessed with a transition from traditional forms of social organization to modern ones, marked a change in focus at that era (Jones, Bradbury, &
LeBoutillier, 2011). Being both controversial and influential, Foucault’s (1972) work introduced some of the key terms like discourse, power, knowledge, and culture. According to Foucault, a discourse is a set of statements that are systematically organized. In that sense, these statements have the potential to express both the meanings and values of a certain institution (O’Halloran, 2003). He further states that such a view of discourses dictates what can or cannot be said or done with regard to that particular institution. Foucault’s (1972) work on discourse was only the beginning as several definitions of discourse have been proposed across various disciplines. Before moving towards more definitions of discourse, it’s important to illustrate some of the key properties of discourse. The first major property of discourse, as introduced
11 by Van Dijk (2011), is that it’s a form of social interaction between humans, and this property is mainly examined through pragmatic and conversation analysis. Van Dijk (2011) presents another feature of discourse and explains it as the communication of beliefs among humans.
By looking at discourse from this perspective, the cognitive nature of discourse is
highlighted, since it enables us to explore further the knowledge expressed by others, thus linking this property to the Foucauldian notion of discourse. The third feature of discourse is highlighted by Van Djik (2011) who explicitly presents discourse as a contextually situated phenomenon. Based on this feature, context is crucial in order to enable discourse to be produced, comprehended, and reproduced. The fourth property of discourse is what Van Dijk (2011) describes as power and domination. This property is one of the most fundamental and comprehensive notions in CDA studies. This property intensifies various aspects of the social order within a given group. Within any social order, certain groups or sub-groups have relatively more access to power than others, especially if power is distributed differently through that social order in relation to class, gender, race or the like. Due to this unbalanced and unequal power distribution, domination is very likely to occur which can result in a power struggle (Van Dijk, 2011). There are of course more properties attributed to discourse in the literature, but only some of the most prominent properties were discussed here.
To sum up, some of the most popular and more recent definitions of discourse are provided. Wodak and Meyer (2009) cite the following definition as being ‘very popular’
among researchers in CDA:
CDA sees discourse – language use in speech and writing – as a form of ‘social practice’.
Describing discourse as social practice implies a dialectical relationship between a particular discursive event and the situation(s), institution(s), and social structure(s), which frame it (p.
5).
11 Another definition for discourse is provided by Van Leeuwen and Kress (2011).
They define discourse as:
We would define ‘discourses’ (note the plural) as ‘socially constructed knowledges about some aspect of reality’. Discourses are therefore recourses for constructing and interpreting the content of texts and communicative events. As such they have no physical existence: they are knowledges, mental resources, although we of course get to know about them through texts and communicative events. But while they are mental phenomena, they are also ‘socially constructed’ – developed in the context of specific social institutions, be they large (e.g. multi- national corporations) or small (e.g. a specific family), in ways that are appropriate to the interests that dominate in these contexts. In van Dijk’s terminology, they are ‘social cognitions’
(p. 113).
Next section will examine how analysts can approach discourse analytically and critically in order to infer insightful evidence from it.
2.2.2. Critical discourse analysis. CDA is “discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social-power abuse and inequality are enacted, reproduced, legitimated and resisted by text and talk in social and political context” (Van Djik, 2015, p.
466). Van Djik (1993) states that CDA is not a “homogenous model, nor a school or a paradigm, but at most a shared perspective on doing linguistics, semiotic or discourse analysis” (p. 131). As an interdisciplinary approach, CDA does not separate language from social studies; rather, it considers language as a form of ‘social practice’ (Fairclough &
Wodak, 1997). Some of the principles of CDA date back to the critical theory of the Frankfurt school before World War II (Agger, 1992; Drake, 2009; Rasmussen & Swindal, 2004). Its current emphasis on language and discourse started with the emergence of critical linguistics at the end of 1970s (Fowler, Hodge, Kress, & Trew, 1979).
11 One of the features that distinguishes CDA from other forms of discourse analysis (DA) lies in the notion of “critical”. According to Fairclough (1985) “in human matters, interconnections and chains of cause and effect may be distorted out of vision. Hence
‘critique’ is essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things” (p. 747). In other words, “critical analysis of discourse is an analysis not only of what is said, but of what is left out; not only what is present in the text, but what is absent” (Rogers, 2011, p. 15). So as Fairclough (1995) puts it, CDA aims to:
Systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practice, 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 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 (p.
132).
This ‘critical’ impetus that sets CDA research apart from other discourse studies can be traced back to the Frankfurt School and the work of Jürgen Habermas on critical theory (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). According to the Frankfurt School, social theory should not only be concerned with offering explanations and understandings; instead, it should reject the
limitations of traditional theory and state that the social order must aim to critique society and change it accordingly (Geuss, 1981; Jay, 1996). Habermas (1977) believed that the
representation of reality is not neutral and the language used to represent reality is
ideological. This means that CDA cannot be conducted independently from ideologies. As Eggins (1994) puts “whatever genre we are involved in, and whatever the register of the situation, our use of language will also be influenced by our ideological positions: the values we hold and biases and perspectives we adopt” (p. 10). So a critical analysis of the language in use can uncover the hidden ideologies and values held by the speakers both in spoken and
11 written discourses. In other words, Critical discourse analysts do not only target explicit realizations of ideologies, they are also preoccupied with uncovering the hidden beliefs encoded using various linguistic tools (Wodak & Meyer, 2009).
Powerful gatekeepers in different societies influence social beliefs and values and shape ideologies, through the standards they set for what is and is not acceptable (Van Djik 1993). In the course of time these standards or dominant structures are legitimated and turned into natural conventions or common sense by ideologies of powerful groups (Wodak &
Meyer, 2002). So if a resistance is to be formed, first these hidden and naturalized ideologies should be brought into the light. CDA has the responsibility not just to react to discriminatory ideologies but also to be proactive and to take action to stop such discrimination. As a result, CDA is expected to encourage resistance to discriminatory ideologies in a quest for social change (Strauss & Feiz, 2013). Given such tenets, how can we approach CDA in order to achieve this goal? A number of approaches have been proposed and developed since the early days of CDA and some of them will be examined briefly in the following section.
2.2.3. Approaches to CDA. Since CDA is multidisciplinary by nature and can be linked to various disciplines, including sociology, linguistics and politics, its development over time has been associated with various theoretical approaches. In this section some of the most popular approaches to CDA put forward by the most influential figures in the field are introduced.
2.2.3.1. Norman Fairclough’s approach. Fairclough can be considered as one of the pioneers in the field of CDA. The model proposed by Fairclough may be the core section of the entire field of CDA, since he was the first scholar in the field who created a theoretical framework that provided guidelines for the future CDA research (Rahimi & Riasati, 2011).
Fairclough (1995) argues that ideology plays a critical part in creating discourse, and that “no instance of discursive practice can be interpreted without reference to its context” (Fairclough
11 1995, p. 88). This in turn would, as Fairclough claims, contribute to “undermine, sustain or create power relations” (1995, p. 82). This would mean that ideology both shapes the discourse and facilitates our understanding of it. Fairclough (1995) also claims that our understanding of the discourse revolves around what he calls ‘knowledge bases’. These four knowledge bases are; “1. Knowledge of language codes, 2. Knowledge of principles and norms of language use, 3. Knowledge of situation, and finally 4. Knowledge of the world”
(Fairclough 1995, p. 33). According to Fairclough (1995) CDA sees the relationship between language and society as being dialectical. This means that the relationship between language and society is two-way: on the one hand, language is influenced by society; on the other hand, society is shaped by language. The dialectic relation between language and social reality is realized through social events (texts), social practices (orders of discourse) and social structures (Fairclough, 2003). That’s why Fairclough provides a three-dimensional framework for the analysis of text and discourse: 1) the linguistic description of the formal properties of the text; 2) the interpretation of the relationship between the discursive processes/interaction and the text, where text is the end product of a process of text
production and as a resource in the process of text interpretation and lastly, 3) the explanation of the relationship between discourse and social and cultural reality (Rahimi & Riasati, 2011). As Fairclough (1998) puts, researchers do not have to go through all three dimensions of analysis in their studies, they can act selectively in choosing the dimension that provides a better understanding of text under analysis.
2.2.3.2. Ruth Wodak’s discourse historical approach. This particular approach to CDA puts an emphasis on the cornerstones of CDA, such as critique, power and ideology, and their intricate and multidimensional relationship with discourse (Reisigi & Wodak, 2009). As the name suggests, discourse historical approach (DHA) perceives context as being
“mainly historical” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009, p. 26), thus it is necessary to examine the
11 historical context in order to offer interpretations and, further, critiques. Being mainly
focused on the field of politics, the DHA makes extensive use of argumentation theory (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Due to its more or less inductive orientation, the DHA requires a very systematic procedure to achieve its goal. Nevertheless, this procedure is often not fully developed and this is presented as one of DHA’s main weaknesses (Tenorio, 2011).
2.2.3.3. Teun Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive approach. Socio-cognitive approach, as Van Dijk (2009) states, centers on the triangle of discourse, cognition and society.
Demonstrating how various ideologies are manifested in different types of structures, is considered by Van Dijk to be the main point of analysis. Van Dijk (1998, 2004, 2006) believes in two main levels of analysis, namely micro-level and macro-level. To conduct micro-level of analysis, Van Dijk came up with 25 discursive devices such as presupposition, victimization, polarization, lexicalization and so on. In order to conduct macro-level of analysis, Van Djik (1998, 2004, 2006) came up with a model of analysis called ‘ideological square’. This model examines the construction of ‘self’ and ‘other’ within the framework of ideological conflicts. Van Dijk (1998, 2004, 2006) asserts that this analytical tool is well suited for exploring and highlighting the polarization of ‘us’ vs. ‘them’, where the speaker and his or her allies are considered to be ‘us or in-group’, while his or her opponents are placed in the ‘them’ or ‘out group’ category. The principles of the ideological square are simple and straightforward: politicians tend to emphasize positive aspects about ‘us’, and emphasize negative aspects about ‘them’ in order to legitimize the self and de-legitimize the other (Van Dijk, 1993). The reason behind structuring of this concept is that political
discourse is primarily concerned with the struggle for dominance and power, which leads to inequality, and the ideological square is a means by which it can be legitimized (Van Dijk 1993). To sum up, four basic strategies that from ideological square, according to Van Dijk (1998) are:
11
ناونع و :روآدیدپ مان نایچتفن نیزرف/یلامش هرک و هنایم رواخ دروم رد پمارت دلانود یاه ینارنخس یداقتنا نامتفگ لیلحت
داتسا امنهار : یلو رتکد
یدمحم داتسا :رواشم اضر رتکد
یدبع خیرات :عافد 1398/11/29
حفصدادعت :تا 91
ص .
نایاپ هرامش :همان
:هدیکچ هک یتیعلاو زا ااتنتاااسا لهال ههرهت عیرق زا هکله لاه نتم نورد رد یمالک لماعت عیرق زا اعنت هن ناگناو ینیع یعف و نااااسنا رکفت
زا هدافتاااسا عیرق زا دناوتیم ییعلاو هچرگا .دریدیم لکاااش دنراد علعت نآ هه تاملک ییانعم و یتخاناااش ناهز یاه هلوقم
- یعامتجا
لیلحت یسوت هدش ههارا یلیلحت راحها زا هدافتسا اه هعلا م نیا رد .دری پ لکش یاسایاس یادها درباشیپ یاره انعم ات دواش یراکتاسد ه ی تارتاسا و یاد نو ینولوهدیا هرم دم لنییول نو یعامتجا ناردیزاه هکباش یاه مان هه لیداقتنا نامتفگ شخه ییعورشم یا
ی
نعم ات هدش یعس لنییول نو و سیر یسوت هدش یفرعم یعلاو سپ رد ناعنپ ینولوهدیا و ی
یسایس نوتم رد ناهز زا هدش هتخاس یاه ی
رورنم نیا هه .دواش یاسرره ل
اه هداد یسرره .یسا هتفرگ رارل یسرره دروم یلامش هرک و هنایمرواخ دروم رد پمارت دلانود ینارنخس ود
م نااااشن هدای ا لهاقت زا هدافتاااسا اه پمارت هک د یکینولوهدی
"
"ام
" و
"اعنآ رد ریگرد یعامتجا ناردیزاه لبلتخم یاه یدنه هتاااسد و
اه ییعلاو زا هخااسن نیا .دروآ دوجو هه ار دوخ ررن دروم ییعلاو ات دااشکیم ریواا ت هه ینوگانوگ اکااشا اه ار یلامااش هرک و هنایمرواخ تخم یاه ی تارتاسا زا هدافتاسا .دوشیم هداد هولج یعیبق و هداش هیجوت یاشخه ییعوراشم بل
آ راکش ینولوهدیا یاهودلا نیا یزاس
نیا لهاقم رد یمواقم هه رهنم یهاگآ نداد شیاحفا اه دناوتیم یاسوت تردل امعا و اه ینولوهدیا
نیا یاه هتفای .دوش نارادمتاسایاس
فتسا دروم یداقتنا نامتفگ لیلحت هتشر رد دناوتیم هعلا م .دریگ رارل هدا
هناو :یدیلک یاه یسایس لتردل لیعامتجا ناردیزاه لیشخه ییعورشم لینولوهدیا لیداقتنا نامتفگ لیلحت
11
گرب تلاصا و تیکلام رثا
دام قوقح یمامت یونعم و ی
بترتم و تاعارتخا ،تاراکتبا ،جیاتن رب
یروآون هب قلعتم ،شهوژپ نیا ماجنا زا یشان ِیاه
یلیبدرا ققحم هاگشناد
یم مان رکذ اب و هطوبرم تارّرقم تیاعر اب ،رثا نیا زا بلطم لقن .دشاب
.تسا عناملاب وجشناد و امنهار داتسا مان ،یلیبدرا ققحم هاگشناد
بناجنیا نایچتفن نیزرف
شناد هتخومآ سانشراک
ی دشرا هتشر یسیلگنا نابز
شیارگ شزومآ
هدکش ناد یناس نا مولع و تایبدا
یلیبدرا ققحم هاگش ناد هب
هرامش ییوجشناد
1199381999 خیرات رد هک
21 99/ 9813/ نایاپ زا یلیصحت همان
" :ناونع تحت دوخ رد پمارت دلانود یاه ینارنخس یداقتنا نامتفگ لیلحت
یلامش هرک و هنایمرواخ دروم هدومن عافد "
یم دهعتم ،ما :هک موش
1 نیا ) نایاپ
چیه تفایرد يارب ًلابق ار همان هب ای یلیييصحت كردم هنوگ
هاگشناد ریاس رد یشهوژپ تیلاعف هنوگره ناونع و یشزومآ تاسسؤم و اه
هدومنن هئارا روشک زا جراخ و لخاد یشهوژپ .ما
2 نایاپ تاتردنم یمامت تقس و تّحيح تیلوويسم ) همان
رب ار دوخ یلیصحت
یم هدهع .مریگ
3 نیا ) نایاپ
یم بناجنیا طسوت هدش ماجنا شهوژپ لحاح ،همان .دشاب
4 هدا تييسا نارگید یييشهوژپ و یملع ياهدرواتييسد زا هك يدراوم رد )
هدومن یرادتناما لحا تیاعر اب و هطوبرم تارّرقم و طباوض قباطم ،ما تسرهف و نتم رد ار نآ تاصخشم ریاس و هدا تسا دروم عبنم مان ،یملع
هدومن ركذ عبانم .ما
5 هنوگ ره ای هدا تيييسا ديييصق ،لیيييصحت زا تغارف زا دعب هچنانچ )
هرهب نایاپ نیا زا ... و عارتخا تبث ،باتك رشن زا تعا يرادرب همان
هزوح زا ،تيشاب هتيشاد ار ققحم هاگشناد یرواّنف و یيشهوژپ تنواعم
.تیامن ذخا ار مزلا ياهزوجم ،یلیبدرا 6 هئارا ترويييح رد ) هلاقم
زا جرختيييسم نایاپ نیا
شیامه رد همان ،اه
سنار نک ییامهدرگ ،اهرانیمس ،اه
ققحم هاگشناد مان ،تلاجم عاونا و اه
و امنهار دیتاييسا و وجييشنادا ناگدنييسیون مان رانك رد ار یلیبدرا .تیامن رکذ )رواشم
7 یشان بقاوع ،دويش تباث قوف دراوم فلاخ ،ینامز عطقم ره رد هچنانچ )
لاطبا هلمت زاا نآ زا یلیيصحت كردم
و هاگشناد طييسوت تیاکيش حرط ،
یم ار )...
یم زاجم ار یلیبدرا ققحم هايگيييشناد و مریذيپ اب تناد
.دیامن راتفر هطوبرم تارّرقم و طباوض قباطم بناجنیا
نایچتفن نیزرف اضما خیرات
11
هدکشناد
یناسنا مولع و تایبدا
یشزومآ هورگ
یجراخ یاه نابز
نایاپ هجرد تفایرد یارب همان
سانشراک ی
دشرا
رد هتشر یسیلگنا نابز
شیارگ شزومآ
:ناونع
یاه ینارنخس یداقتنا نامت گ لیلحت هرک و هنایمرواخ دروم رد پمارت دلانود
یلامش
:ردشهو پ
نایچتفن نیزرف
نایاپ نارواد هتیمك هدش بیوصت و يبایزرا همان
هجرداب
...
مان و مان یگداوناخ
هبترم يهاگشناد تمس
ءاضما
یدمحم یلو رتکد رایداتسا
هتیمک سییر و امنهار داتسا نارواد
یدبع اضر رتکد رایشناد
رواشم داتسا
رتخا دیعس هناسفا رتکد رایداتسا
رواد
9 نمهب2 8991
11
هدکشناد
مولع و تایبدا یناسنا
یشزومآ هورگ
یجراخ یاه نابز
همان نایاپ یاره یفایرد هجرد همان نایاپ یسانشراک دشرا
هتشر ناهز یسیلدنا شیارگ شزومآ ناهز یسیلدنا
یاه ینارنخس یداقتنا نامت گ لیلحت هرک و هنایم رواخ دروم رد پمارت دلانود
یلامش
ردشهو پ :
نایچتفن نیزرف
امنهار داتسا :
یدمحم یلو رتکد
رواشم داتسا :
یدبع اضر رتکد
نمعه 1331
