Critical Discourse Analysis of Benazir Bhuttos Selected Speeches

Muhammad Munir

A dissertation submitted to Professor Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Butt, the honourable

supervisor, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of M. Phil English

Fall 2014

Department of English Language and Literature

GIFT University, Gujranwala, Pakistan

ii

Declaration

I, Muhammad Munir, hereby declare that this research is a result of my research

investigations and findings. The sources of information other than my own have been

acknowledged and a reference list thereof has been appended. This work has not been

previously submitted to any other university for award of any type of academic degree.

Signature.. Date

iii

Certification

This research project has been perused and approved as fulfilling one of the requirements

for the award of M. Phil English degree in the Department of English Language and

Literature, GIFT University, Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan. The researcher has submitted

this thesis within the stipulated period.

Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Butt Date

Project Supervisor

Dr. Surriya Shaffi Mir Date

Head of Department

iv

Dedication

Humbly dedicated to my extremely venerable father and mother

My painstaking mother in law

My more than beloved wife Namrah Munir

Revered brothers: M. Shabbir, Shah Zib, Tanvir Sajjad, Zuber, Asim Ahmad, and Ahmad

My dearer-than-life sister Sidra Siddique

The sweetest, soothing, and comforting angels: Abdullah, Ali, Mahnur, and A. Rahman

&

The divine and miraculous Saif-ur-Rahman Mubarak

The matchless Khaja Khalid Mahmood

The simple Sultan Mahmood

The inspiring Muhammad Ajmal Khan

The selfless Amjad Mehmood

The reliable Shahzad Ahmad

The sincere Humayun Shahzad

All of my religious and academic teachers

v

Acknowledgements

Having offered gratitude to the Almighty and Durood upon the Holy Prophet (Peace Be

Upon Him) beyond the limits of my calculations, I most venerably acknowledge the

invaluable guidance of my respected supervisor Dr. Muhammad Iqbal Butt without

whose says and scolds this thesis would have gone unborn. I am also heartily obliged and

thankful to my mentors Mr. Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Dr. Mehmood Ahmad Azhar, and

especially Mr. Salman Rafique for bestowing spiritual, moral, and intellectual heed on

me imbued with kindness; they really became source of inspiration for me. It is also to be

acknowledged well-deservedly that Miss Ammara Sabohis sincere cooperation, and

Fatima Salahuddins esteemed assistance greatly facilitated me in this project. I am

obliged to admit the helplessness of my inadequate vocabulary while acknowledging the

concern, caution, and counsel my auspicious wife, neglecting herself, devoted to me in

the way of completing this task; her un-substitutable well-wishing and beatific care have

left me badly in debt to her. All these entities have had me to the destination; I am deeply

and humbly thankful to all of them.

vi

Abstract

This study concentrates on the selected pieces of Benazir Bhuttos political discourse to

critical discourse analysis (CDA). The researcher has tried to explore the conveyance of a

particular ideology in an environment in which several other socio-political ideologies

compete at once. Besides, the play of various persuasive strategies to indoctrinating the

very ideology has also been analyzed by evaluating: how the political discourse exercises

language to its specific ends, and how an individually power-plugged language attempts

to manage representing general public. This research observed twofold relationship of

power i.e. relation with the powerless, and relation with the (other) powerful. Unlike the

earlier critical discourse analyses, this analysis has investigated the political discourse of

a female political leader when she held the office of the premier of an Islamic country; it

has also touched the pronouncing of power from a female tongue. It is found that power,

through discourse, demonstrates and declares itself in all of its possible dimensions which

remain varying though in its particular range of orbits like language, individual, ideology,

society, control etc.; the practice of power dismisses the so called gender differences of

socio-political nature. This research presents a broader investigation of the selected

political discourse i.e. it has been given an eclectic treatment as far as application of

framework is concerned: the selected data has been analyzed keeping in view the

analytical frameworks and strategies occurred in the works of certain discourse analysts.

However, it is closely inspired by Michael Alexander Kirkwood Hallidays perspectives

and Norman Faircloughs deliberations on hidden meaning, language, ideology, and

power etc. where persuasive strategies have also mattered.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION.................. ii

CERTIFICATION. DEDICATION.. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.. ABSTRACT.. TABLE OF CONTENTS.. LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES.. KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS .

iii

iv

v

vi

vii

ix

x

CHAPTERS

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

1.8

1.9

1.9.1

1.9.2

1.10

1.10.1

1.10.2

1.11

1.12

1.13

1.14

1.15

1.16

1.17

1.18

1.19

1.20

1.21

1.22

1.23

1.24

1.25

INTRODUCTION.. Politics (ideology), Power, and Language.. Evolution of the Expression of Power Language of Power and Power of Language.. Instrumentalization of Language.... CDA Perspective of Ideology.................... Function of Ideology.. Ideology and Discourse Process. CDA Perspective of Power................ Discourse and Types of Power... Power in Discourse. Power behind Discourse Discourse and Power. Discourse Control.. Mind Control. Discourse as Social Practice . Difference between Discourse and Text Power lies in Language or Speaking?..............................

Indispensability of Language. Inequality and Power: -ful versus -less.. Empowerment through Languages. Efficacy of Language in Religious and Mythical Texts Transitivity: Tracing True Trends.. This Study and Its Significance. Statement of the Problem Research Questions. Hypotheses. Research Objectives Research Methodology.......... Conclusion..

1

3

3

5

6

6

7

8

8

9

9

11

12

13

13

14

15

17

17

18

19

20

21

21

23

24

24

24

25

25

2

2.1

2.2

2.3

LITERATURE REVIEW... Theoretical Background...................................................

What is Discourse?...........................................................

What is Discourse Analysis (DA)?...................................

27

27

27

28

viii

2.4

2.5

2.6

2.6.1

2.6.2

2.6.3

2.6.3.1

2.7

2.8

2.9

What is What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)? Maturity of CDA........................................................... Recent Advancements. Van Dijks Socio-cognitive Approach Wodak and the Vienna School of Discourse Analysis... Faircloughs Contribution... Faircloughs Framework for Analyzing a Communicative Event... Principles of CDA... Previous Analyses... Conclusion: the Hunch.

29

30

33

34

38

39

42

51

53

58

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Methodology....................................................................

Data: Its Source and Rationale Procedure Conclusion..

60

60

62

64

66

4

4.1

4.1.1

4.1.2

4.1.3

4.2

4.3

4.4

CRITICAL DICSOURSE ANALYSIS OF BENAZIR

BHUTTOS SELECTED SPEECHES... Brief profile of Benazir Bhutto: Early and Personal Life...

Political Life............ Return to Pakistan... Assassination... Critical Discourse Analysis of Benazir Bhuttos Selected Speech I... Critical Discourse Analysis of Benazir Bhuttos Selected Speech II. Conclusion..

67

67

69

75

76

77

115

129

5

5.1

5.1.1

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

CONCLUSION... Overview and Findings.. Statement of the Problem Revisited Research Questions Revisited. Research Objectives and Hypotheses Revisited. Delimitations... Limitations and Directions for Further Research Recommendations for Theoreticians.. Conclusion..

131

131

131

135

150

151

151

152

154

REFERENCES

APPENDIX I

APPENDIX II

. . .

160

164

175

ix

List of Figures

Figure 1:

Figure 2:

Figure 3:

Figure 4:

Figure 5:

Figure 6

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

Figure 9:

Figure 10:

Analytical procedure of CDA: how is CDA done?

Extrapolation of Critical Discourse Analysis

Model of power-projection

The Criticals of Discourse Analysis Objective of CDA

Hallidays discursive functions of language Hallidays process types Texcont-ambit of ideology

Analytical pivot of this research project

Ideology-triplet

3

16

19

26

30

31

32

52

60

152

List of Tables

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Frequency of major temporal constructs

Frequency of major politico-national constructs

Frequency of major personal pronouns

Foreign-policy tilt

Frequency of major religious constructs

Frequency of party references

127

130

135

137

141

151

x

Key to Abbreviations

AIDA Attention, Interest, Desire, Action

APA American Psychological Association

CDA Critical Discourse Analysis

CL Critical Linguistics

DA Discourse Analysis

DSF Discourse of Specific Fields

DSS Discourse of Specific Subjects

ESP English for Specific Purposes

EU European Union

ILO International Labour Organization

IPDR International Platform of Discourse Research

IPA International Phonetic Association

M.A.K Halliday Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday

PML-N Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz)

PML-Q Pakistan Muslim League (Quaid-i-Azam)

PPP Pakistan Peoples Party

SFL Systematic Functional Linguistics

UK United Kingdom

US/USA United States of America

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republic

Z.A Bhutto Zulfikar Ali Bhutto

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTON

Aggregate of humans administrative evolution and experience is politics.

Behind this is a calendar-less process through which, over the civilizations, humanity

has acquired despotism, democracy, and a mix of both of course. Ancient

Babylonians, Egyptians, Greeks, Romans etc., and lately the Muslims, Westerns, and

Americans etc. - all have contributed to this powerful venture according to their

sagacity, capacity and legacy.

Since politics is altogether concerned with ruling and administrating a

particular group of people or peoples i.e. a nation or subjects in the form of a social

group, it has excelled as purely a social science. The very social spirit of politics has

exposed it to an immense competition of ideologies within the same social group in

addition to others (social groups). There emerges, then, a variety of faces (individuals)

or factions advocating their own agenda, ideology, or, merely a shade of ideology

which they think appropriate for themselves or the people there in given time, space,

and circumstances. This agenda-contest, in turn, necessitates outdoing the other faces

and factions by the one who appears to be the most credible and/or influential. This

race of rule may so naturally be self-oriented i.e. dictatorship in any form, as well as

public-oriented i.e. democracy in any form. In both of the cases, it involves attainment

of power to fulfill the purposes set. It is here the word power becomes a pretty

proper substitute for the word politics. Politics and power become complimentary to

each other. Hence, politics may be defined as an endeavour for attainment,

preservation, organization, and practice of power towards individual and/or collective

end.

2

As politics and power mainly deal with governing, language i.e. discourse/text

becomes an inseparable dimension of these. It is so because language (specifically

political texts and discourses) appears to be the sole and the most facilitating medium

for the demonstration and practice of political power.

It is well perceived that, after religious texts, only two types of language

influence the men most: one is the artistic language, and the other is the language of

power. Man can be viewed as a political animal as well as a poetical animal. It is,

further, observed that it is the power of language which translates the language of

power.

In order to gather maximum public favour and fervor, the players of power use

different techniques and strategies in their formal speeches and conversations. Their

ideological reflections, expected actions, futuristic connections, and all the other

political tendencies including their persuasive strategies and even ironies and

paradoxes of their persons are wrapped in their diction. Their worlds live in their

words, and only if they could be explored methodologically. Language can, so, be

regarded as form of life and house of being.

In order to interpret, understand, and analyze the production, practice, and

effects of (such politically, ideologically, and) inevitably charged discourses, Critical

Discourse Analysis has offered the best analytical tools ever developed; its analytical

procedure operates in as organized a fashion as shown below in a self-explanatory

figure (1):

3

Figure 1: Analytical procedure of CDA: how is CDA done?

1.1 Politics (ideology), Power, and Language

Politics, power, and language constitute a broader triangle of organization,

struggle and expression. All of them are inseparably operational with one another:

political agenda are unpractical without power; power is dumb without language, and

language is least effective without power. The real instrument in the hands of political

players is not power, but powerful language i.e. language of power. Language of

power does not mean merely authoritative or dictatorial language, but it also involves

powerful play upon words emerged strictly and solely from power-oriented purposes.

These power-oriented purposes may be open and/or secret in ones discourse.

Therefore, politics is the game of power mainly played upon the ground of words. In

addition to many others, these three phenomena (politic, power, and language) mainly

mark the ambit of ambition at higher organizational levels. However, politics remains

to be an umbrella term involving necessarily power and language (of power) within it.

1.2 Evolution of the exercise and expression of Power

4

The history of politics is reflected in the origin, development, and economics

of the institutions of government, the state. The origin of the state is to be found in the

development of the art of warfare i.e. confrontation of power(s). Historically

speaking, all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to

successful warfare at their back.

Emperors and other such unshared office-bearers were once considered to be

divine in a number of countries notably China and Japan etc. Inherited royalty was

considered to be rather divine line in many a country of the world (especially ancient)

until French Revolution blocked the way of this "divine right of kings". Nevertheless,

the monarchy appears to be one of the longest-lasting political institutions: roughly,

from 2100 BC Sumerian kingship to the 21st century AD British Monarchy.

The kings of absolute monarchies used to rule their kingdoms with the

assistance of an elite group of advisors- an executive council which was quite

instrumental to the maintenance of their (kings) powers. As these executives often

had to negotiate for power with the one outside the monarchy, the constitutional

monarchies started emerging. This was, probably, the genesis of constitutional

developments. Before such councils gave way to the embryo of democracy, they

rendered invaluable support and service to the institution of kingship by:

Securing the institution of kingship through heredity.

Maintaining the traditions of the social order under the monarch.

Providing the king with a good deal of knowledge and action dutifully

An unripe conqueror waged war, generally, upon the weak neighbour(s) for

vengeance or plunder, but well-established kingdoms used to prefer extracting

tributes. Councils were also responsible to keep the kings coffers full. Another

5

significant task of the council was to monitor and manage the needs of military

service satisfactorily and the establishment of lordships on behalf of the kings for the

collection of taxes smoothly. Cabinet of modern day is the most developed form of

the same council.

Nature intends a happy life for man, and it is the one led in accordance with

virtue. Political community has, therefore, historically been recommended to arrange

for securing life of virtue in the citizenry.

Today politics is, thence, the theory and practice of influencing other people(s)

on global, civil, and/or individual levels. It, more narrowly, refers to attaining,

holding, and exercising offices of governance i.e. an organized influence over a

human community, mainly a state. What is more, politics is the theory and/or practice

of how to distribute and organize power and resources within a specific social group

as well as between/among groups. Various methods are applied in politics including

promotion of individual political agenda; inter political-parties dialogues, legislation,

and exercising power involving warfare against resisters. Politics is exercised in

almost all the spheres of society, including all the layers of social formations from

clans and tribes to nation-states and, at times, the whole globe even. A political

system, today, refers to a framework of power-entrusting and defining peacefully

acceptable codes and methods of power within a particular society in order to

perpetuate a particular ideological operation by trying continuously avert socio-

political collisions.

1.3 Language of power and power of language

Whenever the word power is received/perceived, the impressions which

click the minds first of all are that of influence of one over the other, influence, terror,

6

suppression, and command and control etc. In this connection, political play i.e.

power, is the key factor behind all the social evils as well as social good at a time.

This renders the phenomenon of power extremely complex, and it comes to involve

the power of language. Power of language refers, at once, to the language which can

serve power as well as which can challenge or sabotage power. Power of language is,

concisely interpreting, language of power. Relation between language and power is

one of the quite complex and ambiguous kind. All types of power ultimately use

language as the most influential tool. Power is vested and manifested in language, and

it is conveyed through it; it commands and dictates through language, and others have

to hear attentively and obey formally when power plays.

1.4 Instrumentalization of language

Power mainly instrumentalizes language for its exercise. This

instrumentalization of language involves skillful use of political rhetoric,

representation of a particular ideology, and seduction or trap through words i.e.

persuasion. It extends from an individual political speaker to broader/collective

political representations, from speaking-style to the way of thinking, from quality to

the quantity of a political discourse. Implications of power-language also include the

discourses of the dominating (the rulers) and the dominated (the ruled). As far as

convincing through words is concerned (i.e. use of persuasive strategies), powerful

language can be observed in every day matters, display of advertisement, tricks of

marketing, at workplaces, and even at family level.

1.5 CDA perspective of ideology

Kress (1990) holds that any linguistic form when viewed in isolation has no

specific meaning; it enjoys no ideological importance. It denotes that the linguistic

7

choices (particularly in political discourse) are indeterminate in themselves; they find

meaning only when they are contextualized in a voluntary set of ideology-oriented

expressions/lexis involving syntactic arrangements. Language does not appear by

itself, it always finds way through the need of conveying/sharing a particular

idea/ideology. It indicates that idea or at least need of it gives birth to particular

linguistic terms and choices. Users of a particular language always bind their

discursiveness with their particular sociology and personality etc.

According to Fairclough (2001a), therefore, ideology indispensably resides in

language, and it should be ranked among the major themes of modern social sciences.

CDA has often resorted to his another definition of ideology which reads ideology as

necessarily joined in power relation. In Teun A. van Dijks (2006) opinion, ideology

refers to a set of ideas which appears in the form of a belief-system; it is more a

cognitive composition and less an act of ideological practices and social

performances; ideology is a mark of identity with a particular social group, and it does

not require any verification on both deep (structure) and surface (structure) levels; it is

not only a belief socially partaken, but is also instinctively fundamental and

unavoidably axiomatic in nature; it is acquired and not learnt, and can change but

through life time(s) or generations. He has also defined ideology as the sole driving

force behind the socio-political cognition of a specific group. From Simpsons (1993)

point of view, politico-cultural believes and assumptions together with the

institutional exercises in a particular society shape the mosaic pattern of the ideology

there.

1.6 Function of ideology

8

Having defined ideology, the question arises that as to, after all, what is the

function of ideology in the life of a particular social group? How does it address their

lives in connection with particular socio-individual ends, and at last owing to what

characteristic(s) does a particular ideology hold its people through life times? Van

Dijk has tried to meet such issues by holding that ideology can fulfill mainly these

functions:

self-representing of a particular social group

maintaining the identity and membership of its members

prescribing and influencing their socio-cultural practices and struggles

promoting the interests of its members against the other social (ideological)

groups

1.7 Ideology and discourse process

It is a widely acknowledged assumption that ideology can only be acquired

and expressed through discourse i.e. discourse is the sole medium with ideology. For

example, when political leaders want to explain, inspire, and legitimate their plan and

actions, they more than often arrange it through (ideological) discourse. It, overtly

and/or covertly, packs their individual ideological inclinations within their

painstakingly designed linguistic frames. Amid such ideological bombardments of

lexis and sentences, the concealed idealism may also remain unreached. Such power-

play of policy, however, lends rather a curious charm to the political discourses when

states meet.

1.8 CDA perspective of power

9

Van Dijk (1998) has viewed power in relation with control: a particular social

group is in possession of power if it is able to influence and control the minds and acts

(wholly or partially) of another group. This presupposition also hints the group to

arrange the possession of the sources typically scarce in societies like money, force,

fame, status, information, knowledge, and indeed peoples trust and their practical

fellowship.

Discursively speaking, however, in Critical Discourse Analysis power has

referred to the ideological power which could be exercised through discourse, and

through discourse which could influence and control peoples perspectives and

practices, and which has tended to be universal, right and just, and frankly close to

common sense.

1.9 Discourse and types of power

Norman Fairclough declares one is in the possession of power if one could

exercise it to coerce the others to getting along with ones agenda, or to win the

others consent and approval by means of persuading them. Fairclough has

discursively categorized power into two types:

power in discourse

power behind discourse

1.9.1 Power in discourse

The notion of power in discourse deals with discourse taking it as a circle

where power relations are literally enacted and exercised. Hence, power in discourse

goes pertinent to the situation in which discursive interaction is face to face between

the unequal participants, and where a powerful participant can control, constrain, and

10

influence the discursive activity of a powerless or less powerful participant. These

constraints may be of relations between the (powerful and powerless) participants,

and the subjects and contents of their discourse. These constraints find roots in the

discourse-types conventions. The powerless or less powerful participant is readily

constrained by the powerful participant via selecting an appropriate and relevant

discourse type. Discourse types refer to that particular ways and formations of

discourse which take birth owing to the mutual relation (nearness and distance,

powerful and otherwise) between the participants of discourse, and which changes

right when the relation between the participants changes; it also includes the particular

discourse situation (also speech situation) which definitely affects the manner and

nature of discourse on the part of the participants involved. Fairclough views that it

conform to the common sense assumptions, and the reciprocated discursivity between

them is right and natural.

Faircloughs these insights can be very helpful in conducting critical discourse

analysis because they have dictated the need to observe the very context of the

discourse to be analyzed: recognition of participants and their relationship, and the

background of the discourse situation (speech situation in pragmatics) are a few of the

contextual connections Fairclough has brought into limelight. The same can guide an

analyst to approach the way the power exercises in discourse, the way it go through

discourse, the way it influence the stylistics of the participants, the way it controls the

behaviour of the participants in discourse.

However, this insight has mainly centered on the dominating discourse of the

powerful participants and the resisting passivity of the powerless or the less powerful

participants has been entertained at the least; though passive yet continuous power

11

struggle inside the non-powerful participant reduces/minimizes the very passivity in

its own active way.

Ian Hutchby (1996) has found power as a set of potentials; these potentials are

socially ever present, and the social agents can variably exercise, shift, resist, and

struggle for these potentials. Foucault (1977), on the other hand, has maintained that

power is not something possessed by one and lacked by the other; rather, it is a socio-

political potential involving equally the powerful and the (ones) accepting or resisting

the powerful.

The issue of dealing with the discourse of the participants, who get engaged in

discourse while being in different temporal and geographical zones, becomes more

interesting and striking too. This sort of discursive interaction mainly goes through

mass media: television, radio, and newspaper etc. In this age of internet, social media

has surpassed all the other modes of media for its everyday discursive interaction

involving the entire globe. There is no doubt in that discourse aired through media is

altogether different from the one face to face. It is rather a type of one-sided

discourse. In such sort of discourse events, the nature of power does not appear to be

so clear. The discursive activity, in this case, falls to be an abstraction at large for the

interpersonal and material implications of the participants are filtered out through the

broadcast.

1.9.2 Power behind discourse

Norman Fairclough has examined as how the order of discourse is itself

created and formed by power relations, especially when order of discourse appears to

be connected with institutional order in a given society. That is, power in discourse

refers to discourse as being a sphere in which power is practically/physically

12

exercised and enacted whereas power behind discourse denotes that the discourse is a

stake in the struggle for power; the former deals with discourse of a powerful

participant when it is in possession of power, and the later take into account the

discourse of a powerful participant when it is in the struggle for

possessing/perpetuating power among others with the like intentions.

This notion, however, faces extreme complication when it observes that the

powerful participant who is in possession and practice of power has also, at the same

time, to compete and struggle (for power) in order to maintain his possessed power.

The only contenting idea, as yet, can be that every participant with more or less power

in its possession is bound to play a double role at once: one practicing whatever

amount of power the participant has, and other, struggling (for power) to maintain the

whatever amount of power the participant already has. It, therefore, establishes that

one has to look into/after both of the fronts at once: power in ones discourse, and

power behind ones discourse.

Fairclough has opined that power behind discourse is, in fact, an impact of

power through which certain discourse types come into working generally from the

side of institution(s). He holds that the struggle among communications for the

preservation of the existing power and for importing more power into that has become

the most salient feature of contemporary political discourse.

1.10 Discourse and power

It is evident that groups/individuals having more power are more likely to use

their specific discourse type, and the likelihood of their control over others minds

multiplies accordingly. Since actions are solely to be controlled by the minds, having

got control over others minds through their ideologies and opinions, the powerful

13

come to (wholly or partially) control the others actions at last. As peoples minds

typically accept influence from talk and text, discourse can thus control their minds as

well as actions by employing manipulation and various persuasive strategies in

language use. These strategies may be overt as well as covert or both at once.

1.10.1 Discourse control

The idea of discourse control can be comprehended by juxtaposing it with the

idea of discourse access. Both are relative concepts: discourse access is related to

context whereas discourse control relates to the text. Discourse access speaks of

context control whereas discourse control informs of text control: context control

emphasizes the participants control over context-related aspects mainly including

internal and external situation, time-and-space setting, while text control stresses

control over the lexical and structural choices (etc.) of the text via phonetic and other

kinesthetically applicable techniques. The main discourse strategy to control text is

positive self-presentation against the negative other-presentation.

1.10.2 Mind Control

Though mainly contextual yet textual drives are also involved in the

conditions of mind control. In addition to contextual implication, in other words, the

selection of certain lexical choices and forms in discourse can more influence the

peoples minds in according proportion, for example the choice of right words in a

give situation. Here again, the typical practices of persuasive strategies including

manipulation and linguistic spin claim to be vital in mind control. The discursive tools

and techniques of mind control at global level and at local level differ sharply. It is to

say that the health of information to be communicated can discursively be tampered

with by altering discourse structures in ones communication. This, when used by a

14

political leader, can be instrumental to control the discourse of general public; the

more the peoples discourse is controlled, the greater their minds are dictated.

1.11 Discourse as social practice

CDA holds discourse as a social practice. The idea of social practice denotes

that language first and foremost is a social phenomena; it takes birth socially (i.e.

from society), it grows socially, and it dies socially (i.e. when a society falls extinct).

It can involve a good deal of socio-linguistic elaborations. The relation between

society and language is cultural and dialectical, and also of a parasitic type. Society

and language share an inevitable and complementary relationship via social agents

(individuals). Since individual is the product of society and since the very society is

married to the very individual in an unbreakable connection, individual carries

linguistic implications (competence and performance) as unquestionably cognitive, if

not innate. It is not, thus, the individual who speaks language, it is the language which

speaks the individual. Text is, therefore, product of the socio-individual collaboration.

Language is first a social phenomenon and then a linguistic one. It is in the

sense, whenever individuals speak, listen, read, and write, they can play on society

and society alone. Society is all pervasive even in non-verbal communication

including interjections and gestures. Society is the totality of individuals knowledge

and information. There is no society outside language and there is no language outside

society; in language is the entire society and in society is the entire language.

Language finds contexts from society and, in turn, gives it text. Both can be

considered as living organisms in their own right. This is how the language becomes a

social practice. Language being a social practice also provides that language is a

social process.

15

1.12 Difference between discourse and text

Though the phrases discourse and text have been used interchangeably yet

there exist very minute and critical differences between the both. Text is a product

whereas discourse is wider and, say, an all-encompassing process a process of social

interaction between/among social agents. Interestingly, text appears to be rather a part

of this macro process, and interestingly more, the process of text production of which

the text becomes a product is itself a part of that very wider process i.e. discourses.

Besides, the process of interpretation of which the text is a (re)source also falls within

the dimensions of discourse. This can further be comprehended by juxtaposing the

definitions of discourse and text proposed by some renowned linguists, as following:

Discourse (Crystal 1992):

A continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than the sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke or

narrative. (p. 25).

Text (Crystal 1992):

A piece of naturally occurring spoken, written, or signed discourse identified for purposes of analysis. It is often a language unit with a definable communicative

function, such as a conversation, a poster. (p. 72).

Discourse (Cook 1989): stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified,

and purposive. (p. 156).

Text (Cook 1989): a stretch of language interpreted formally, without context. (p.

158).

Discourse (Fowler 1986): whole complicated process of linguistic interaction

between people uttering and comprehending texts. (p. 86).

Text (Fowler 1986): unit of communication seen as a coherent syntactic and semantic

structure which can be spoken or written down. (p. 85).

16

Discourse (Schiffrin 1994):

is utterances... Discourse is "above" (larger than) other units of language... [it] arises not as a collection of decontextualized units of language structure, but as a

collection of inherently contextualized units of language use. (p. 39).

Text (Schiffrin 1994): the linguistic content of utterances: the stable semantic

meanings of words, expressions and sentences... the "what is said" part of utterances.

(pp. 378-9).

In the light of above mentioned propositions, discourse analysis enwraps not

only text-analysis but also analysis of the productive and interpretive backgrounds

and foregrounds of text. While analyzing discourse, the analysts have to examine not

only the text but also the processes of production and interpretation, the production-

text-interpretation relationship, and the context of course i.e. immediate as well

remote socio-personal and institutional implications behind the text. These facets can

concisely be triangulated as figured below (Figure 2):

Text production

Social practice Discourse practice

Figure 2: Extrapolation of Critical Discourse Analysis

The differences within CDA community are noticeable because there is no

unanimous agreement on the steps and applications taken up by CDA practitioners so

far. Difference analysts may find different procedures to be useful in their analytical

applications, and it chiefly hinges on what definitions of discourse, critical, and

Critical

Discourse

Analysis

17

analysis an analyst proposes. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis vary in being

context-centered, text-centered, and interpretation-centered. What method or

combination of methods is to be adopted for analysis principally depends on to what

goals and expectation an analyst pins with discourse before/while processing it.

1.13 Power lies in language or speaking?

There is a critical distinction between language and speaking: language is

social, psychological, and an abstract data whereas speaking is the act and way of

verbally using this abstract data in social contexts, and it is purely physical behaviour

known as the act of uttering. However, both of the aspects take full part in the

exercise of power.

It is also an ironic fact that there is no concept of power at all especially

display of power through language until it finds some challenge, objection, or

opposition before it on which it could exert it exercise. It is to say that language of

power contains the germs of a sort of counter-power within itself. Thus, most

interestingly, language of power not only speaks power but, at the same time, has full

capability to undermine it. It is a reasonable perception that, other than policies, it is

language which makes and/or breaks the rulers. By analyzing the force of language,

one can see through and unmask the actual power working behind the language and

exercise of power therein. The inherent function of language is simply communication

and not the show of power through it. Demonstration of power through language is,

therefore, a utility purely given to the language. Power, in this way, brings language

into work which is not natural with it; instead, it is entirely plotted and efficacy-

oriented.

1.14 Indispensability of language

18

By and large, all legitimate and illegitimate authorities indispensably have to

rely on the play of language; the undeniable significance of language renders it as one

of the most vulnerable spots in the exercise and assertion of command and control.

Analysis of language can also predict the consequences one might have to face in case

of obeying or disobeying the command. Undoubtedly, other than being merely power-

oriented, language can become the best tool of rhetorical persuasion whatever be the

purpose thereof. Every attempt of persuasion through language is, at heart, an effort to

convince the others and to make them understand and comprehend a particular

agenda. It evidently means that persuasion is directly proportionate to comprehension.

Nothing is as much influential as is the non-violent force of convincing argument.

1.15 Inequality and power: -ful versus -less

Inequality is the mother of (the concept of) power. Power generally implies

that one is in the possession of weapons, money, or other such resources, and the

other is not. It indicates that power is a concept rising from a binary, from between

possessing and missing. This is what ultimately prevails as ones power over the

other. Broadly speaking, the game of power rises out of -ful and -less. Owing to

this very fact, language of power is significantly a presentation of contrast,

competition, and also tussle(s) between two or more agents. Difference is the root,

preference becomes trunk, on this trunk the stands the privileges as branches, and

power is cultivated as fruit; in order to maintain this growth, power remains

corresponding mainly with privilege; this power-projection goes like this (Figure 3):

19

Figure 3: Model of power-projection

Dictates of power are very much necessary and healthy for the dominating

and, at the same time, for the dominated. It is the dictum of power which can maintain

a peaceful balance and distance between the ruler and his subjects, between the

powerful and non-powerful. Language of power also clearly demarks the safe zone of

activism the counter-players have to act within. In this way, language of powerful

people can be taken as a calculated guarantee of their own assertions as well as the

security of the people who have less or no power against them. This is how language

can play magic in certain political deadlocks and other types of negotiations, and can

turn the tables gradually and sometimes within no time.

1.16 Empowerment through languages

Power-plugged language can make another wonder happen, and that is

empowerment through language. It is an attractive end offered by the leaders and

preachers to their audience. Power-possessed language has enough momentum to

charge and wash the brains of the audience towards some specifically designed end.

20

Such practice of empowerment through language is observable significantly in

democratic societies where the ruler and political leaders have to be more pro-public

and less self-centered, where they are, theoretically at least, more offering and less

taking/usurping. In such communities, political speakers pay special attention to their

political discourses. They acquire special skills and rehearsals in order to lend more

and more refinement and momentum to their discourse(s). Quoting as the real power

is the common man has become the core catch-phrase of the leaders in democracies

throughout the planet. It is, essentially, a sort of empowerment of people through

discourse. Sociolinguists and feminists have also entertained the show of power and

vigour in language in connection with gender. It is, most probably, because the gender

in most of the communities of the world may be determined as well as empowered

through language socially if not biologically.

1.17 Efficacy of language in religious and mythical texts

It is the exertion of power working behind words which decides the fate of

discourse. Religious and mythical texts, in spite of being soothing, pleasing, and

aesthetic, have always been considered the highest amounts of awe, wonder, capture

and rapture. These and other such arresting and moving elements are supplied through

the elevated working of an unmatchably fabulous figure who may be God, god(s), or a

(super)man, but who ever appears to be a hero. The momentous magic in the language

of an epic and/or tragedy is the orientation of power which the pivotal figure relates.

The powers provided to a religious/mythical figure are often the ones which are

generally above the human order. Then, whatever pours from the pedestal of power

becomes prominent, powerful, sacred, and sublime. Profound learning and cosmic

comprehension through the elements of warning and fear run as undercurrents

throughout. All this is accorded with the like intensity of diction.

21

1.18 Transitivity: tracing true trends

Detection of the underlying meanings in a particular discourse can be tried

through examining the linguistic choices the discourse offers. A speaker practices

language obeying its social context; his choice of words varies as the purpose of

discourse varies. Hallidays Systematic Functional Grammar (also known as

Systematic Functional Linguistics or SFL) has examined language from the viewpoint

of its functions. Halliday (1994) has gathered:

Language has developed in response to three kinds of social-functional needs. The first is to be able to construe experience in terms of what is going on

around us and inside us. The second is to interact with the social world by negotiating

social roles and attitudes. The third and final need is to be able to create messages

with which we can package our meanings in terms of what is new or given. (p. 11).

He has discovered three functions (meta-functions) of language i.e. ideational,

interpersonal, and textual. Hallidian type of grammar (SFL) has tried the linguistic

systems and linguistic tools to analysis. For example, (though unequally yet) all the

three linguistic functions - ideational, interpersonal, and textual - have been served to

form the notion know as transitivity. Though transitivity is peculiar to ideational

function yet this notion, as a whole, could create a full-fledged and applicable

framework of discourse investigation known as Transitivity Analysis. As per Sudarto

(2011), Transitivity is the grammar of the clause for construction our experience of a

process, participants directly involved in that process and circumstance. (p. 349)

This analytical framework has further involved various process types namely

material, mental, relational, verbal, behavioural, and existential; it has also raised the

circumstances discursively related to language as well as research in language: detail

thereof has been provided in the following part of this research.

1.19 This study and its significance

22

This research has conducted critical discourse analysis of Benazir Bhuttos

selected formal addresses with reference to the treatment of ideology and the use of

persuasive strategies as exercised in the selected data. It tried to evaluate the selected

speeches from a triangulated point of view: ideology, power, and language. The data

has been investigated in the light of Halliday and Norman Fairclaughs theoretical

reflections on reaching the core implications structured in discourse including the

representation of meaning, power and ideology. Persuasive strategies have also been

examined as used in the data.

This study is an attempt to critically and objectively analyze as to how Benazir

Bhutto invests her discursive input for the indoctrination of the ideology her political

party advocated. In capacity of being the chief representative of a political faction, she

has been found to be exercising calculated play upon words in her speeches. Amid the

then troubled political phase faced by the country, she represented her political

agenda as being fully fair, rightful, needful, and democratic. She referred to the

political vision of her late father, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, and Qauid-i-Azam Muhammad

Ali Jinnah as being the origin and inspiration of her idealism. Though given to a tough

contest by the competitors, she attempted to convey her democratic blueprint, and to

convince her audience that the country cannot afford dictatorship, and that

democratization is the only way Pakistan must go ahead. She not only imparts a

particular political ideology but also uses rhetoric strategies carefully calculated to

persuade the audience.

Significance of this study lies in that it critically analyzed the political

discourse of a political leader who, at the same time, was:

1. A leader

23

2. An in-office ruler

3. Ruler of an ideological nation-state (Pakistan)

4. Conscious not only of orientalism but also occidentalism

5. Herself chairperson of the party

6. Addressing one speech right on the day of her victory: victory is an event on

which voluntarily manipulating the thought and words faces psychological

difficulty against the involuntary stream of naturally overflowing joy,

excitement, and emotions right away; the other speech was addressed on

Pakistans Independence Day which was the day of extreme national

significance.

7. A female, and

8. The first ever elected female head of state in Pakistan and in the entire Muslim

world

It is pertinent to mention here that the seasons and events of political

campaigns and of showing political power and performance have always been marked

with intense competition among various political factions in Pakistan. It is nothing

other than a positive trend overall in which political discourse of almost every

political party appears to be participating as well as contributing.

1.20 Statement of the problem

In democratic states, the political leaders belong to a particular political party

the overall interests of which are in debt to the victory of their respective

representatives/leaders. On the other hand, these interests and affiliations have more

often to be compromised in order to import progress and prosperity to the general

masses. Striking is that various political parties practice and proclaim likewise in the

24

same time and space, and amid such situation where everyone claims to be credibly

right, only one particular political party has to and manages to stand out by retaining

or making most of the public believe in it (the particular party). It becomes, however,

problematic to ascertain and measure the credibility and integrity of all the political

players through their discourse in such perplexing situation.

1.21 Research questions

1. In spite of harbouring self-centered motives of authority (power), can the

formal words of a political speaker really convey an ideology covering all or

majority of the individuals/segments of society?

2. How does a political speaker play his/her propaganda to persuasion?

3. Does the ideology of a political leader remain/become really objective,

masses-oriented, and self(and otherness)-negating, or does it merely look so

at the surface?

4. Can there be power without ideology?

1.22 Hypotheses

1. Political speeches involve some sort of ideology in one way or the other, and

at the same time, they are always power-oriented; hence, a credible ideology is

the real power.

2. The victory of a particular political entity is an evidence of its credibility.

1.23 Research objectives

1. To study the manner in which a political leader pursues and propagates his/her

own and/or shared ideology through the use of language.

25

2. To analyze the formal political discourse of a political leader when she was

unpracticed, and when she got experienced.

3. To evaluate the role of party-politics in achieving specified ends.

4. To investigate whether the political speakers artfully employ persuasive

strategies in order to indoctrinate their selected ideologies or it happens

automatically under genuine impulse.

5. To reach whether their national concerns remain/become really pro-public, or

it remains/becomes merely a manipulative drama.

1.24 Research methodology

Data has been selected from the speeches addressed by Benazir Bhutto at

different occasions of formal import. The source of data was internet. Critical

Discourse Analysis of the selected speeches has been undertaken in the light of the

theories regarding meaning, power, ideology, and persuasion presented by prominent

critical discourse analysts including Halliday and Norman Fairclough. It would be a

qualitative type of research.

1.25 Conclusion

Pondering the power-plugged journey of language from its earliest clues to

this days modern nation-state system, it becomes obvious that the discourse offered

by the powerful and also the power-seeking does not go un-striking in whatever

context and form it is represented, and whether it is symbolic/metaphoric or literal in

use. Inspired by the above narrated usage of language, this research is an attempt to

critically document all the possible dimensions of the selected discourse from CDA

point of view. Therefore, all the critical aspects of discourse analysis have particularly

been entertained. The researcher has, in this regard, also coined a term criticals in

26

order to encompass the related aspects of critical importance in such analyzes. By the

Criticals of Discourse Analysis, he has broadly meant: all the major aspects of

discourse and relationship among them ineluctable while analyzing, as the following

self-explanatory figure (4) has illustrated:

Figure 4: The Criticals of Discourse Analysis

27

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

It is the well-sifted literature-review portion which provides theoretical and

empirical background as well as foreground to a successful research project. Though

it is altogether a traditional part in each research work, however, the researcher

believes that the individual measures and methods of every new research can render

this portion unique every time. Believing, therefore, in the worth and weightage of

literature-review section, the researcher has tried to reviewing only the inevitably

relevant slices of theory from CDA background in this research.

2.1 Theoretical background

Political campaigns, debates, demonstrations, and parliamentary proceedings

all are the fields of ideological fight. It should not be surprising because, as van Dijk

(2004) observes,

it is eminently here that different and opposed groups, power, struggle and interests are at stake. In order to be able to compete, political groups need to be

ideologically conscious and organized. (p. 11).

One of the keys behind the political figures reaching their objectives and

winning the general public agreement in this nonstop power-battle is their capacity to

influence and inspire their audience. Teittinen (2000) finds,

The winner is a party whose language, words, terms and symbolic expressions are dominant once reality and the context have been defined. (p.1).

This is where the need for perusing and perceiving is exceedingly felt in order

to come across to what the truth is and how it is bended through sensitive and

designed usage of language.

2.2 What is discourse?

28

Before proceeding to what CDA is, it appears to be facilitating to refresh as to

what discourse and discourse analysis are. Discourse has been referred to the creation

and organization of the segments of a language above as well as below the sentence. It

is segments of naturally occurring language which may be bigger or smaller than a

single sentence but the adduced meaning is always beyond the sentence. The term

discourse applies to both spoken and written language, in fact to any sample of

language used for any purpose. Any series of speech events or any combination of

sentences in written form wherein successive sentences or utterances hang together is

discourse. Discourse cannot be confined to sentential boundaries. It is something that

goes beyond the limits of sentence. In other words, discourse is any coherent

succession of sentences, spoken or written.

2.3 What is Discourse Analysis (DA)?

Discourse Analysis (DA), or discourse studies, is a general term for a number

of approaches to analyze written, vocal, or sign language use, or any significant

semiotic event. The objects of discourse analysis i.e. discourse, writing, conversation,

communicative event etc. are variously defined in terms of coherent sequences of

sentences, propositions, speech, or turns at talk. In contrast to conventional linguistics,

discourse analysts peruse not only language use beyond the sentence-boundary, but

also analyze naturally occurring language use, and not devised language and

examples. Text linguistics is a closely related area. The essential difference between

DA and text linguistics is that it aims at revealing socio-psychological characteristics

of individual(s) rather than text structure as in text linguistics. DA has been taken up

in a variety of social and philological sciences like communication studies, linguistics,

education, sociology, anthropology, social work, cognitive psychology, social

psychology, area studies, cultural studies, international relations, human geography,

29

and translation studies etc. Each of them is subject to its own assumptions,

methodologies, and dimensions of analysis.

2.4 What is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)?

Van Dijk (1998a) holds that Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) refers to a

method which studies and analyzes written as well as spoken language/texts to

discover the issues related to power, potency, differences and bias, associations, and

other possible propaganda in a particular discourse. It investigates the maintenance

and reproduction of these factors in relevant socio-political environment and in its

conventional frames. Likewise, Fairclough has described (1993) CDA as a discourse

analysis which systematically unearths often blurred relationships between discourse

practice, texts and contexts, and the broader socio-cultural patterns, connections and

operations; it also tries to evaluate as to how all these discursive phenomena are

formed out of ideology, power, and the practical links between them (ideology and

power); it further involves the investigation as to how the relationship between society

and discourse is itself a tool to attain power and hegemony. (p. 135).

CDA is, therefore, a framework designed for not only determining but also

clarifying the possible syntheses and analyses of socio-discursive patterns-and-

practices from socio-political and psychological points of view within a given society.

Following figure (5) reads the broader objective Critical Discourse Analysis hunts:

30

Figure 5: Objective of CDA

2.5 Maturity of CDA

A group of linguists and literary theorists of the University of East Anglia

(Fowler et al., 1979; Kress & Hodge, 1979) developed Critical Linguistics in the late

1970s. Critical Linguistics (CL) was based on Halliday's Systemic Functional

Linguistics (SFL), its aim was "isolating ideology in discourse" and revealing "how

ideology and ideological processes are manifested as systems of linguistic

characteristics and processes." The developing of SFL-based CL's analytical tools

(Fowler et al., 1979; Fowler, 1991) was only for the sake of pursuing this agenda.

CL practitioners, under Hallidian influence, find that language serves these

three functions (also considered as meta-functions): ideational, interpersonal, and

textual. Ideational function, according to Fowler (1991, p. 71), and Fairclough

(1995b, p. 25), refers to the speakers experience of the world and its phenomena; the

interpersonal function involves the addition of speakers own views and attitudes in

the phenomena, along with setting relation between speakers and listeners; textual

function is rather instrumental to the ideational and interpersonal ones because the

speakers can produce comprehensible discourse owing only to the textual fuction.

31

This function is the really operational one because it connects discourse with its

context. These three functions of language can be illustrated in the following figured

manner (Figure 6):

Figure 6: Hallidays discursive functions of language

In addition to these three functions, Hallidian School has prescribed six

different process types of language when set in a particular discourse. It is held that

the verb of each clause in a sentence determines its process type. These process types

are: material, mental, relational, verbal, behavioural, and existential. The following

figure (7) further explains the work and worth of these process types involved in

discourse analysis:

32

Figure 7: Hallidays process types

The afore-mentioned linguistic functions and process types discursively

operate in collaboration with a range of discursive circumstances which include:

extent and location, manner (means, quality, and comparison), cause (reason,

purpose, and behalf), contingency (condition, concession, and default),

accompaniment (comitative and additive), role (guise and product), matter and angle.

Critical discourse analysts take Halliday's notion of language as a "social act"

and central to their practice (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1989, 1992,

1993, 1995b, 1995a; Fowler et al., 1979; Fowler, 1991; Hodge & Kress, 1979).

According to Fowler et al. (1979), CL is close to sociolinguistics because it also

suggests "there are strong and pervasive connections between linguistic structure and

social structure" (p. 185). Sociolinguistics, however, finds "the concepts 'language'

and 'society' are dividedso that one is forced to talk of 'links between the two'", but

CL views "language is an integral part of social process" (Fowler et al., 1979, p. 189).

CDA and SFL agree that speakers exercise choices of vocabulary and

grammar; these choices are consciously and/or unconsciously "principled and

33

systematic"(Fowler et al., 1979, p. 188). These choices, hence, are ideology-based.

According to Fowler et al. (1979), the "relation between form and content is not

arbitrary or conventional, but . . . form signifies content" (p. 188). Language is,

therefore, purely a social act, and operates, so, ideologically.

2.6 Recent Advancements

Recently, however, CL and what is now more frequently referred to as CDA

(Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; van Dijk, 1998a) have further been intermingled as

well as broadened. These recent developments have represented further issues such

as: firstly, CLs interpretation of the role of audiences and discourse appears to be

different from that of the discourse analysis; secondly, the scope of analysis should go

beyond the textual, to the intertextual analysis. Fairclough (1995b), in turn, has taken

up both issues. He informs that the initial work in CL could focus on the "interpretive

practices of audiences", but that remained inadequate. CL has mainly established that,

he traces, the audiences, and the analysts interpret texts the same way. Similarly,

Boyd-Barrett (1994), commenting on Fowler (1991), views that there is "a tendency

towards the classic fallacy of attributing particular 'readings' to readers, or media

'effects,' solely on the basis of textual analysis" (p. 31).

Fairclough (1995b) claims that earlier contributions in CL were of more

grammatical and lexical analysis and less intertextual analysis of texts: "the linguistic

analysis is very much focused upon clauses, with little attention to higher-level

organization properties of whole texts" (p. 28). Fairclough (1995b) further adds,

"mention of these limitations is not meant to minimize the achievement of

critical linguistics--they largely reflect shifts of focus and developments of theory in

the past twenty years or so." (p. 28).

These shifts and developments do not offer a single concentrated

theoretical design to analysis.

34

Today CDA, according to Bell & Garret (1998), "is best viewed as a shared

perspective encompassing a range of approaches rather than as just one school" (p. 7).

Van Dijk (1998a) informs that CDA "is not a specific direction of research" so "it

does not have a unitary theoretical framework." He (1998a) further asserts, "given the

common perspective and the general aims of CDA, we may also find overall

conceptual and theoretical frameworks that are closely related."

The scholars whose reflections have significantly contributed to the growth of

CDA in recent times are mainly van Dijk (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1998b, 1998a),

Wodak (1995, 1996, 1999), and Fairclough (1989, 1992, 1993, 1995a, 1995b, 1999).

2.6.1 Van Dijks socio-cognitive approach

Van Dijk is one of the most sought-after and oft-quoted discourse analysts in

the critical evaluations of media discourse, even in the analyses which are not

considerably proper to the CDA circle (e.g. Karim, 2000; Ezewudo, 1998). He, in the

1980s, started applying his discourse analysis design to the media texts which were

specific to representing ethnic and minority communities in Europe. His News

Analysis (1988) incorporates his general theory of discourse to the discourse of press-

news, wherein he applies the same to a variety of news reports at national and

international levels. His stress on analyzing media discourse at not only textual and

structural levels but also at the production and reception or comprehension levels

has distinguished him along with his analysis-framework (1988) from other critical

discourse analysts (Boyd-Barrett, 1994).

Structural analysis means, according to van Dijk, an analysis of "structures at

various levels of description" i.e. grammatical, phonological, morphological and

semantic levels; it also includes the analysis of "higher level properties" like

coherence, collective themes and topics in news stories, involving the whole

35

schematic patterns and rhetorical facets of texts. However, he interestingly asserts that

such an apparently holistic analysis too may be insufficient because discourse is not

something isolated or individual rather it is, at once, shared by and associated with a

range of discourses around it. It is a complex discourse-event with a particular social

context, varying characteristic, participants, and production and reception processes

(van Dijk, 1988, p. 2).

According to van Dijk, "production processes" refers to journalistic and

institutional exercises of news-making and the socio-economic factors involved

therein which become major driving force behind media discourse.

In van Dijk's analysis, "reception processes" of news evaluation includes both

"memorization and reproduction" of news information. Analyzing Dijk's analysis of

media (1988, 1991, 1993), it tries to display the relationships between the three

degrees of the text making of news (structure, production and comprehension

processes), and their relation with the facts that lie within the vast social circle. For

the identification of these relationships, we have two levels of van Dijk's analysis: the

first level is microstructure and second level is macrostructure.

At the microstructure level, analysis deals with the semantic relations between

propositions, syntactic, lexical and other rhetorical facets which are basic to give a

coherent structure in the text, and other rhetorical elements such as quotations, direct

or indirect reporting that add to the authenticity of the news reporting.

According to van Dijk's analysis of news reports, the central analysis is of

macrostructure which involves the thematic/topic structure of the news stories and

their complete schematics. The headlines and lead paragraphs demonstrate themes

and subjects.

36

The headlines, according to van Dijk (1988), "define the overall coherence or

semantic unity of discourse, and also what information readers memorize best from a

news report"(p. 248). He also believes that the cognitive model of the journalists and

their judgments and definitions of news events mostly find their expression in the

headline and the leading paragraph. Though the readers possess different knowledge

and believe yet, while dealing with the important information about a news event,

they will normally use the same subjective media definitions. (p. 248).

Van Dijk (1988) has designed the news schematics ("superstructure schema")

in a typical narrative pattern that can be divided in the following parts: summary

(headline and the lead paragraph), story (situation consisting of episode and

backgrounds), and consequences (final comments and conclusions). These parts of a

news event are arranged in the order of "relevance," according to this arrangement, it

is evident that the summary, the headline and the leading paragraph are the main

ingredients of the general information. According to van Dijk, it is the best for

readers memorization and recollection. (pp. 14-16).

Discourse analysis of van Dijk (1995) is mostly perceived as an ideology

analysis, as he himself writes,

"ideologies are typically, though not exclusively, expressed and reproduced in

discourse and communication, including non-verbal semiotic messages, such as

pictures, photographs and movies." (p. 17).

For analyzing ideologies we find three types of analyses in his works: social

analysis, cognitive analysis, and discourse analysis. (p. 30).

Here the social analysis deals with the examination of the "overall societal

structures," (the context), and the discourse analysis is primarily text based (syntax,

lexicon, local semantics, topics, schematic structures, etc.). Van Dijk's approach has

blended two traditional approaches in media education which are: interpretive (text

37

based) and social tradition (context based), into an analytical one. However, cognitive

analysis is such a distinctive feature of van Dijks approach that it distinguishes his

approach from other approaches in CDA.

According to van Dijk, this approach is the sociocognitioncognition at

personal as well as social levelit creates a link between society and discourse. He

defines social cognition in these words "the system of mental representations and

processes of group members" (p. 18). It shows, for van Dijk, "ideologies are the

overall, abstract mental systems that organize socially shared attitudes" (p. 18).

Ideologies, thus, "indirectly influence the personal cognition of group members" for

understanding the discourse found in other actions and interactions (p. 19). For the

mental representations of various persons during such social actions and interactions,

he has used the term models". He believes, "models control how people act, speak or

write, or how they understand the social practices of others" (p. 2). Similarly

according to van Dijk, mental representations

"are often articulated along Us versus Them dimensions, in which speakers of

one group will generally tend to present themselves or their own group in positive

terms, and other groups in negative terms." (p. 22).

To analyze and display this contrasting dimension of Us versus Them, van

Dijk's has attached central importance to the theme in most of his research work and

writings (1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1998a, 1998b). He (1998b) devises a proper

way to analyze ideological dichotomy in the discourse transparently (pp. 61-63), the

said way goes through the following steps:

a. To examine the context of the discourse: historical, political or social

scenario of a conflict and its important participants

b. To evaluate all the concerned groups, power relations and conflicts

c. To identify positive and negative viewpoints of all (Us and Others)

38

d. To make the things explicit in relation to the presupposed and the implied

e. To examine the complete structure: lexical choice and syntactic structure, in

a way which helps to emphasize polarized group opinions

2.6.2 Wodak and the Vienna School of Discourse Analysis

In the works of Wodak and her colleagues in Vienna (The Vienna School of

Discourse Analysis), another direction in CDA is also found which is called

Discourse Sociolinguistics. Wodaks (1995) model is based "on sociolinguistics in the

Bernsteinian tradition, and on the ideas of the Frankfurt school, especially those of

Jrgen Habermas"( p. 209).Wodak (1996) believes that Discourse Sociolinguistic is a

sociolinguistics which involves not only the study and analysis of the text in context,

but also attaches the same importance to the both factors. This approach can identify

and explain the underlying mechanisms and disorders in discourse which are traceable

in a particular context. They may be in the structure and function of the media, or in

institutions like a hospital or a school. They undoubtedly affect communication/text as

well. (p. 3).

Wodak has expanded his research in various institutional setups such as

courts, schools, and hospitals, and on a number of social issues such as sexism, racism

and anti-Semitism. Wodak's work on the discourse of anti-Semitism in 1990 made

way for another approach which is called discourse historical method. The term

historical carries main importance in this approach. Wodak (1995) has tried through

this approach "to integrate systematically all the available background information in

the analysis and interpretation of the many layers of a written or spoken text" (p. 209).

The results of Wodak and her colleagues' study (Wodak et. al., 1990) revealed the

context of the discourse had a significant impact on the structure, function, and

context of the anti- Semitic utterances" (p. 209). The feature of using historical

39

contexts of discourse while explaining and interpreting lends this approach difference

as compared to all the other approaches of CDA especially that of van Dijk.

In the discourse historical method approach, (nearing Fairclough) it is

believed that language "manifests social processes and interaction" and "constitutes"

those processes as well (Wodak & Ludwig, 1999, p. 12). According to Wodak &

Ludwig (1999), analyzing language that way entails three things at least. First,

discourse "always involves power and ideologies. No interaction exists where power

relations do not prevail and where values and norms do not have a relevant role" (p.

12). Second,

"discourse is always historical, that is, it is connected synchronically and diachronically with other communicative events which are happening at the same

time or which have happened before" (p. 12).

This idea is similar to Fairclough's idea of intertextuality. Third part of Wodak's

approach is that of interpretation. According to Wodak & Ludwig (1999), readers and

listeners, differ in their background knowledge and information and their positions

that is why they may interpret the same communicative event differently (p. 13).

Therefore, Wodak & Ludwig (1999) stress:

"THE RIGHT interpretation does not exist; a hermeneutic approach is

necessary. Interpretations can be more or less plausible or adequate, but they cannot

be true" (emphasis in original) (p. 13).

Fairclough (1995b) also agreed to this notion (pp. 15-16).

Another inevitably relevant approach considered to be very significant in CDA

is that of Faircloughs. Over the recent decade, his theory has come to enjoy central

position in CDA.

2.6.3 Faircloughs contribution

In his primary works Fairclough (1989) termed this approach to language and

discourse as the Critical Language Study (p. 5). According to his (1989) viewpoint,

40

the main objective of his approach was "a contribution to the general raising of

consciousness of exploitative social relations, through focusing upon language" (p. 4).

He continued his research work with the same objective and now his approach is one

of the most developed and refined frameworks of CDA (Fairclough, 1992, 1993,

1995a, 1995b; Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999).

Here, for analyzing media discourse, attempt has been made to present a

comprehensive note on Fairclough's works in CDA because, in addition to Hallidays,

the researcher has applied Faircloughs reflection also in the course of this research.

For Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), CDA "brings social science and

linguistics together within a single theoretical and analytical framework, setting up

a dialogue between them"(p. 6). The linguistic theory referred here is the Systematic

Functional Linguistics.

Like many others, Faircloughs analytical framework was also based on

Linguistics (SFL) (Fowler et. al., 1979; Fowler, 1991; Hodge & Kress, 1979).

Fairclough's (1989, 1992, 1995a, 1995b) approach also draws upon many critical

social theorists, such as Foucault (i.e. concept of orders of discourse), Gramsci

(concept of hegemony), Habermas (i.e. concept of colonization of discourses).

Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) posit that CDA has contributed a lot to make

discursive sense. They believe that, "the past two decades or so have been a period of

profound economic social transformation on a global scale" (p. 30). They perceive the

changes which are due to peculiar actions by people as "part of nature" (p. 4), that is,

changes and transformations are being perceived as natural and not because of

people's general actions. At present, the economic and social changes, according to

Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999), "are to a significant degree . . . transformations in

the language, and discourse" (p. 4). So, CDA contributes by theorizing modifications

41

and creating awareness "of what is, how it has come to be, and what it might become,

on the basis of which people may be able to make and remake their lives" (p. 4). With

this aim in mind, Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) believe that CDA of a

communicative interaction displays that the semiotic and linguistic features of the

interaction are systematically attached with what is happening in society, and

whatever happens in society is no doubt is happening, one way or the other,

semiotically or linguistically. In other words, CDA charts relationships of

modification between the symbolic and non-symbolic, between discourse and the

non-discursive. (p. 113).

To analyze any communicative event, this approach of CDA involves three

main analytical interactions. These three interactions are text (e.g. a news report),

discourse practice (e.g. the process of production and consumption), and

sociocultural practice (e.g. social and cultural structures which give rise to the

communicative event) (Fairclough, 1995b, p. 57; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999, p.

113). These are similar to van Dijk's three dimensions of ideology analysis: discourse,

sociocognition, and social analysis [analysis of social structures]. The main difference

between Fairclough's approach and that of van Dijk appears to be in the second

dimension, which mediates between the other two. Whereas van Dijk perceives social

cognition and mental models as conciliating between discourse and the social,

Fairclough (1995b) believes that this task is assumed by discourse practices: text

production and consumption (p. 59). In this case, these two approaches of CDA are

"similar in conception" (Fairclough, 1995b, p. 59).

Hence, ideology operates through text or discourse as a result of the combined

working of certain macro-structural contexts of socio-cultural nature. This wide(st)

texcont (text-context) ambit of ideology can be perused in the following figure (8):

42

Figure 8: Texcont-ambit of ideology

2.6.3.1 Fairclough's framework for analyzing a communicative event

Fairclough prescribes the investigation of three different facets of discourse

i.e. text, discourse practice, and sociocultural practice.

A) Text: Text is the first analytical concern of Fairclough's (1995b) three-part view.

Analysis of text includes linguistic analysis in the sense of vocabulary, grammar,

semantics, the sound system, and cohesion-organization above the sentence level (p.

57). Linguistic analysis is applied to text's lexical-grammatical and semantic

properties. These two aspects affect each other (pp. 57-58). Following SFL,

Fairclough also perceives text as multifunctional. He believes that analysis can be

offered to any sentence in a text in the sense of the articulation of these functions,

which he has renamed as representations, relations, and identities:

Particular representations and re-contextualizations of social practice

(ideational function) -- perhaps carrying peculiar ideologies.

Discourse

Context

Text

43

Particular formations of writer and reader identities (for example, in terms of

what is highlighted -- whether status and role aspects of identity, or individual

and personality aspects of identity)

A specific formation of the relationship between writer and reader (as, for

instance, formal or informal, close or distant). (p. 58).

According to Fairclough (1995), linguistic analysis is concerned with

presences as well as absences in texts that could include "representations, categories

of participant, constructions of participant identity or participant relations" (p. 58).

B) Discourse practice: According to Faircloughs findings (1995), there are two

aspects of this dimension: institutional process (e.g. editorial procedures), and

discourse processes (changes the text going through in production and consumption).

(pp. 58-59). For Fairclough, "discourse practice straddles the division between society

and culture on the one hand, and discourse, language and text on the other" (p. 60).

The main concept of this approach is intertextuality. This concept can

profoundly explain discourse processes. Faircloughs (1995b) intertextuality and

intertextual analysis assumes that while there is linguistic analysis at the text level,

there is also linguistic analysis at the discourse practice level. When analysis is at both

these levels, Fairclough calls it "intertextual analysis" (p. 61). According to

Fairclough (1995b), intertextual analysis is concerned with the borderline between

text and discourse practice in the analytical work. Intertextual analysis is looking at

the text from the perspective of discourse practice, and looking at the traces of the

discourse practice in the text. (p. 16).

According to Fairclough, "linguistic analysis is descriptive in nature, whereas

intertextual analysis is more