Masaryk university faculty of education
Download 0.63 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF EDUCATION
- Brno 2012
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Contents
- Introduction “ War should never be entered upon until every agency of peace has failed; peace is preferable to war in almost
- The Topic of the Thesis
- Theoretical Part
- Discourse Analysis
 MASARYK UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF EDUCATION Master’s Thesis Brno 2012 Hana Bellová MASARYK UNIVERSITY Faculty of Education English Language and Literature Department
Master’s Thesis Brno 2012 Supervisor: Author: Mgr. Martin Adam Ph.D. Bc. Hana Bellová Annotation BELLOVÁ, Hana. "Political Crisis Speeches of American Presidents: 1861-2011." Master's Thesis. Brno: Masaryk University, Faculty of Education, English Language and Literature Department, 2012. 181 pp. Supervisor: Mgr. Martin Adam Ph.D. This diploma thesis provides a discourse analysis of ten crisis speeches given by U.S. presidents between 1861 and 2011. Based on the findings from the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic analyses, trends and developments will be evaluated, with special emphasis on features of political speeches. In the theoretical part, syntax, semantic and pragmatic analyses and methods are described. In addition, features of political speech are explained, and a brief socio-political background of each speech is given. A chapter on mass media offers guidelines on its possible effects on political language. In the practical part, all ten discourses are analyzed individually, illustrated by charts and graphs. Five paired analyses follow, where main features are compared and contrasted. Finally, the results are presented in charts and graphs illustrating overall trends and diachronic changes. The aim of the thesis is to find and analyze trends and developments in crisis speeches during the period 1861-2011 and to determine possible causes of these changes. Keywords: discourse analysis, political speech, crisis speech, war speech, declaration of war, United States, president Anotace BELLOVÁ, Hana. „Krizové projevy amerických prezidentů: 1861-2011“ Diplomová práce. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita, Pedagogická fakulta, Katedra anglického jazyka a literatury, 2012. 181 stran. Vedoucí bakalářské práce: Mgr. Martin Adam PhD. Tato diplomová práce poskytuje diskurzivní analýzu deseti projevů amerických prezidentů v době krize či válečného stavu v letech 1861-2011. Vývojové trendy v jazyce jsou identifikovány a vyhodnoceny na základě výsledků syntaktické, semantické a pragmatické analýzy a zvláštní pozornost je věnována prvkům politických projevů. V teoretické části jsou podrobně vysvětleny pojmy týkající se syntaktické, semantické a pragmatické analýzy, jejich úrovní a metod, které budou používány. Vedlo toho jsou také popsány prvky politických projevů a poskytnuty jsou také informace o sociálně-politicém pozadí všch projevů. Popsány jsou i masové média a jejich možný dopad na politický diskurz. V praktické část se nachází individuální analýza všech deseti projevů, za použití úrovní a metod a s využitím grafů a tabulek. Následuje pět párových analýz, kde se porovnávají hlavní podobnosti a odlišnosti. Na závěr jsou prezentovány grafy a diagramy, poskytující nejdůležitější zjištění ve vývoji trendů a diachronních změn. Cílem výzkumu je nalézt a analyzovat lingvistické trendy a vývojové změny v projevech amerických prezidentů v době krize či válečného stavu v letech 1861-2011 a určit možné příčiny těchto změn. Klíčová slova: analýza diskurzu, politický projev, válečný projev, krizový projev, deklarace války, prezident, Spojené Státy Americké,
Dolní Bečva, 20 April 2012 Hana Bellová Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Martin Adam Ph.D. for his support and guidance and his prompt and useful ideas and recommendations. I would also like to thank my children Tristen and Halina for being so understanding and encouraging, and I hope to be able to repay them one day when they write their theses. Finally, I want to thank my husband Jason and dedicate this thesis to him, as without his help, support and love I would not have been able to succeed in this difficult endeavor. Hana Bellová
1. Syntax 12 2.1.1. Topics 13 2. Semantics 14 3. Pragmatics 19 3.Features of Political speech 23 4. Historical and political references 24 5. Jonathan Winthrop’s “City upon a Hill” 24 6. American Exceptionalism 24 7.Valiant Leader 25 8.Rhetoric 26 4.Mass Media 28 9.Newspaper 30 10.Radio 30 11.Television 32 12.Twitter 32 13.Facebook 33 5.Historical background of speakers and speeches 34 14.Abraham Lincoln - Civil War 1861 35 15.William McKinley: Spanish American War, 1898 35 16.Woodrow Wilson, U.S. Declaration of War with Germany, 1917 36 17.Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), Pearl Harbor Address to the Nation, 1941 37 18.Harry S. Truman, Speech on Korean War, 1951 38 19.John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962 39 20. Richard Nixon, War in Vietnam, 1969 39 21.Ronald Reagan, Strike against Libya, 1986 40 22.George W. Bush, War on Terror, September 20, 2001 40 23.Barack Obama, Civil War in Libya, 2011 41 6.Speech Analyses 43 24.Lincoln’s Speech 43 25.McKinley’s speech 48 26.Wilson’s speech 53 27.Roosevelt’s speech 58 28.Truman’s speech 61 29. Kennedy’s speech 66 30. Nixon’s speech 72 31.Reagan’s speech 78 32.Bush’s speech 83 33.Obama’s speech 88 7.General Comparison 93 34. Lincoln versus Bush 94 35. McKinley versus Kennedy 96 36. Wilson versus Roosevelt 98 37.Truman versus Nixon 99 38. Reagan versus Obama 101 39. Final comparison 103 8. Analysis 104 9.Conclusion 106 10. Appendix 1 – Corpus Speeches 111 Introduction “War should never be entered upon until every agency of peace has failed; peace is preferable to war in almost every contingency.” William McKinley, March 4, 1897
During a time of crisis when everybody is overwhelmed with disbelief, shocked by images on television and unable to make sense of what has happened, it is the political leader whose job it is to calm, reassure and motivate the citizenry, while at the same time providing solutions. It is fascinating to listen to these powerful people speak, in various tones, confidently announcing plans and goals as if everything were under control and there were no reasons to worry. I enjoy reading and listening to political speeches, judging their credibility and dissecting the language utilized. Comparing speeches of politicians from different countries is also instructive. American presidents, presumably, are especially worth studying, as they embody confidence and power. Yet, I could not help but take note of British comedian Eddie Izzard's assertion in Dressed to Kill (1999) that in public speaking, it is 10 percent what you say and 90 percent how you say it. My question then became, is it just the delivery that counts, or do meaning and structure also matter? Was it Kennedy's confidence, good looks, and delivery that won him followers, or were his words of heavier weight? Is it simply the power of the office that compels people to take heed, or have the American presidents also managed to achieve high linguistic and philosophical standards while communicating in a sophisticated way? These are the questions that came to interest me. I keep in touch with current trends and developments in the language of politics in general, and so when the time came to choose the topic for my diploma thesis, it was relatively easy to decide that I wanted to work with political discourse. This thesis is also a loose continuation of my bachelor's thesis, which left me with more questions than answers but which also provided me with a much appreciated starting point.
This thesis will analyze ten speeches of American presidents given on the occasion of declaring war or during a state of crisis due to imminent danger. The analysis will include syntactic, semantic and pragmatic levels with special emphasis on the features of political discourse, also taking into consideration the impact of mass media, e.g. newspaper, radio, television and the social networks Facebook and Twitter. Based on the findings from a comparison of the speeches, language trends and diachronic developments will be identified, including the possible impact of the media or other elements.
English novelist John Fowles summarized the complexity of the meaning of a word into one simple phrase when he wrote that, in language, “so much depends on the angle at which it is held.” (p. 460) The goal of this thesis will be to find just the right angle in order to objectively analyze the corpus from a linguistic point of view. The basic notion is that “politicians merely use speech to inform and share facts and data with the audience, but… the language itself [becomes] part of events, strongly shaping their meaning.” (Wilson, p. 15) As will be demonstrated in the practical part of this thesis, political discourse, or any discourse for that matter, consists of more than just lexemes held together by grammatical structures. This thesis will uncover tools and elements that speakers use in order to “gain the people’s allegiance, to have them believe that the decisions that are being made are the right ones.” (Wilson, p. 50) As society has evolved, so have the cultural, political and social standards and expectations speakers have had to consider when employing linguistic tools in their discourse. These diachronic changes in language, including the impact of mass media, such as newspaper, radio, television or social networks, demonstrate a gradual shift in focus in audience versus language. Inevitably, these changes have influenced the level of “human cognitive ability to engage in free critique and criticism,” which according to Chilton is one of the three leading principles behind the connection between language and politics. (p. 29) With changes in “cognitive endowments of the human mind” came shifts in politics and its focus and as an extent, in its discourse as well. (Chilton, p.29) While the more recent presidential speeches are less impressive from a grammatical level, they are more elaborate in terms of lexical and pragmatic elements, focusing less on the message itself and more on the audience and its reaction to the message. Indeed, Lim confirms that “modern presidents have become rhetorically very different from their forebears.” (p. 332) Benjamin adds that “the rhetor cannot resolve the issue by himself; he must produce discourse such that the audience is moved to resolve the problem.” (p. 73) As the standards of ‘moving the audience’ changed, so has the discourse. Simply, how the audience perceives the message came to matter more than what is being said. Closely connected to the audience perception topic is the “role of language in the creation and maintenance of political and social ideologies.” (Wilson, p. 12) Any ideological analysis is rather a complex task, more suitable for a political science thesis, and will therefore only be referred to and not evaluated.
In order to provide an objective environment for comparison and analysis, all ten speeches were composed on the occasion of declaring a war or announcing a state of crisis due to imminent danger. All presidents shared the same linguistic field (political announcement), the same linguistic tenor (president communicating with his citizens) and a quite similar mode (formal, spoken discourse, with the exception of McKinley). Also, the politicians had the same task, which was to announce unpleasant news to American citizens that their country was either on the verge of war or already at war. The following speeches were chosen:
The speeches span over 150 years, are separated, with the exception of Lincoln and Kennedy, by approximately 10-20 years, and offer an equal mix of five Republican and five Democratic presidents. Two delivered their speech directly to Congress, one wrote a letter, two spoke over the radio, while five made use of television. Obama also utilized the social networks Facebook and Twitter.
Each speech will be analyzed on a syntactic, semantic and pragmatic level with a particular emphasis on features of political speeches. These features are: use of pronouns, metaphors, repetition, analogy, etc., discussed in detail in each chapter. The key element of the analysis is to “uncover the rhetorical techniques used by politicians to create and manipulate a specific view of the word,” with respect to discourse analysis as such. (Wilson, p. 10) The aim of the methods used is not only to describe the vocabulary chosen, metaphors found, or pronouns used, but to also demonstrate a gradual shift from the focus on the message to the focus on the audience and its perception of the message. Such methods will require critical discourse analysis (CDA) later described in detail in the Stylistic level in the chapter on Pragmatics. All ten speeches will be compared and contrasted, showing statistical differences in tables and graphs, some of them generated by the software tool WordSmith. This software will be used to analyze text files of all the speeches, providing the following information: word count, word frequency and sentence length. Some of these results will also be placed into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet to produce charts and graphs for better visual support. Theoretical Part Prior to venturing out into the world of discourse analysis of speeches, the following chapters will describe the applicable theories and rules, according to linguists, which will later be employed in the practical part. Chilton and Schaffner suggest that “an analyst of political discourse needs to refer to pragmatics (interaction amongst speakers and hearers), semantics (meaning, structure of lexicon) and syntax (the internal organization of sentences).” (p. 218) Similarly, the theoretical part of this thesis will be split into three main sections, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic chapters, each with several sub-sections. It is true that some sub-sections might seem to possibly belong to a different chapter. For example, the analysis of emotive expressions or the presence of binary conceptualizations is dealt with under the lexical analysis chapter, since it deals with words and vocabulary in general. That said, all the above mentioned sub-sections could also belong under the pragmatic analysis umbrella as they could very well fit into the concept of pragmatic discourse. This sort of overlap might occur in other chapters as well, simply for the sake of better organization of the analysis.
Download 0.63 Mb. Share with your friends:
|