Luận án Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán các cuộc tranh luận bầu cử Tổng thống Mỹ năm 2016

Nội dung text: Luận án Phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán các cuộc tranh luận bầu cử Tổng thống Mỹ năm 2016

1. A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF 2016 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION DEBATES PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN CÁC CUỘC TRANH LUẬN BẦU CỬ TỔNG THỐNG MỸ NĂM 2016 1
2. ABSTRACT This PhD thesis presents a comprehensive critical discourse analysis of the 2016 American Presidential Election debates, aiming to uncover the underlying discursive strategies, linguistic patterns, and ideological implications employed by the candidates. The study explores the ways in which language is strategically used to construct political identities, shape public opinion, and influence the socio-political landscape during a significant electoral event. Drawing upon the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the thesis examines the presidential debates as a rich source of linguistic data, analyzing verbal communication to uncover the discursive mechanisms employed by the candidates. By employing a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, this research investigates the rhetorical devices, argumentation strategies, and discursive power dynamics utilized by the candidates to persuade and mobilize voters. The thesis begins by providing a theoretical foundation of CDA, highlighting its relevance to the study of political discourse. It then presents a thorough review of existing literature on discourse analysis, political communication, and election debates, setting the context for the analysis. The analysis of the 2016 American Presidential Election debates reveals various discursive strategies employed by the candidates, including framing, polarization, use of metaphors, and persuasive appeals. The study uncovers how the candidates construct their political identities, establish positions of power, and negotiate their public image through language. Additionally, it examines the ways in which linguistic choices reflect and perpetuate ideological stances, party affiliations, and social values. Furthermore, the thesis discusses the impact of the debates on public opinion formation, highlighting the role of language in shaping the electorate's perceptions and attitudes. It also sheds light on the influence of media framing and the interaction between political rhetoric and mass media in the context of the election debates. The findings of this thesis contribute to the understanding of the intricate relationship between language, politics, and power. By critically examining the discursive practices employed in the 2016 American Presidential Election debates, this research enhances our knowledge of the persuasive 2
3. techniques utilized by political candidates and their implications for democratic discourse and decision-making processes. Keywords: Critical Discourse Analysis, American Presidential Election Debates, Political Discourse, Discourse strategies, Ideologies, Attitudes, Appraisal theory. 3
4. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................1 1.1. Rationale of the study ................................................................................................1 1.2. Research aims and objectives ....................................................................................2 1.3. Research questions.....................................................................................................3 1.4. Scope of the study......................................................................................................4 1.5. Methods of the study..................................................................................................4 1.6. Significance of the study............................................................................................6 1.7. Structure of the study .. .. .. ..... 7 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ..........................................................................9 2.1. Basic notions in the thesis........................................................................................10 2.2. An Overview of Critical Discourse Analysis...........................................................12 2.2.1. What is Crititical Discourse Analysis? ................................................................13 2.2.2. Purposes of CDA ..................................................................................................14 2.2.3. Principles of CDA.................................................................................................15 2.2.4. Fairclough’s Model of Analysis............................................................................16 2.2.5. Discourse Strategies..............................................................................................20 2.3. An Overview of Appraisal Theory...........................................................................29 2.3.1. What is Appraisal Theory? ...................................................................................30 2.3.2. Appraisal Framework............................................................................................31 2.4. The Previous Studies................................................................................................50 2.5. The Research Framework ........................................................................................51 4
5. 2.5.1. The Attitude in Appraisal Theory .........................................................................51 2.5.2. Ideology ................................................................................................................55 2.5.3. Attitude and Ideology............................................................................................61 2.5.4. Conclusion ............................................................................................................63 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................65 3.1. Political Discourses.................................................................................................65 3.2. Debates.....................................................................................................................65 3.3. American Presidential Election Debates.............................................................. 67 3.3.1. Donald Trump......................................................................................................68 3.3.2. Hillary Clinton .....................................................................................................68 3.4. The nature of research in Linguistics.......................................................................69 3.5. Methodology for the research ..................................................................................72 CHAPTER 4: DONALD TRUMP AND HILLARY CLINTON’S IDEOLOGIES AND LINGUISTIC MANIFESTATIONS IN THE 2016 AMERICAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES THROUGH FAIRCLOUGH’S 3-DIMENSIONAL FRAMEWORK ..................................................................................................................83 4.1. Donald Trump’s language strategies........................................................................84 4.1.1. Plain language.......................................................................................................84 4.1.2. Repetition..............................................................................................................87 4.1.3. Emotive language..................................................................................................89 4.1.4. Anti-Establishment Rhetoric.................................................................................92 4.1.5. Attack and Defend language.................................................................................96 4. 1.6. Simplification of complex issues .......................................................................100 5
6. 4.1.7. Appeals to nationalism and patriotism................................................................103 4.2. Hillary Clinton’s language strategies.....................................................................105 4.2.1. Policy Emphasis..................................................................................................106 4.2.2. Use of Evidence and Facts..................................................................................109 4.2.3. Personal Narratives .............................................................................................111 4.2.4. Addressing Gender and Equality ........................................................................113 4.2.5. Attacks on Opponent's Qualifications.................................................................115 4.2.6. Repetition for emphasis ......................................................................................116 4.2.7. Adaptation to audience........................................................................................118 4.2.8. Staying calm and composed................................................................................120 4.2.9. Use of humor.......................................................................................................121 4.2.10. Appeals to Unity ...............................................................................................123 4.3. Conclusion .............................................................................................................125 CHAPTER 5: DONALD TRUMP AND HILLARY CLINTON’S ATTITUDES AND LINGUISTIC MANIFESTATIONS THROUGH THE APPRAISAL THEORY...........127 5.1. Positive Affect Dominance ....................................................................................130 5.2. Judgemental Lean Towards Negativity..................................................................139 5.3. Appreciation Language Emphasis .........................................................................140 5.4. The variances and similarities in the political discourse of Trump and Clinton....145 5.5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................147 6
7. CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION.........................................................................................151 7
8. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 1. CDA: Critical Discourse Analysis 8
9. LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES Figure 1: Fairclough’s dimensions of discourse and discourse analysis .............22 Figure 2: Language strate.....................................................................................32 Figure 3: An overview of appraisal resources .....................................................34 Figure 4: The analytical framework.....................................................................62 Table 1. Affect – un/happiness ............................................................................42 Table 2. Affect – in/security ................................................................................43 Table 3. Affect – dis/satisfaction .........................................................................44 Table 4. Judgement – social esteem.....................................................................46 Table 5. Judgement – social sanction...................................................................48 Table 6. Types of appreciation.............................................................................49 Table 7. The first debate ...................................................................................122 Table 8. The second debate................................................................................122 Table 9. The third debate ...................................................................................122 Table 10. Some examples in the debates ...........................................................126 Table 11. Some examples in the debates ...........................................................129 Table 12. Some examples in the debates ...........................................................131 Table 13. Some examples in the debates ...........................................................133 Table 14. Some examples in the debates ...........................................................135 9
10. CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1.1. Rationale of the study The 2016 American Presidential Election was a highly contested and controversial event that drew significant attention from both domestic and international audiences. One of the most critical aspects of the election was the series of presidential debates between the two major candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The debates were marked by numerous instances of heated rhetoric, personal attacks, and controversial statements that garnered significant media coverage and public scrutiny. This thesis will undertake a critical discourse analysis of the 2016 American Presidential Election debates to explore the language, power dynamics, and ideologies that underpinned the discourse of the candidates. Specifically, it will examine how the candidates used language to construct their political identities, mobilize support, and discredit their opponents. By analyzing the debates through the lens of critical discourse analysis, this study aims to provide insights into the complex political and social dynamics that shaped the 2016 American Presidential Election. American presidential election debates have not only drawn attention and controversy in the United States – they have been the most followed and closely watched across the globe. From the first general presidential debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon held in 1960, the whole world watches with excitement to see who becomes the new president of the superpower that is America. The 2016 U.S. presidential election debates were a series of discussions organized for the general election that year. These debates, arranged by the Commission on Presidential Debates—a bipartisan organization established in 1987—included three major events featuring the leading presidential candidates. The first debate took place on September 26, 2016, setting a record as the most-watched debate in American history. The second debate occurred on October 9, followed by the final one on October 19. Only the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, qualified to participate in these debates. In scientific opinion polls of likely voters, Hillary Clinton was generally viewed as the winner of all three debates. Nevertheless, 10
11. Donald Trump won the presidential election on November 8th. (Wikipedia, 2017). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a powerful tool for analyzing language because it takes into account the social, cultural, and political contexts in which language is used (Van Dijk, 1985; Fairclough, 1989; and Wodak and Meyer, 2001). Unlike other approaches to language analysis that focus solely on the formal features of language, CDA is concerned with how language is used to construct power relations, social identities, and speakers' ideologies. One of the main strengths of CDA is its focus on the relationship between language and power. CDA is particularly useful for analyzing language in contexts where power is unequally distributed, such as in politics, media, and academia. Another strength of CDA is its ability to reveal the ideological dimensions of language. CDA recognizes that language is not neutral but rather reflects the values, beliefs, and interests of those who use it. By examining how language is used to construct power relations, CDA can reveal the hidden assumptions and biases that underlie discourse (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1992; van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1995; Gee, 2014). For these reasons, the author has chosen CDA as a tool for language analysis in this thesis. 11
12. 1.2. Research aim and objectives The aim of this research is to analyze the debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 American presidential election to understand their ideologies, attitudes, and discourse strategies. The first objective is to investigate the ideologies represented by the two presidential candidates and how these ideologies are linguistically manifested in their speeches. This will help uncover the underlying beliefs, values, and perspectives that influenced their political platforms and campaign strategies. Secondly, the research aims to examine the attitudes of Clinton and Trump towards social issues, their opponent, and themselves, and how these attitudes are linguistically expressed in their speeches. Finally, the research will explore the differences in rhetorical styles and linguistic choices between Clinton and Trump, analyzing how these elements are used to express their respective ideologies and attitudes, and how they influence public perceptions and reactions to their messages. 1.3. Research questions To achieve these goals, the following research questions should be answered: • What ideologies do Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represent and how are they linguistically manifested in their speeches? • What attitudes (towards social issues, their opponent and themselves) they represent and how are they linguistically manifested in their speeches? • How do the rhetorical styles and linguistic choices of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton differ in expressing their respective ideologies and attitudes? The first research question delves into the exploration of the ideologies represented by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in their speeches. It seeks to uncover the underlying principles, beliefs, and values that these political figures convey through their language. By examining the linguistic manifestations in their speeches, researchers aim to discern the core ideologies that shape their political narratives. The second research question focuses on the attitudes expressed by both candidates, encompassing their stances on social issues, perceptions of their 12
13. opponents, and self-representation. Through linguistic analysis, this inquiry aims to uncover the nuances in their expressions, shedding light on the emotional and evaluative aspects embedded in their speeches. Understanding how attitudes are linguistically manifested provides insights into the candidates' perspectives and strategies for addressing various aspects of their political discourse. The third research question aims to discern the differences in the rhetorical styles and linguistic choices employed by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. This comparison seeks to identify distinct patterns in how each candidate articulates their ideologies and attitudes. Analyzing their rhetorical strategies provides a comprehensive understanding of how linguistic elements contribute to the overall communication styles of these political figures, thereby influencing their public image and reception. 1.4. Scope of the study The scope of the thesis is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the discourse within the 2016 American presidential election debates. The study focuses on examining the ideologies and attitudes of the two main candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the primary research framework. Specifically, the analysis will employ Fairclough's 3D model and the Appraisal theory by Martin & White to uncover the underlying linguistic, ideological, and attitudinal dimensions of the candidates' discourse. The study will meticulously examine the language used by Trump and Clinton, exploring their linguistic choices, and rhetorical devices. It aims to identify the ideologies embedded in their discourse, reflecting their political beliefs, values, and stances on key issues such as immigration, healthcare, and the economy. Using the Appraisal theory, the research will investigate their attitudes and evaluative language on various topics, providing insights into how they express opinions, viewpoints, and emotional stances. A comparative analysis will highlight contrasts and commonalities in their discourse strategies, ideologies, and attitudes, shedding light on how they presented their political identities and influenced public opinion. Additionally, the research will explore the historical and political context of 13
14. the debates to understand why certain discourse strategies and rhetoric were employed. Throughout the study, ethical principles of fairness, accuracy, and impartiality will be upheld. The scope extends beyond textual analysis to reveal broader implications of the discourse, including its influence on voter decisions and the construction of political identities, aiming to contribute to a better understanding of the complexities of election campaigns and their impact on public opinion. Data will be collected based on theoretical frameworks, with each debate analyzed to identify relevant data, and all fitting data will be filtered and analyzed. 1.5. Methods of the study The methodology of this study integrates several research frameworks, combining both qualitative and quantitative elements to provide a comprehensive analysis of the 2016 American presidential election debates. Specifically, it incorporates content analysis, Fairclough’s 3D Model in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and Appraisal Theory. First, Content Analysis is employed by thoroughly reading the debate transcripts to identify and categorize the specific language strategies used by the candidates. This foundational step ensures that the subsequent analyses are based on accurately identified linguistic features. Next, Fairclough’s 3D Model is used to group and analyze these identified language strategies. This model involves three levels of analysis: Textual Analysis examines the specific words, phrases, and linguistic features in the debate transcripts. Discursive Practice considers how the language is produced and consumed, taking into account the context of the debates and the reactions from the audience and media. Social Practice analyzes the broader socio-cultural and political context to understand the underlying ideologies reflected in the language used. 14
15. The findings from Fairclough’s 3D Model analysis are then utilized in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to explore how these language strategies reflect and reinforce certain ideologies. This step provides a deeper understanding of the power dynamics and ideological constructs embedded in the discourse. Furthermore, Appraisal Theory is applied to select and analyze specific words and phrases according to the Appraisal system, which helps determine the attitudes expressed by the candidates. This includes examining affect (emotions), judgment (ethics), and appreciation (aesthetics), offering insights into the evaluative language used during the debates. By combining these methodologies, this approach not only identifies and categorizes language strategies but also interprets their ideological significance and the attitudes they convey. This multifaceted analysis facilitates a thorough understanding of the rhetorical techniques employed by the candidates and their broader implications in the context of the election debates. 1.6. Significance of the study The present research holds considerable theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, this study investigates the discourse of two pivotal figures in the 2016 American presidential election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, seeking to understand and analyze their ideologies, attitudes, and linguistic features. By unraveling the linguistic manifestations of ideologies and attitudes, the research contributes to a deeper comprehension of political communication and enriches the academic field of critical discourse analysis. It applies methodologies from Fairclough’s 3D model and the Appraisal theory by Martin & White to a significant real-world context, offering a robust framework for future discourse analysis studies. Practically, the research investigates the underlying beliefs, values, and perspectives that influenced the candidates' political platforms and campaign strategies, shedding light on how political ideologies and attitudes shape the political landscape. The findings have the potential to inform the general public on the impact of these factors 15
16. on decision-making, and political understanding. By analyzing the linguistic features and devices used by Clinton and Trump during the presidential debates and their effects, the study explores how language strategies and other linguistic devices influenced public perceptions and reactions. This insight is invaluable for understanding how political discourses shape public opinion, influence voting behavior, and impact social and political dynamics beyond the election. Additionally, the research aims to investigate the role of language in Donald Trump's victory, specifically determining whether Trump's use of rhetoric contributed to his success and what this reveals about his ambitions and ideology. Through the analysis of Trump's language use, the study sheds light on the ideological dimensions of political discourse and their impact on electoral outcomes. This contributes to a better understanding of the role of language in shaping social and political realities. Furthermore, this research offers a practical demonstration of how discourse analysis can be a powerful tool for understanding and dissecting political communication, applicable to various political contexts and debates. It not only sheds light on the 2016 American presidential election but also contributes to the broader understanding of political discourse's role in shaping political landscapes and public opinion. By using the Appraisal system to analyze and clarify the candidates' attitudes and party views, the thesis provides a valuable contribution to the field of discourse analysis and political science. The application of Appraisal Theory, which is not yet popular in discourse analysis in Vietnam, represents a theoretical advancement. If successful, it will assert the soundness of using the Appraisal system to uncover speaker ideologies through their lexical choices. 1.7. Structure of the study This thesis is divided into six chapters as follows: Chapter 1: Introduction Chapter 2: Literature review Chapter 3: Research methodology 16
17. Chapter 4: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s ideologies and linguistic manifestations in the 2016 American presidential debates through Fairclough’’s 3-dimensional framework Chapter 5: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s attitudes and linguistic manifestations through the appraisal theory. Chapter 6: Conclusion This thesis is structured into six chapters to provide a comprehensive analysis of the discourse within the 2016 American presidential election debates. Chapter 1 introduces the study, outlining its aims, significance, and scope. Chapter 2 offers a literature review, surveying relevant research and theoretical frameworks in critical discourse analysis and political communication. Chapter 3 details the research methodology, explaining the data collection and analysis methods used. Chapter 4 focuses on analyzing Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s ideologies and their linguistic manifestations using Fairclough’s 3- dimensional framework. Chapter 5 examines their attitudes and linguistic expressions through the Appraisal theory. Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the thesis, summarizing the findings and discussing their implications for political discourse analysis. 17
18. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW The literature review chapter provides an overview of existing research in Vietnam and globally that employs the Appraisal theory and Fairclough's 3D framework for discourse analysis, as well as the theoretical background and framework for this study. In Vietnam, studies such as Nguyễn Văn Đoàn's (2017) exploration of political speeches and Trần Thị Thu Hà's (2018) analysis of media discourse have utilized the Appraisal theory to examine evaluative language and attitudes. Globally, Martin and White's foundational work (2005) on the Appraisal framework has been extensively applied, including in studies like Bednarek's (2008) investigation of media texts and Hommerberg's (2011) analysis of literary reviews. Fairclough's 3D framework has also been widely adopted, with research in Vietnam such as Phạm Thị Hạnh's (2016) study on educational policies and Trương Minh Hằng's (2019) work on environmental discourse. Internationally, Fairclough's framework has been applied in a multitude of contexts, including Wodak's (2001) critical analysis of political discourse and Chouliaraki's (2006) examination of media narratives. While numerous studies have utilized the Appraisal theory to analyze evaluative language and the 3D framework to explore discourse strategies, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding the combined use of these two frameworks. This research aims to address this gap by integrating the Appraisal theory, which focuses on lexical choices, with Fairclough’s 3D framework, which emphasizes discourse strategies. The combination of these analytical approaches promises a more comprehensive understanding of the language used in the 2016 American presidential election debates. By leveraging both the lexical insights provided by the Appraisal theory and the strategic analysis afforded by the 3D framework, this study seeks to offer a nuanced exploration of 18
19. the ideologies, attitudes, and rhetorical techniques of the candidates, thereby contributing a novel perspective to the field of political discourse analysis. 2.1. Basic notions in the thesis Critical The term "critical" in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) refers to the approach's emphasis on analyzing discourse from a critical perspective, with the goal of uncovering and challenging power relations and social inequalities (Fairclough, 2001). CDA recognizes that language is not neutral but rather shaped by power relations and social contexts. The language we use reflects and reproduces power relations in society, and can be used to legitimize and perpetuate dominant ideologies, while marginalizing and silencing alternative perspectives (Fairclough, 2001). Thus, the "critical" in CDA emphasizes the need to analyze discourse from a critical and social justice perspective. This involves questioning and challenging the power relations and social inequalities that are reflected in language and discourse, and promoting alternative, more inclusive and equitable ways of thinking and communicating. (Fairclough, 2001). In CDA, critical analysis also involves identifying and challenging the ways in which language can be used to construct and reproduce social hierarchies and power relations. For example, CDA might examine the ways in which political leaders use language to justify policies that benefit certain groups while marginalizing others or persuade listeners. (van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1995; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2001) In summary, the "critical" in Critical Discourse Analysis refers to the approach's emphasis on analyzing discourse from a critical and social justice perspective, with the goal of uncovering and challenging power relations and social inequalities. Discourse 19
20. Discourse refers to a form of communication or a way of talking about and discussing a particular topic, idea, or subject matter. Discourse can take various forms, including spoken or written language, visual representations, and even non-verbal communication (Fairclough, 1992, 1995; Trung H.N., 2...). It is a fundamental concept in linguistics, communication studies, and social sciences, and it plays a crucial role in understanding how language and communication work in different contexts. Discourse analysis, on the other hand, is a research method and approach used to study and understand the structure, patterns, and functions of discourse in different contexts (Paltridge, 2012; Gee, 2014). It involves examining the way language and communication are used to convey meaning, shape social interactions, and reflect power dynamics. Discourse analysis can be applied to various types of texts or communicative acts, such as conversations, interviews, written documents, speeches, advertisements, and more. In short, discourse includes all forms such as utterance, written-spoken language, and elements that contribute to creating meaning for a communication/transmission- reception of information. Discourse analysis is the process of finding out all the meanings of that discourse. Power Power is a common thread running through the different approaches to CDA. Power can be defined as the ability to influence or control the behavior of others, often through the use of force, coercion, or manipulation. Power can manifest in various forms, including political, economic, social, and cultural power, and it can be exercised by individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions (Van Dijk, 1993). Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) recognizes that power relations are inherently embedded within language and discourse. Language is not just a means of communication, but is also a tool for the exercise of power, as it can be used to shape perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals and groups. Therefore, CDA aims 20