2012 Victory Speech of Barack Obama - Essay Example

?Critical Dis Analysis and van Dijk: Analysing Barack Obama’s Victory Speech Introduction Teun van Dijk (1993) is interested in how discourse affects power and dominance. As discourse can be used to reproduce or challenge dominance, this is where van Dijk’s interest lies. The elites of society – such as those in power, and wielding power through institutions and groups – may become dominant, to the point that they are oppressing lesser groups. This results in social inequality (Bernstein, 1971). This inequality and oppression may be the elite groups oppressing groups who belong to different political, ethnic, cultural, class and racial groups. It may also result in oppression of groups based upon gender (Clegg, 1975). Van Dijk (2006) also states that much of what goes into discourse is an attempt to manipulate the audience. Therefore, the central crux of the CDA is how words and discourse is used to control different groups. They must work to change the minds of others, so that these groups’ minds and thoughts are more in line with the groups in power (van Dijk, 2003). van Dijk (2006) looks at the context of speech, as well as examine the discrete parts of the speech for a linguistic analysis, including grammar, style, pragmatism, etc. Included are examinations of sociopolitical contexts, as well as look at how a speech is used to manipulate other groups (Furnham, 1981). Van Dijk (1995) is also interested in how discourses advance ideology. According to van Dijk (1995), ideologies are cognitive, social, sociocognitive, are not true or false, have varying degrees of complexity, have variable maifestations, and are general or abstract. By stating that ideologies are cognitive, van Dijk (1995) states that ideologies are individualistic, which means that the individual has a system of ideas, thoughts, beliefs, judgments and values. An analysis of discourse Van Dijk (1978) further breaks down how discourse should be analysed. He states that there are semantic structures that can be examined to indicate how the speech is being used, and what the goal is, the ideology, and so forth. Speech may be analysed in this way at the microstructure level, or the macrostructure level. The microstructure level is the level that analyses the local level of discourse – the structure of the individual propositions and the relations. The macrostructure is the level that analyses the more global nature of the speech - the discourse itself would fit into a theme, so that the discourse may be seen as a part of a meaningful whole(Clark, 1977). Van Dijk (1978) states that a coherent text base is made up of propositions. The proposition is a concept and an argument. The argument may fulfill different functions, such as agent, object and goal of the speech. The text bases must be coherent. One type of coherence is the referential coherence. This is coherence between two propositions that share the same argument, or maybe referentially coherent because one argument is embedded with another argument. There needs to be some kind of argument overlap between all the concepts of the text, for the text to be further processed. If there are gaps, then inference processes may close them – in other words, not everything has to be said. Some things can be inferred. If there are gaps, then one or more propositions must be added to the base of the text, in order for it to achieve coherence. The other concept advanced by van Dijk (1978) is that of the processing cycle. The human memory can only digest speeches and discourse in chunks of information. Therefore, the chunks must all fit together. The chunks are several propositions. Each of the chunks should link with the other ones that were processed. The chunks are stored in the memory, and only those which are stored in the memory can be used to connect other chunks of information. As long as there is some kind of overlap between the chunks of information, then the text will be interpreted as coherent by the listener. If the proposition shares an argument with another proposition in the input set, then this set is thus accepted and this means that the listener may continue processing. If this is not the case, then there is further inference processing, which means that there are one or more propositions which are inferred, and these propositions connect the incoming propositions with the previous ones. Barack Obama’s 2012 Victory Speech The speech was televised on the night that Barack Obama won his re-election for President of the United States, November 6, 2012. Therefore, the publication of the speech would be the television, then the text of the speech was captured by various search engines and publications on the Internet, and the particular site that this speech was from was from the CNN Website (CNN.com). The genre of the ST is a speech. The status of the ST in the receiving situation is that it is the spoken word, therefore the audience is hearing these words, as opposed to reading them. What is going on in this text is that Barack Obama had just earned re-election, therefore, after the race was called for Obama, and Mitt Romney called Obama to concede, Obama addressed his supporters, and these are the words that he said to his supporters. What the speech is about is that Obama wants to remind his audience that the road is going to long and difficult, but, with the sacrifices that he is ready to make, and he is asking the audience to make, we can go forward in this country. The topic of the speech is, basically, thanking his supporters for voting for him, and for organizing for him, and to show that politics can be lofty and about larger goals, as opposed to being about smaller goals. Because politics can sometimes seem small, and Obama acknowledges this in the speech. The structure of the speech is based upon van Djik’s concept of propositions that are put into digestible chunks. Each of the propositions are aligned with the ones that come after it and before it, and each of the chunks are related to the previous chunks and the chunks that come after it. For instance, the first chunk consists of the the propositions that the union is moving forward because of the supporters. The next proposition in this chunk is the idea that the country has been through a lot over the years, but the country has always been resilient and able to overcome depressions and wars. The next proposition is that the country’s future is bright, and the best is yet to come, because of the resilience of the American people. This would be considered the first chunk of information, because all of these propositions are related to one another – they all are reassuring to the American people that the country is moving forward, and the future is bright, despite the last few years seeming like a depression. The next chunk is the propositions that are related to one another, and that is that the American people have had their voices heard. The first proposition in this chunk is that he wanted to thank the Americans who braved long lines to vote. The next proposition is that he wanted to thank the Americans who have pounded the pavement for him or did phone-banking for him. The next proposition is the notion that, whether the people of America held up a Romney sign or an Obama sign, they made a difference. The theme of this chunk of information is that the people of America had their voices heard. It is related to the previous chunk of information, in that both of these chunks are acknowledging the people in some way - the first chunk states that the resilience of the people are what make this country strong, the second chunk states that the voice of the people are heard by political participation. This makes the speech coherent thus far. Further, all of the propositions are related to one another in both chunks – they all share the same argument. The next chunk of the speech pivots somewhat, however, it is linked to the previous chunk by the overlapping proposition that leads into this chunk. The overlapping proposition is that some people held up Romney signs and some held up Obama signs. This proposition is also a part of the next chunk, so the speech is still coherent. The next chunk has to do with Romney and Ryan. He is praising them for their hard fought campaign in one proposition, then, in the next proposition, he justifies the sometimes ugly tone of the campaign by stating that they only fought the campaign so hard because both of them love this country so much. The proposition after this is that he is going to sit down to speak with Governor Romney, to see if they could work together on ideas on moving the country forward. This proposition also links up with the previous chunk that was at the very beginning of the speech, which is that the country is moving forward. Therefore, this chunk is related to the chunk before it by the overlapping proposition regarding people holding up Romney signs or Obama signs; and it is related to the first chunk by the reference to moving the country forward. This means that the speech, so far, has maintained it coherence according to the van Dijk (1978) principles of coherence, in that each proposition in each chunk are related, and each chunk are related to the earlier chunks. The next chunk has to do with Obama thanking the different people who support him. The first proposition is that he thanks Joe Biden, the “Happy Warrior.” The next proposition is that he thanks his wife, Michelle. He then thanks his children, Sash and Malia. This chunk is marginally related to the previous chunk, if one can make an implication, which is another of van Djik’s principles - if there is some kind of incoherence in the structure of the speech, then one can infer a proposition, which makes the speech coherent. In this case, the inference is that Obama, by stating that he is going to invite Romney over to talk about the future of the country, is using this proposition to implicitly thank Romney his service to the country, and to thank Romney for advancing the ideas that he has advanced. If this is inferred, then this is the proposition that overlaps one chunk with the next chunk, which makes the speech still perfectly coherent. The next chunk is Obama implicitly thanking his staff and campaign team. This chunk is related to the previous chunk, in that both of these chunks involve gratitude for the people who have helped him along the way. The first proposition in this chunk is that proposition that the campaign team is the best in the history of politics. The next proposition is that some of the staffers are new, and some have been around since the beginning of his political career. The next proposition is that they are his family, and that they have all made lifelong memories. The next proposition is his explicitly thanking them for their service. Again, this chunk is related to the previous chunk, in that both of these chunks are centered around gratitude. Therefore, the speech is still coherent under the van Dijk (1978) analysis. The speech then pivots a bit, although, implicitly, the next chunk of speech also deals with gratitude for volunteers of his campaign. Moreover, the next chunk also connects with the earlier chunk that talks about the volunteers and the people who have made their voices heard. Because the propositions in this chunk overlap with the propositions of at least two earlier chunks, the speech continues to maintain coherence. The first proposition starts out with the only incoherent proposition in the speech, in that it is not really related to any other parts of the speech,and that is that politics may seem petty and small. However, this proposition leads into the proposition that is linked with earlier parts of the speech, and is linked up with the ideas that follow, and that is that the people who volunteer and show up for speeches are working for the bigger ideas of the American dream – such as the proposition that the field organizer is working his way through college, in order to assure that his daughter has opportunity. The next proposition is that there is a volunteer who is going door to door because her brother was hired at an auto plant. The next proposition is about the patriotism of a military spouse who works the phones to make sure that nobody fights to have a roof over their head. This chunk links up with the earlier chunk that talks about the volunteers, and him thanking the volunteers. And, it leads into the very next proposition, which links back to the proposition that started this particular chunk – and that is that politics might seem small. This proposition is that these people are real reason why politics matter, which means that politics and ideas are big, not small. This begins the next chunk, and, since it is directly related to the earlier chunk about politics being small, this makes the speech continue to be coherent. This is an overlapping proposition, in that it overlaps with the beginning of the previous chunk. The rest of this chunk is the proposition that democracy is messy, and people will have different opinions, and there will continue to be controversies. The next proposition is that everybody having different opinions makes this democracy what it is. Again, this chunk links up with a previous chunk, which is that the people are resilient, and that different people voted for different leaders, but that they all share the common goal. Specifically, this section is related to the chunk where Obama acknowledges the Romney supporters who all had their voices heard. The next chunk begins with the overlapping proposition about the people having differences, which links it directly to the previous chunk. The next proposition is that everybody, despite all of our differences, has the same hope for America’s future – that kids may grow up with the best schools and teachers. The next proposition is that people want to live in a country that is the global leader in technology and innovation. The next proposition is that we want our children to grow up in a world unburdened by debt and inequality. The next proposition is that we all want to live in a world that is not threatened by climate change, is respected around the world, and values freedom. All of these propositions link together to form this chunk about the ideal world. It is connected to the previous chunk by the overlapping proposition about people having differences, yet the same dreams. It also links back to the very first chunk, which talks about people wanting the country to move forward – this chunk gives details about what it means to go forward. Therefore, since every chunk is related to every other chunk, and ever proposition within each chunk is related to one another, this speech would have coherence according to the van Dijk (1978) model. The audience for this would also have to do with van Dijk’s theory, in that this is a speech by the dominant person in the country, focusing his own ideologies upon the audience that this is geared for. This audience is the American people – and this means everybody, even the people who didn’t vote for him, or disagree with him. He makes it clear that he is not merely “preaching to the choir” – he wants to persuade everybody that he hears them, and realizes that they have the same dreams as his supporters. The source text was produced for the national audience who were interested in Obama’s victory speech, and this was who was supposed to view it. The function is to try to bring the people together, both people who supported him, and ones who did not. He wants to make sure that he is on everybody’s side and he wants to acknowledge everybody in his speech. That said, most of the speech did praise his supporters, both in his inner circle, and his volunteers throughout the nation. So, it also functioned as a kind of “thank you” speech. The speech was persuasive, in that the President acknowledges that everybody has the same dreams, and that he hears them, and he wants everybody to know that he is going to move the country forward. Because he uses vivid imagery to persuade – mentioning individual people who make this country great, and individual people who helped him with his vision – this imagery further serves to persuade. The linguistic devices he uses are exophora, which refers to a cohesion concept in which a word refers to a concept that is not in the text, but is known by the audience (Cutting, 2008). When he says “you” in the second proposition, he is using exophora, for the term “you” means not just his immediate audience in the building, but the audience watching from home, as well. Endophora, which is a term that refers back to another term (Hoey, 1991), is also used – he uses the term “every American,” then uses the term “you” in the sentence “whether you voted for the first time…” as an endophoric reference. He uses the term “you” in several more instances after this. He uses the term “we” endophorically to refer to himself and Romney, which he mentioned in the previous sentence – “we may have battled fiercely…” Metaphor is also used, in which one word is used in place of something else (McCarthy, 1994) – calling his staff “his family” is an example of this. Moreover, he repeatedly uses anaphoric phrases that illustrate what he means by volunteers who drove the campaign, in hopes that Obama can provide them with a better life – examples of this are the volunteer who goes door to door because he brother found a job, and the military spouse who works the phone so that everybody may have a roof over their head. He uses these anaphoric references to help to illustrate the point about the individuals who make the country great, and politics worth it. Conclusion Barack Obama’s speech was perfectly coherent, according to the van Dijk model. Every proposition in every chunk was related to every other proposition, and every chunk was related to one or more other chunks by the overlapping propositions or by reference to other propositions in earlier chunks. Moreover, while it was cohesive, Obama also used different linguistic devices to make his speech even more persuadable. Bibliography Clark, H. (1977) “Inferences in comprehension,” in LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. Basic Processes in Reading. Hilldale, NJ: Earlbaum. Clegg, S. (1975) Power, Rule and Domination: A Critical and Empirical Underswtanding of Power in Sociological Theory and Organizational Life. London: Routledge. Cutting, J. (2002) Pragmatics and Discourse: a resource book for students London: Routledge. Eisenberg, N., Reykowski, J. & Staub, E. (1989) Social and Moral Values: Individual and Societal Perspectives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Furnham, A. & Argyle, M. (1991) The Psychology of Social Situations. Oxford: Pergamom Press. Hoey, M. (1991) Patterns of Lexis in Text Oxford: Oxford University Press. LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S. Basic Processes in Reading. Hilldale, NJ: Earlbaum. McCarthy, M. and Carter, R. Language as Discourse: Perspectives for Language Teaching Harlow: Longman, 1994. Van Dijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1978) “Toward a model of text comprehension and production,” Psychological Review, vol. 85, no. 5, pp. 363-394. Van Dijk, T. (1992) “Discourse and the denial of racism,” Discourse and Society, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 87-118. Van Dijk, T. (1993) “Principles of discourse analysis,” Discourse and Society, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 249-283. Van Dijk, T. (1995) “Discourse semantics and ideology,” Discourse and Society, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 243-289. Van Dijk, T. (2006) “Discourse and manipulation,” in van Dijk, T. (2006) Discourse and Society. London: Sage Publications. Van Dijk, T. (2006) Discourse and Society. London: Sage Publications. Van Dijk, T. (2006) “Discourse, context and cognition,” Discourse Studies, vol. 8, pp. 159-172. Read More