Definitions and Types of Discourse
Before probing into political discourse, discourse analysis, and critical discourse
analysis at any depth, it is first necessary to understand what discourse consists of. Sindoni
(2013) mentioned that discourse is simply communication in written and spoken form. Some
discourse analysts have provided more detailed definitions of discourse regarding linguistic
aspects. For example, Fairclough (2001) argued that “besides commonly used in
communication between people, discourse involves larger linguistic units and issues of
linguistic performance in the scope of socialinguistics” (p. 53). Fairclough’s definition of
discourse implies that the field of discourse not only concerns the structure of words written
by writers or spoken sentences produced by speakers, but it also incorporates a much more
complex genre touching on the social aspects o linguistics in different cultures. Fairclough
(1992) explained extensively that “by communicating in linguistically competent speech, the
speaker places himself in a particular society with its cultural norms, values and symbols” (p.
54). Undoubtedly, the more cultural knowledge and experiences a speaker possesses, the
more likely he or she will be able to engage in discourse that is comprehensible and rich in
content.
After defining what discourse consists of, it is also necessary identify different types of
discourse. According to Chatman (1980), discourse can be categorized into four general
types: argument, narration, description, and exposition. The purpose of argumentative is to
convince a listener or an audience of the credibility of the speaker’s words based on
supporting evidence and solid reasoning. Narration discourse was another form of discourse
in which a speaker, usually while delivering a speech, relates a story, often emotional and
touching, to an audience. Description discourse involves detailed and vivid descriptions (e.g.,
of people, places, event, etc.) and often appeals to the listener’ five senses to help them better
imagine, or visualize a concept the speaker is trying to communicate. Finally, exposition
discourse is more informative in nature with the audience with aim of clearly explaining
information to an audience in smooth and neutral language. Unlike description discourse,
exposition discourse does not involve persuasion and does not aim to arouse emotion in the
audience.
Most political discourse, primarily contains narration and description discourse,
especially in political debates and political speeches. Political discourse, in terms of discourse
analysis, is generally considered speech uttered by politicians, as opposed to political talk among laypersons. As such, it is assumed to be the category of discourse that politicians are
skilled and buy which they are able to gain support to achieve their political goal via public
speaking. When politicians are under stress and display a lack of confidence in what they are
saying, the drop of support from the audience could be significant. It is through their rhetoric
and discourse styles that audiences are able to observe the wisdom in politicians, as they
work to enhance their credibility in the eyes of listeners through improved discourse. In this
way, politicians can gradually regain the confidence and support from audience. After briefly
defining discourse and political discourse, this chapter will review research studies that are
pertinent to the present study in the scope of discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis,
and related CDA theories proposed by well-known critical discourse scholars. The major
focus is on studies related to Fairclough’s (1992) CDA theory and 3D model as well as
references to the multidisciplinary approach proposed by Van Dijk (1993), and Wodak’s
(1995) historical approach.
Critical discourse analysis is arguably one of the most widely adopted approaches by
political students, language learners, and anyone investigating the linguistic features of political discourse. These research studies reviewed here involved political discourse related
theories within the paradigms of discourse analysis, as well as critical discourse analysis. The
construction of CDA approaches use specifically in analyzing political discourse are also addressed in terms of how they assist in identifying the most salient factors in political
language, power and ideologies. A discussion regarding critical discourse analysis via
Fairclough’s three-dimensional is provided along with a summary of the features of Trump
and Clinton’s political discourse can be interpreted in light of it. In doing so, my aim in this
chapter is to shed light on what politicians actually try to convey in political speeches and
summarize the factors that distinguish political discourse from other discourse genres.
Discourse and Discourse Analysis
The meaning of discourse in linguistics varies depending on interpretations how
different linguists interpret it. One of the most widely recognized was proposed by Fairclough
(2001), who stated that “discourse was like a key element that cannot be torn off from social
practice” (p. 23). That is to say, Fairclough views discourse as the usage of language in social
practice, and that regardless of the social contents, discourse can not be separated from social
factors. In accordance with this notion, Fairclough (2001) goes on to describe discourse as “a
difficult concept, largely because there are so many conflicting and overlapping definitions
formulated from various theoretical and disciplinary standpoints” (p. 3). He views discourse,
then, extended samples of spoken dialogue. Furthermore he does not see discourse analysis as
being limited by traditional linguistic elements, such as complete sentences or smaller
grammatical units. According to his point of view, discourse analysis focuses on higher-level
organizational properties of dialogue (e.g. turn-taking, the structures of conversation
openings and closings, etc.), or of a written text (e.g. the structure of a crime report in a
newspaper, etc.). Thus, Fairclough (2001) regards discourse as extended samples of both
spoken and written language.
In addition to an emphasis on higher-level organizational features, Fairclough (2001)
also pointed out that discourse highlights the interaction between speaker and listener or between writer and reader. Discourse is, therefore, regarded as a bilateral process that
involves producing speech or text on one hand, and interpreting it on the other. Fairclough
(1992) considers texts as one dimension of discourse, that is the written or spoken product resulting from the process of text production, which, in application, takes on forms of
language in different social situations. For example, classroom discourse in school focuses on
interaction between teachers and students, while medical discourse in hospitals focuses on interaction between doctors, nurses, patients, and so on. Political discourse uttered by
politicians in the contexts of political speeches and debate is aimed at persuading audiences,
announcing or promoting policies, and so on.
Critical Discourse Analysis
According to Fairclough (2001) in his book. Language and Power, the author views
discourse as the developing of a relationship of text to make the text as an outcome, and as a
necessity in the process of interpreting the discourse. The origin of CDA shares some features
of functional grammar proposed by Halliday (1994), who views the relationship between
language and power as a conflict stemming from all types of the discourses in genres such as
media, public speaking, and politics. Especially within the sphere of political discourse,
linguists have long argued about what it constitutes exactly and have proposed various
theories to make progress in this field in terms of clarifying the relationship among
domination, power and inequality within language, both by explicitly and implicitly
identifying these features in discourse. Nonetheless, CDA is indispensable in dealing with
social issues, especially when inequality and the abuse of power is evident in the discourse.
In studies focusing on DA and CDA, the history of discourse often plays an essential
role in the process of textual analysis. By discovering the history of discourse, analysts reveal
its discursive analysis that was intertextuality. Only through examining intertextuality in discourse are analysts able to investigate the source of the words in discourse and formulate
their perceptions of various forms of discourse based on their own or others’ theoretical
frameworks. Hence it was important for researchers interested in analyzing discourse to understand the relationship between words in sentences, and the reasons why speakers used
those specific word to reveal their thoughts, and stances toward certain events.
Fairclough (1992) further emphasized the importance of the text of CDA. That is, in
conducting critical discourse analysis, the researchers are required to break down the
meaning of essential texts in a selected discourse, so as to make the analytical process much
easier without the distraction of extraneous words potentially leading to inaccurate
interpretations or analysis. Only through this way, can researchers conduct textual analysis in
away that the interconnectedness of a text can be identified and the thinking processes of the
speakers as they relay their messages in subsequent sentences.
Van Dijk (1998a) reiterated the influence of textual analysis in CDA by arguing that
CDA is incomplete without conducting textual analysis and only by first doing analysis can
more in-depth analysis be done, including discursive analysis or social practice analysis from.
Van Dijk also pointed out the relevance of conducting explanatory analysis. He observed that
by analyzing such social factors as the time and background in which a discourse takes place,
researchers can detect the hidden components in the text, and through processes of the speaker. This also enables researchers to explain the discourse factors from the aspect of
social structures and reveal the roles that the text plays in social discourse.
Van Dijk went a step further in explaining the general framework of CDA which as it
relates to Fairclough’s (1992) emphasis on the relevance of text, intertextuality, and social
structure in discourse analysis. Especially in aspect of the social structure, a cultural-related
factor of CDA, Fairclough (1992), stresses the point that interaction enables the discourse of
the speaker to resonate with the audience. Fairclough took this perspective as the foundation
of his CDA theory, indicating that CDA is primarily about determining the origin and
analyzing the relationships in the texts of certain discourse events based on textual,
discursive, and explanatory analysis. In short, by breaking down texts in this way the power
of the ideology residing within can be seen through a detailed explanation of the reasons
(why), the ways (how), and the foundation (source) of the discourse. The reason Fairclough
took this three-prong approach in analyzing political discourse is that he views language as an
information carrying device in the context of social practice. As he stated in his book
Language and Power (2001), when applying any type of discourse, the process must take into
account not only the textual aspect, but also the production and social aspects embodied in
the discourse.
Fairclough (1992, 2001, 2003) developed his 3D theoretical framework theory starting from 1990s. Fairclough (1992) has depicted the interconnected relationships among these
three different dimensions in his model (see Figure 1).
Figure 1
3D Model of CDA. (Fairclough, 1992)
The first dimension of his 3D model is textual analysis, as noted above, the textual structure
of discourse. More specifically, this involves a detailed analysis of vocabulary item, grammar,
cohesion, and text structures. The primary purpose of conducting textual analysis is to gain a basic understanding of the fundamental structures of the textual aspects of the discourse to
lay the groundwork for the next analysis, discursive analysis. Discursive analysis, goes
deeper than textual analysis as it involves examining distribution and consumption of discourse. This level deals more with boarder organization of the discourse, as whether the
text is well constructed or not, and whether readers or audience can make inferences based on
the background of the discourse. It also deals with the inter-textuality, that is whether the concepts the speaker expresses resonate within the text of the discourse. The last one is social
analysis, the final stage in Fairclough's (1992) 3D model, it follows descriptive and discursive
analysis of the discourse, and is intended to determine the power relations in different people based upon their social and cultural backgrounds. The notion of power relations can be
symbolized in the expression “We”. In other words our current way of thinking (i.e.,
ideologies) developed from our past experience, and what we learn from those past experiences shape and represented who we are today. Thus a speaker’s ideologies are
reflected in his or her discourse reproduced, and it is in this phase of analysis that different
ideologies can be identified such as ideologies of feminism, and socialism, and so on. These
ideologies are then reflected in political discourse.
Van Dijk’s (1998b) multidisciplinary approach, also called the social cognitive approach,
takes social factors into consideration when analyzing the ideologies that resides within a text. This is another theoretical framework that can be applied in CDA. One reason why Van
Dijk (1993) argues that CDA is as an approach to study abusing of power and inequality were
that through CDA we could offer ways of shedding light on problems between various social circumstances. He stressed that the audience or reader must be informed about the ways in
which the texts are formed and only in that way can readers understand the underlying
reasons behind them. Fox example, if discourse contains statements that imply gender
inequality are stated no matter explicitly or implicitly,
Van Dijk (1993) suggests that by conducting discourse analysis, we can dive deeper into
the reasons as to why the speaker or writer chose in that particular discourse to utter such
statements and from what perspective. A depiction of this model can be seen in Figure 2.
Figure 2
Principles of critical discourse analysis. (Van Dijk, 1993)
Besides Fairclough’s (1992) and Van Dijk’s (1993) CDA approaches, another approach
to analyzing discourse is called discourse historical approach (DHA) proposed by Wodak
(1995). Similar to Van Dijk’s (1993) social cognitive approach, Wodak’s DHA is also an
inter-disciplinary approach but differs in some respects. Unlike Van Dijk’s approach, DHA
aims to discover the problems revealed in discourse, as it not only focuses on the linguistic
features of the discourse, but includes social factors such as the fieldwork necessary to detect
social factors residing in discourse under various cultures with different perspectives. DHA
requires researchers to check whether or not the data meet the requirements of the theoretical
framework. Last but not least, historical factors should be analyzed as well in DHA, as
certain types of discourse might contain various genres. Investigating these genres and the
inter-textual relationships among texts is necessary to reconstruct the historical background of
the discourse and analyzing it in regard to its historical context. Wodak’s (1995) DHA could
be taken as the main CDA approach in analyzing discourse when it is intertwined with
elements of other approaches to analyzing discourse. Doing so can yield findings that
incorporate historical, cultural, and social factors in discourse.
Political Speech and Political Ideology
The initial purpose of political speech was to persuade the public to believe that such an
ideal society could potentially exist. Political speeches are the instruments that leaders,
politicians in ancient Greece used to persuade their citizen to follow them in working to
construct their vision of an ideal society. Finlayson and Martin (2008) pointed out that
political speeches are argumentative in nature and that can empower the speaker to persuade
listeners through arguments, emotional appeals, or logic.
Ideology is another factor strongly embedded in political speech that makes this type of
discourse worth investigating, since ideology involves a wide range of ideas, especially
complex ideas related to social and political thought. McLellan (1995), a British scholar
specializing in analyzing Marxism, argued that ideology is a puzzling and ambiguous social
and psychological concept to grasp because its meaning in different branches of social
science is apt to alternate in different situations. That is the same basic ideology concept
tends to be interpreted differently beyond its fundamental meaning based upon a speaker’s
own experience and educational background. In light of this explanation of the variable
natures of ideology, it is an integrated component in political speeches.
Ideology of policy, or political ideology since it is a key factor in political speech, it is
necessary to analyze to see the essence of thoughts it represents, whereby a summary of reflection on the relationship between specific political ideology and a certain politicians.
That is to say, after analyzing the political discourse that is based on a certain political
ideology such as socialism or feminism, it is much easier to understand why certain politicians adhere to certain political ideologies based on their political perspectives,
backgrounds, political experiences, and so on. Analyzing a politician’s political ideology can
therefore be beneficial in a better understanding his/her thoughts and policies regarding
different issues.
Presidential Debate
Presidential debates in the political history of the United States have long played a crucial
role in arousing the passion for the election process and motivating the public to vote for
future leaders. Back in 1960, the very first televised presidential debate in the United States
took place between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon on September 26, 1960. Presidential
debates can be categorized as one type of political discourse which has more prominent
discourse with contextual features that invariably connect politicians intimately with their
discourse.
Chilton (2004) argues that presidential debates are not only the manifestations of
political speech embedded with contextual features, but also the assimilation of political
experiences and historical references which must be able to resonate with the audience in a way that arouse the feeling and passions. The ultimate purpose of holding presidential
debates is to provide a platform where candidates can make clear their position on political
issues in such a way as to convince the public that they are the best person to lead. Like every other type of debate, there are rules and regulations that the debater must follow in a
presidential debate such as following the prescribed speaking order and staying within one’s
allotted speaking time. Breaking debate rules or not speaking or answering questions well could have a negative impact on the audiences impression of the candidates. In that case,
candidates must try to quickly adjust their discourse so as to express their thoughts more
clearly and succinctly.
The hallmark of presidential debate is active engagement in the (usually) bilateral
conversation between the debaters with the questions asked by the moderators. The
moderators, who are usually well-known news anchors, would alternate asking questions, (if
there are two moderators co-hosting the debate) individually to each candidate, creating a
tense atmosphere and stirring the audiences’ interest. The candidates then take turns
answering the questions within their allotted times. Some presidential debate formats include
an open debate time during which the candidates can question each other, criticize, make
counter arguments, question each other’s logic, and so on. This gives the audience the best
opportunity to see which candidate has the strongest arguments and best reasoning.
Following this period of open debate, a brief concluding statements is made by each
candidate before the moderators end the debate. In a town hall debate format, members of the
audience are allowed to ask the candidates some questions.