Vinh university Department of foreign languages --------------------- Trơng Thị Phợng English anaphoric reference in obama race speech (Phép khứ chiếu trong bài phát biểu của Obama về vấn đề sắc tộc) Graduation thesis Field: discourse analysis Vinh, May 2009 1 PART A: INTRODUCTION 1. Rationale for the study Nowadays, English has become very popular and widely used in all over the world. It is considered a means of international communication. Most of magazines, newspapers and internet sites are published and exchanged in English. In a developing society, contact and exchange are necessary needs. They play an important role in our daily life, in all aspects from economy, politics and culture to education, science and technology. To accomplish these needs, people need to find information in media discourse. Therefore, I choose media discourse for some following reasons. Firstly, media texts are available and ready for research studying and teaching. Secondly, in media texts, not only socially useful information is conveyed to the people but also political propaganda is carried on. Thirdly, media discourses render a great service to the educated and the uneducated, the literate and illiterate improving them up date information of the happenings in the world with practically useful data and statistics. Within the limits of a graduation thesis, I have decided to do my work on the Obama race speech. This speech is addressed in the Obama’s campaign to run for the presidency. This is also one of the most important speeches because it displays his view about race in America and in the world. I do this thesis with hope that I can get more understanding about race segregation that nowadays still exists in many countries, especially the discrimination between the blacks and the whites. 2 All the above-mentioned reasons serve to explain my choice of the research topic and my decision to conduct the research entitled “Discourse Analysis on anaphoric reference in Obama race speech” 2. Aims of the study The aims of the study are: To discover - Anaphoric reference used in Obama’s speech. - To provide a textual analysis of Obama race speech to America in the light of Discourse Analysis in order to offer a more understanding of the address. - To give some practical suggestions for teaching and learning reading 3. Scope of the study The analysis of Obama’s speech is limited to one aspect of the address: anaphoric choice and some features of the context at the time of the speech. For the time and resource constraints as well as the limited size, our analysis cannot cover all anaphoric items in the discourse but only focus on the prominent ones. 4. Methods of the study Looking for the examples containing Anaphoric reference Analyzing some typical examples of Anaphoric references Giving some conclusions and necessary comments on the thesis 5. Design of the study The study includes three main parts Part A: Introduction This part discusses the rationale, scope, aims, methods, and design of the study Part B: Development This part is divided into three chapters. Chapter 1: Theoretical background 3 Chapter 2: English anaphoric reference in Obama race speech Chapter 3: Give some practical suggestions for teaching and learning reading Part C: Conclusion Part B. Development Chapter 1: Theoretical Background 1.1. Discourse 1.1.1. Definition of discourse Since Discourse Analysis became a branch of linguistics, the term “discourse” has been defined in different ways and by different writers. According to Cook (1989:156), discourse is claimed as “stretches of language perceived to be meaningful, unified and purposive”. Meanwhile David Nunan in the introduction of his “Introducing Discourse Analysis” (1985) states that discourse is “a stretch of language that may be longer than one sentence”. Whereas Crystal (1992:25) shares the ideal, that discourse is “a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger than a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, an argument, a joke or a narrative”. In fact, there are different definitions of discourse produced by different linguists however, in this thesis, I take the generally accepted view by Brown and Yule (1983:1) : “Discourse is language in use It can not be restricted to… the description of linguistic forms independent of the purpose or functions which these forms are designed to serve in human affair”. 1.1.2. Discourse and text The term “Discourse” and “Text”, seem to be quite confusing. Therefore, it is important to distinguish between discourse and text to avoid confusion of these terms, which has led to a debate among discourse analysts for a long time. 4 For some writers, the terms seem to be used almost interchangeably; for others, discourse refers to language in context or language in action, while text is the written record of that interaction. This view also proposes that Discourse brings together language, the individuals producing the language and the context within which the language is used. In favor of this view, Crystal (1972:72) states that text should be reserved only for writing and discourse for speech. Meanwhile, Brown and Yule (1983:3); {cited in Nunan (1993:6)}, argue that a text is “the representation of discourse and the verbal record of a common action”. This thesis supports the short discrimination of Raphael Salkie (1993) suggesting that the term “text” is best used to refer to any written record of a communicative event and “discourse”, on the other hand, interpretation of the communicative event in context. Thus, text is a purely linguistic, formal objective, while discourse has both linguistic and non- linguistic properties. 1.1.3. Spoken and written discourse Both spoken and written discourse are used in daily life and they are also different modes of linguistics. Spoken and written have common in some ways and have different ones as well. Spoken discourse is often considered more convenient and less planned and orderly more open to participants. While written discourse is well- structured and the possibilities for subordinate, participants are limited. Written discourse is used to get things done, to provide information and to entertain. Halliday (1985b) suggests that written discourse is used for action, for information, and for entertainment. However Brown and Yule (1983) states that spoken and written discourse serve various functions. The first is used for the establishment and maintenance of relationship (interactional use) and the second for the working out of and transference of information (transactional use). 5 Besides some linguists claims their views about the similarities between spoken and written discourse. Michael Mc Carthy (1991:150) proposes, “both spoken and written discourse are dependent on their immediate co-text to a greater or lesser degree, and implicitness and explicitness (of the language being used) will depend on what is being communicated to whom rather than merely on whether the discourse is spoken or written”. In conclusion, although spoken and written discourses are two different forms of languages, they also play an important role in communication and in our daily life. The differences between them are not absolute and the characteristics that we tend to associate with written language. 1.1.4. Discourse context Context is an important concept in Discourse Analysis. Context refers to the situation- giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded. According to Hymes (cited in an introduction to Discourse Analysis; Nguyen Hoa; 2000) “context as a limiter of the range of possible interpretation and, on the other hand, a supporter of the intended interpretation”. David Nunan (1995:7) states that there are two types of context: linguistic and non - linguistic. The language that surrounds or accompanies the piece of discourse under analysis while the non-linguistic or experiential context within which the discourse takes place includes the type of communicative event (for example, joke, story, lecture, greeting, conversation); the topic; the purpose of the event; the setting, including location, time of day, season of year and physical aspect of the situation (for example, size of room, arrangement of furniture); the participants and the relationship between them; and the background knowledge and assumptions underlying the communicative event. 6 In short, Context plays an vital part in discourse interpretation, as Cook (1989:10) asserts “there are good arguments for limiting the field of study to the question of what give discourse its unity may be impossible to give without considering the world at large: the context”. 1.2. Discourse Analysis 1.2.1. What is Discourse Analysis? “Discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used that is, it involves the study of language in use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data from conversations to highly formal forms of speech. It grew out of the work in different disciplines in the 1960s and early 1970s including linguistics semiotics (the study of signs and symbols in language) psychology, anthropology and sociology. All linguists-from the phonetician, through the grammarian, to the discourse analyst- are concerned with identifying regularities and patterns in language. However, in the case of the discourse analyst, the ultimate aim of this analytical work is both to show and to interpret the relationship between these regularities and the meanings and purposes through discourse”. When discourse analysis became a branch of language, many linguists have been interested in studying it. Discourse analysis is rapidly expanding its field, it provides insights into problems of processes of language in use and language learning, and is therefore of great importance to language teachers. Zelling Harris, an American linguist, was the first person who recognized discourse as one main object of the study in linguistics. Harries (1952) was interested in the distribution of linguistic elements in extended texts, and the links between the text and its social situation. This ideal was then developed by Dell Hymes (1964), who provided a sociological perspective with the study of the speech in social setting. 7 Especially, Halliday’s linguistic model emphasizes the social function of language and the thematic and informational structure of speech and writing. 1.2.2. Cohesion and coherence 1.2.2.1. What is cohesion? Cohesion is one of the devices that used to link between the clauses and sentences of a text. Cohesion refers to the formal relationship that causes texts to cohere or stick together. It is indicated by grammatical, logical and lexical relationship found among or between the sentences of the text. According to Halliday and Hasan(1976) “A text has texture and this is what distinguishes it from something that is not a text. The texture is provided by cohesive relation. Halliday suggests two different types of cohesion grammatical and lexical. Collocation Lexical cohesion Cohesion Reiteration Exdophora Grammatical cohesion Reference Endophora Reference Endophora Ellipsis Substitution Conjunction 1.2.2.2. What is coherence? Coherence is something created by the reader in the act of reading the text. Coherence is the feeling that a text lays together, that it makes sense, and is not just a jumble of sentences. 8 Palmer (1983) states that “coherence refers to the rhetorical devices, to ways of writing and speaking that bring about order and unity and emphasis” Coherence can be obtained on the basis of relevance, the cooperative principles, the common shared background knowledge between participants in a speech event, and how discourse is structured as well. We can summarize the distinction between cohesion and coherence through the following table. Cohesion Coherence Is in the text Grammatical/ lexical links Clues/ signals/ guide to coherence Is in the reader/ listener’s mind The feeling that the text makes sense The reader has to create coherence. Table 1: Cohesion and Coherence 1.3. Reference 1.3.1. What is reference? In semantic, reference is generally construed as the relationships between nouns, pronouns and objects that are named by them. The term “reference” means that a participant or circumstantial element introduced at one place in the text can be taken as a reference point for something that follows. If a single sentence is taken out of context and presented in isolation, it is likely to be difficult in some ways to interpret its exact meaning due to some ambiguous elements. However, if the sentence is put in its co-text and in combination with others, the question is quite straightforward. There are a number of signals to make the identical between what is being said or talked about and what was said before. Basically, there are two types of discourse reference: anaphoric, if it points back; cataphoric, if it points forward. It seems to be that anaphoric is greater interest and practical value. 1.3.2. Types of referent devices 9 Referent devices play an important part in the text, they are one of means to create cohesion and coherence. They are very useful because they save effort but also avoid potential misunderstanding. Referent devices are relevant to coherence because they work by linking one word to another word, which refer to the same character. If a text is a lack of referent devices there makes a text incoherent. 1.3.2.1. Personal devices Personal reference items are expressed through pronouns and determiners. They serve to identify individuals and objects that are named at some other point in the text. The category of personals includes three classes of personal pronouns, possessive adjectives and possessive pronouns. 1.3.2.2. Demonstrative devices Demonstrative reference is expressed through determiners and adverbs. These items can represent a single word or phrase, or much longer chunks of text ranging across several paragraphs. Demonstrative reference contributes a considerably important proportion in creating cohesion between sentences. 1.3.2.3. Comparative devices Comparative reference is expressed through adjectives and adverbs, and serves to compare items within a text in terms of identify or similarity. Comparatives set up a relation of contrast. Halliday (1994:316) claims that “In comparative reference, the reference still signals “you know which”; not because the same entity is being referred to over again but rather because there is a frame of reference – something by reference to which what I am now talking about is the same or different, like, or unlike, equal or unequal, more or less”. Comparative reference includes such expressions are the same, another, similar, different, as big, etc, and related adverbs as likewise, differently, equally, etc. 10