Search In this Thesis
   Search In this Thesis  
العنوان
A Linguistic Analysis of Racist Discourse in Some Speeches of Donald Trump and Martin Luther King:
المؤلف
El-Sheikh, Radwa Zakaria.
هيئة الاعداد
باحث / Radwa Zakaria El-Sheikh
مشرف / Hesham Mohammad Hasan
مشرف / Zakaria Kamal Alssiefy
مناقش / Marwa Abdel-Azim
تاريخ النشر
2019.
عدد الصفحات
298p. :
اللغة
الإنجليزية
الدرجة
ماجستير
التخصص
الآداب والعلوم الإنسانية (متفرقات)
تاريخ الإجازة
1/1/2019
مكان الإجازة
جامعة عين شمس - كلية الآداب - اللغة الانجليزية
الفهرس
Only 14 pages are availabe for public view

from 298

from 298

Abstract

This chapter provides an introduction to the whole thesis. It shows the context of the study which deals with the relation between discourse and ideology focusing on racism specifically in the American society. The chapter also sheds light on the selection of data and the method of analysis, highlighting the significance and rationale of the study as well as the hypothesis of the researcher and its contribution to the field of political discourse. Also, the objectives and main research questions are clearly set. Finally, the researcher explains the organization of chapters throughout.
1.1 Scope of the Study
The relation between language, ideology and power is one of the most interesting and controversial areas of cultural studies. It is a relation of interrelatedness where language acts as a mirror that reflects the ideology of the speaker and, at the same time, as a tool or weapon that can be used to shape the ideology of the society. According to charteris-Black (2011, p.21), ―the concept of ideology has become very important in critical linguistics‖. On the long term, language has a role in changing the poles of power of that society as well. Bielsa and O‘Donnell (2015) point out that the use of certain linguistic devices can help create power relations and ideological structures in the society. Similarly, Fairclough (2004) believes that discourse can cause real changes in social life. These changes can be short term shown in peoples’ knowledge, attitudes and beliefs or long term shown in people’s identities. Fairclough (2004) even goes further to note that discourse can start wars beside other forms of change in other aspects of life as well. This theory can be best applied on two different eras to prove that it is the power of language that can shape the already-existent ideology.
Among different kinds of ideology, that of racism has been chosen as it can be seen present in different eras as well as different cultures and societies. ―In different times and places, racial boundaries are drawn in very different ways‖ (August, 2009, p.1). These boundaries are usually drawn to distinguish between the racial minorities and the dominant ethnicities. Similarly, van Dijk (2005) relates the ideology of racism to the ―monocultural‖ ideology which encourages and promotes the racist superiority and is against the peaceful racial co-existence and where all forms of racial discrimination, such as ―criminalization‖, ―segregation‖ and
3
―expulsion‖ are violations of the main principles of democracy and ―multiculturalism‖. That is why, the ideology of racism can be best investigated in the multi-cultural societies where different racial minorities live side by side. Accordingly, the American society has been taken as an example as it is multi-racial by nature; Frazier (2010) shows that ―America has been changing from a predominantly white, non-Hispanic nation to a more multi-cultural and multiracial society‖ (p.16) and points out that the immigration floods that have followed the second world war have enriched the American population with different potentials and challenges at the same time. Thus, the diversity of the American society is part and parcel of its structure since it is composed of different races and ethnicities, and it is this multi-ethnicity that gives it a special and highly distinguished character. As Frazier (2010, p.2) points out, ―American racism is unique in its character and has such a long and complex history, including its geographical imprints‖.
Furthermore, among different types of discourse, the study focuses on the genre of political speeches, in particular, because it is considered one of the most influential types of discourse. According to Aristotle (1932), man is basically ―a political animal‖, and one of the main purposes for which man is given the power of speech is to discuss and negotiate issues related to justice and righteousness, that is to say, to talk politics. In this regard, Chilton and Schaffner (2002, pVII) claim that ―politics and language are intimately intertwined‖. Similarly, Calhoun (2016) points out that changes of people‘s beliefs and attitudes can always be attributed to political discourse. Beside the nonnegotiable importance of the political genre in general, which is part and parcel of everyday life, political speeches are particularly significant because they are heard by all people of the society, that is to say, they address different social strata and almost all the categories of any society: old and young, poor and rich, educated and uneducated, literate and illiterate. That is why, their impact is widespread and quick. When commenting on the significance of speeches in the arena of political discourse, Wodak (2012) argues that they are considered the most prominent in that field. Similarly, Alexander (2017) comments on the importance of public speeches by comparing them to some kind of performance or rather a ―social drama‖ which is essential for politicians and public figures to communicate their ideologies to their audience: ―in order to seize power, one must first seize the social stage‖ (p.14).
4
Therefore, the focus of this research is to explore the ideology of racism in the American society, through the approach of political discourse analysis, by taking samples of speeches delivered by two prominent American politicians who belong to two different eras. By focusing on the issue of the racial minorities in America and how it is handled in the American political discourse in the past and at present, the researcher conducts a contrastive study between two different political speakers who belong to two historical eras and embrace quiet distinct ideologies although they both belong to the same society. By critically analyzing the discourse of Martin Luther King (1929 – 1968) and the discourse of Donald John Trump (1946 - ), the researcher provides an attempt of exploring the hidden racial ideology of each through the different discursive strategies that each of them applies to present the self as well as the Other. Thus, this study shows how far discourse can act as a mirror through which the recipient can see through the speaker‘s hidden ideology and, at the same time, how far each of the aforementioned speakers uses the language of his discourse as a weapon through which he can get to his audience, spread his ideology, transform that of the recipient and change the poles of power in the American culture.
1.2 Statement of the Problem
Most of the previous studies conducted on the speeches of President Donald Trump have only focused on the linguistic patterns that he has followed and the persuasive techniques that he has applied, in his campaign speeches, as part of the analysis of the debates between him and the previous candidate Hillary Clinton during the previous American presidential elections while no study, so far, has focused on analyzing Trump‘s speeches after winning the American presidency. Also, there have been different accusations against the character of Donald Trump and different attempts to categorize him as a racist politician, since some sociologists have been trying to relate his speeches to the recent racist actions in the American society like Ehmsen and Scharenberg (2016), Rushin and Edwards (2018), Patel and Waldman (2017) in addition to other reports by the CNN and the Southern Poverty Law Centre. Yet, none of these sociological studies have provided linguistic evidence through a critically linguistic analysis that spots the racist ideology embedded in his language. Even more, there have been some claims that his way of talking is unorganized and aimless like Golshan (2016) who
5
describes his language as ―disordered‖ and belongs to ―a person with a concentration problem‖ and Pullum (2015) who comments on his ‗rambling sentences‖ saying that his syntax ―has no structure at all‖ and ―reflects an undisciplined mind‖ (as cited in Quam & Pankova, 2016, p. 142). Yet, none of these studies provide tangible evidence that is based on scientifically linguistic analysis of his discourse. (For more details, refer to chapter two: sections 2.1 and 2.2).
On the other hand, most of the prior research conducted on Martin Luther King‘s speeches has focused on the stylistic features, specially the rhetorical ones, and the persuasive techniques that mark his discourse while only depending on the qualitative method of analysis. Furthermore, King‘s discourse used to be categorized as anti-racist depending on his announced intentions of fighting racial discrimination while no study has attempted to investigate King‘s underlying ideology that hides behind his declared political purposes on the surface, especially regarding the Other, in order to provide a reliable numerical evidence based on which his political discourse can be classified as either racist or anti-racist. (For more details, refer to chapter two: sections 2.1 and 2.2).
Meanwhile, the present study aims at drawing a connection between language and its impact on the society by showing whether the results of the critical discourse analysis of both Trump‘s and King‘s corpora match with the results of the different sociological studies conducted on the American society in these two different eras. Here, the researcher provides an integrative analysis of the major linguistic features of Donald Trump‘s presidential discourse as well as Luther King‘s political discourse in an attempt to reach and uncover the hidden ideology which stands behind their language in relation to the racial minorities in the American society as well as the dominant white ethnicity. First, the approach of ideological discourse analysis (IDA) helps explore the presidential speeches of Donald Trump while investigating the underlying ideology that stands behind his speeches and the hidden purposes and intentions that his language serves. Therefore, this study shows whether Trump‘s way of speaking is aimlessly unorganized or it is rather meant to serve certain purposes and deliver specific messages, and whether his discourse can be directly related to and held responsible for the spread of violence in the American society. In addition, the same IDA approach also explores the underlying ideology of King‘s discourse as well in order to provide a tangible linguistic proof according to which
6
King‘s ideology that lies beneath his speeches can be revealed in regard to both the racial minorities, which he belongs to, and the American white ethnic majority. Therefore, the study aims at showing whether King‘s embedded ideology matches with his declared purposes and whether his discourse can be directly connected to the flourishing of the human rights movement.
1.3 Rationale of the Study:
The hypothesis of this study is that discourse can reflect the politicians‘ embedded ideology and political purposes and have a strong impact on the societal ideology. The researcher tests this hypothesis on two notable political speakers whose discourses share a significant element in common which is the presentation of the racial minorities in relation to the dominant white ethnicity. Therefore, the core of the study is to explore both speakers‘ polarization strategies: the ideological polarization between in-groups and out-groups. Although they belong to two different eras and their discourses may exhibit different intentions regarding the racial minorities in America, they have both rendered a strong impact on their audience and their discourses have caused changes in the structure of the American society. Therefore, both speakers‘ discursive strategies are so powerful and successful in manipulating their audience. Another common feature between both Trump and Luther King is that, on the surface structure level, both announce their condemnation of racism and their support of unity and democracy. Therefore, the researcher here explores the linguistic features of the selected corpus of Trump‘s presidential speeches in contrast to the corpus of Luther King‘s chosen speeches in order to uncover the major ideology that lies underneath their declared purposes in relation to both the self and the Other. Such juxtaposition of Trump‘s and King‘s corpus together is a novel attempt, which also makes this study a new and unique contribution to the field of political discourse analysis.
1.4 Data selection
The researcher has chosen the contemporary white American president Donald Trump and the late African American political leader Martin Luther King to be the core of this contrastive study. The main reason for focusing on these two speakers in particular is that both
7
speakers are influential leaders in the American society, in two distinct eras, who have both tackled the issue of the racial minorities and rendered a strong impact on the ideologies of their recipients. Therefore, both these two politicians have been the main concern of many sociologists who have attributed the changes that have occurred in the American society, during their eras, to the impact of their discourse. Thus, this study is an attempt to provide sufficient linguistic evidence that these sociological claims can be linguistically proven.
Three different speeches are chosen for both Donald Trump and Martin Luther King where each group of speech forms a corpus for each speaker. The speeches are selected for their social, political and historical high significance and also because they offer a good material as strong evidence for the theory that language reflects the ideology of the speaker and, at the same time, can shape the ideology of the public, the matter that helps, later on, change the poles of power in a given society. Therefore, there is an important factor in common between the three speeches chosen for Trump, on one hand, and the other three chosen for Luther King, on the other hand, which is the theme of minorities that both speakers discuss in the speeches selected. In this regard, the researcher has chosen the speeches that reflect both speakers‘ point of view and ideology regarding the minorities in the American society as well as the relation between these minorities and the welfare and prosperity of America.
The speeches selected for Donald Trump include the speech delivered to the Congress in Washington D.C. on February 28, 2017, his rally speech in Florida February 18, 2017, and his Phoenix speech on August 23, 2017. These three speeches are retrieved from the CNN Politics webpage (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/28/politics/donald-trump-speech-transcript-full-text/index.html), PalmBeachPost webpage (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/national/read-full-transcript-trump-rally-speech-florida) and Time webpage (http://time.com/4912055/donald-trump-phoenix-arizona-transcript/) respectively. The speeches selected for Martin Luther King are the famous speech of ―I Have a Dream‖ delivered at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. on August 28, 1963, the speech of ”I’ve been to the Mountaintop” in Memphis on April 3, 1968 and the Acceptance speech on the occasion of the award of the Nobel Peace Prize, in Oslo, December 10, 1964. The three speeches are retrieved from National Archives webpage (https://www.archives.gov/files/press/exhibits/dream-speech.pdf), Stanford webpage (http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/kingweb/publications/speeches/I%27ve_been_to_the_mou
8
ntaintop.pdf) and the Nobleprize.org webpage (https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-acceptance_en.html) respectively.
Each of these speeches has an important significance. To begin with Trump‘s speeches, clearly they reflect his attitude towards the minorities in America including African American, Latinos and Muslims as well as his own culture and the ideology of racism that he adopts and tries to spread among the whole American society to make it dominant and hegemonic. First, his Congress speech comes after a big achievement which is the presidential victory, and is the first officially public speech right after the declaration of his presidency. Second, the Rally speech in Florida comes as part of the ―U.S.A Thank You‖ tour, where Florida in particular carries a special importance since its results have ended the 2017 American presidential elections for the benefit of Trump. Through this event, Trump mainly wants to express his appreciation and gratitude to all his fans and supporters who have voted for him. Finally, the Phoenix speech also carries a special significance as it is delivered right after the racist incident that has occurred in charlottesville where a young thirty year old woman has died and many others have been injured during the events of the protests against the white supremacists‘ demonstrations.
On the other hand, Martin‘s speeches are remarkable ones in the whole history of America through which the speaker has tried to fight against racism and strive for emancipation. First, ―I Have a Dream‖ speech is one of the most famous anti-racist speeches worldwide as it has brought greater attention to the Civil Rights movement that has been going on for many years. Its purpose is to inspire a mixed audience of both white and African Americans. Second, ―I Have Been to the Mountaintop‖ speech has an equally important function in the process of defending human rights and is delivered on the day right before his assassination. Being delivered in the church of Memphis, it is considered a sermon or social gospel whose audience is mainly African Americans. Finally, his ―Noble Peace Prize Acceptance‖ speech derives its significance from the importance of this global event that has been attended by highly important figures and representatives from all over the world. It is a formal speech whose audience is predominantly white. The language employed by Martin is so powerful that he has used it as a
9
tool to spread the spirit of anti-racism among the American society just as President Trump makes use of his speeches to prevail the racist spirit among his audience. That is why, these speeches in specific can be analyzed together to show how the power of language, in each time, is a successful and powerful weapon to make the ideology of the speaker prevalent and dominant.
1.5 Analytical Framework and Method
Here, the self-Other presentation serves as the criterion of assessing the racial ideology of both speakers. That is why, the researcher uses van Dijk‘s both models of analyzing racism and ideological structures as the criteria which shall investigate which category, the racist or anti-racist, that both discourses fall under. The method of analysis of this study is data driven where the researcher integrates two models for van Dijk in order to create a tool kit that suits the data selected. The first model, the ideological square, provides the general analytical framework of the study. The second model, the ideological structures, provides the different levels of linguistic analysis through which the discursive strategies of both speakers are explored in relation to the two main pillars of the ideological square: Self-Other presentation.
Hence, the researcher applies the mixed method of analysis where both the quantitative and qualitative methods are used. Some features are calculated quantitatively, like the lexicon, pronouns, imagery and sound devices, and other features are explored qualitatively, like the agency, schemata and argument structures (topoi). In the quantitative part, the researcher uses a new software program called the AntConc (version 3.5) which automatically counts the number of words in each speech and the frequency of every word in that speech and also shows the contexts where every word in the speech occurs. Finally, the researcher presents the percentages of the quantitative data analysis in the form of bar charts that clearly highlight the contrasting features between both discourses.
1.6 Significance of the Study:
This is an interdisciplinary study that integrates different fields such as linguistics, politics and socio-cultural studies. Through the analysis of the different speeches for the above mentioned speakers, the study can help raise awareness about ways of interpreting public political speeches, seeing through the speakers‘ real intentions, reading their underlying