In order to grow a deeper understanding of critical discourse analysis, this research paper will now study a pre-existing research paper in which critical discourse analysis was used. Through this analysis a better understanding of how critical discourse analysis can be applied will be attained. A study conducted by Bahram Kazemian and Somayyeh Hashemi in which they analyzed Barack Obama’s five speeches from 2012 will be examined. According to Davis (2014) Critical Discourse Analysis is used to understand and analyze text, speech, and through this understand the social norms and rules that stem from language as well as how individuals and the public perceives messages that are being sent to them. (pg. 281) In order to analyze Obama’s speeches and the structure of the language, and the eventual effect the speeches had on the public, CDA was used within Kazemian and Hashemi’s 2014 research paper. The paper begins by describing the theoretical framework that will be used in which Kazemian and Hashemi (2014), described how within their study “an effort was made to integrate perspectives from three independent but interrelated realms viz SFL, CDA and rhetoric.” (pg. 1179) Although these three realms were explored within the paper, the case study conducted in this paper will focus on CDA (Critical Discourse Analysis). Through the use of CDA, Kazemian and Hashemi highlighted how Obama’s speeches were written. One interesting point highlighted by Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) was that the speeches are built in a way that build tension until the audience erupts into applause (pg. 1180). This is a clear application of CDA because the authors described how the message and language has an effect on the public (the listeners). The research paper moves on to describe how the speeches that were chosen were picked based on the importance in the political message that is being presented, which will in turn allow for analysis of the speeches through CDA. The tools that Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) brought to light include nominalization, rhetorical strategies (including parallelism, antithesis and expletive, unification and cohesion strategy), modality and passivization (modal verbs, passive voice). (pg. 1178) All of these elements will be summarized below to highlight the most important findings and examples from Obama’s speeches.
The nominalization section discusses the use of IGMs (Ideational Grammatical Metaphors) within the speeches. These IGM’s are used to simplify meaning and cluster terms together in order to create an easier understanding to the public. (pg. 1179) Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) describe how within the speech the use of abstract terms is seen as well as repeating the same IGM 3 times in a row (pg 1181-1182). The example given by Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) in which they cited Obama’s speech is “and on every issue, the choice you face … it will be a choice between two different paths…; a choice between…” According to the authors this allows for an opportunity to distract the public from the real issues. (pg 1182) The application of CDA is clear here because the authors use the citation from Obama’s speech and analyze how the message being presented aided in distracting the public. In this case using phrasing that overemphasized the situation creates a distraction to the public, taking their attention away from the issues they should be concerned with. Following this section, the paper then goes on to analyze the rhetorical strategies.
This section is used to observe the persuasion that occurs within speeches. The first rhetorical strategy that Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) present is parallelism. (pg. 1182)This strategy uses similar terms to add clarity and categorize. The example used in the paper was “we've built the best-trained, best-led, best-equipped military in history.” (pg. 1183) Because the authors segmented the speech to highlight this specific rhetorical strategy, they have used critical discourse analysis in order to describe the structure of the speech. The second rhetorical strategy highlighted by Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) is antithesis and expletive. (pg. 1183) This is when contrasting terms and ideas are used to draw the attention towards the contrast and difference between the two ideas. The example chosen by the authors in their research paper was “tyranny is no match for liberty.” (pg. 1183) CDA has been applied here because the authors clearly outlined how there is a clear contrast in terms which creates a deeper understand for listeners. The use of these contrasting terms draws a bigger focus and attention from the public. Because the authors analyzed the language here it is clear use of critical discourse analysis. The final rhetorical strategy used in the research paper conducted by Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) is unification and cohesivation strategy. (pg. 1183) It is here when terms such as “we” are used to unify the public with the message being presented. This was observed within Obama’s speech when he said “we should start with our tax code.” (pg. 1183) These are all examples of CDA because it is clear how the authors used critical discourse analysis to break down and asses the structure of Obama’s speeches, as well as the effect it had on the public.
The final section of the paper looked at Modality and Passivation. They began by providing examples of modal verbs are “implicit means of modality of possibility and necessity with high, median and low standards.” (pg. 1184) Words that were observed in Obama’s speeches include “must…’ve got to… can” (pg. 1184) This words provide a sense of urgency to the listeners and provide a higher importance to the message. In addition to this passive voice was used. This is when “the agent in fact becomes a circumstance, and circumstances can be left out without making the sentence ungrammatical.” (pg 1184) An example provided by Kazemian and Hashemi (2014) from Obama’s speech was “terrorist plots must be disrupted.” (pg 1184) The analysis of both of the examples is a clear use of CDA because the authors took the time to highlight the importance of the speech wording to reflect how the public may be influenced.
In conclusion the research paper clearly used CDA by breaking down and analyzing the speeches in order to gain a deeper understanding of how the public will be effect by the message that had been carefully crafted.