MEd 2009-2010

MEDD 6706 / 7046

Spoken Discourse Analysis
(24 hours)
Dr Leo Hoye
Tel.: 2241-5730
Email: leohoye@hkucc.hku.hk

Session 9: Theoretical approaches to spoken discourse /

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

9.1 Defining CDA: a textual approach to spoken discourse

• Cameron (2001: 123) defines CDA in terms of its ideological dimension and
its linguistic dimension.

• The ideological dimension is concerned with discourse as a form of social

practice. In this view, discourse is permeated with ‘institutional’ beliefs about
how the world is or should be. We become so used to the ideological function
of official discourse – government communiqués; political speeches;
newspaper reports, etc. – that we are unaware of how we are being
manipulated. We come to accept what we are told and regard such official
discourse as acceptable and natural in language.

• The linguistic dimension is concerned with how the language is used in a

socio-cultural sense. What are the links between linguistic (the lexico-
grammatical) features of spoken texts and the socio-cultural operations of
language.

1
 • So what does CDA do? In CDA (spoken) texts are studied in relation to the
power, ideologies and institutional structures/points of view they seem to
embody. In this age of ‘globalization’ there are many socio-cultural processes
driving change. CDA tries to help us be ware of what these processes are, the
effects they have, and how they manipulate our ways of being, from a
linguistic point of view.

• CDA approaches a range of discourse types: advertising discourse; political

speeches; newspaper reports – any form, in fact of institutional discourse.

• See Cameron (2001: 124-134) for examples in the British context.

9.2 ‘Constructing reality’: Language and power

• There are many problems with the interpretive dimension of CDA. Who is to
say whose interpretation of what is said or written is the right one?

#To give you a flavour of the kind of work CDA does, I have reproduced this
(written) text from the China Daily. It is perhaps easier to see how CDA
approaches language use in written rather than spoken discourse. Spoken
discourse – such as a political speech – is usually a fairly long piece of text
which requires lengthy analysis.

I have a simple question to ask you in relation to the text below. How is
Martin Lee portrayed in this article? Use on the evidence of the text to support
your argument.

2
Martin Lee lets US Senate act as if HK was 51st state

The "democrats" are trying to defend Martin Lee's decision to give testimony
at a hearing of the US Senate, saying that it was just a common exchange.

The "democrats" are trying to defend Martin Lee's decision to give testimony at a
hearing of the US Senate, saying that it was just a common exchange.

Washington enacted the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act in 1992, treating Hong
Kong affairs as if they were those of its 51st state. The legislation enables the US to
comment wantonly on the SAR's affairs and there are even provisions for imposing
sanctions on the territory. The person who has made this piece of legislation possible
is none other than Lee.

This remnant of British colonialism worked with American rightist politician Jesse
Helms to cook up this law. This is ironclad proof of his treacherous acts and his role
as a pawn of the US in coercing China. Shortly after Lee had attended the hearing,
US officials said that Hong Kong's constitutional development might jeopardize
Sino-US relations.

What is the function of US congressional hearings? Under both the Senate and the
House of Representatives, there are special committees that are in charge of
legislative affairs. Each of the committees has the power to convene periodical
hearings in which witnesses may be summoned to testify. Their testimonies are put
on record as the basis for legislation or for the country to take action as required by
the law.

Lee's participation in the hearing was anything but an equal exchange of lawmakers.
In fact, Lee's attendance turned him into a Hong Kong citizen beholden to the US,

3
which treated the exercise as if it held sovereignty over the city.

Disregarding the sovereignty of his own country, Lee allowed the issue of Hong
Kong constitutional development to come under the scrutiny of US Congress. There
can be nothing more wrong to have done.

It is a glaring violation of the Basic Law as well as the oath Lee took when being
sworn in as a member of the Legislative Council - to uphold the Basic Law and
pledge allegiance to the SAR.

According to Article 79 of the Basic Law, legislators are liable to face impeachment
and even removal from office for misconduct or violation of their oath.

It is hard to imagine that an American congressman would attend hearings held by

foreign parliaments that were intended to enact laws to intervene in internal affairs of
the US. Any congressman making such a move would definitely be subject to
disciplinary actions from Congress.

Members of parliaments of different countries can very well conduct exchanges with
proper authorization.

But no lawmakers will be allowed to take the internal affairs of their countries to
overseas parliaments for deliberation.

When Lee Cheuk-yan, ignoring such common sense, echoed the remarks of US
officials by saying that their testimony at the hearing consisted of common
exchanges, he was actually trying to cheat the general public, an act that was very
immoral.

Source: China Daily HK Edition

4
 • Briefly review the Blair speech (Cameron 2001: 134ff.)

9.3 The British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s speech on returning to 10 Downing
Street

6 May 2005

Tony Blair spoke outside Number 10 after winning his third term as PM
in the 2005 General Election.

Read the transcript

1 I've just come from Buckingham Palace where the Queen has
asked me to form a new government which I will do.

It's a tremendous honour and privilege to be elected for a third

term and I'm acutely conscious of that honour and that privilege.

5 When I stood here first eight years ago I was a lot younger but
also a lot less experienced.

Today as well as having in our minds the priorities that people

want, we, I, the government, has the knowledge, as well as the
determination and commitment, to deliver them.

10 The great thing about the election is that you go out and talk to
people for week upon week.

And I've listened and I've learned, and I think I've a very clear
idea what the people now expect from the government in a third
term.

5
15 And I want to say to them very directly that I, we, the
government, are going to focus relentlessly now on the priorities
that people have set for us.

What are those priorities? First they like the strong economy,
but life is still a real struggle for many people and many families
in this country and they know there are new issues: help for first
time buyers to get their feet on the first rungs of the housing
ladder; families trying to cope with balancing work and family
life; many people struggling to make ends meet; many families
on low incomes who desperately need help and support to
increase their living standards; businesses who whilst they like
the economic stability, want us also to focus on stimulating
enterprise on investing in science and skills and technology for
the future.

It's very clear what people want us to do and we will do it.

Second in relation to the public services, health and education,

again people like the investment that has gone into public
services, they welcome it. I have found absolutely no support for
any suggestion we cut back that investment.

The people want that money to work better for them, they want
higher standards, both of care and of education for the
investment we are putting in.

And so we will focus on delivering not just the investment but

the reform and change of those public services and I will do so
with passion, because I want to keep universal public services
that know that the only way of keeping the consent for them is
by making the changes necessary for the twenty-first century.

And third, people welcome the fact that so many more people
are in work and have moved off benefit and into work, but
people still know there are too many people economically
inactive who should to be helped off benefit and into work.

And they also know that, whatever help we are giving today's
pensioners, tomorrow's pensioners are deeply concerned as to
whether they will have the standard of life that they want.

People expect us to sort out these issues, we will do so.

6
And fourth, I've also learnt that the British people are a tolerant
and decent people, they did not want immigration made a
divisive issue in the course of the election campaign, but they do
believe there are real problems in our immigration and asylum
system and they expect us to sort them out, and we will do so.

And fifth, I've been struck again and again in the course of this
campaign by people worrying that in our country today, though
they like the fact we have got over the deference of the past,
there is a disrespect that people don't like.

And whether it's in the classroom, or on the street in town

centres on a Friday or Saturday night, I want to focus on this
issue. We've done a lot so far with anti-social orders and
additional numbers of police.

But I want to make this a particular priority for this government,

how we bring back a proper sense of respect in our schools, in
our communities, in our towns and our villages.

And rising out of that will be a radical programme of legislation

that will focus exactly on those priorities: on education; on
health; on welfare reform; on immigration; on law and order.

In addition I know that Iraq has been a deeply divisive issue in

this country, that has been very clear.

But I also know and believe that after this election people want
to move on, they want to focus on the future in Iraq and here.

And I know too that there are many other issues that concern
people in the international agenda, and we will focus on those,
on poverty in Africa, on climate change, on making progress in
Israel and Palestine.

So there is a very big agenda for a third-term. Even if we don't

have quite the same expectations that people had of us in 1997,
we now have the experience and the commitment to see it
through.

One final thing: I've also learnt something about the British
people, that whatever the difficulties and disagreements with us,
and whatever issues and challenges that confront them, their
values of fairness and decency and opportunity for all, and the

7
belief that people should be able to get on, on the basis of hard
work and merit, not class and background, those values are the
values I believe in, the values our government will believe in.

#Discuss the following points:

• What kinds of rhetorical device does the PM use in his speech? (Repetition,
enumeration, emphasis, reiteration, hesitation, long pauses, stress, etc.)
• How well organized is the speech? Is it spontaneous? Give your reasons.
• How does he use pronouns? Who is speaking? Is he speaking as an individual
or on behalf of an institution? What evidence do you find of this in the text?
• Comment on the types of verb the PM uses.
• Explore the spoken text in terms of its cohesion and coherence.
• Does the PM strike you as honest? Is he sincere in what he says? Is he
trustworthy, do you think? Justify your impressions on the basis of not only
what is said but on how it is said!