Recap Avec Times New Roman

8/13/2019 Recap Avec Times New Roman

1/84

1

INTRODUCTION


2/84

2

All leaders of political systems govern, interact with people under their

responsibility by the use of language in a real situation of communication.

Politicians commonly use language as a powerful tool constructing speech

world in which they impose ideologies and identities of interactants.

The persuasive force of political talk depends on the ability of the speaker to

create an existentially coherent image of him, the representation of his

behavior and attitude to people, values, facts and ideas as consistent and

continuous and to guide the audience towards an intended interpretation of his

speech which serves best the speakers communicative intentions with regardto the situational, socio-cultural and pragmatic context in which the

interaction takes place.

Our thesis is the use of modals in political speeches : the case of Obama,

Thatcher and Mandela. The key elements are modals and political speeches.

So, we will define these terms for a better understanding of our thesis.

Political speech is a conversation, a formal treatment of a subject in speech or

writing of the state, government or public administration, gives particularly by

a person or authority like president, mayor,who aims to convince or inform

people. Political speech is specially from someone who is a politician. About

modals, they are special used to show for example possibility, ability,

permission, obligation, probability,

In addition, modals are not verbs, they are linguistic tools.

They express the psychological disposition of the speaker. Modals are: can,

could, may, might, must, ought to, shall, should, will and would.

After these explanations, we can support that discourse is the base of the

work. The context dependent interpretative perception of the semantic unity


3/84

3

and purposefulness of speech (coherence) is the result of an interplay of

ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning encoded in texts.

Thus speech coherence may be seen as a multifaceted speech property

encompassing propositional coherence on the ideational plan, interactional

coherence and evaluative coherence on the modal plan, and cohesion on the

textual plan.

Our research paper aims to showing which of the modals the speaker who is

the political leader uses to dominate, to submit their people and the influence

of modals on co-speakers or people and to paid explanation for this choice.

Since in political speech, the expression of personal judgment, attitude and

assessment of the topic under discussion and the establishment of a

relationship with the listeners are key components of the persuasive strategies

adopted by the speaker, this study focuses on language means contributing to

the perception of evaluative and interactional coherence in political speeches.

Within the study of interpersonal meanings in political speech, modality

expressed by various lexical and grammatical forms has received considerable

attention; specificity of the different language means conveying modal

meanings has not been explored in detail. Since the English language has

developed a distinct and complex system of modal verbs for the expression of

modal meanings, the present investigation scrutinizes the semantic and

pragmatic functions of the modals must, can and will in the discourse of

political speeches delivered by Barack OBAMA, Magareth THATCHER and

Nelson MANDELA.

Then, the objective is to analyze the power, the strength of modals in political

speeches.

The thesis we deal with is threefold:


4/84

4

The first level is discourse analysis;

The second level is corpus identification;

And third level is Analysis and Discussion.

All the work will be based on one of the mayor theory which is enunciation.


5/84

5

PART ONE:

DISCOURSE

ANALYSIS


6/84

6

Concerning discourse, well list the different kind which may permit us

to give a best definition of it.

We can refer to Dominique MAINGUENEAU (1991:10) , who said that there

are seven types of Discourse.

We agree with him because they are clearly summarized as follow:

The first discourse is langue and parole. Both are verbal occurrence.

The second discourse is a text.

The thirth Discourse is a discourse focused on the dynamic aspect of the

enunciation and on the relation established between the speaker and co-

speaker in a given context.

The fourth discourse is the conversation and oral interaction considered as the

fundamental type of enunciation.

The fifth discourse is an opposition between Langue and discourse.

The sixth discourse is a special discourse to characterize a certain social or

ideological position.

The seventh discourse is an opposition between enunciation and Discourse.

For that the statement is many utterances link together with meaning relation

one to another in a situation of communication.

Discourse is the spoken or written statement. Then a text well structured,

written with coherence and cohesion is a statement. A study of all the

linguistics conditions of production of this text will permit to characterize it as

discourse.


7/84

7

According to L.GUESPIN (1971:10)1, the statement is many meaningful

utterances of communication and discourse is the statement considered as a

discursive mechanism.

Then, as the structure of the text, it can be qualified as a statement; a

linguistic study of the condition of production of this text. All this will turn it

in a discourse. (My translation)

Through what is said above, discourse can be defined as all human oral,

written or gestual communication oriented toward a co-speaker in a specific

or general context.

Most of the time, people in general consider two types of discourses which

are the written and the oral one. But, linguists must go more further to

considering gestual communication as discourse, called gestual discourse

because everyday we use this discourse without great consideration.

Then some characteristics like the speaker, the enunciative dynamic and a

social context must be in relation so that to have Discourse. So these

characteristics put discourse at the top of human communication.

And, to analyse something is to observe deeply with imagination by referring

to our background.

Then discourse Analysis is to perceive or to focus on the enunciations device

which links a textual organization to a social place.

It is all the studies of language in any context.

1L. Guespin, Problmatique des travaux sur le discours politique, in languages N 23, 1971, P.10

Lnonc, cest la suite de phrases emises entre deux blancs smantiques, deux arrts de la

communication ; le discours, cest lnonc consider du point de vue du mcanisme discursif qui l econditionne. Ainsi un regard jet sur un texte du point de vue de sa structuration en langue en fait un

nonc ; une tude linguistique des conditions de production de ce texte en fera un discours


8/84

8

In addition, we talk about discourse analysis when the discourse which is

linked to a kind or a sort of discursive institution, is not understandable by

everybody, and when it has a hidden meaning.

Moreover, Discourse Analysis must often be based on a corpus which is

defined as being the material (utterance, paragraph, text, speech) on which

linguists learn to lead their analysis.

Then we have many types of corpus as follow:

-The maximal corpus is made by differents statement according to the

ideologies (political, social,). The maximal corpus is not limited and its

various depend on the psychological position of the speaker.

-The delimited corpus is limited and based on the maximal corpus. The

analyst chose a group of statement according to his reaserch objective.

-The developed corpus : The reasercher, with the hypothesis of work built and

define an analysis program. His corpus is derive from the delimited corpus.As developed corpus, we have some narrative episodes, some syntaxic

structures of statement,

At least, the following elements are the best to do a better discourse analysis:

-The kind of discourse (a sermon, asking for information to a policeman in the

street chemistry book, ).

-The social place (Hospital,)

-The social function (religious, administration,)

-The positionnement

In a field (the liberal discourse in a political field of a country in a given

period, the generative grammar in a linguistic field,)


9/84

9

We may say that Discourse is the semantic relation, the language beyond

sentences.

So Discourse Analysis is the operation that allows linguists to go deeply in

the meaning of what is heard and written. All the details are taking into

account when Analyzing discourse, the background of linguists, the social

level of the speaker and the context of the discourse are always interacting.

I-BIRTH OF ENUNCIATION

For the definition of Enunciation, we can quote BENVENISTE

(1970:12), enunciation is switching on the language by an individual act of

use.2(My translation)

In addition, ASCOMBRE and O.DUCROT (1976:18) argued that

enunciation is for us the language activity exerted by the speaker when he

listens but also, for whoever hears when he listens.3

(My translation)

From these definitions, we can say that enunciation is all the phenomena

observable when a person, two persons or more are interacting during a

conversation. This included all the mechanisms of speech and writing.

2BENVENISTE (1970:12):

3ANSCOMBRE et DUCROT (1976 :18) :


10/84


11/84

11

II- ENUNCIATION

II.1-The problem of enunciation

The truth conditions of an utterance are as follow:

-a speaker

- a co-speaker

-a time

-a place where the speech take place.

-The possibility or probability of realization of what is said.

Hence, for the truth conditions of an utterance, it is difficult to separate the

descriptive value to the enunciative value.

II.2-The textual cohesion and coherence

2.1- Textual cohesion

The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relation of meaning

that exist within the text, and that define it as a text.

According to M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hassan (1976:4), cohesion occurs

where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on

that another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be

effectively decoded except by recourse to it.

When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the

presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated

into a text.


12/84

12

I agree with them because textual cohesion means sticking utterances together

as to form a paragraph or a text. So what we may retain is that cohesion is out

of the text.

Be careful!

We can stick together the following words: pen+cloth+ball+spoon.

There is no logical relation among them. But in a text, all utterances have

normally a common ground which is the syntax.

2.2- Coherence

It is something which is logical and consistent. Capable of intelligible

speech.

When there is no verbal context, the utterance must be adapted to the

situation. So coherence is of pragmatics.

To sum up, textual cohesion is based on isotopia, anaphora, apresuppositionnel community which are in the text.

At the contrary, coherence makes in competition or in play some situations

like intentions, knowledge of the universe, some fashions different from

linguistics. It is of pragmatics.

II.3- The aspects of enunciative linguistics

3.1-The Dexis (Je, tu, ici, maintenant)

Any enunciation means that there is a speaker, a co-speaker, the time

during which the speech takes, and the space where the speaker speaks.

The most deictics are:

Deictics have a conventional meaning (they are found in dictionaries,).


13/84

13

Deictics have their full meanings when they are used in utterances or in a

speech interaction.

The deixis also deals with the time of enunciation (temporal deixis and verbal

system): it is the moment when the act of speech occurs.

Example: Im working today.

Verbal system= am working.

Temporal deixis= Today.

One theory of Emile BENVENISTE is that, there are two types of

enunciation which are:

-History characterized by the use of preterit, plus-perfect. Times and person

have function in language.

-Discourse which is the core element of our thesis.

3.2- Modalities

A modality can be seen as the point of view of the speaker on what he

has said. This is a general point of view.

About this definition of modality, the speaker is normally linked to

subjectivity.

Verbs like can, will, must, shall, are modals because they are the most

characteristics of the speaker in his discourse or speech.


14/84

14

a-Notion of expressivity

Expressivity is all the kinds or ways a speaker uses to express his

opinions or ideas. And the expression is what is said by the speaker.

Adding the expression and expressivity, we have an integral act of language.

Example:

I can go to school.

I must go to school.

I will go to school.

First, the expressivity is the three utterances and the expression is the meaning

of these utterances.

Second, throughout this example, the relation between expressivity and

modality seems very important.

So we may go more to say that modality is in expressivity.

3.3- Language Effects

One of the basis of enunciation is language effects. Our study will

always refer to J.L. Austins book (1970) titled How to do things with

words

It means that, when the speaker speaks, he does what he says. A speech must

be dynamic and alive. There must be a real confusion between the speaker

and his speech. This analyse leads us directly to language effects which will

be developed in further research in master two.


15/84


16/84

16

For BRUNOT, modality is defined as: the soul of the utterance.6. (My

translation)

Moreover, we have many types of modalities. They have been share into two

groups which are the modalities of group I and the modalities of group II.

The group I are called epistemic modalities and they concern directly the

whole speech or discourse.

Explicitly they are:

-Assertive modality :

The speaker expresses the truth or wrong statement of his speech

(affirmatively or negatively).

Example: I am writing the paper

I am not writing the paper.

It is a certainty.

-Interrogative modality :

The speaker asked a question to the co-speaker.

We have two possibilities of assertion which are affirmative or negative.

The speaker doesnt make a choice.

Example: Is the boy writing the newspaper?

6Ibidem, p.61

La modalit est l' me de la phrase.


17/84

17

-Hypothetic modality :

The speaker suppose something.

Example : If she was writing the paper

-Injonctive or imperative modality :

The speakers statement will relate to an extra-linguistics phenomenon.

Example : Write the paper at once!

-Emphatic modality :

The speaker can chose to insist on the reality or non-reality between the

event of his statement and the extra-linguistic world.

The speaker focuses on a unit, a group of unit or a whole proposition.

Example : John is writing the paper.

It relates to the tone also.

-Appreciative modality :

The speaker through his speech makes appear all the marks of

subjectivity. It is based on the judgment of the speaker by putting in relation

his speech and the extra-linguistic world.

Example : Its strange that they should have gone so soon this morning.

Appreciative modality makes appear the opinion and the point of view of the

speaker.


18/84

18

-Causative modality :

The speaker has an influence on the co-speaker.

Example : She made me finish the work.

The group II are called radical modalities. They are only concerned with

modals (can, will, may, must, shall,)

Well be focus on this last part in the trend of our thesis because by the

auxiliaries modal verbs, the speaker expresses his statement with chances of

up-dating (actualization) of his speech.

It should be stressed that modality (a semantic category) is regarded here as

distinct from mood (a grammatical category); thus mood can be seen as a

grammaticalised sub-category of the broader concept of modality, which can

be realized in language by different grammatical, lexical and phonological

means.

The categorization of modal meanings in terms of the speakers commitment

to propositional content which differentiates epistemic, deontic and dynamic

types of modality.

Epistemic modality expresses the speakers attitude to the status of the

proposition in terms of judgment of truth-value.

Deontic and dynamic modality express the potentiality of the events; deontic

meanings (associated with the social functions of permission and obligation)

have directive force related to the expression of wants and desires and the

imposition of ones value system and will on others, while dynamic meanings

(associated with ability and volition) yield control over events and

circumstances to the subject of the sentence.


19/84

19

III.2-Pragmaticity of modality

Pragmatic define on a large broad, is the study of conditions and

productions of statements.

Precisely, the object of pragmatics are the relations which are establish by the

statements among

(a)The speaker

(b)The co-speaker

(c)The (situation) context of statement production.

Pragmatics is concerns with the external world7

Pragmatics studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social

interaction and the effects of our choice on others. In theory, we can say

anything we like. In practice, we follow a large number of social rules (most

of them unconsciously) that constrain the way we speak.

Moreover, Pragmatics and semantics both take into account such notions as

the intentions of the speakers, the effects of an utterance on listeners, the7Paul Larreya, Jean-Philippe Watbled , 1994 :67,Linguistique gnrale et langue Anglaise, dition Nathan.

External world

Statement or Enonciation

Speaker Co-speaker


20/84

20

implications that follow from expressing something in a certain way, and the

knowledge, beliefs, and presuppositions about the world upon which speakers

and listeners rely when they interact.

From a pragmatics point of view, then distinction between deontic and

epistemic modality is of particular relevance, as the same modal verbs can be

used in English to express both type of meaning and, thought there are some

clear formal distinctions between the two uses of the modal auxiliaries (e.g.

related to negation), it is the context which is crucial for an adequate speech

interpretation.

Since the modal under investigation must, can, will, are typically associated

with a modality cline of strong to medium deontic meanings, the present

investigation explores primarily the deontic uses of these modals.

Moreover, as the analysis of the material will evidence, the three auxiliaries

under investigation are used by speakers to indicate exclusively deontic

meanings.

Pragmatic defined on a large broad, is the study of conditions and productions

of statement.

III.3-Pronouns and Modality

Here, we are concerned with two pronouns which are Iand we.

They are sometimes differents and sometimes the same because referring to

the same person.

In discours analysis, they show the occurrence of the explicity of the

speakers engagement and his responsibility sometimes in his speech. Then,

first,


21/84


22/84

22

performative value in the sense that it does what the word expresses: assert a

common word9. (My translation)

-We can be used when the speaker is alone or singular to demonstrate a

kind of distance between him and the others (co-speakers) or to show a

certain consideration for himself (speaker).

This is like the in French. This We can be called

the we of superiority.

KERBRAT said that personal pronouns are the most known of deictics and

specially and are pure deictics.

In our context of enunciation, the plural pronouns well be concerned with are

we and you but in the case of explicitness, only we is necessary.

That is why KERBRAT split as follow:

I+you( singular or plural); inclusive we

We : I+non-I+he (they) ; exclusive we

I+You+He (or they)

The inclusive is purely deictic.

Normally, we can say that:

I+X= we (plural or singular)

9Arman Colin & Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni,1980 :40-44 ,L nonciation.

Ce qui inclut d' autres sujets de l' nonciateur constitue en fait une sorte de coup de

force discursif, puisqu' il pose la parole comme parole commune sans videmment vrifier si les

sujets intgrs sont d' accord; il


23/84

23

We

Singular I+O

Plural I+YOU+HE+WE+THEY

According to BENVENISTE (1966:236) we have the following tree:

Rfrent une

Personne Non personne

IL

Subjective Non subjective

Je Tu

For BENVENISTE, the constitute the (singular) because we

know or have this thinks to .

He is a non-person because it needs a precise contextual determinationbefore being characterize.

10

It is appropriate to consider an additional dimension of the subjective-

objective variable which reflects the presence or absence of explicit speaker-

presence.

10Armand Colin & Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1980:40-44 ,L nonciation.


24/84

24

Explicit speaker-presence is associated with the personal intrusion of the

speaker into the text (indicated typically by the use of first-person pronouns)

and a high degree of commitment to the attitude expressed.

Its role in political speech may be to disambiguate the nature of authority

claimed by the speaker, i.e. it is dependent on whether it is based primarily on

objective knowledge or on the power of the speaker.

However the use of sentences with third-person subject can also be

strategically exploited to present the authority as depersonalized, impersonal,

and therefore difficult to challenge.

III.4- Distinction between subjective and objective modality

a-Subjective Modality

a.1. What is subjectivity

For BENVENISTE, the Subjectivity in language is the capacity of the

speaker as subject, is ego that says ego. Here we find the foundation of

subjectivity which is determined by the linguistic status of the person.11

. (My

translation)

11Emile Benveniste,1966 :259-260, Problmes de Linguistique gnrale, Gallimard.

qui se

dtermine par le statut linguistique de la personne>>.


25/84

25

a.2. Subjective Modality

We agree with Nicole LE QUERLER (1996 : 55) about this definition of

subjective modality, who said that the subjective modalities indicate the

psychologic attitudes of the speaker:

-The will (boulic modalities)

Ex: I want pupils arrive at time.

-Appreciation (appreciative or evaluative modalities):

Ex: Its good, bad that,

Im sorry, I hope that

Epistemic modalities are sometimes classify with subjective modalities. (I

know that.)

b- Objective Modality

For Nicole LE QUERLER (1996:64) objective modalities dont depend

neither on the will nor on the judgment of the speaker.

Ex: To grow, you must eat.

Objective modality depends on the reality on the reality of the objective

world.

Deontic and epistemic modality are speaker related and therefore essentially

subjective (and thus are contrasted with the objective character of dynamic

modality); they clearly encode the position of the speaker with respect to the

propositional content of the clause, either in terms of epistemic commitment

to possibility or probability, or in terms of deontic commitment to obligation

or permission.


26/84

26

Deontic modality allows for some cases of objective use which pertain to the

stating of the existence of obligations independently of the will of the speaker

(e.g. the case of the rules and regulations).

III.5- Deontic Modality and Political speeches

a-Deontic Modality

Deontic modalities are of permission and obligation.

Ex: You can go to movies tonight.(permission)

Deontic modality is a linguistic modality that indicates how the world ought

to be, according to certain norms, expectations, speaker desire, etc.

In other words, a deontic expression indicates that the state of the world

(where world is loosely defined here in terms of surrounding circumstances)

does not meet some standard or ideal, whether that standard be social (such aslaws), personal (desires), etc.

The utterance containing the deontic modal generally indicates some action

that would change the world so that it becomes closer to the standard or ideal.

This category includes the following subcategories:

-Commissive modality

(The speakers commitment to do something like a promise or threat):

Ex: I shall help you.

-Directive modality

(Commands, requests, etc.):

Ex: come!


27/84

27

Lets go!

You have got to taste this curry!

-Volitive modality

(Wishes, desires, etc.):

Ex: If only I were rich!

A related type of modality is dynamic modality, which indicates a subjects

internal capabilities or willingness as opposed to external factors such as

permission or orders given.

b-Deontic modality in political speech

The study aimed at investigating in which way linguistic expressions

of the deontic modality act in a sense of making the audiences participation

possible in standpoints defended in political speeches.

Known that the modality relates to the axis of the obligation, the deontic

modality is, in the present research, as a whole, analyzed under the

manifestation of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic-discourse aspects.

There is a social pressure or the politicians, and the usage frequency of

deontic modalizator expressions.

Concerning the linguistic means of the deontic modality expression, one can

perceive a high production of the modal verbs, standing out the modal must,

in the consolidation of obligations.


28/84

28

The politicians preference for presenting themselves to the public as the ones

who took the responsibilities in a task execution, for making the audience

believe that this responsibility belongs to somebody else.

Deontic Modality is connected with the necessity or desirability of acts

performed by morally responsible agents.

It reflects the effort of the speaker to impose a state of affairs on individuals

by restricting possible states of affairs to a single choice or with the modality

as dexis, the imposition of a convergence of the expressed world and the

reference world.

Within political speech, the morality and legality of this state is inevitably

related to a culture-dependent ideological point of view which correlates with

institutional beliefs and norms of conduct and a biased representation of a

constructed speech in terms of right and wrong.

However, in agreement, it can be argued that an ideology is not a single

consistent but biased representation of reality, it normally comes complete

with it own negation, in a deeply contradictory set of versions of reality

whose contradictions are intrinsic to their function.Our source is

(Olga dontcheva- NAVRATILOVA (2009:16)).

I agree with her because such a set, called an ideological complex includes

two components:

The first is the representation of solidarity (Solidarity function) and the other

is the representation of conflict and imposition of power (Power function).

Then, a useful framework for the analysis of ideological complexes.

For this approach, we can based our analysis of some point of view of Olga

Dontcheva-NAVRATILOVA (2009:17)


29/84

29

Within this approach, the ideologically-biased speech world of the speaker is

seen as constructed along three dimensions of deixis-space, time and

modality. Which position the speaker as the deictic Centre, associated with

not only the origin of here and now but also epistemic time and deontic

right? ;the intrusion of the wrong-physical or in the form of an ideological

clash in the deictic Centre shared by the speaker and addressee is considered

an immediate threat which legitimizes intervention (moral, legal and physical,

if necessary to restore the integrity of the right values and social norms. It

can therefore be argued that deontic modality is associated with exhorting

behavior and views conform to the culture-specific moral norms and value

system and condemn as morally or legally wrong those views and acts which

oppose these norms and this value system.

This is supported by the conceptualization of social and political relations in

terms of space metaphor. Insiders close to the speaker are presented as

sharing the ideological values of the group he represents, while outsiders are

suspected of doing the opposite and are distanced from speaker.

We cant deal withmodals without referring to Henri ADAMCZEWSKI

(1990:153), we have this:

-Marry and I will leave tomorrow morning.

-Both of us will fly to new York next week.

In these two utterances, the speaker talk about something which has been

already plan, the ideas have been preconstruced so the use of will. Also the

following utterance shows another dimension of will:

-Will you stay here for a moment, please?

In this utterance, the will is great or we can say that is of great importance soas to show the semantic meaning of this utterance.


30/84

30

In reality, the speaker who has attributed to you a predicate during the

speech, ask if you agree.

Then, the necessity of studying modals is link to their functions and

The function of modals is to establish a kind of cohesion and compatibility

between the subject and the predicate in the syntaxic function.

This kind of operation is important in the functioning of natural langage in

general. The speaker is in this case the master of the verbal use. Through the

modals, the speaker interact on his co-speakers according to his own will. He

chooses the modals he wants depending on his objective.


31/84

31

CHAPTER TWO:

CORPUS

IDENTIFICATION


32/84

32

1-Background

The corpus under investigation is made of three speeches

delivered by three politicians from different cultural backgrounds.

The first is BARACK Obama who is American and he is the actual t president

of United States of America. He is the first black American to govern the

United States of America. Throughout his biography, he is an example not

only for the Americans but also for the Africans because he has always

succeed in his works. His speech shows him as a peaceful man because of his

fight against terrorists through the world.

The second is Margareth Thatcher, the late British lady. She has grown in a

period in which women were not interested in politics, and it was very strange

and inacceptable to see women in the political area. For that, she was obliged

to force a special character which could lead people to respect her and

allowed her to achieve her ambitions in a difficult political world. So, she was

the image of United Kingdom.

And the third politician is Nelson Mandela who is from South Africa. He is a

great model for Africans for he has put end to Apartheid in South Africa. For

South Africaners, Mandela remains a grand father or a god. He is the light for

them. He is a peaceful man thats the reason his discourse on Nobel lecture

has been chosen for investigation.

a-Barack OBAMA

Obamas educational life has been forged by his grandparents. So he got

rigorous character which has permited him to succeed at school and begun

working at twenty-two years old and director at 24.

His character has influenced his speech by his will an determination to defeatthe terrorists.


33/84

33

Obama has focus his speech on will than can and must because that

modal traduce most of the time a great determination of the speaker to carry

out his political ideas. Without pressure, he has convinced his co-speakers

with the force of the modal Will.

In conclusion, Obamas speech gives no choice to terrorists. They must fight

only for a peaceful world in which everybody will be winners.

b- Magareth THATCHER

Thatchers speech is based on the modal can than must and will. It

means that the modal can is predominant. That is to show the capacity of

her co-speakers who are South Africans. Capacity to enforce and carry out the

Great Bretains political will.

In addition, the capacity of her country to sustain South Africa and the whole

continent politically and financially.

She is not really engaged but she presents many plans of Great Bretain which

could help the African continent. She seems also ridiculous by telling to

Africans what they have at their disposal as wealth.

At least, she has a critical objective on the African agriculture and economies.

c- Nelson MANDELA

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born in Transkei, South Africa on July

18, 1918.

Mandela was educated at University college of Fort Hare and the University

of Witwatersrand and qualified in law in 1942.


34/84

34

He joined the African National Congress (ANC) in the 1944 and was engaged

in resistance against the ruling National Partys apartheid policies after 1948.

He went on trial for treason in 1956-1961 and was acquitted in 1961.

After the banning of the ANC in 1960, Nelson Mandela argued for the setting

up of a military wing within the ANC. In June 1961, the ANC executive

considered his proposal on the use of violent tactics and agreed that those

members who wished to involve themselves in Mandelas campaign would

not be stopped from doing so by the ANC. This led to the formation of

umkhontowe sizwe. Mandela was arrested in 1962 and sentenced to five yearsimprisonment with hard labor. In 1963, when many fellow leaders of the

ANC and the Umkhontowe sizwe were arrested, Mandela was brought to

stand trial with them for plotting to overthrow the government by violence.

His statement from the dock received considerable international publicity. On

June 12, 1964 eight of the accused, including Mandela, were sentenced to life

imprisonment. From 1964 to 1982, he was incarcerated at Robben Island

Prison, off Cape Town; thereafter, he was at Pollsmoor Prison, nearby on the

mainland.

During his years in prison, Nelson Mandelas reputation grew steadily. He

was widely accepted as the most significant black leader in South Africa and

became a potent symbol of resistance as the anti-apartheid movement

gathered strength. He consistently refused to compromise his political

position to obtain his freedom.

Nelson Mandela was released on February 11, 1990.

After his release, he plunged himself wholeheartedly into his lifes work,

striving to attain the goals he and others had set out almost four decades

earlier.


35/84

35

In 1991, at the first national conference of the ANC held inside South Africa

after the organization had been banned in 1960, Mandela was elected

President of the ANC while his lifelong friend and colleague, Olivier Tamba,

became the organizations national chairperson.

Mandelas speech is predominant by the modal which is will and his great

engagement as black human rights defender and as the master of anti-

apartheid movements.

Being the Nobel Price Winner, Mandela objectively shows the necessity of

his struggle against apartheid and peace conqueror.

These informations about Nelson Mandela have been taken from Wikipedia.

All these ideas will be demonstrate in the following chapters.

2-Material

All the speeches included in the corpus were made during their

governing time, specially when they were president for the two men and

prime minister for the only lady.

It means that the speakers have become experienced politicians of the world

and their country, with established political views and well-formed speaking

style; furthermore, they are not under the pressure of a re-election campaign.

Since this study undertakes to examine differences in the pragmatic functions

of the modals under investigation as used by the three speakers, the corpus is

subdivided into three sub-corpora, each including one speech given by the

politicians, which are OBAMA, THATCHER and MANDELA.

Our source remain the three speeches in which we have:


36/84

36

OBAMA-approximately 1901 words

THATCHER-approximately 1920 words

MANDELA-approximately 1960 words

The total size of the corpus is approximately 5781 Words.

Although the three politicians are native speakers of English. The speeches

included in the corpus are considered to have native speaker fluency.

It should also be noted that although some preparatory work on the speeches

might have been done by teams of advisers, the politicians are considered the

authors, in terms of both content and rhetorical style.

The selection of speeches dealing with similar topics, e.g. science, education,

politics and culture, and with a similar place of delivery is intended to allow a

comparison of the use of modals by the three speakers.


37/84

37

3-Method

Drawing on the view that quantification should be treated as a starting

point of investigation. This investigation combines quantitative approaches.

Quantitative analysis has been used to highlight general tendencies in the

occurrence of the modals under investigation and motivate the selection of

representative sections of speeches for qualitative analysis.

However, since the interpretation of modals may differ according to a number

of variables, a careful qualitative analysis taking into consideration contextual

factors is necessary to reveal pragmatic functions and strategic uses. Our

source is the work of Olga Dontcheva-NAVRATILOVA (2009:18)

So, quantitative approaches will be focus on the number or quantity of the use

of modals verbs like can, must and will.

Necessary the quantitative approach of a given modal will give a certain

feature to a discourse. This feature may vary according to the modal.

About the qualitative approaches, it is to use the right modals at the right

place and moment in the utterance. This must be done in coherence with the

ideas of the speaker and to avoid misconception and misunderstanding.

The qualitative analysis of the modals may help us in discourse analysis in

general and in political speeches in particular.

So, in the context of enunciation, quantitative and qualitative analysis are

closely link.


38/84

38

CHAPTER THREE:

ANALYSIS

AND

DISCUSSION


39/84

39

I-ANALYSIS

1-Tables of distribution

Modals Obama Thatcher Mandela Total % Classification

CAN 08 13 05 26 29,88 2

MUST 07 05 10 22 25,30 3

WILL 11 09 19 39 44,82 1

Total 26 27 34 87 100

% 29,88 31,03 39,09 100

Classification 3 2 1

Table 1: Distribution of the modals (can, must, will) in the material or

in the whole speeches.


CAN 08 10 05 23 27,38 2

MUST 10 03 10 23 27,38 2

WILL 11 08 19 38 45,24 1

Total 29 21 34 84 100

% 34,52 25 40,48 100


Table 2: Distribution of the modals on the five first pages of each

Speech.


40/84

40


CAN 03 01 02 06 31,58 2

MUST 04 00 02 06 31,58 2

WILL 03 00 04 07 36,84 1

Total 10 01 08 19 100

% 52,63 5,26 42,11 100


Table 3: Distribution of explicit speaker presence

N.B: Explicit= use of I and we.


CAN 05 09 03 17 26,15 2

MUST 06 03 08 17 26,15 2

WILL 08 08 15 31 47,70 1

Total 19 20 26 65 100

% 29,23 30,77 40 100


Table 4: Distribution of implicit speaker presence


41/84

41

a- Table1:Canis used 26 times, which represent 29,88 percent of modals.

Mustis used 22 times, which represent 25,30 percent of modals.

Willis used 39 times, which represent 44,82 percent of modals.

OBAMA has used 26 as total amount of modals.

THATCHER has used 27 as total amount of modals.

MANDELA has used 34 as total amount of modals.

b- Table 2

-Canand Mustare used 23 times each, which represent 27,38 percent.

-Canis used 23 times, which represent 27,38 percent.

-Must is also used 23 times, which represent 27,38 percent of the total

amount of modals.

-Willis used 38 times, which represent 45,24 percent of the total amount of

modals.

About Speakers

-THATCHER has used 21 modals as total.

-OBAMA has used 29 modals as total.

-MANDELA has used 34 modals as total.


42/84

42

c- Table 3

-Explicitness

-Canis used 06 times explicitly, which represent 31,58 percent.

-Mustis used 06 times explicitly, which represent 31,58 percent.

-Willis used 07 times explicitly, which represent 36,84 percent.

About Speakers

-Obama is the first speaker with 10 explicit use of modals, which represent

52,63 percent explicitness.

-Mandela is the second speaker with 08 explicit use of modals, which

represent 42,11 percent explicitness.

-Thatcher is the third speaker with 01 explicit use of modals, which represent

5,26 percent explicitness.

d-Table 4 :

-Implicitness

-Canis used 17 times implicitly, which represent 26, 15

-Mustis used 17 times implicitly, which represent 26,15

-Willis used 31 times implicitly, which represent 47,70


43/84

43

About Speakers

-Mandela is the first speaker with 26 implicit use of modals, which represent

40 percent implicitness.

-Thatcher is the second speaker with 20 implicit use of modals, which

represent 30,77 percent implicitness.

-Obama is the third speaker with 19 implicit use of modals, which represent

29,28 percent implicitness.

N.B: The use of willand Musttogether.

See page 2 and 3 in the speech of Mandela, he uses the two modals link by

and, four times.

This need to be explained and well understood.

II-DISCUSSION

We cant discuss about modals without being inspired by our course of

master degree concerning discourse analysis.

Then, discussion of modals through the difference speeches means not only

the study of modals use in the different utterances which constitute speeches

but also the aims of discourse analysis.

Hence, discourse is defined as language beyond the sentences, it is

meaningful combination of language unit which serve various communicative

purposes and which act in various context.


44/84

44

The basic unit of a discourse is a structured text. And texts are meaningful

language unit which primarily derive their meaning in context.

The structure is the forces that keep the sentence or the text together. Syntax

is the trees, the grammatical structure.

Hence, discourse is the semantic relation.

And Political discourse or Political speeches may be seen as, given the role of

political discourse in the enactment reproduction and legitimation of power

and domination.

Before a real analyze of the three speeches under our investigation lets have

an overview on the use of the three modals which are: Can, Mustand Will.

CAN

12

.

We have the following examples in the case of assertion can in a context of

enunciation.

a) She canbe generous, but she doesnt like being asked.b) Listen! Was that not the bell? Who can it be?c) She cantbe more than eighteen.

About can, according to the context, the modal can expresses the ability,

possibility, probability, inability,

12Henri Adamczewski & Jean- Pierre Gabilan,1992 :51-52, LES CLES DE LA GRAMMAIRE ANGLAISE, Armand

Colin, Paris.


45/84

45

MUST

We can state that:

Must is may not-not V

Can not-not V

Must is obtained by the use of the double negation of the double negation of

the modal may or can.

Example:

You must tell the truth.

Or you may not not tell the truth. (you are obliged to tell the truth).

For Henri ADAMCZEWSKI & Jean-Pierre GABILAN, must bears/ carry on

the relation subject and predicate.

This is a reality according to the following examples:

a) She must be tired.Mustis a result according to the situation.

b) There must be a woman in it.c) It must be cold this morning.

Must as a modal expresses the necessity, obligation, probability,

prohibition,

Must is a mark of pressure.

In the case of obligation of must, the speaker imposes a constraint to the co-

speaker. However with must the relation is not oriented toward the

predication.


46/84

46

Must have a per formative nature, the reason why one cannot imagine

must with a past value. Must will give place to have to that only

indicate that the subject was bound to by a predicate. (have to is not a modal).

WILL

Will as modal expresses suggestion, invitation, interdiction, instant

decision, offer, promise,

With will, the relation between the predicate and the subject is natural.

So there is a concordance between the subject and the predicate. So will

signals that the predication is inherent.

Examples:

a) When the cat is away, the mice will play.b)

You will be thirsty after such a long walk a long walk.

(It is normal, it is previsible)

Will indicates that the relation between the subject and the predicate is

obvious inherent congruent (preconstructed).

When an event is inevitable, we use will. With Will, there is a congruence

(the speaker announces the realization of the predicate).

In conclusion, we use modals verbs to show if we believe something is

certain, probable or possible (or not).

We also use modals to do things like talking about ability, asking permission,

making requests and offers, and so on.


47/84

47

Modals are concern the way the contents are oriented. So there are many kind

of modalities corresponding to the psychological disposition of the speaker.

Modals (can, must, will,) are invariant value. Invariant value doesnt

change, it is not a semantic value, as semantic means meaning.

At least the speech effects (Necessity, obligation, prohibition, ) is a

semantic interpretation of the use of the unit in a context

So lets come back to our discussion in the three speeches with the modals

must, can and will.

Strong deontic modality expressed by:

-Will (45,24%): consensus, inherent congruent (pre-constructed) to the

political ideology and implication of a sufficient consensus to support it.

-Must (27,38%): indicating a commitment to the political ideology and a

power to impose it. The deontic source.

-Can (27, 38): congruence, possibility, probability and capacity. Indicating a

commitment to the political ideology and a congruence to realize it.

2.1- The use of can

The modal can is generally used to express something which ispossible or for possibility, and sometimes for capacity.

2.1.1- THATCHERs speech

Thatcher used the highest number of can in her speech than Obama and

Mandela (see table 1).


48/84

48

It means that through her speech, she shows the ability, the possibility, the

capacity and the permission to the Africans in general and the south-Africans

in particular have at their disposal to solve their problems on all the plans like

agriculture, economy, the way of governing in order to have a new beginning

or a new dawn.

Lets quote some utterances or paragraphs to sustain our viewpoint.

On page two:

But no-one candoubt that it is bad for both donor and recipient

countries if aid ever comes to be seen as a substitute for

tackling real and evident causes of continued under-

development.

For the majority of Africans, only flourishing agriculture can

assure their future.

We can read the following lines on page four of Thatchers discourse:

Of course, where the new Government was Marxist, that was

always the intention. Many other Governments, disliking

opposition, moved to the One Party State.Some of these One-

Party systems are, of course, less oppressive than others. But,

by definition, they are all more repressive than any genuine

Multi-Party system canbe.


49/84

49

The essence of democracy is free criticism and opposition

which can form an alternative Government that the electors

can freely choose

Thatchers speech is dominated by the modal can, which means that there is a

congruence between the speaker (Thatcher) and the co-speakers (The

Africans or the South-Africans).

2.1.2-OBAMAs speech

Obama used eight can. He used less than Thatcher. (See table 2).

It means that all the Muslims of the world and in particular those of Egypt

have the possibility to join with him to track down the terrorists everywhere

they hide.

The Muslims have the capacity to give help and it is possible for the two

peoples (Americans and Arabians) to trust in each others.

When Obama said that on page two:

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we

will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those

who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help

all of our people achieve justice and prosperity.

I do recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know

theres been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single

speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the


50/84

50

time that I have this afternoon all the complex question that

brought us to this point.

He also argued that on page three:

It was innovation in Muslim communities --

(applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that

developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and

tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our

understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be

healed.

We have on page four:

Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people.

2.1.3-MANDELAs speech

Mandela used only five can in total.

This reveals that Mandelas speech doesnt need the possibility, the capacity

and the probability of the audience or co-speakers.

It is not very important for the speaker who is Mandela but some time he

require these abilities.

Because of their courage and persistence for many years, we

can, today, even set the dates when all humanity will join

together to celebrate one of the outstanding human victories

of our century.

This reward will not be measured in money. Nor can it be


51/84

51

reckoned in the collective price of the rare metals and

precious stones that rest in the bowels of the African soil

we tread in the footsteps of our ancestors.

Moved by that appeal and inspired by the eminence you

have thrust upon us, we undertake that we too will do

what we can to contribute to the renewal of our world so

that none should, in future, be described as the "wretched

of the earth.

2.2-The use of Must

The modal must is generally used to express obligation and necessity.

2.2.1-OBAMAs speech

Obama used the highest number of must as Mandela.

Knowing that Must is or indicates a mark of pressure, Obama want to oblige

Arabians and Muslims everywhere they are to cooperate, to help him track

down the terrorists everywhere they hide. This idea is express clearly in his

speech.

For him, when there is an attack against America by the Islamists terrorists, it

is all people living in America who are on threat, because America is not only

a melting pot but also a country which has all the religions.


52/84

52

So nobody is in security. More than a necessity, it is an obligation for

Muslims to join the struggle, for the battle.

We must sustain these ideas by Obamas following paragraphs.

Obama argued that on page two:

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must

say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and

that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must

be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each

other; to respect one another; and to seek common

ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God

and speak always the truth.

He continues on page three:

So I have known Islam on three continents

before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That

experience guides my conviction that partnership between

America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what

it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as

President of the United States to fight against negative

stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

When we move to page five:

So whatever we think of the past, we must

not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with


53/84

53

through partnership; our progress must be

shared. (Applause.)

Now, that does not mean we should ignore

sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must

face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me

speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific

issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

Through the paragraph above, Obama demonstrated that Muslims are morally

and physically obliged to fight not only for their own security but also for thesecurity of the humanity.

2.2.2- MANDELAs speech

Mandela used the same number of must as Obama.

He used ten must out of twenty-three in total.

In this context of receiving the Nobel peace prize, Mandela as a speaker is

face to South-Africa, face to African continent and face to all the humanity.

He used Must to show the greatest important of peace through the world.

He used Must many times in order to oblige morally all humanity to give up

any kind of violence and adopt an attitude of real peace.

Mandela is symbolizing the peace to himself and each of a human individual

must be a Mandela.

Mandela on page two wrote that:

It will and must be measured by the

happiness and welfare of the children, at once the most


54/84

54

vulnerable citizens in any society and the greatest of our

treasures.

The children must, at last, play in the open veld, no longer

tortured by the pangs of hunger or ravaged by disease or

threatened with the scourge of ignorance, molestation and

abuse, and no longer required to engage in deeds whose

gravity exceeds the demands of their tender years.

He continue on page three:

The reward of which we have spoken will

and must also be measured by the happiness and welfare of

the mothers and fathers of these children, who must walk the

earth without fear of being robbed, killed for political or

material profit, or spat upon because they are beggars.

They too must be relieved of the heavy

burden of despair which they carry in their hearts, born of

hunger, homelessness and unemployment.

The value of that gift to all who have

suffered will and must be measured by the happiness and

welfare of all the people of our country, who will have torn

down the inhuman walls that divide them.

On the same page three:

The value of our shared reward will and must

be measured by the joyful peace which will triumph, because

the common humanity that bonds both black and white into


55/84


56/84

56

system and sound finance.

South Africans Themselves must work out their own

constitutional future by negotiation.

On page five again we have:

First, free enterprise must clearly prevail. No amount of

talk of a mixed economy or a positive role for government

must be allowed to obscure this fundamental distinction.

Also on page six:

We must show all South Africans that free enterprise works

to the benefit of all.

2.3-The use of will

The modal will is generally used to expressprobability.

2.3.1- Mandelas speech

Mandela used the highest number of will means that the audience under

his speech must agree with him. With will there is a congruence.

Mandela receiving the Nobel peace prize is a symbol so by using the modalwill, he suggests them, he invites them to do as he did.

Letshave a critical use of will.

Mandela focuses on will onpage one:


57/84

57

It will not be presumptuous of us if we also add, among our

predecessors, the name of another outstanding Nobel Peace

Prize winner, the late RevMartin Luther King Jr.

Here, will traduce a suggestion.




of our century.

It is an invitation.

That triumph will finally bring to a close a history of five

hundred years of African colonisation that began with the

establishment of the Portuguese empire.

Thus, it will mark a great step forward in history and also

serve as a common pledge of the peoples of the world to fight

racism, wherever it occurs and whatever guise it assumes.

At the southern tip of the continent of Africa, a rich reward in

the making, an invaluable gift is in the preparation for those

who suffered in the name of all humanity when they sacrified

everything - for liberty, peace, human dignity and human

fulfillment.

This reward will not be measured in money. Nor can it be

reckoned in the collective price of the rare metals and
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/index.htmlhttp://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/index.html


58/84

58

precious stones that rest in the bowels of the African soil we

tread in the footsteps of our ancestors.

Through these three will the speaker shows his congruence with the co-

speaker or the audience because what he said must be approve by the

audience because and they already share these realities.

The speaker expresses here a probability and a certain expectation.

On page three of his discourse:

Thus shall we live, because we will have created a society

which recognises that all people are born equal, with each

entitled in equal measure to life, liberty, prosperity, human

rights and good governance.

We also have:

We pray that those who have the power to do so will, without

further delay, permit that she uses her talents and energies for

the greater good of the people of her country and humanity as

a whole.

The first will is used to traduce a suggestion and the second will is used by

the speaker in the context of invitation.


59/84

59

2.3.2- OBAMAs speech

Obama used eleven times will on the total amount of thirty-eight.

He is the second after Mandela.

Obamas speech is at a great importance because it deals with the security of

Americans.

Hence, the use of the modal will determine his great desire, wish or his

willingness to fight against terrorism.

He argued that on page two:


will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those

who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can

help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And

this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

Here the speaker is very determined so that he is ready to join with the co-

speakers for the fight.

Will used is so strong that we can replace it by must.

Lets move topage four:

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the

beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of

our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in

the years ahead; and if we understand

That the challenges we face are shared, and our failure tomeet them will hurt us all.


60/84

60

The two will are used for suggestion, an invitation to make his ideology

become true.

So the Arabian people or the audiency are face to their destiny.

He wrote that on page five:

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will

be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however,

relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave

threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that

people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men,

women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to

protect the American people.

The first will shows the negative position of the speaker, the interdiction by

Obama to permit the will of the terrorisms who claim to be Muslims.

The second will shows that the speaker and his co-speakers have no choice,they have to take a great decision to confront violent extremists.

2.3.3- THATCHERs speech

Thatcher who used a less number of the modal will (8/38).

The general context of her speech is a political ideology of sensibilization of

Africans.

Then the use of will by the context of suggestion, invitation offer, decision

and promise is a great justification.


61/84

61

On the page two:

The response to these disasters will always be generous. And

rightly so. But no-one can doubt that it is bad for both donor

and recipient countries if aid ever comes to be seen as a

substitute for tackling real and evident causes of continued

under-development.

Here, the use of will by the speaker traduce a kind of suggestion.

On the page three of his discourse:

It will be by free-enterprise capitalism within a framework of

law that South Africa's divisions can be healed and her

difficulties overcome.

Will traduce a supposition, Thatcher suppose that free-entreprise capitalism

will be within a frameword of law.

Lets move topage four:

Without a real determination to alter their political and

economic systems most Africans will remain poor and indeed

grow poorer.

Thatcher uses will to show Africans what is inevitable without their real

determination.


62/84

62

Also on page five:

South Africa will benefit, like other African countries, from

the great international changes we have seenin particular

the reduction of external threats to her security.

Here, it is a will of promise.

Third, remember that bureaucrats, vested interests and some

companies will ask for controls and argue for subsidies.

Its a political invitation by using will as the appropriate modal.

Protectionism leads to inefficient industries which will

damage the consumer and lose exports.

Will is used to show an instance of decision.

Fifth, there will be strident calls to redistribute wealth as a

means of eradicating poverty.

Thatcher used will to show them the promise they can get by being her

followers.

2.4- The use of willand must

Through the three speeches of our politicians, only The two modals (will

and must) are used together rarely to express something which is more or

strong than necessity and obligation because the sense of must make

disappear the wills sense.

Only Mandela used the two modals together in his speech.


63/84

63

It is his speech particularity. By the two modals, Mandela aims that, if there is

a real consensus, a real political desire, we have the power, the obligation to

achieve it easily.

By this, Mandela want mankind to know that nothing is impossible .

We can and must have a real peace world .

He wrote on page two:

It will and must be measured by the happiness and welfare of

the children, at once the most vulnerable citizens in any

society and the greatest of our treasures.

He wrote on page three:

The reward of which we have spoken will and must also be

measured by the happiness and welfare of the mothers and

fathers of these children, who must walk the earth without

fear of being robbed, killed for political or material profit, or

spat upon because they are beggars.

The value of our shared reward will and must be measured by

the joyful peace which will triumph, because the common

humanity that bonds both black and white into one human

race, will have said to each one of us that we shall all live likethe children of paradise.

2.5- Explicitness

Speaker explicit presence in a speech is the use of the first-pronoun

person (I) and, or the use of the plural first-person (we).

According to ADAMCZEWSKI (1990:153):


64/84

64

I and We are signs of a take of decision, which means that relation between

the predicat and the subject is rhematic but this rhematicity is due to I and

We.

This also point out the explicitness of the speaker presence through his

speeches.

-Iwill stay here with you.

-Go away or I will call the police one moment. Someones coming. I will

wash. You slip into a closet musnt webe seen together.

These two pronouns turn the speaker at a co-speaker so breaking down the

nonotony in the discourse and made the co-speakers conscious.

2.5.1- OBAMAs speech

Obama used the singular first personal pronoun (I) with the two modalscan and will.

He also used the plural first personal pronoun (we) with the two modals

which are mustand will.

a-I can

Obama wrote that on page two:

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I

know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no

single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I


65/84


66/84

66

Obama used the singular first personal pronoun (I) as subject to show his

own implication, his own involvement and his own determination to lead his

countrys political ideology.

This overall of explicitness reflects his continuous effort to build up an image

of togetherness and promote not only the external policy of his country but

also its internal policy.

c-We will

He focuses on we will onpage two:


will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, thosewho promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can

help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And

this cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

Also on page five:

We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists

who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject

the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of

innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty

as President to protect the American people.

The first we means speech participants, the second we means the

Government.


67/84

67

The use of we with the modal will means that they have together to take the

great decision which is to confront relentlessly violent extremists.

d-We must

On page two, he wrote:

But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must

say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and

that too often are said only behind closed doors.

On page five, he wrote:

So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to

it.

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of

tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these

tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as

clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that

I believe we must finally confront together.

Here speaker presence indicated by the speaker-inclusive plural first

person-pronoun (we), which most frequently co-occurs with the strong modal

must to indicate speaker authority.

For Obama, more than a duty, it is an obligation, an extreme necessity to join

together to achieve his political will which is to track down all the terrorists.


68/84

68

This togetherness is traduced by the use of we as follow:

The first wemeans speech participants.

The second refers to speech participants.

The third refers to the government.

The fourth we refers both to Government and speech participants.

Our source is the text of Obama.

2.5.2- MANDELAs speech

Mandela used the plural first personal pronoun (we) with only the two

modals which are can and will.

Mandela behaves so because of the force of the two modals (can, will).

For him, will traduce etymologically a very strong desire. A desire which

nothing can stop its achievement.

Will used, has a morally effect on his co-speakers, to show them there are

no alternatives to escape the fight.

In addition, the use of can means more than a permission, they have the

capacity to achieve their will. Physically, they need nothing to fight. They are

ready. So what retain them?

Nothing.

To sum up, he used the plural first pronoun(we) with can and will to

demonstrate his belonging to the fight.

He, more than a president, he is their charismatics leader. He will stand on thefront line of the succeed road and there is no place for fear nor fail.


69/84

69

So they have the same destiny and the incoming generation will continue the

undertaken fight.

a- We canOn page two, Obama focuses on:




of our century.

Also on page five:

Moved by that appeal and inspired by the eminence you have

thrust upon us, we undertake that we too will do what we can

to contribute to the renewal of our world so that none should,

in future, be described as the wretched of the earth.

In both cases, Mandela used the plural first-pronoun (we) to show their

common possibilities and capacities to overcome a peaceful world which

would be defined as the human victories, and they can all together be the

builders of that new world of peace which is the dream of Mandela.

Both we used refer to the speech participants and all the countries which

constitute the world.

b-We will

Mandela used we will and we too will in his speech.

He used we will not we must, not we shall not we can because will

is a strong modal by its definition. We will is more engaged and more


70/84

70

determined than the others. Here there is no place for a joke. Any way they

will overcome to everything they begin, overcome to their enemies.

On page three, we have:

Thus shall we live, because we will have created a society

which recognises that all people are born equal, with each

entitled in equal measure to life, liberty, prosperity, human

rights and good governance.

Such a society should never allow again that there should be

prisoners of conscience nor that any person's human right

should be violated.

In this paragraph, Mandela used the plural first pronoun we with will to

demonstrate his inclusive and their common decision for creating a peaceful,

lovely and successful society for all people.

Furthermore, the relation between the inclusive subject (we) and the predicate

is obvious inherent, congruent so preconstructed.

The incluse plural first-pronoun represente all the countries in general

including their governments (the end of the utterance by good governance).

Also on page five:

Moved by that appeal and inspired by the eminence you have

thrust upon us, we undertake that we too will do what we can

to contribute to the renewal of our world so that none should,

in future, be described as the wretched of the earth.


71/84

71

Through this paragraph, Mandela used the plural first-pronoun (we) plus (too)

plus (will), to show not only his inclusive action but also to demonstrate a

kind of comparison (by the use of too).

The inclusive action consist in building a new peaceful world.

We draw this definition from Collins paperback English dictionary.

2.6- Implicitness

2.6.1-Definition

Something implicit is something expressed indirectly.

Example: an implicit agreement.

It also means absolute and unquestioning.

Example: implicit trust.

At least it means contained in, although not stated openly.

Example: This view of the mind was implicit in all his work.Implicit means

something which is hide, which is not clearly stated or which has its roots in

explicit.Implicit can also be seen as an implicature of the explicit.

Example: You are not tall. (Explicit Implicit)

You are short. (Implicit Explicit)

The speakers choose implicit subjectivity, since they lack the power to impose

some measures, some political ideologies.

The implicit subjectivity reflects the high level of political authority of the

three politicians within the context of their countries political

ideologies.Implicit subjectivity is also used when obligations are imposed on

the parties.Our three politicians have used implicit subjectivity according to

their different political ideologies.


72/84

72

2.6.2-The different types of implicit contents

H.Paul Grice (1978:115) presents the following tree:

Contenus

Explicites() Implicit()

=

Conventionnelles non conventionnelles

Conversationnelles non conversationnelles

Gnrales(ou ) particulire

The axe number three has been criticized as follow by SADOCK (1978:

282-283):

Nonconventional implicatures come in two varieties: first the important class

of conversational implicatures that involve the principale cooperation and its

maxims, and then a poorly described class of nonconventional,

nonconventional implicatures that are calculated in context on the basis of the

conventional meaning, knowledge of the context of utterance, and

background knowledge, but which depend crucially for their existence on


73/84

73

nonconversational maxims that are aesthetic, social, or moral in character.

Grice gives as an example Be polite. I have some trouble understanding

exactly why it is that such maxims differ from those that fall under the

principale cooperation.

This analysis seems not to be very clear and understandable that is why we

will cut the tree and only take into account the two first lines as follow:

Contenus

Explicites Implicates=infrences

Prsupposes Sous-entendu

2.6.3- Explicit contents versus implicit contents

To speak explicitly is to tell something.

To speak implicitely is to get someone to think something.

Example:

-Pierre has stop smoking. (explicite)

-Pierre was smoking. (implicite)

Implicit, when the speaker didnt want to talk about it (that Pierre had always

smoking).


74/84

74

2.6.4-Presupposed

The presupposed utterance doesnt contained the core or the essential

element of the ideas or message, but they are in the speech or in the statement.

In other terms, CATHERINE K.O (1998:21) said that The presupposes, we

want without 13

This seems not to be true or generalized because presupposed are always

indirectly appears in discourse. It is not the will of the speaker but a

linguistics phenomenon.

Example:

a) African people must transformed their raw materials.b) African people have raw materials.c) African continent has raw materials.

For this example,

a) Presupposed b and cSo b and c are implicit.

13Catherine Kerbrat- Orecchioni, (1998 :21), Limplicite, Armand Colin/ Paris,1986,1998.

Les presupposes, on les sans les .


75/84

75

2.6.5- Insinuation (Sous-entendu)

Insinuations contains all the informations which can be provided from

the enunciation (speech, discourse) according to the context.

Examples:

a) S il fait beau, j irai me promener.S il ne fait pas beau, je resterai chez moi.

b) , , ou se contenteraient de sous-entendre/ pas tous/, /pas toujours/, ou /pas ncessairement/

c) Yes we can.We implies I and you (singular) or many people including the

peaker himself.

We have to stop here this chapter about implicitness because it will be more

developed in our next thesis. But what is important to know is that, implicit

contents are always omnipresent in discourse.

Despite the maxim of modality, the speaker has the right to use implicit

enunciation because implicit is very important in discourse analysis.

Implicit makes interpretation suitable for the co-speaker and call for his

background.


76/84

76

III- RESULTS

Modals are of great importance because of their place in the linguistics

field.

In discourse analysis, modals help the linguists to have a very critical analysis

and allow the speaker to make his speech explicit or implicit by the use of

personal pronouns in a relation with modal auxiliary verbs.

Used in political speeches, modals give to the speaker and co-speaker the tone

of the discourse. This tone may be obligatory (the use of must,),

politely(the use of may),

Modals are also the basis of enunciation theory thinks to their definitions and

they put the speaker in the central of his speech.

They constitute the key elements of a best understanding of the discourse in

general and political discourse in particular.

Different ideologies or political orientations are expressed by the politicians

with a special choice of a kind of modal auxiliaries (can, must, will)

according not only to their will but also as their psychological dispositions.

Sometimes including themselves by using explicit speaker-presence to show

the force of actions and creating a sense of togetherness.

All these are the results of the preceding work and have been inspired of

topics in linguistics.


77/84

77

CONCLUSION


78/84

78

Through the thesis we investigate, the view that in political speech

deontic modality has a key role in the construction of an ideological speech

world in terms of wright and wrong and that the meaning of modals is

subjected to pragmatic interpretation.

The analysis has shown that the modal verbs must, can, will in the speech of

the three politicians express exclusively deontic subjectivity; the deontic

source in political ideology which promotes the representation of solidarity

and the imposition of obligations to comply with the socially established

values and norms of behavior, while condemning views and actions

contradicting and threatening these values and norms.

All the three politicians used in different context the three modals; differences

in the use of modals by the three speakers can be explained by the specificity

of the political context and their policy during their terms of governing, as

well as by the individual choices of the speakers.

The thesis research has also proved that the use of modals to construct a

consistent ideological viewpoint indicating a continuous high level of

commitment on the part of the speakers, towards the thesis under discussion

and to impose behavior and views, help the speaker enhance his existential

coherence at the interpersonal plane of speech.

The perception of discourse coherence is furthered of discourse coherence is

furthered by lexical and pronominal choices co-occurring with the modals.

To conclude, it should be noted that since the scope of the present

investigation is limited to the semantic and pragmatic functions of the modal

auxiliaries can, will and must.

Further research exploring in detail the functions of other lexical and

grammatical forms expressing modality in international governmental


79/84


80/84

80

The path for the future is to use the modals in their really context of

communication and try to individualize each modal in a specific context of

meaning because the use and the study of modals remain difficult and

confused.

Then the orientation for our further studies in connection to this memoire may

be multifaceted because we have many things to say and write about modals

Documents

Recap Avec Times New Roman