An Application of Fairclough’s Three Dimensional CDA Approach to Fraser Anning's Speech in Australian Senate
An Application of
Fairclough’s Three Dimensional CDA Approach to Fraser Anning's Speech in
Australian Senate
Correspondence:
|
Dr. Wasim Hassan
|
Lecturer
in English, National Textile University, Faisalabad, Pakistan
|
Abaid
ur Rehman
|
M. Phil Scholar, Riphah International University,
Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan
|
|
Asad
Zafar
|
M. Phil Scholar, Riphah International University,
Faisalabad Campus, Pakistan
|
|
Farwa Akbar
|
Government College University,
Faisalabad, Pakistan
|
|
Samyya Masood
|
Government College University, Faisalabad,
Pakistan
|
Abstract
The aim of this study was to highlight impression markers,
identify key concerns, and describe cultural as well as social implications of
a speech delivered by William Fraser Anning (an Australian Senator) in the
Australian Senate on August 14, 2018. In this regard, Fairclough’s
three-dimensional model was employed to interpret the data. The speaker was
observed employing different impression markers (e.g. discourse and punctuation
markers, cultural and historical references, personal pronouns, self and other
markers, and expressive and rational values) to create coherence in the speech,
emphasize the stance, and thereby grab the attention of the audience. Social
problems, common man’s worries like joblessness, poor living standard, race,
ethnicity and immigration were the concerns of the speech. Muslim immigrants
were not treated as humans equal to Australians or other Europeans. They were
labeled as ‘welfare-blunders’, ‘terrorists’, ‘gang-terrorists’, ‘criminals’,
and ‘illegal occupants’. The speech was followed by an extremist attack on a
Mosque in New Zealand. It might cause serious threat to peaceful co-existence,
immigration process, and basic human rights.
Keywords: critical
discourse analysis; ethnicity; William Fraser Anning; immigration; race; three-dimensional
approach
1. Introduction
Critical discourse analysis (CDA) studies the
exertion of political, social and economic power relations through text or
speech. CDA analysts take an outside position with their
research and their aim is to expose the social and political inequality in
order to change it with social justice and equality in economics as well as
politics for different sections of the society (Van Dijk, 1989). CDA is an inspired and restricted attempt to
analyse how language is used not only to describe the things but also to do the
things (Brown & Yule, 1983). It studies the language in
relation to supremacy, ideas, civilization and favoritism etc. or in other
words the main focus of discourse analysis is the social use of language.
But the purpose of this study is to analyse William Fraser Anning’s maiden
speech. According to Fairclough’s (1992,
2001) three phrase models each phase is linked to the other in discourse
analysis i.e. textual, interpretational and social levels that need an entirely
different way of analysis but they are interrelated to one another. Embarking
on the said framework, this research aims to:
1. Highlight impression markers in
William Fraser Anning’s speech in the Australian Senate on August 14, 2018;
2. Identify main concerns of the
speech; and
3. Relate possible social and
cultural impacts implied in the speech.
William Fraser Anning was born on October 14, 1949 in
Australia. He grew up in Queensland where his forefathers left a large estate
for him. His grandfather was a British national and came to Australia in 19th
century. Anning was elected as a
senator in the Australian Upper House in 2016. In June 2018, he joined Katter’s
Australian Party (KAP) but was expelled from this political party in October 2018
due to his maiden speech in upper house where he expressed his views on race,
ethnicity and immigration. After that Anning founded his own political party ‘Fraser
Anning’s Conservative National Party’ in April 2019. Anning holds anti-Muslim
and anti-immigrant anti-democratic views due to which he is severely criticized
all over the world. According to Anning, Muslims should not be allowed to enter
the Australian soils and environment. In his view, the Muslims are fanatics and
extremists who create trouble for the people of Australia. Even after the
shooting of the Muslims in Christchurch Mosque on 15th of March 2019, he again
stood up with his anti-Islam and anti-Muslim views. According to some of the
well-known international news channels like ABC News Anning has strong links
with those who are a part of Christchurch Muslim shooting in 2019.
2. Literature Review
Fairclough
(1993) says that CDA is a kind of discourse analysis that creates strange relationships between different social and cultural groups.
According to him there are three stages of discourse analysis. The first stage
is related with analysing the beliefs of the authors or speakers of the texts
or talks. While, the second stage guides that how discourse has an influence on
society whereas the third phase of CDA is about studying individuality and
practicality. According to Fairclough (1993) linguistic selection has an impact
on the society in the formation and application of a specific theory, ideology,
belief and strategy which is ultimately used to gain power and supremacy in the
politics, economics and society. According to Fairclough (1993), there are
different sections and groups in a society having different belief systems that
are expressed in the language. Thus, the purpose of conducting the discourse
analysis is to highlight and understand the said belief systems and to know how
they are expressed and communicated to the public in general. Fairclough (2001)
says that the idea of common sense is developed and put into the minds of common
people through the tactful use of language in such a brilliant way by the elite
class that the common people find it difficult to resist to such beliefs and
ideologies as are sent their way from the dominant class (also see Shah &
Mubarak, 2018).
Brown and
Yule (1983) maintain that the way, language is used, does not only provide the
meanings of things rather it is well beyond this simple naming the things
theory. The purpose of conducting critical discourse analysis is to understand
how and in which context the language has been used and how it impacts on the
society. According to Corson (1995), CDA uses certain linguistic techniques to
search for the relationship of language and power, language and politics,
language and society, and language and identity. According to Chilton (1996)
there is a significant role of the metaphors in discourse analysis. For, in
Chilton’s view, an ideology is represented through metaphors. This type of
ideology forms pragmatism.
According
to Van Dijk (1991) there is a strong connection between a leader, politics and
media because media plays an important role in spreading the political views
and beliefs of a political person. He adds that media is the mouthpiece of the
political elite in implementing their agenda in the society. According to
Wodak, de Cillia, Reisigl and Liebhart (2009)
critical discourse analysis provides comprehension of the relationship between
language society, politics and economics. It attempts to build up the links of
language with power. Therefore, language is the focal point of CDA because it
highlights the beliefs and identities. It not only tries to search the
relationship between power and language but also gives a chance of criticism
over the practices of power, and ethnic, economic and cultural dominance. In
the view of Carroll (2004), CDA gives different perspectives of analysing a
text because it provides a theory and its application of using the data for the
analysis of postmodern and sociological analysis of a text.
Van
Dijk (1997) conducted a research on the CDA of speeches and debates delivered
in the British parliament. According to him the talks on racism and favourtism
for the indigenous community spread anti-immigrant views which strengthen the
concept of self and other. CDA, in Van Dijk’s (1989) view, is such an
interesting field of study that allows to expose the tactics of the ruling
elite showing how they use their powers and offices to corrupt the social
planning and how they use the language in the favour of their own class. According
to Weiss and Wodak (2003), CDA shows the way to analyse the so-called neutral
language in the newspapers, parliaments, manuscripts and reports distorting the
reality in favour of the dominant class. Similarly, according to Van Dijk
(1993), there are many social classes that exist in a community or society and
they all tend to engage in a struggle or conflict with one another to get
dominance and resist against the dominant group. Wodak (2001) adds that CDA is
an interdisciplinary branch of knowledge that studies language in connection
with history and society. According to her text is produced in connection with
the social and psychological factors too. She states that there is strong
bonding between text and practices done in a society. She implemented her
framework on the speeches and debates of Kurt Waldheim for presidential
elections. The findings of her research include that the prominent figures have
a strong impact on the discussions and talk of the common people. Moreover,
prejudice and hatred is formed by these political people amongst different
races and sections of the society. She also conducted a research on prejudice
and hatred in Austria. She observed that the hatred and prejudice could occur
anywhere including public discourse, discourse of the media and religion,
politics and economics.
It is
clear from the above review of literature that the all key figures in critical
discourse analysis (i.e. Brown & Yule, 1983; Chilton, 1996; Corson, 1995;
Fairclough, 1992, 1993, 2001; Van Dijk, 1989, 1995, 1997; Weiss & Wodak,
2003; Wodak, 2001) have supported for such a method and approach of studying
language as can bring out the real truth and purpose of the language users.
For, the main aim of CDA, according to the mentioned experts, is to expose the
manipulators of language and communities for their own benefit. It further
supports those who are the victim of this power play and dominance game through
language. Therefore, the purpose of CDA is quite positive and it aims to bring
positive change in society and the world.
3. Methodology
Researchers
either use qualitative techniques or quantitative methods to conduct the
research. In qualitative research, the data is interpreted and discussions are
made in the form of passages and paragraphs whereas in quantitative techniques
data is elaborated with the help of quantities given in the form of tables,
graphs and formulas of different kinds to calculate the ratio and means etc.
used for the analysis and interpretation of the data. As this research is based
on the analysis of Fraser Anning’s speech, qualitative techniques have been
adopted to interpret the data.
3.1 Data Collection and Analysis
The
data for this study comprised of Anning's first speech that was retrieved from
the internet source i.e. Google and was analysed and interpreted employing
three-dimensional framework by Fairclough (1992, 2001). This framework stresses
that every communicative event has three dimensions i.e. (1) it is a text
(image, speech, writing or combination of these), (2) it can be a discursive
practice involving the consumption and production of the texts, and (3) it can
be the social practice. Fairclough (1992) also introduced three stages of CDA
(i.e. description, interpretation and explanation) which corresponded to the
three levels of the discourse. According
to Fairclough’s each stage is linked to the other in discourse analysis i.e.
textual, interpretational and social levels that need an entirely different way
of analysis but they are interrelated to one another.
4. Analysis, Observations and Discussion
4.1 Textual Analysis
Textual
analysis is the analysis of the language used in a particular text or
discourse. It aims to find out the elements of cohesion, semantics and
morphology within a given text. Fraser Anning’s speech comprises of
approximately 4000 words. The long text can contextually include many parts
like ‘Hate speech, Anti-immigration, Anti- Muslim, anti-democratic,
Christchurch attack’, because after this speech Muslim community has to
face many terrorist attacks.
The
lexical choice used in his speech is very simple. The sentence structure is
declarative and (i.e. SOV) is very complex. The information has been given by
him with complete details in order to make his speech more than worse for the
Muslims community. He uses first person narrative like ‘I’ 50 times and ‘we’
more than 40 times which show his collective approach. It is his art of speech
that he has quoted the events of the past to relate them with the present so
that the Australians may be taught to stay away from the Muslims. The example
of the incident of train fire, by a Muslim a century ago, has been quoted by
him to strengthen his stance.
He has
widely used discourse markers i.e. ‘however, of course, thus, so that, first
and foremost, firstly, finally, I think so, More broadly, in this way, etc.’
to create coherence in his speech and grab the attention of the listeners. He
has also used punctuation like dashes, Whitlam—and, fathers—them,
property—either, concubine—must, Hill—and,
farms—owned, generations—and numeral numbers (50,25,457) compound words
like (pre-Whitlam, non-European, re-industrialization, cattle-grazing, acronyms
like QIDC, APRA, and PDRSB.
4.2 Process Analysis
Process
analysis is the second level of Fairclough’s model. At this level, the
researchers need to find out how a text is generated, circulated and used in a
social set up. The words (i.e. deplorable,
racist, white supremacist and rubbish), spoken
by Anning against the Muslims, reflect his hatred against the Muslims in
particular and immigrants in general. Anning has a platform of hatred dressed
up as a support for the 'Aussie battler' i.e. a person who is white,
middle-class and ignorant, who buys into white hegemony.
Anning
uses expressive and rational values in his speech. By expressive value we mean
that how a speaker expresses his or personal experience in the discourse.
Anning quoted the white men, (who suppressed others for the sake of success of
their own race), as politicians, army men or civilians. According to him it is
a noble deed to oppress and suppress others because this land belongs to the
Australians and not the immigrants.
He uses
pronouns (We & Our) many
times in the speech. The purpose of using these pronouns is to show that he
himself is the member of a society which should provide him moral and legal
support in achieving his goals. ‘I’ and ‘We’ is also used to show power to the
others as a group. In fact, Anning wants Muslims to be excluded from Australia's
migrant intake, and welfare payments be banned for all migrants within the
first five years of their living there. In this regard, he uses the word ‘final
solution’. The use of hate words shows that Muslims are the butt of his hatred
and he is anti-Muslim; According to him Muslims are higher in crime and
terrorism but he has hardly produced any evidence for this to support his
argument.
4.3 Social Analysis
Anning
says that recently, he has entered the senate.
He and his family ran goldstone hotel. He was the supporter of the national
party which strongly reflected his beliefs. It was his first and foremost duty
to raise the voice about social value, personal responsibility, low taxes, and
freedom. For, this is the key role of the government to provide law, physical
security, and other basic facilities. Therefore, the government should provide
well paid jobs to the people. Because every common person has the right to keep
in fair days, earn fair money, and get a decent life. He has right to provide
his kids a better life. Because Good gives equal rights to the people to live
free anywhere.
Queensland praised the White Australia Policy of
the Senator Fraser Anning and decided that there should be a general consensus
about the stoppage of immigrants to Australia which was the last solution to
the acts of terrorism in country. According to him, the Australians have the
right to stop the flow of immigrants in the country and for this he proposes
that there should be a ban on the immigration from the non-Christian countries
and communities. Instead, the people from Europe may be invited and encouraged
for immigration so that a ratio between immigrants and the locals may be
maintained. He also objected the Australian support for those oppressed in
Palestine by the people, army and government of Israel. According to him,
those, who are oppressed in Palestine, are outsiders and there is no need for
Australia to be a part of any funding or support for the outsiders. According
to him, Muslim immigrants did not have the capability of adapting to their
newly found land of Australia after their immigration because of their culture
and religion which strictly prohibits them from being a part of an alien and
Christian community. In Anning’s view, Muslims were present in Australia for
their own good instead of adding any positive element to the Australian nation.
He also quotes the incident of gun fire in a train which took place in 1915.
According to him, such attacks were started by the Muslims on Australian soil.
He further labels the Muslims as ‘welfare-blunders’, ‘terrorists’,
‘gang-terrorists’ and ‘criminals’. Moreover, he shows ethnic bias
towards the black Muslims by calling them illegal occupants of Australia.
It clearly shows that his speech is mainly targeting
the Muslims. It is out of his
sheer hatred for Islam and love for Christianity instead of his love for
Australia that he insists to ban the Muslims for entering Australia. He
suggests that there should be a voting in the upper house to stop the flow of
Muslim immigrants into the country. The language used by him, where he quoted
the words like ‘Nazi and holocaust’, shows his
aggression and revengefulness against the Muslims and Islam. He also made the
Muslims a butt of severe revenge by quoting a reference to the killings and
murders of the Christians in Ottoman Empire. His speech proved dangerous for a
peaceful social existence. The agenda, presented by him, was followed by some
of the Christians. As a result, there was an extremist attack on the Mosques in
New Zealand. Even after the attack on the Mosques in Christchurch, he did not
shun expressing his anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant views because he said that
the laws that allowed Muslims to enter their territory were the reason for this
killing. Instead of blaming the white supremacists for the attack, he called
the Muslims as fanatics and extremists.
5. Conclusion
Embarking
on above results and discussions, this study concludes that William Fraser
Anning employs different impression markers to present his stance emphatically.
He uses discourse and punctuation markers, cultural historical references, and
expressive and rational values to create coherence in his speech, emphasize his
stance, and thereby grab the attention of the audience. He also uses
positive-self and negative-other markers to present himself and Australians as
well as Europeans being good and civilized and the Muslims as well as
immigrants with negative labels. In addition to these, he uses personal
pronouns to show himself as a moral as well as responsible man (using ‘I’) and
as the member of a powerful group (using ‘we’).To win the applause of the
common man in Australia, he talks about common problems like joblessness,
poverty, freedom, low standard of living etc. Social problems, common man’s
worries like joblessness, poor living standard have been some of the concerns
of the speech. However, hatred against the Islam, Muslims, and immigrants
emerged as the central point of the speech. The speech particularly stressed
the need of ban on Muslims’ entry in Australia. Instead, it suggested getting
immigrants from Christen countries. In
this way, it showed love for Christianity and hatred for Islam. It treated the
Muslims with discrimination, (by labeling them negatively e.g. ‘welfare-blunders’, ‘terrorists’,
‘gang-terrorists’ and ‘criminals’) as compared to the Whites who were treated
as the supreme being. In addition, the speech showed ethnic bias towards the
black Muslims by calling them illegal occupants of Australia. Different social
and cultural and social implications can be related with this discourse. On one
hand, it can be very useful for the common man in Australia because it has
highlighted different social problems faced by the people in Australia. Plus,
it can be prove helpful for the unification of the Australians and Europeans.
On the other hand, it can be dangerous to the peaceful co-existence of the
people in the world, particularly the Muslims as it labels the Muslims and
Muslim culture negatively.
References
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse
analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carroll, W. K. (2004). Critical
strategies for social research. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Chilton, P. A. (1996). Security
metaphors: Cold War Discourse from Containment to Common House. New York: Peter
Lang.
Corson, D. (1995). Discourse
and Power in Educational Organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical Discourse Analysis
and the Marketization of Public Discourse. Discourse
and Society, 4(2), 133–168. doi:
10.1177/0957926593004002002.
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. London: Longman.
Shah, S. K., & Mubarak,
A. (2018). Media discourse as Representative of Sociocultural Milieu of Law and Order
in Pakistan: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Newspapers’ Headlines about Model
Town Tragedy, Lahore. Pakistan Journal of
Language Studies, 2(2), 1-13.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1989). A handbook of discourse analysis. London: Academic Press Limited.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. London: Sage Publications.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is
political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1),
11-52.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003) Introduction:
Theory, Interdisciplinarity and Critical Discourse Analysis. In G. Weiss & R. Wodak
(eds.), Critical Discourse Analysis:
Theory and Interdisciplinarity. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is
about–A Summary of its History, Important Concepts and its Developments. In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods
of Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-13). London: Sage.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl,
M., & Liebhart, K. (2009). The Discursive
Construction of National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University
Press.
Comments
Post a Comment