An Analysis Of The Interpersonal Meaning In Obama's Speech On Wall Street Reform Bill From The Perspective Of Critical Discourse Analysis

Political speeches are a kind of frequently used public discourses, which are always exploited to advocate politicians'standpoint, and are considered as a symbol of democracy. Political discourses are attracting more and more linguists, especially discourse critics, to study. Many scholars have studied political discourses from various perspectives, including the interpersonal meaning, while the critical discourse linguists are interested in the ideology and power relation behind them. This thesis explores the interpersonal meaning of Obama's speech on Wall Street from the critical discourse analysis perspective.First, traditionally, interpersonal meaning of a discourse is always explored under the systemic-functional grammar, and limited to the word-clause rank. However, the interpersonal meaning of a discourse is realized at every rank of language. Then, on the basis of critical discourse analysis theories, the systemic-functional grammar and the theory of generic intertextuality, a two-level model is proposed, which consists of nine variables:mood, modality, intonation, classification, the system of person, transformation, transitivity, and thematic progress at the word-clause level, and generic intertextuality at the discourse level.Then, the two-level model is applied to the analysis of Obama's speech on Wall Street reform. It is found that Obama makes use of all the means except transformation to deliver the information about the reform bill to establish a well constructed relation among all the participants of the speech, so as to induce and even manipulate the thoughts and behavior of his audience. Under the speech lies the unequal power relation between the president and the mass, or the ruler and the ruled. The mass are forced to choose between the government and their oppositions, the big banks, neither of which really stands for them.In the whole speech, Obama uses only one type of mood:declarative, which helps him put himself in a position of authority and accordingly forces his target audience into the position of receiving instead of negotiating or even challenging his viewpoints. The four types of modality are almost equally applied. Considering the modality in its context, we can find that Obama deliberately controls the distance among the speech participants by the use of modality to facilitate the delivery of his standpoint. Besides, Obama exploits categorized words and word groups, together with the system of person, to establish a relation map of all the participants in the speech, the influence of which, of course, subtle, but fundamental. Obama uses a great amount of material and relational processes to relate information and his viewpoints, which helps him to set up a responsible image of his government that is acting and will continue to act to protect its people, so as to persuade the audience to follow the government. Obama also skillfully arranges the thematic progress in his speech to induce his audience to follow him and go into the position he set for them. Besides, intonation is fully exploited by Obama. He realizes the speech in lots of short fall tones to express his power and determination, even to force his audience to make choice in his favor. At the discourse level, the conversationalization of the speech shows Obama's aims to get access to his audience, the mass, and to be a president leading the mass.This study shows the two-level model is effective in analyzing the interpersonal meaning of a political speech. It gives implication to the understanding of the ideology and power relation behind political speeches and to the learning and teaching of English.