Analyzing Political Speeches (Current Issues in Language and Society)

cover

title: author: publisher: isbn10 | asin: print isbn13: ebook isbn13: language: subject publication date: lcc: ddc: subject:

next page >

Analysing Political Speeches Schäffner, Christina. Multilingual Matters 1853594016 9781853594014 9780585147000 English Political oratory, Public speaking, Language and languages -Political aspects, Discourse analysis. 1997 PN4193.P6A53 1997eb 808.5/1/088329 Political oratory, Public speaking, Language and languages -Political aspects, Discourse analysis.

cover

next page >

< previous page

page_i

next page > Page i

Analysing Political Speeches

< previous page

page_i

next page >

< previous page

page_ii

next page > Page ii

CURRENT ISSUES IN LANGUAGE AND SOCIETY Editor:Sue Wright Editorial Board:Dennis Ager, Paul Chilton, Helen Kelly-Holmes & Christina Schäffner Other Books in the Series Children Talking: The Development of Pragmatic Competence Linda Thompson (ed.) Cultural Functions of Translation Christina Schäffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes (eds.) Discourse and Ideologies Christina Schäffner and Helen Kelly-Holmes (eds.) Ethnicity in Eastern Europe Sue Wright (ed.) Language and the State Sue Wright (ed.) Languages in Contact and Conflict Sue Wright (ed.) Monolingualism and Bilingualism: Lessons from Canada and Spain Sue Wright (ed.) Other Books of Interest: Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education Colin Baker and Sylvia Prys Jones 'Francophonie' in the 1990s Dennis Ager Language, Culture and Communication in Contemporary Europe Charlotte Hoffmann (ed.) Language Planning: from Practice to Theory Robert B. Kaplan and Richard B. Baldauf, Jr Language Reclamation Hubisi Nwenmely Mass Media in the Asian Pacific Bryce T. McIntyre (ed.) Quebec's Aboriginal Languages Jacques Maurais (ed.) Please contact us for the latest book information: Multilingual Matters Ltd, Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon, BS21 7HH, England Web pages: http://www.multi.demon.co.uk

< previous page

page_ii

next page >

< previous page

page_iii

next page > Page iii

Analysing Political Speeches Edited by Christina Schäffner Multilingual Matters Ltd Clevedon • Philadelphia • Toronto • Sydney • Johannesburg

< previous page

page_iii

next page >

< previous page

page_iv

next page > Page iv

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Analysing Political Speeches/Edited By Christina Schäffner Based On A Series Of CILS Seminars Includes Bibliographical References 1. Political Oratory. 2. Public Speaking. 3. Language And LanguagesPolitical Aspects. 4. Discourse Analysis. I. Schäffner, Christina PN4193.P6A53 1997 808.5'1'08835dc21 97-33503 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A CIP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 1-85359-401-6 (hbk) Multilingual Matters Ltd UK: Frankfurt Lodge, Clevedon Hall, Victoria Road, Clevedon BS21 7HH. USA: 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007, USA. Canada: OISE, 712 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M2H 3R7. Australia: P.O. Box 586, Artamon, NSW, Australia. South Africa: PO Box 1080, Northcliffe 2115, Johannesburg, South Africa. Copyright © 1997 Christina Schäffner and the authors of individual articles. This book is also available as Vol. 3, No. 3 of the journal Current Issues in Language and Society. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced in any form or by any means without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed and bound in Great Britain by Short Run Press Ltd.

< previous page

page_iv

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_v

Page v

Contents Christina Schäffner: Editorial: Political Speeches and Discourse Analysis

1

Titus Ensink: The Footing of a Royal Address: An Analysis of Representativeness in Political Speech, Exemplified in Queen Beatrix' Address to the Knesset on March 28, 1995

5

Christoph Sauer: Echoes from Abroad - Speeches for the Domestic Audience: Queen Beatrix' Address to the Israeli Parliament

33

The Debate

68

Norman Fairclough: Rhetoric and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Reply to Titus Ensink and Christoph Sauer 86

< previous page

page_v

next page >

< previous page

page_1

next page > Page 1

Editorial: Political Speeches and Discourse Analysis Christina Schäffner Institute for the Study of Language and Society, Aston University, Birmingham B4 7ET, UK Language and Politics When we think of politics, we think of it mainly in terms of the struggle for power in order to secure specific ideas and interests and put them into practice. This process of manifesting a political will and transforming it into concrete social action is realised first of all between political parties. In this process, language plays an important role. In fact, any political action is prepared, accompanied, controlled and influenced by language. We could easily add other verbs to this list, such as guided, explained, justified, evaluated, criticised, . . . The study of language has recently become more central to those academic disciplines concerned with politics. However, political scientists on the one hand, and linguists, or discourse analysts, on the other hand, focus on different aspects when they discuss the relationship between language and politics, and they also apply different theories and methods in doing so. Political scientists are mainly concerned with the consequences of political decisions and actions for (the history of) a society, and they may be interested in the political realities which are constructed in and through discourse. Linguists, on the other hand, have always been particularly interested in the linguistic structures used to get politically relevant messages across to the addressees in order to fulfil a specific function. But also a more narrow linguistic analysis of political discourse cannot ignore the broader societal and political framework in which such discourse is embedded. Van Dijk has recently argued, that 'despite some studies on "political language", discourse and conversation analysis has thus far had little to offer to political science', and he has called for discourse analysis to be a 'genuine social, political or cultural analysis' (van Dijk, 1994: 164). Such an interdisciplinary perspective should in all probability yield most promising results. One problem in the complex of language and politics, however, is how to define what is political. Particularly in the twentieth century, as a result of the massive expansion of print and electronic media, more and more people are exposed to discourse that may be characterised as political in nature. In addition, more and more people are involved in their daily life in political action, by, for example, being asked to cast their votes in an election, or by watching the news on TV or reading a newspaper, or simply by talking with friends about the consequences which recent decisions of the government might have for each individual. The opportunities for each person to bemore or less activelyinvolved in political discourse have increased enormously. Looked at it from the point of view of linguistics and discourse analysis, we have to admit that political language, political discourse,and political text themselves are vague terms. In linguistic literature, political language has been used either to

< previous page

page_1

next page >

< previous page

page_2

next page > Page 2

denote the use of language in the context of politics, i.e. a specific language use with the purpose of achieving a specific, politically motivated function, or it has been used to denote the specific political vocabulary, i.e. words and phrases that refer to extralinguistic phenomena in the domain of politics (see Dieckmann, 1981). From the point of view of language use, we can again differentiate between internal and external political communication, based on the setting and the communicative partners involved. Internal political communication would refer to all forms of discourse that concern first of all the functioning of politics within political institutions, i.e. governmental bodies, parties or other organisations. The texts in this context discuss political ideas, beliefs, and practices of a society or some part of it. External political communication, on the other hand, is first of all aimed at the general public, i.e. non-politicians. These two types of communication are realised by a variety of text types, or genres, which may sometimes function both in internal and external communication. Political discourse includes both innerstate and inter-state discourse, and it may take various forms. Examples are bilateral or multilateral treaties, speeches made during an electioneering campaign or at a congress of a political party, a contribution of a member of parliament to a parliamentary debate, editorials or commentaries in newspapers, a press conference with a politician, or a politician's memoirs. Here we concentrate on political speeches as a specific sub-genre of political texts. Political speeches The characterisation of a text as political can be based on functional and thematic criteria. Political texts are a part of and/or the result of politics, they are historically and culturally determined (see the contributions in Bochmann, 1986). They fulfil different functions due to different political activities. Their topics are primarily related to politics, i.e. political activities, political ideas, political relations, etc. Another characteristic feature is thatin the majority of cases they are meant for a wider public. Political speeches are a case in point, and they were the special focus of the series of CILS seminars which forms the basis of this issue. Looking at these speeches from the functional perspective, we can probably differentiate sub-genres. The speakers are normally leading politicians, and they can speak either to members of the same political or ideological group (e.g. a leader addressing delegates at the annual party conference), which would be an example of internal political communication. Other settings are a politician addressing the whole nation (e.g. the annual New Year's Eve address of a head of state, or the American president's televised reports on the state of the nation), which would be examples of external, albeit inner-state political communication. An example of inter-state political communication would be a leading politician addressing politicians or members of the public during a visit abroad. A linguistic analysis of political discourse in general, and of political speeches in particular, can be most successful when it relates the details of linguistic behaviour to political behaviour. This can be done from two perspectives: we can start from the linguistic micro-level and ask which strategic functions specific structures (e.g. word choice, a specific syntactic structure) serve to fulfil. Or, we can start from the macro-level, i.e. the communicative situation and the function

< previous page

page_2

next page >

< previous page

page_3

next page > Page 3

of a text and ask which linguistic structures have been chosen to fulfil this function. For both perspectives, the political situations and processes can be linked to discourse types and levels of discourse organisation by way of an intermediate level: that of strategic functions. The most important such strategic functions are coercion, resistance, opposition and protest, dissimulation, and legitimisation and delegitimisation (see Chilton & Schäffner, 1997). Political speeches are, as we have said above, not a homogeneous genre. Instead, there is a range of subtypes determined by the particular communicative situation, including the characterisation of the communicative partners (i.e. who is speaking to whom? when? where? why?). Based on these criteria, a discourse analysis can look into all levels and aspects of language, into pragmatics (i.e. the interaction amongst speakers and hearers), semantics (i.e. meanings, the structure of the lexicon), syntax (i.e. the internal organisation of sentences), phonology/phonetics (i.e. intonation, stress patterns, pauses). Epideictic addresses Usually, politicians do not deliver speeches as individuals, but rather as representatives of political parties, governments, or nations. In these conditions, they are limited as political actors as to what they can do and say and how. Commemorative addresses are a case in point, and both papers in this CILS issue refer to one and the same event: an address which the Dutch Queen Beatrix delivered to the Knesset on the occasion of her 1995 state visit to Israel. The two main contributors are both from the Netherlands, working in the Department of Language and Communication at the University of Groningen. In his paper, Titus Ensink focuses on the aspect of footing,i.e. the particular speaking and hearing roles which the participants are assigned. In fact, he looks more closely at the complex set of relationships between addresser, addressees, and third-party 'overhearers' or observers. For this purpose, he analyses, in a very detailed way, the personal pronouns (I, we, you)that are used in the address. This analysis shows that the speaker, Queen Beatrix, represents her country, the Netherlands, whereas the audience, the Knesset, representsin the context of the state visitIsrael, but is also seen by the Queen as being representative of the Jews in general. In some instances, the exact referent of a personal pronoun is difficult to identifya feature which is typical of political speeches. His analysis also reveals that parts of the Queen's speech, i.e. those relating to the situation of the Dutch Jews during the Second World War and the role of the Dutch people in this respect, are actually aimed at being received by Dutch society. The reason for this is that the Queen's comments are not in accordance with opinions that were traditionally held in the Netherlands. Christoph Sauer discusses more general aspects of analysing political discourse. He argues for more consideration of rhetoric within the framework of political discourse analysis. He compares the definition of rhetoric in classical antiquity (as ars bene dicendi)to the conditions of modern political communication, discussing the characteristic features of singularity vs. processuality/sequentiality (criterion: time), mono- /duotextuality vs. intertextuality (context), individuality vs. representation (orator), homogeneous public vs. multiple addressees (addressees), direct contact vs. mass media (medium),

< previous page

page_3

next page >

< previous page

page_4

next page > Page 4

genus deliberativum vs. typological diversity (type of speech), and persuasion vs. political (campaign) success (aim). He characterises political addresses as a hybrid genre of the epideictic address,a genre that combines the goal of reaching persuasion with the offer of verbal means that are used to establish consensus regarding norms and values in society. He shows how these criteria for the epideictic address are reflected in Queen Beatrix' address to the Knesset, e.g. her attempt at getting media attention by having a specific passage in her text which is meant to fulfil the rhetorical function of stimulating (and controlling) journalistic reformulations. He concludes that any public speech is part of a larger, more extensive communicative process, and that it can be characterised as a strategic move in an overarching communicative plan. It can therefore be assessed properly only if the larger context is taken into account. As becomes clear in the debate, the analysis of political speeches in particular and political discourse in general should relate linguistic structures to larger contexts of communicative settings and political functions. This integrated approach is advocated by critical discourse analysis, as Norman Fairclough stresses in his reply. References Bochmann, K. (ed.) (1986) Eigenschaften und linguistische Analyse politischer Texte (Linguistische Studien LS/ZISW/A 152). Berlin: Zentralinstitut für Sprachwissenschaft. Chilton, P. and Schäffner, C. (1997) Discourse and politics. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol.2). Discourse as Social Interaction (pp. 206-30). London: Sage. Dieckmann, W. (1981) Politische Sprache. Politische Kommunikation.Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag. van Dijk, T.A. (1994) Discourse analysis and social analysis. Discourse & Society 5, 163-4.

< previous page

page_4

next page >

< previous page

page_5

next page > Page 5

The Footing of a Royal Address: An Analysis of Representativeness in Political Speech, Exemplified in Queen Beatrix' Address to the Knesset on March 28, 1995 Titus Ensink Department of Language and Communication, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 716, NL-9700 AS Groningen, Holland On several formal occasions, politicians perform speeches the main task of which is to establish and express a perspective which is representative for the nation. In this paper I propose a systematic approach of the analysis of such speeches, based on Goffman's concept 'footing'. This concept allows us to distinguish several functional aspects of the roles speakers and hearers perform in speech situations. At the linguistic level, these roles are expressed most explicitly in deictic formulations. The approach is exemplified in the case of the Dutch Queen Beatrix addressing the Israeli Parliament on the occasion of a state visit to Israel. The analysis shows that both the Queen as the speaker and her audience as the hearers are representative of nations, peoples, their histories, their relationships, and their responsibilities. At the same time, the Queen's speech appears to be addressed simultaneously to larger audiences. Introduction: The Nature of National Representation In the Dutch newspaper de Volkskrant an article was published on July 27,1996, about the role of the Olympic Games in American society. In this article, the story is told of the 1980 Winter Games at Lake Placid, in which the American ice hockey team beat the Russian team: With another ten heavy minutes to go, the Americans defended a never dreamed-of 4 to 3 lead. The Soviets, considered to be unbeatable, did not succeed in getting past goal-keeper Craig again. After the game, there was a tremendous outpouring of emotions. In the dressing room, the players sang 'God bless America', although almost no one knew all the words. Coach Brooks could not control his emotions and fled to the corridor. There he met a small group of policemen who were crying like children. The emotions in the nation were no less impressive. The meaning of Olympic victories was simple. 'The communists are bad, the Americans are good'. The world, divided into two parts, was considered unsafe, and the playing of the 'Star Spangled Banner' at the Olympics counted as a song of praise to democracy, just as the Russian anthem glorified the communist doctrine. (Volkskrant,27 July 1996, my translation.) This story exemplifies the symbolic and mass psychological power of sport. This power rests on symbolic metaphors that may be irrational, but are strongly felt by the great majority of people. The sports (wo)man or sports team are not just a casual individual or an accidental group of individuals. Instead, they

< previous page

page_5

next page >

< previous page

page_6

next page > Page 6

represent the nation. They are a metaphor for it, they exemplify it. (The sportsman does not win, we win.) Immediately following the victory, the sportsman does not celebrate his own person, but takes the flag of the country and makes a victorious lap of the arena. By the same token, being the best in a sporting contestalthough this is an activity which is sealed off from reality, and limited in every respect, as regards time and placeis a metaphor for being the best in reality: the winning of the American team means that America is the best. I have made reference to participating in sport events as a form of (national) representation because these events give rise to some questions: (1) What are the grounds for the representation? (2) Which other events or objects have similar representational functions? (3) How should a person who represents a country behave in view of this? Seeking an answer to these three questions will introduce the topic I will discuss in this paper: representative political speeches. Grounds for representation In the Olympic Games, national representation is at the core of the organisation. Only nations that are members of the International Olympic Committee are entitled to be represented by their athletes at the Games. Thus, to perform as an athlete at the Olympic Games (or any other international sports events) involves representing one's country officially. Although this does not account for the above-mentioned strongly felt emotions, there is at least a justification for projecting these emotions on to the event. I propose, however, a more speculative reason in order to explain why these feelings are so strong. Elias Canetti (1960) tried to describe the intricate ways in which people find themselves time and again as part of a crowd, and the way in which their behaviour is affected by being part of this. When a person feels himself to be a member of a group, he loses his personal boundaries: all persons are the sameor even stronger: onewithin the mass. There is a strong psychological tendency towards this feeling. Whenever a mass is forming itself, it is very difficult not to become a part of it. Sports events have a few characteristics which make them particularly suitable for forming masses: •

a sports event offers opportunities for showing your emotion, emotion being the most characteristic property of a crowd;

a sports event is a contest, or a fight; as such, the fighters are the protagonists of a Hetzmasse (a hunting mass), themselves • being a Meute (a hunting pack); a mass may be formed by a complementary counter-mass; the paradigm case of complementary masses are two countries at • war. Such a model does not fit in with, for example, the running of the marathon in which runners from many countries compete. However, it fits in perfectly with matches fought between teams of two countries, as in soccer championships. Hence it is no wonder, that often two complementary groups of fighting supporters of both teams extend the fight beyond the sports arena. Other events having similar representational functions There are, of course, many forms of officially staged events or objects in which

< previous page

page_6

next page >

< previous page

page_7

next page > Page 7

representation 1 is involved. The national flag, the national anthem, parades and speeches at national commemorative events or national celebrations are examples of these. The meaning and use of these objects, and the occasions for the events, are clear, and subject to rather precise rules. 2 Apart from such officially sanctioned representative objects and events, there are many more occasions which occur unofficially. A large business corporation has its own independent economic goals and operates on the basis of those goals. Nonetheless, the corporation may be felt to be a nation's possession, or a nation's pride.3 Similarly, most people tend to consider scientific research an activity outside their own sphere of interest or identification. Yet, the winning of a Nobel Prize for physics by a fellow-countryman evokes national pride, probably because the feeling of winning may be projected on to an activity which in normal circumstances has insufficient points of identification. On the other hand, sometimes representation is seen or felt in circumstances in which such representation is neither intended, nor officially acknowledged. For example, after running the marathon at the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, the winner, Fatuma Roba from Ethiopia, said she dedicated her victory to 'all African women', thus indicating that she considered herself representative of that group in the first place. Of course, 'African women' are not a ratified group at the Olympics. Roba's dedication may be warranted by her own scheme of relevance. This scheme, however, lacks any official endorsement.4 In general, then, situations of emotional salience related to persons or objects that may be perceived to belong to one's own social sphere, may evoke socio-psychological processes of group identification. Although people may feel genuinely involved in, and represented by, the symbols and events mentioned above, it is hard to think of any real activities that have such a strong symbolic and mass psychological power as sports victories in the context of international contests. The element of contestand to have proven to be the best in this contestadded to symbols of representation may account for this. How should a country's representative behave? In the examples discussed so far, we have seen a multiplication, or at least a duplication, of the roles one person assumes, whenever that person does something representative. Of course, these examples exhibit considerable differences. Sportsmen and women at the Olympics represent their nation as such. They are sent out by their country. During the contest, they wear sports clothes in a national design; often the colours of the national flag are used in that design. When they win a medal, the anthem of their country is played at the ceremony at which they receive their medals. At the same time, the flag of their country is hoisted. Participating in the contest, and especially winning the contest, is inextricably linked with one's willingness to represent one's country.5 Other patterns are present in other examples. Probably, the DASA directors (see Note 3) were surprised to see themselves fight a war against Holland. In general, physicists who are awarded a Nobel Prize are citizens of some specific country, but they are involved in a general activity not bound to any one nation. Drunken tourists in Spain (see Note 2) are, as such, not representative of anything,

< previous page

page_7

next page >

< previous page

page_8

next page > Page 8

but use a national representative symbol in order to provoke latent aggression, on the basis of competitive feelings between two nations. These examples show the pluriformity of representation. They have in common that official representation is not involved. Businessmen, scientists and tourists become representative of their country on the basis of an accidental course of events, in which their role nevertheless may be perceived as representative, and so eventually is perceived thus. The main concern of the persons involved, however, is to succeed in their own activity. The representative character of the activities is just an accidental by-product. Let us now consider political functions. A member of parliament represents voters, or, perhaps rather, a political party. Parliament itself is considered representative of the people. A member of the government (a minister) although in general chosen for that function because of a high ranking position in a political partyrepresents the government. A government is, in general, based on a political majority, consisting of one or more political parties in parliament. Nevertheless there is only one government, which represents the nation. Now let us compare these political functions with those of ambassadors and heads of state. I suggest that there is a gradual scale of (national) representativeness, ranging from (less representative) members of parliament, through members of government, to (fully representative) ambassadors and heads of state. Ambassadors and heads of state are functions the main characteristic of which is that the incumbent represents his/her nation on the basis of the function itself. Hence, any activity performed by such a functionary is, in principle, representative of the nation. Indeed, many times they have to be present on some official occasion (ceremony, wedding, funeral, etc.) in order for their country to be represented.The relation between an activity and representation is thus reversed in this context. Whereas a sportsman has to fulfil a representative role as a consequence of his sports activities, an ambassador or head of state has to look for activities which fit best the representative function. Most of these activities involve undoubtedly the use of language.And languagedifferent from sports or flagshas content, (propositional) meaning and style. 6 Let us take as an example a case in which national representation was unintentionally involved. In October 1986, Newsweek published an interview with the German Chancellor, Helmut Kohl. In this interview he compared the then Secretary-General of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, to Goebbels, because of the fact that they 'are both good at public relations'.7 Although Kohl made these comments to journalists, the Soviet Union was nonetheless offended. The Soviet ambassador to Germany, Kwizinski, wrote a letter of protest which was published. From this letter I quote the following passages: Sollte er [Kohl] vergessen haben, daß es sich in diesem Falle um die Ehre und Würde eines Staates, urn die eines Volkes handelt [. . .] so sind wir gezwungen, ihn daran zu erinnern. Im Hinblick auf all das erfordert elementare Redlichkeit und Anständigkeit in der Politik, daß bei der entstandenen Situation völlige Klarheit geschaffen werden muß.

< previous page

page_8

next page >

< previous page

page_9

next page > Page 9

Ohne dies scheinen normale Beziehungen zu der Regierung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland unmöglich zu sein. 8 There is representativeness on both sides. Interestingly, there is asymmetry here. Insulting Gorbachev has been generalised to the 'honour and dignity of a state, of a people'. Should Kohl refuse to set things straight, this will have consequences for the German government (not: the state, or the people). This example shows that an incumbent of a political function is not in a position to speak casually, at least not in any public situation. The words of the incumbent of the function are not perceived as those of a private person, but in relation to the function and what this function represents. Footing The very fact that a speaker represents something means that the speaker fulfils more than one role within his own person. This calls for an analysis of the notion of 'speaker' itself. Erving Goffman, notably in his 1979 paper Footing,9 establishes a framework for the analysis of the different and complicated roles speakers and hearers have within situations of (verbal) communication. For Goffman, the 'speaker' has three roles: The term 'speaker' is central to any discussion of word production, and yet the term is used in several senses, often simultaneously and (when so) in varying combinations, with no consistency from use to use. One meaning, perhaps the dominant, is that of animator,that is, the sounding box from which utterances come. A second is author,the agent who puts together, composes, or scripts the lines that are uttered. A third is that of principal,the party to whose position, stand, and belief the words attest (Goffman, 1981: 226).10 Levinson (1988: 169) considers Goffman's analysis 'a notable advance on earlier schemes', but not sufficient in three respects: •

even more distinctions are needed for empirical description;

•

the definition of the categories is not fully clear;

• it is unclear whether the categories should be related to a single speech act or to an overarching speech-event; Goffman's failure to clarify this relation has as a drawback that different speech events would require different categorisations.11 In order to overcome these insufficiencies, Levinson (1988: 170-4) proposes a more elaborate framework for the analysis of the roles of speaker and hearer in situations of verbal communication. Speaker-related roles ('production roles') may be analysed by asking the four questions as formulated in Table 1. Each of these four questions may be answered either affirmatively or negatively. Different combinations of affirmative or negative answers yield different roles as related to speech production. For example, an affirmative answer to P4, and negative answers to P1-P3, would yield the role of an absent ghost writer. In normal, spontaneous, dyadic conversation all four questions are answered affirmatively. In a similar fashion, Levinson offers a framework for the analysis of

< previous page

page_9

next page >

< previous page

page_10

next page > Page 10

Table 1 Questions defining production roles (Levinson, 1988: 172) P1Is the person a direct participant in the situation? P2Is the person directly involved in the physical transmission of the message? P3Has the person a motive or desire to communicate the message? P4Is the person responsible for or involved in devising the form or format of themessage? Table 2 Questions defining reception roles (Levinson, 1988: 173) R1Is the person a direct participant in the situation, having a ratified role? R2Is the person directly addressed by the speaker and/or his message? R3Is the person intended to be a/the receiver of the information of the message? R4Does the person have immediate access to the channel so as to be able to receive the message directly? hearer-related roles ('reception roles'). These roles may be characterised by answering the four questions shown in Table 2. Again, for the hearer in a normal everyday dyadic conversation, all four questions are to be answered affirmatively. In a situation in which Person A asks B to tell Person C something, questions R1, R2 and R4 are affirmative for Person B, whereas question R3 is affirmative for Person C. As Levinson shows, this framework is fruitful for a cross-linguistic and ethnographic analysis of many participant-related phenomena. 12 The questions in Tables 1 and 2 will be the guidelines for the following analysis of representative political speech. Representative Political Speech Although some critical linguists might claim that practically any use of language may be considered political in the sense that ideology or world view is involved, I will restrict the term political speech to language use by politicians, i.e. those people who are professionally involved in the management of public affairs. Taken in this sense, the term political speech covers both an enormous quantity and a great multitude of forms, ranging from negotiations and formal meetings, to briefings, press conferences, press interviews, and speeches. Regardless of whether political language use can be accessed by the public or not, politicians always have to be aware thatas politiciansthey cannot speak casually, as a private person.13 They have to take into account that their utterances must be authorised by their party, that their utterances must be acceptable to their coalition partners, andlast but not leastthat their words must win the favour of the public.14 Any form of political speech is thus geared to being representative of something, and so may be liable to be sanctioned by a higher authority. However, cases in which this higher authority is the nation itself are rare.15 Political speech that is representative of the nation is rather restricted, in two

< previous page

page_10

next page >

< previous page

page_11

next page > Page 11

respects. Firstly, nationally representative speech is restricted to specific persons, or rather, to persons who are the incumbent of specific functions. Representative speeches may be made by a head of state, a prime minister, and the speaker of the parliament, or by persons immediately replacing them. In sum, incumbents of those functions that I have put at the 'fully representative' end of the scale. Other politicians, such as ordinary members of parliament, do not qualify. Secondly, representative speeches are made on specific occasions which must warrant the speech. Examples are memorial services on anniversaries of events of national interest, or state visits in which the relationship between two nations is symbolised in the head of one state paying a visit to the other. Utterances made on such occasions are interesting because they inevitably show traces of the speaker's search for a representative point of view, acceptable to the nation. 16 Thus, in a speech made at a commemorative event the speaker has to look for the 'national meaning' of such an occasion. The speech counts as a way of establishing that meaning, or reinforcing the sense of that meaning. A comparative analysis of two commemorative speeches made by representatives of the German state (Kopperschmidt, 1989; Ensink, 1995; Sauer, forthcoming) reveals a dramatic difference in the acceptability of the points of view, chosen to be representative. On May 8, 1985, the then German President, Richard von Weizsäcker, commemorated the 40th anniversary of the German capitulation. In his speech he coined the phrase 'May 8 is a day of liberation'. As both Kopperschmidt and Sauer argue, this point of view was as such not novel. The novelty is the declaration of that point of view in a speech by the official representative of Germany, thus ratifying it. This point of view was acceptable to the greater part of the spectrum of German political opinion. It rejects the point of view, according to which Germany was defeated.17 But, at the same time, it presupposes that Germany was a victim of the war rather than an active perpetrator. It thus de-emphasises German guilt and responsibility. On the other hand, Philipp Jenninger, Speaker of the German Parliament, did exactly the opposite in his address on November 9,1988, the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Kristallnacht.Jenninger emphasised German guilt and responsibility. In fact, he chose the question 'what did we Germans do?' as the leading question of his address: Today we have gathered in the Bundestag in order to commemorate the pogroms of November 9 and 10, 1938. Because we, in the midst of whom the crimes were committed, have to remember and account for them. It is not just for the victims to do so. We Germans should have a clear understanding about our past, and learn from it for the political formation of our present and future. The victims, the Jews all over the world, know only too well what November 1938 was to mean for their future suffering. Do we know as well? (My translation.) The audience, however, refused to follow Jenninger in his open confrontation with the past. Instead, Jenninger was seen to show too much understanding hence also approvalof what happened during the Third Reich. As a result, his position as Speaker became untenable. Disregarding the question of what is right or wrong about his speech, it appears that Jenninger failed to establish a

< previous page

page_11

next page >

< previous page

page_12

next page > Page 12

perspective that was acceptable to his audience. His audience did not feel represented by his words. Most German politicians and political parties distanced themselves from his speech (Ensink, 1992). In comparison with such commemorative speeches that are essentially addressing one's own nation (both von Weizsäcker and Jenninger spoke at an extraordinary meeting of the national parliament), speeches made in the context of state visits are even more complex. Both the visiting and the hosting nation have perspectives of their own. Apart from these, the relationship between both nations calls for the adoption of a perspective, in which both will feel represented. In our analysis of German President Roman Herzog's address to his Polish hosts (Ensink & Sauer, 1995), we have shown that Herzog primarily takes care of the needs and expectations of his host. He makes an interactional move (asking forgiveness from the Poles) at the culminating point of his speech. Nonetheless, he takes care to represent a broad spectrum of German interests as well, by balancing these needs against those of his hosts. I will now focus on a speech that was made by a visiting head of state to a parliament of the hosting nation, on the occasion of an official state visit. I will focus on questions of (multiple) representation using an analysis of linguistic phenomena related to footing. Footing in the Address of Queen Beatrix to the Knesset On March 27, 28 and 29, 1995, the Dutch Queen Beatrix made a state visit to Israel. This was the very first visit of a Dutch head of state to Israel since its establishment in 1948. In 1993, the Israeli head of state, President Chaim Herzog, had made a state visit to the Netherlands. In general, the relationship between Israel and the Netherlands is considered to be friendly. As part of her state visit, Queen Beatrix was to address the Israeli Parliament, the Knesset. In this paper, I will focus on this address (see Appendix). According to the Dutch Constitution, the King 18 can do no wrong. The Government ministers are liable for the King's actions. The Netherlands thus has a curtailed kingdom. Beatrix became Queen of the Netherlands in 1980. She is considered a highly professional and serious head of state, supported by both politicians and the Dutch population. Any official action of hers, representative of the Netherlands, must be approved by the government.19 In the weeks before the state visit, a number of Jews, who had previously been resident in the Netherlands and who are now living in Israel, started a campaign in order to correct the favourable image of the Netherlands in Israel, where the Netherlands are considered a friendly and tolerant nation. In accordance with this image, the Dutch were very helpful to the Jews during World War II. In reality, however, 80% of Dutch Jews were transported and killed during the war. Only 20% survived. These figures suggest that many Dutch people collaborated. Hence they demanded that the myth of a people that acted heroically in defence of their Jewish fellow countrymen should be questioned. Members of the Dutch community in Israel wrote letters to President Weizman and Speaker Weiss, in order to plead for such a demystification. On March 27, President Ezer Weizman addressed his Dutch guests at a banquet, drawing attention to the statistics

< previous page

page_12

next page >

< previous page

page_13

next page > Page 13

mentioned above. One day later, on March 28, Queen Beatrix gave her address to the Knesset. In Table 1 and Table 2 I summarised two sets of questions which may serve as a guideline for the analysis. It seems that some of these questions can be answered in a straightforward way. Questions P1 and P2 both pertain to the Queen herself. She isonce she has taken the floorthe one and only speaker. Nevertheless, question P2 is more complex. The Queen's speech is not spontaneous. She is reading an address that has been written. 20 Indeed, the text of what she is saying is already available to journalists under an embargo that may be lifted once the Queen has delivered her address. Hence, there is in fact more than one physical transmission of the message. The official, ratified medium is the Queen speaking, the practical one, in view of the way the media operates, is the written document issued by the Netherlands Information Service.21(I will return to questions P3 and P4 later on.) This duplication of the transmission of the message has, of course, its complement in the answers to questions R1-R4. (R1) The official audience is the Knesset itself, its members, in the first place its Speaker, who become the persons officially addressed (R2). Furthermore, present among the audience are members of the Israeli government, and guests of honour. Present in a nonofficial capacity are journalists and media representatives. Although unofficial in terms of the state, these media intermediaries nonetheless play an important role. The officially ratified group is much smaller than all the intended receivers of the Queen's message (R3). Because the state of Israel is a parliamentary democracy, the Knesset is representative of the Israeli nation. Hence, in principle each citizen of Israel belongs, 'through the Knesset', to the intended receivers group. Furthermore, since the Queen speaks in the name of the Netherlands, each citizen of the Netherlands may be considered to have knowledge of the message in which s/he is represented (R4). These groups may only be reached when media intermediaries of press and television will report on and quote from the Queen's message. Their presence allows them to do this job. Or maybe even their presence is wanted in order for them to do this job. We may represent this state of affairs schematically as in Figure 1, in which one horizontal box intersects two vertical boxes. The horizontal box contains the two ratified parties involved in the communicative event of the delivering of the address, namely, Queen Beatrix as the speaker and members of the Knesset as the audience. The two vertical boxes contain the nations or peoples represented by the two ratified parties, respectively. Thus, the speaker represents the Netherlands, whereas the audience representsin the context of the state visitIsrael. As we will see, Queen Beatrix also considers the Knesset representative of the Jews in general. As Wortham (1996) has argued, personal pronouns and other deictics are particularly useful for the analysis of footing. Hence, I have indicated the way in which personal pronouns may be used in Queen Beatrix' address in order to refer to any of the three boxes, or combinations thereof. Let us now turn to the text of the address itself. The address opens with the following paragraph22 which consists of six sentences. In this paragraph, we

< previous page

page_13

next page >

< previous page

page_14

next page > Page 14

Figure 1 Reference of personal pronouns notice several indications of footing according to the analysis summarised in Figure 1 (these are underlined). Mr. Speaker, Members of the Knesset, (1) The very name of your parliament, Knesset, takes us back to a distant past. (2) As early as three thousand years ago your forefathers congregated in national assemblies. (3) Though Israel may be relatively young as a state, the Jewish people can look back on a very old history. (4) The traces of those early times are present here in many places and in many forms. (5) Travelling through these biblical lands is therefore like travelling through time. (6) Jerusalem and Jericho, the river Jordanthese old names are in the news even today, but also revive for everyone memories of that long and rich past. Queen Beatrix starts her address by formally addressing the chairman and the members of the Knesset, thus indicating that they are the ratified audience she is talking to. In (1), she uses both your and us.Both on anaphoric and deictic grounds, your refers to the chairman and members of the Knesset who have just been addressed. It is plausible to consider us an inclusive usage of the pronoun (see Levinson, 1983: 69;although a very general interpretation, including all three boxes of Figure 1, cannot be ruled out). 23 This interpretation fits the horizontal box: the ratified present parties involved in the situation are the point of departure. The formulation distant past also fits in a 'normal' deictic analysis. The past is 'distant' with the 'now' of the Origo as point of reference. In (2) and (3), the address moves away from the participants in the present ceremony, to what they represent. Your forefathers is still directly linked to the audience. In (3), only descriptive formulations are used: Israel (as a state) and the Jewish people.This sentence is not explicitly coherent with the preceding sentences. Hence, coherence is established implicitly, by invoking inferences.24 One such inference might be, that the 'very old history' the Jewish people can look back on, is symbolised in the forefathers congregating in national assemblies. Another inference is that the Knesset, formally representative of the state of Israel, stands in the tradition of these assemblies, whereas it follows from the juxtaposition of

< previous page

page_14

next page >

< previous page

page_15

next page > Page 15

the young state of Israel and the old history of the Jewish people, that there is continuity between them. (Note that invoking inferences presupposes an interpretative normality.) In (4), this continuity is reinforced. The deictic here is not locationally restricted to the Knesset's room, but refers to Israel. Queen Beatrix varies her formulation in order to refer to Israel in (5) as these biblical lands. 25 At the same time, she speaks about Israel from her own point of view. Travelling,although the present participle does not mention explicitly its actor, suggests the perspective of being a visitor, although this perspective is not put into focus. In (6), Queen Beatrix uses three names from the Israeli map (clearly chosen for their alliteration) in order to symbolise once more the bridge between long and rich past and today.At the same time, the Queen chooses the formulation for everyone,thus including maybe even more people than those represented in Figure 1. Thus, the Queen has emphasised the historical dimension of Israel, at the same time suggesting that the state of Israel, and the Jewish people in general, are the same. Furthermore, she has moved seamlessly from the presence in the Knesset itself (the horizontal box in Figure 1) to what the Knesset represents. Her own point of view, and what she herself represents, are not yet put into focus. In Table 3 I present an analysis of the whole address. This table shows the formulations as used by the Queen, and relates them to what they represent. Hence, only those formulations are selected from the address which are to be related to either the Queen, the Knesset, and what they stand forthe Netherlands, Israel, or the Jews in general. The formulations are divided into two categories, according to whether or not they contain deictic elements, notably personal pronouns (see Wortham, 1996). The following symbols are used: + indicates that the formulation as used by the Queen makes implicit or explicit reference to the category of that column; ® indicates that the formulation does not make reference to that category as such, but takes it as a referential point of departure; for example, reference to the European Union is made 'through' the Netherlands; ? indicates that the categorising is uncertain, although plausible. On the basis of Table 3, we may note the following points of interest, and reach the following conclusions: (1) It is quite clear that being representative is at the heart of Queen Beatrix' address. Only in Paragraph 13, are the majority of references in columns Be and Kn:the ratified present parties. In the other 12 paragraphs, there are many references to these two columns, but either alternating with references to the columns II and Nl,or referring to those at the same time. At times it is remarkable how easily, and almost imperceptibly, the formulations oscillate between the various (possible) referents. Consider the cases in which the Queen uses first person plural pronouns (we or our).The first instance is in Paragraph 1: 'takes us back to a distant past'. Here, the pronoun refers to the ratified present parties, including them both. The next use, in Paragraph 3, excludes the Knesset, but includes the vertical box from Figure 1, representing the Netherlands. A similar instance is the closing of the address. Here, the Queen twice uses the first person plural in two different senses: 'We [my husband and I] believe . . . relationship between our [gloss:

< previous page

page_15

next page >

< previous page

page_16

next page > Page 16

Table 3 Formulations relating to footing in Beatrix' address PDeictics/pronouns/addressees Non-deictic BeKn Il Nl descriptions 1 Mr Speaker, adr Members of the Knesset adr name of your parliament + takes us back to a distant past + + +?+? three thousand years ago + + your forefathers + Israel I the Jewish people J here in many places and in many forms + I/J Travelling through these biblical lands +? I/J even today + + for everyone memories + + + + of that long and rich past 2 These places and the I/J many memories the Jewish people J the Dutch + our ancestors + + more than four centuries ago + + the establishing of the + Dutch state the history of the J Jewish people Our forefathers + + 3 the early history of our country + + the people of Israel J the citizens of our young republic + + the Bible J Rembrandt + Royal Palace in + Amsterdam sculptors of our Golden Age + + scenes from the Old J Testament everyone + 4 arrival in the J + Netherlands Jewish immigrants J + a closer acquaintance J + Jewish culture J Jewish religion J These immigrants J + in our country + + economic and cultural flowering our + + country experienced at that stage of her history they J competitors but also J + colleagues Jewish bankers J (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_16

next page >

< previous page

page_17

next page > Page 17

Table 3 (cont.) PDeictics/pronouns/addressees

Non-deictic descriptions BeKn IlNl the Netherlands her + struggle for independence 5 cosmopolitan city of + Amsterdam Jewish community J+ nickname Mokum J+ Jewish libraries and J seminaries Jewish synagogue J +? many talented Jewish J students and scholars controversial Spinoza J Dutch Jews + trades in which Jewish J workers figured Dutch diamond-workers + union Jewish diamond cutters trade union movement in + the Netherlands 6 the most difficult years of J the twentieth century . . . disaster Mokum J+ here,in this place + the horrors that the Nazi-occupation of + J+ 1940-45 brought our country's Jewish population Most of our Dutch Jews + J+ We know that many + + of our fellow-countrymen + + During our visit to + + Yad Vashem yesterday we saw their names + But we also know that they were the + + exceptional ones the people of the + Netherlands the destruction of their J Jewish fellow-citizens 7 we cannot joyfully + + commemorate the restoration of our + + freedom asking ourselves + + celebrations at Auschwitz J where you, Mr Chairman, + adr and we were present those events J incitement to us all + + ++ duty, not only for +?+? ++ governments but also for every individual 8 bond that developed between our two + + I+ countries after the war (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_17

next page >

< previous page

page_18

next page > Page 18

Table 3 (cont.) P Deictics/pronouns/addresseesNon-deictic descriptions BeKn Il Nl founding of the state of Israel I in the Netherlands + this state gave the Jewish people I all the Jews in the world I/J this new country I Thousands of Dutchmen J? + Others + the existence of the young state I the people and the government of + + the Netherlands Israel I feeling of solidarity I + For many Dutch people + a special relationship exists + + I + between our countries 9 The history of the state of Israel I immigrants have streamed in I here Other countries I® admiration how your country + I has taken in This has enriched your + I country respect for others among your + I people The confusion . . . you have + I averted by . . . distinctive feature of Israel I In many countries there is . . . with I ® which Israel seeks solutions Among people interested in Israel I Now that Israel has more young I people . . . for the older generation to pass on . . . which then animated everyone to a new generation 10Mr Speaker adr wars have torn the Middle East I® your country was even at + I stake taken a heavy toll I people have been moved ® I by the suffering of the Israeli ® and the Palestinian population at present signs that point ? everyone who follows your +?+ I ® efforts towards this goal remains poised 11the visit of. . . Anwar Sadat + I to your land (table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_18

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_19

Page 19 Table 3 (cont.) P Deictics/pronouns/addresseesNon-deictic descriptions The whole world remembers pictures . . . here in the Knesset We hope that your other neighbour-countries will also join wish of your predecessors people who have opposed each other reason why we should praise the courage This gives us hope . . . is also possible here In three years your country celebrates the crown of your work if on your country's birthday peace 12Members of the Knesset What has been achieved here To many people in the world your country concern for the safety of the state and its citizens demands on you vigilance and on your thrift hindrances that have existed for so long cooperation between you and

BeKn Il Nl ® + + + I®+? + I® + +? +?+? +

+? + I + I + I + I adr I + I I + + I® + I + I®

your neighbours, and also with the European Union For the entire region the words of the Psalmist

I® J

13Your obligations are . . . to bear, your responsibilities among the greatest As members of the Knesset you embody democracy

+ + + to which Israel remains true

This chamber calls to mind that the only solutions for your country This realization makes our presence in your midst today a special experience my husband and I thank you We believe that this solemn reception in the Knesset is renewed evidence of the special relationship between

®

I + + I + + + + + + +

+?

(table continued on next page)

< previous page

page_19

next page >

< previous page

next page >

page_20

Page 20 Table 3 (cont.) PDeictics/pronouns/addressees

Non-deictic descriptions

BeKnIl Nl

our peoples, which has held firm now for four + + I/J+ centuries Thank you + + P number of paragraph; Be Beatrix; Kn Knesset; II Israel (in the column divided into I (Israel)or J (Jewish people)); Nl Netherlands/Dutch. both the people of my husband and myself, as your, the Knesset's, people] peoples. . .'. (2) In my analysis of the first paragraph I noted already that the Queen considers the Knesset representative of both Israel (as a state) and the Jewish people. Table 3 shows that this double representation is quite systematic in her address, in this case, however, with respect to the use of the second person pronouns (you and your).In the column Il,we find a systematic reference to the Jewish people in general in Paragraphs 2-7; from Paragraph 8 onward, reference to Israel (as a state) is predominant. This has mainly to do with the thematic development of the Queen's address. This development is shown in Table 4, in which the main point of each paragraph is summarised. Table 4 Thematic structure of Beatrix' address p thematic content 1 From Knesset to both Israel and Jewish people, and their rich and long history 2 Jewish history is relevant for the Netherlands: their history was a model for the Dutch history 3 Historical evidence for 2 4 Jewish immigrants in the Netherlands from 1600 onward: mutual benefit 5 Amsterdam as a pars pro toto for 4: history of Amsterdam is interwoven with Jewish history; Jewish nickname for Amsterdam 6 Fate of the Jews in the Netherlands, from 1940-45. Dutch people did not enough for the salvation of the Dutch Jews 7 6 is a warning against racism and discrimination 8 Relationship between Israel and the Netherlands after 1948; Dutch enthousiasm and solidarity 9 Evaluation of the history of Israel in the past 50 years 10Conflict in the Middle East, esp. between Israel and the Palestinians 11Hope and moral as to this conflict; Western Europe as a model for the Middle East 12General positive evaluation of Israel; hope for the future 13Knesset is symbol of democracy; ritual gratitude It appears that the address consists of three parts: (a) The first part (Paragraphs 1-9) emphasises the historical development of the relationship between the Netherlands and the Jews, or Israel.

< previous page

page_20

next page >

< previous page

page_21

next page > Page 21

After the Queen has stated that Jewish history was considered an ideal model by the Dutch (Paragraph 2-3), the development of their relationship is described in three phases. First, the phase in which Jewish immigrants became an inherent part of Dutch society (Paragraph 4-5), second, the phase in which a large part of the Dutch Jewish population was destroyed (Paragraph 6-7), and third, the phase of the official relationship between the states, after Israel had become independent in 1948. Thus, the state visit to Israel is considered an occasion on which not just two states, but rather, two peoples, are represented. This is shown, once more, in the final sentence of the address: '. . . relationship between our peoples, which has held firm now for four centuries'. (b) In the second part 26 of her speech, the Queen focuses on the conflict in the Middle East (Paragraphs 10-11). As is shown in Table 3, the Queen uses a few first person pronouns, alternating those with general references to 'everyone who follows your efforts', 'the whole world remembers', or 'people have been moved by the suffering'. As an outsider to Israel, the Queen thus seems to adopt here a perspective that represents more than just her own point of view, or the point of view of the Netherlands. As a part of this general perspective, there is some moralising in the Queen's words. She states what is best to do in this conflict. Consider formulations such as: 'steps along the right road', 'developments in the delicate but necessary peace-process', 'Once peace is concluded reconciliation must follow', and 'It also demands that mistrust which has grown between them be overcome'. Furthermore, at the end of paragraph 11 the Queen offers post-war developments in Western Europe as a model to the Knesset. (c) The third part of the address (Paragraphs 12-13) is its ritual closing. This closing section starts by explicitly addressing the members of the Knesset. Paragraph 12 is an eulogy of Israel, in which she wishes it well. (There is some discrepancy in tone between the moralising of Paragraph 11 and the best wishes of Paragraph 12.) In the final sentence of 12, the Queen addresses her audience in their own language.27 The final paragraph is focused on the Knesset itself, and on its way of symbolising democracy. Again, stating this symbolic value gives rise to a moralistic utterance: 'This chamber calls to mind that the only solutions for your country are democratic solutions'.28 The Queen links her own presence in the Knesset to this utterance. She expresses gratitude for her reception. (3) For more than one reason, Paragraph 6 is rather remarkable. The oscillation between formulations is most conspicuous here. We find the following formulations: (a)

Not necessary to call to mind here, in this place,the horrors.

(b)

Our country's Jewish population.

(c)

Most of our Dutch Jews.

(d)

We know that many of our fellowcountrymen . . . stood by their threatened fellow men.

< previous page

page_21

next page >

< previous page

page_22

next page > Page 22

(e)

During our visit to Yad Vashem.

(f)

We also know that . . . the people of the Netherlands could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow-citizens.

A first implication of (a) is, that the horrors are well known. A second, more specific, implicationnotably coming from the stressing of 'here in this place', i.e. the Knessetis, that the horrors are well known here.In (b) and (c), the first person plural indicates that the speaker takes a point of view representing the Netherlands. In (d), however, there is a contradiction. Firstly, the represented country is split up into two parts: 'many of our fellowcountrymen who stood by' are the exceptional ones, as opposed to 'the people of the Netherlands' (see (f)). Secondly, the Queen remains representative of both parts. Both (d) and (f) open with 'We know. . .'. However, the function of these similar formulations is different. In (d), the formulation acknowledges and honours the actions of these Dutchmen. This is reinforced in (e), where the Queen mentions Israeli recognition 'remembered forever' of these persons. (Note in passing, that the reference of our in (e) is again shifted to the Queen herself.) In (f), however, 'we also know' admits the fact that the Dutch in general failed to help. Uttered by the Queen, these words count as a Dutch admission of failure. Why did the Queen say this on this particular occasion? To whom are her words addressed? The ratified audience are the Knesset. Neither the Knesset, nor Israel as a state, have been involved in the situation of the Dutch Jews during the war. Nonetheless, the Queen's reference to the fate of the Jews in Holland fits in with the chosen perspective on a state visit which represents not just two states, but rather two peoples. Remember that these two peoples belong to the intended receivers (R3) of her message. In that sense, her words are uttered in the name of the Netherlands, and at the same time aimed at being received by Dutch society. (4) So far, I have focused on pronouns and formulations as indicative of the Queen's footing. Of course, other aspects are relevant as well. In particular, the interactional moves or acts as performed by the Queen deserve attention. It is, at least on the surface, clear that she performs almost no explicit actions other than making statements. The horizontal box of Figure 1 would allow her to become interactional in a way that she does not. Apparently, the operation of the two vertical boxes prevents her from doing so. No promises, invitations, or greetings, are uttered by the Queen. She is the mouthpiece of the Institutionthe incumbent of the Kingdom. Most of her sentences have a descriptive form. Hence, the address consists predominantly of 'representative speech acts' 29 (Searle, 1976; Levinson, 1983: 240-1). However, it does not have a reporting function. In Paragraph 6, the repeated formulation 'we know' is an exception to this, although the formulation might even be left out without changing the tone of the address too much. To the acknowledgement of Dutch failure, no interactional gesture of apology is added. In Paragraph 7, in which the moral consequences of Paragraph 6 are addressed, the dominant formulations remain descriptive: 'it is an urgent duty', and 'these memories are an incitement to

< previous page

page_22

next page >

< previous page

page_23

next page > Page 23

us all'. The duty and the incitement are stated; the Queen refrains from ordering or inciting. The only explicit interactional moves are expressions of gratitude in Paragraph 13. Here is the only use of the first person singular. It thus appears that interaction occurs mainly at the level of the represented parties. On that level, the interaction takes place rather in the form of presuppositions or in implications, than in explicit acts. Thus, the description of Israel as a model for the Dutch in Paragraph 2, is an implicit compliment. Likewise, the reference to relevant symbols such as the Old Testament or the use of Hebrew (see Note 27) are means of paying tribute. (5) Questions P3 and P4 from Table 1 have not yet been answered. To whom does the Queen's address belong? With whom did it originate? Who forged the means? As a contrast to questions P1 and P2, these two questions appear rather elusive. As for P4, it is not possible to obtain an answer from the text itself. Information about the 'production process' of the text is needed. In a case like this, such information is not obtainable. It belongs to the 'aura' of the head of state, in particular a Queen, that such information is not provided. The text is the Queen's text. Nonetheless, it is safe to suppose that this text was produced in a complex way. Advisors from the Netherlands Information Service, and from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, would have been consulted. From a formal point of view, such a text would have been approved by the Dutch Government, since the ministers are liable for the King's actions. Part of the Queen's address focuses on the conflict in the Middle East (Paragraphs 10 and 11). In these paragraphs, the desirability, even necessity, of the peace process are emphasised. At the same time, the Queen not only shows concern for Israeli interests, but for Palestinian as well. (I have already noted that there is some discrepancy here with the ritual Paragraph 12.) It must be assumed that the wording of these paragraphs originated from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 30 Question P3 may be answered on the basis of the text itself. Earlier I concluded that in the first person pronoun, both the Queen herself, and the Dutch people, or the Netherlands, are merged. The Queen addressing the Knesset does not display a personal authority, but a symbolic and collective authority. She is speaking in the name of the country she represents. If her address succeeds, it contributes to the relationship between the two countries. (This is, in fact, what is presupposed in the final sentence of her address.) If it had failed, it would have harmed that relationship. In line with what I noted above, the tendency to replace direct acts by descriptions which state the necessity of those acts, invokes an abstract authority behind the text. The Queen lends her voice to that authority. I have also noted above that the Queen acknowledged the general Dutch failure to help the Dutch Jews during World War II. This acknowledgement on such an occasion implies that she is acknowledging it in the name of the Netherlands. At the same time, however, her words are aimed at Dutch society. The point of view expressed here is not generally accepted within

< previous page

page_23

next page >

< previous page

page_24

next page > Page 24

that society. According to a reconstruction by a Dutch journalist (Verhey, 1995), this point of view is advocated by the Queen herself. Nevertheless, the text of the address does not make clear any differences between what the Queen adheres to as a person, and what she is saying officially, endorsed by the government of the Netherlands. In a sense, the consequence of being representative is the eclipse of the individuality of the speaker. Conclusion In this paper, I have presented an analysis along Goffmanian lines. Although Erving Goffman did not provide the precise analytical tools, I have developed these according to the directions he set out. I have shown the relevance of the concept footing, especially in its elaboration by Levinson. Both Goffman and Levinson point out that the notion of speaker is misleadingly simple, and needs to be examined more closely. Such an examination has been the guideline of this analysis. The analysis itself has shown that there is an intricate relationship between the speaker of a representative political text, its formulations, and what is represented. The concept of footing is thus clearly relevant to the analysis of political communication. It is especially fruitful to analyse the footing of political communication of the formal representative kind I have discussed in this paper, since the discourse analytic phenomena related to footing put a sharp focus on what is represented in political communication, both as it relates to the speaker and to the audience. Part of political communication takes place on the explicit level of the message. An important part occurs on the level of what the speaker's footing presupposes as to representativeness. The analysis has limitations as well. Only one text has been analysed. A systematic picture of the management of representativeness in official addresses is not offered. Furthermore, the focus of the analysis has been on the text, not on its presentation. I have argued that there is a good reason for doing that: the text has been written, and is read aloud at the ceremony. It is disseminated through media representatives by means of the written press release. Nevertheless, the written text does not 'count' in itself, it derives its value from the Queen's speaking of that text. Nor has the focus of the analysis been on the reception. The reception of the addressfirst by the Knesset as the ratified audience, second by the intended receivers through the mediais not identical with the text itself. In the reception, selection takes place. Some aspects of the address are highlighted, other aspects go unnoticed. Whenever one wants to study the reception, the analysis as presented here is significant as a point of departure. Notes 1. I focus here on national representation. Many other forms of representation may be considered as well. In fact, each institution implies for persons within that institution, that under appropriate circumstances they have to represent that institution. The socio-psychological concept of identity is closely related to representation (Berger & Luckmann, 1966). 2. These officially staged forms of representation evoke emotions, and often they are intended to do so. The playing or singing of the national anthem on solemn occasions

< previous page

page_24

next page >

< previous page

page_25

next page > Page 25

may make people sob. Of course, feelings and these representative symbols are interlinked. When a protester wishes to insult an enemy country, its flag, or a puppet representing its head of state are burnt. Or consider the way in which two groups of tourists in Spain started a fight after using a national symbol as a provocation (as reported in de Volkskrant on July 30, 1996): 'The riot started when a group of thirty Dutchmen, each of them according to police ''very drunk'', started to sing the Dutch anthem in a bar. As a reaction to that, German tourists started to sing their anthem. The singing resulted in fighting'. 3. A clear example of national feelings projected onto an economically determined process may be found in the case of the mother-corporation DASA withdrawing its financial support from the aerospace company, Fokker. DASA is a German corporation, whereas Fokker is Dutch. In Dutch newspapers, DASA's actions were described as a German betrayal of Holland. 4. In due course, such private schemes may very well become officially acknowledged. Consider for example the way in which jobs have become representative of male/female or majority/ethnic minorities ratios. 5. The fact that Roba considered herself representative of African women when talking to journalists, did not prevent her from being representative of Ethiopia at the official ceremony. As a contrast, consider the case of two black American athletesWootie Smith and John Carlos, winners of the gold and silver medals in the 200 metersraising their black gloved fists at the 1968 Mexico Olympics at the cérémonie protocollaire,while the US anthem was played. They chose to make a gesture representative of the Black Power movement, not of the USA. The country considered them a disgrace. The dual role demands that not only does one have to be good at sports but good at representing one's country as well. 6. I focus here on (incumbents of) representative functions, and their language use. This presupposes that they speak novel, noncanonical texts. One might ask which texts, regardless of speaker or source, have representative functions. The text of national anthems, the text of the Constitution, words spoken by founding fathers or national heroes are cases in point. Where religion is concerned, there are canonical holy texts. 7. In view of Kohl's denial to have said what Newsweek reported, the magazine published the following transcript of the Kohl interview: 'Ich bin kein Narr, ich halte ihn [= Gorbatschow] nicht für einen Liberalen. Es gibt genug Narren in der westlichen Welt zwischen Journalisten und Politikern. Die Frau Gorbatschow ist eine attraktive Frau, die reist nach Paris und kauft sich natürlich Kleider in Paris. Das hat doch damit überhaupt nichts zu tun. Das ist ein moderner kommunistischer Führer. Der war nie in Kalifornien, nie in Hollywood, aber versteht was von PR. Der Goebbels verstand auch was von PR.[Laughter] Man muß doch die Dinge auf den Punkt bringen'.(quoted in Der Spiegel 1986 No. 46). ('I'm not stupid, I don't regard Gorbachev as a liberal. There are enough fools in the West, amongst journalists and politicians. Mrs Gorbachev is an attractive woman who travels to Paris and, of course, buys herself a few dresses. But this has nothing to do with it. He is a modern Communist leader. He has never been to California, never to Hollywood, but he still understands something about PR. Goebbels, too, understood something about PR. We have to be clear about this'.) 8.' Has Kohlforgotten that the honour and dignity of a state, of a people are at stake here? If so, we are forced to remind him of that. In view of all this, political reason and decency require that in this situation things are made clear. Without clarification a normal relationship with the German government seems impossible.' 9. Goffman himself (see Goffman, 1981: 128, footnote) considered 'footing' an elaboration of hisframe analysis (as expounded in Goffman, 1974). Levinson (1988: 168) points out that the notion of 'footing' itself is not very clear. The term refers to the way in which the communicative participant is involved in the situation, and the grounds for this. The clearest description Goffman offers is: 'A change in footing implies a change in the alignment we take up to ourselves and the others present as expressed in the way we manage the production or reception of an utterance'. (Goffman, 1981: 128). As Levinson points out, study of footing phenomena isfrom a linguistic point of viewrelevant because these phenomena are at the heart of the concept of deixis.

< previous page

page_25

next page >

< previous page

page_26

next page > Page 26

10. The notion of 'hearer' is decomposed similarly. Goffman distinguishes 'addressed recipients' from 'unaddressed recipients'. Both categories are officially ratified participants of the situation. Furthermore, there may be 'unofficial' or 'unratified' participants, such as 'bystanders', 'overhearers' and 'eavesdroppers' (Goffman, 1981: 131-3). 11. Goffman (1981: 140) indeed suggests a different approach for speech events other than ordinary conversation, which he considers the paradigm case for describing the different speaker and hearer roles. 12. Levinson's framework has recently been applied by Antaki, Díaz and Collins (1996). 13. In political interviews politicians do not have a 'negative face' of their own, since their utterances are seen in relation to their public function as a politician (Ensink, 1986: 337-8). 14. In Ensink and Sauer (1995), the deliberate attempt at fitting words in different perspectives is termed 'multidimensionality'. The literature on political communication and political language use provides many examples of politicians trying to have their words accepted by their audience. Thus, Atkinson (1984) analyses devices used by politicians in their speeches in order to catch applause. Two of these devicesfavourable reference to 'us', and unfavourable reference to 'them'are essentially aiming at the nature of representation and identification. In a similar fashion, Bormann (1986) analysed speeches by American Presidential Candidates to audiences of party members. The most important aim of these speeches was to be recognisable and to do this they used the audiences' favourite themes, firing their enthusiasm and getting them in the mood for victory. 15. Except, of course, in the case of totalitarian states. The totalitarian leader and his words are to be identified with the state itself. 16. From the point of view of classical rhetoric, representative speeches are 'epideictic' (i.e. focused on positive or negative aspects of the theme talked about), whereas political speeches e.g. to party rallies, as those analysed by Atkinson (1984), are 'deliberativum' (i.e. aimed at gaining the audience's approval). See Klein (1995: 70, 75) and Lausberg (1987). 17. Although ten years later, in 1995, at the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of German capitulation, a right wing lobby in German politics wanted to restore the idea of Germany having been defeated. 18. In the Dutch Constitution, the word 'King' is used, regardless of the sex of the actual incumbent. In practice, the government's liability for the king's actions extends to the whole royal family. 19. Sometimes, this situation is even stronger: the Queen has to do what the government has decided. Thus, every year on the third Tuesday in September, the Queen addresses the first and second Chamber of Parliament. In this address, the government's intentions for the next year are stated. In its form, this address is an address of and by the Queen. In fact, the address is written by the Prime Minister. 20. When Queen Beatrix speaks, her articulation is very careful and measured. Her immaculate presentation precludes the sense of spontaneity. 21. The Dutch press release by the Netherland's Information Service states that 'only the spoken word is valid'. The text may be the same, but it is the official act of speaking that text that counts. Any discrepancy between printed text and spoken text leads to a 'denial' of the written text. 22. Of course, a 'paragraph' is a unit of written speech. The paragraphs are based on the text of the address as issued by the Netherland's Information Service. In the Queen's diction, paragraphs may or may not be recognisable. If they are, this is done by means of a short pause, or by stressing the introduction of the next topic, and so on. In fact, the speaker's behaviour can be described as footing phenomena. 23. In terms of Table 2, us would include both all ratified present parties (R1 and R2), and all intended recipients (R3). 24. The literature about inferences (implications, implicatures) is enormous. Since I am dealing with a text as monologue, I refer to a system of analysing inferences by asking which propositions are necessary in order to make the combination of two utterances

< previous page

page_26

next page >

< previous page

page_27

next page > Page 27

coherent (see Mann & Thompson, 1986). In this text, one might try to prove the operation of these inferences by asking whether an explicit formulation fits the speaker's intentions: 'Though your country may be relatively young as a state, your people can look back on a very old history'. In my opinion, this formulation is interchangeable with the formulation from the text. 25. Beatrix leaves it open whether or not 'biblical' is only Old Testament, or New Testament as well. 26. Note that between the three parts of her address, explicit forms of address occurs. The function of these is to put a bracket between the thematic lines. The content of paragraphs 10 and 11 is not specifically restricted to the Chairman. 27. In representative speeches to a foreign audience, the use of the audience's language is a symbolic act of the willingness to approach the audience in its own identity. The classic case is undoubtedly John F. Kennedy's speech in Berlin, in which he used English, apart from the sentence 'Ich bin ein Berliner'.Here, the propositional content of what Kennedy said matches its symbolic value. In the case of Beatrix' address, there is not such a perfect fit. The Queen uses a Hebrew phrase from the Old Testament, but she utters a wish which fits the general perspective of the desired Middle East's development, as adopted in Paragraph 11. 28. Apart from the fact that the phrase 'solutions for your country' probably intends to refer to 'solutions for the conflict between your country and neighbouring countries', this sentence is rather unfortunate. The fact that it is uttered at all presupposes its relevance. And it is only relevant if Israel considers 'non-democratic solutions'. 29. 'Representative' is used in a different sense here from the one I used throughout this paper. Searle divided speech acts into several categories, notably 'representatives', 'directives', 'commissives', 'expressives' and 'declaratives'; 'representatives' are those speech acts in which the speaker is committed to the truth of the expressed proposition. 30. Dutch foreign policies favour Israel, but in a balanced way. Arab interests are considered as well. References Antaki, C., Díaz, F. and Collins, A.F. (1996) Keeping your footing: Conversational completion in three-part sentences. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 151-71. Atkinson, M. (1984) Our Masters' Voices. The Language and Body Language of Politics.London/New York: Methuen. Berger, P. and Luckmann, T. (1966) The Social Construction of Reality. A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge.Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Bormann, E.G. (1986) Fantasy theme analysis of presidential debates. In T. Ensink, A. van Essen and T. van der Geest (eds) Discourse Analysis and Public Life. Papers of the Groningen Conference on Medical and Political Discourse (pp. 289-36). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications. Canetti, E. (1960) Masse und Macht.Munich: Claassen Verlag. Ensink, T. (1986) Political interviews. In T. Ensink, A. van Essen and T. van der Geest (eds) Discourse Analysis and Public Life. Papers of the Groningen Conference on Medical and Political Discourse (pp. 331-54). Dordrecht/Providence: Foris Publications. Ensink, T. (1992) Jenninger: De ontvangst van een Duitse rede in Nederland. Een tekstwetenschappelijke en communicatiewetenschappelijke analyse (Jenninger: The reception of a German speech in the Netherlands. A textlinguistic and communicative analysis). Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers. Ensink, T. (1995) Rhetorical problems of addressing the shameful past: Success and failure of German politicians. Paper presented at the Annual Conference 1995 of the Belgian Linguistic Association Political Linguistics, Antwerp, December 1995. Ensink, T. and Sauer, C. (1995) Political communication as tightrope walking: German President Roman Herzog's commemorative address in Warsaw, August 1 1994. Politics, Groups, and the Individual 5, (2), 37-50.

< previous page

page_27

next page >

< previous page

page_28

next page > Page 28

Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis. An Essay on the Organization of Experience.New York: Harper & Row. Goffman, E. (1979) Footing. Semiotica 25, 1-29. Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk.Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Klein, J. (1995) Politische Rhetorik. Eine Theorieskizze in Rhetorik-kritischer Absicht mit Analysen zu Reden van Goebbels, Herzog und Kohl. Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 75/76,62-99. Kopperschmidt, J. (1989) Öffentliche Rede in Deutschland. Muttersprache 99, 213-30. Lausberg, H. (1987) Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik Munich: Hueber. Levinson, S.C. (1983) Pragmatics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, S.C. (1988) Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman's concepts of participation. In P. Drew and Wootton, A. (eds) Erving Goffman. Exploring the Interaction Order (pp. 161-227). Cambridge: Polity Press. Mann, W.C. and Thompson, S.A. (1986) Relational propositions in discourse. Discourse Processes 9, 57-79. Sauer, C. (forthcoming) Der Blick nach Rückwärts. 'Befreiung' und 'Selbstbefreiung' in zwei deutschen Gedenkreden (von Weizsäcker 1985, Jenninger 1988). Searle, J.R. (1976) The classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5, 1-24. Verhey, E. (1995) De zin van Beatrix. Wat Hare Majesteit kreeg voorgezegd en wat zij zelf wilde zeggen (Beatrix' sentence. What Her Majesty was told to say and what she wanted to say herself). Vrij Nederland 8 April 1995, 7-8. Wortham, S.E.F. (1996) Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speaker's footing. Journal of Pragmatics 25, 331-48. Appendix: Address by Her Majesty Queen Beatrix to the Knesset on Tuesday, March 28th, 1995, on the occasion of the State Visit to Israel Mr Speaker, Members of the Knesset, (1) The very name of your parliament, Knesset, takes us back to a distant past. As early as 3000 years ago your forefathers congregated in national assemblies. Though Israel may be relatively young as a state, the Jewish people can look back on a very old history. The traces of those early times are present here in many places and in many forms. Travelling through these biblical lands is therefore like travelling through time. Jerusalem and Jericho, the river Jordanthese old names are in the news even today, but also revive for everyone memories of that long and rich past. (2) These places and the many memories that are associated with them are of particular significance not only for the Jewish people but also for the Dutch. When our ancestors took up arms against the King of Spain more than four centuries ago and started the war of liberation that led to the establishing of the Dutch state, the history of the Jewish people was one of their sources of inspiration. Our forefathers, too, were driven by a strong faith. They, too, sought a promised land and a New Jerusalem. (3) All the early history of our country is imbued with references to and comparisons with the people of Israel. For the citizens of our young republic the Bible was a source of inspiration not only in their personal lives and religious experiences but also for politics and society, art and culture. Rembrandt's famous paintings and etchings of Biblical subjects provide eloquent testimony of this. The Royal Palace in Amsterdam too was embellished, by sculptors of our Golden Age, with scenes from the Old Testament which were then familiar to everyone.

< previous page

page_28

next page >

< previous page

page_29

next page > Page 29

(4) The arrival in the Netherlands of a large number of Jewish immigrants, from Southern Europe and later also from Eastern Europe, led in a natural way, to a closer acquaintance with Jewish culture and Jewish religion. These immigrants, many taking refuge from persecution, found a safe haven in our country. They contributed significantly to the great economic and cultural flowering our country experienced at that stage of her history. Particularly in trade and business they were competitors but also colleagues. Jewish bankers, many of whom practised this profession because, as non-Christians, they were denied admittance to the existing closed guilds, financed the armies that eventually won the Netherlands her struggle for independence. (5) The cosmopolitan city of Amsterdam, above all, became the centre of a flourishing and extensive Jewish community, so much so indeed that our capital acquired an enduring nickname, Mokumthe 'Makom'safe place. Jewish libraries and seminaries arose. The Jewish synagogue became one of the most beautiful and most serene buildings in the city, as it still is, restored recently to its old splendour. The studies of medicine and law, among other disciplines, attracted many talented Jewish students and scholars. One of these was the controversial Spinoza, who lives on as one of the great philosophers of European history. In a later age Dutch Jews played a significant part in quite different areas as well. The early trade union movement for example drew its membership largely from trades in which Jewish workers figured prominently. The Dutch diamond-workers union, which was initiated by Jewish diamond cutters, served as a model for the development of the trade union movement in the Netherlands. (6) During the most difficult years of the twentieth century, which has been so filled with disaster, Mokum, alas, proved not to be the safe city its name suggested. It is not necessary to call to mind here, in this place, the horrors that the Nazi-occupation of 1940-1945 brought our country's Jewish population. Most of our Dutch Jews were carried off to concentration camps where they would eventually meet their death. We know that many of our fellowcountrymen put up courageous and sometimes successful resistance, and often, exposing themselves to mortal danger, stood by their threatened fellow men. During our visit to Yad Vashem 1 yesterday we saw their names too among those remembered forever under the trees planted there. But we also know that they were the exceptional ones and that the people of the Netherlands could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow-citizens. (7) Fifty years after the end of the war we cannot joyfully commemorate the restoration of our freedom without at the same time asking ourselves in bewilderment and dismay how this could have happened. The recent solemn celebrations at Auschwitz where you, Mr. Chairman, and we were present, evoked those events for us in all their horror. These atrocious memories are a permanent incitement to us all to remain vigilant against the emergence of new forms of racism, discrimination and xenophobia. It is an urgent duty, not only for governments but also for every individual citizen,

< previous page

page_29

next page >

< previous page

page_30

next page > Page 30

to be on the alert and react without hesitation to every sign of a revival of these dangers. (8) Experiences of the war, in particular, greatly contributed to the special bond that developed between our two countries after the war. The founding of the state of Israel was welcomed with great enthusiasm in the Netherlands: this state gave the Jewish people a place of its own and the legal security the countries of Europe had failed to provide. For all the Jews in the world this new country was therefore not only a refuge but also a source of inspiration and self-assurance. Thousands of Dutchmen too, found a new life here. Others worked here temporarily, with dedication and enthusiasm, on the impressive making of the young country, and have kept a precious memory of that pioneer time. In all the conflicts that threatened the existence of the young state, the people and the government of the Netherlands stood unhesitatingly by Israel. This feeling of solidarity is still alive today. For many Dutch people it is beyond question that a special relationship exists between our countries. (9) The history of the state of Israel is almost half a century old. Over the years much has happened and much has changed. From all parts of the world, but in particular from Eastern Europe and the Middle East, immigrants have streamed in here. Other countries, often confronted with refugee problems of their own, have seen with admiration how your country has taken in these large numbers and absorbed them into the community. The influx has led to a population that displays wide varieties of culture. This has enriched your country and has increased respect for others among your people. The confusion of tongues that threatened to follow the building of this tower of Babel you have averted by teaching everyone Hebrew. Another distinctive feature of Israel is religious diversity. It is the cross roads of the three great monotheistic world religions, predestined by history to coexist here in peace. In many countries there is great admiration for the patience and dedication with which Israel seeks solutions for this multitude of problems. Among people interested in Israel, this recalls memories of the pioneer days which they may remember from personal experience, and of the idealism and the inspiration which this land then radiated. Now that Israel has more young people than ever, it is an important obligation for the older generation to pass on that spark of hope and solidarity which then animated everyone, to a new generation. Mr Speaker, (10) Many wars have torn the Middle East. Often your country was even at stake in these conflicts. War, violence, and terrorism have taken a heavy toll. Throughout the world people have been moved by the suffering of the Israeli and the Palestinian population. Fortunately there are at present signs that point in the direction of a new future, although the road that leads there will be difficult, and everyone who follows your efforts towards this goal remains poised between hope and anxiety. (11) Hope has been the stronger of these feelings. The breakthrough that was brought about by the visit of the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to your land remains unforgettable. The whole world remembers the pictures of him

< previous page

page_30

next page >

< previous page

page_31

next page > Page 31

and Prime Minister Begin here in the Knesset. The Camp David agreements and the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty that followed were further signs of hope. The more recent handshake on the lawn of the White House and the agreements with Jordan and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation are new and important steps along the right road. We hope that your other neighbourcountries will also join these developments in the delicate but necessary peace-process. The wish of your predecessors, who in the Declaration of Independence already held out 'the hand of peace and good-neighbourliness', can in this way at last be fulfilled. Once peace is concluded reconciliation must follow. The latter is perhaps even more difficult than the former. Reconciliation demands a change in attitude and spirit among people who have opposed each other in bitterness and hate. It also demands that mistrust which has grown between them be overcome. All the more reason why we should praise the courage of the statesmen and leaders who persist in their endeavours for the peace-process and in their striving for reconciliation, because they realise that the alternative of terror and violence offers no future and is unacceptable. They are confronted with a difficult task. In Europe too, however, in 1945, the reconciliation of countries that had fought out two world wars also seemed an impossible task. Yet inspiring statesmen then showed the way and found a form for the necessary reconciliation. The European Union, after decades of wars and conflicts, now unites the countries of Europe that waged those wars. This gives us hope that what could be achieved in Western Europe is also possible here. In three years your country celebrates its fiftieth anniversary. It would be the crown of your work if on your country's birthday peace could also be celebrated. Members of the Knesset, (12) What has been achieved here in the technical and economic fields, under very difficult circumstances, is impressive. To many people in the world your country has therefore become a shining example of what pioneer spirit and enterprise can accomplish. All this has been brought about in spite of extremely menacing conditions. Unremitting concern for the safety of the state and its citizens has made heavy demands on your vigilance and on your thrift. When all these hindrances that have existed for so long have disappeared, closer cooperation between you and your neighbours, and also with the European Union, can ring in a new period of economic growth and prosperity. For the entire region the words of the Psalmist will then become true: 'Hine ma tov oema na'iem shevet achiem gam yachad'. 2 (13) Your obligations are among the heaviest politicians and people in public office, have to bear, your responsibilities among the greatest. As members of the Knesset you embody democracy and the delicate process of decision-making it involves, to which, even under the most difficult circumstances Israel remains true. This chamber calls to mind that the only solutions for your country are democratic solutions. This realisation makes our presence in your midst today a special experience. For this my husband and I thank you sincerely. We believe that this solemn reception in the

< previous page

page_31

next page >

< previous page

page_32

next page > Page 32

Knesset is renewed evidence of the special relationship between our peoples, which has held firm now for four centuries. Thank you. Text as issued by the Netherland's Information Service; numbers of paragraphs, and footnotes added by Titus Ensink. Notes to Appendix 1. The Israel National Holocaust Memorial. 2. Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity! (Psalm 133:1).

< previous page

page_32

next page >

< previous page

page_33

next page > Page 33

Echoes from AbroadSpeeches for the Domestic Audience: Queen Beatrix' Address to the Israeli Parliament Christoph Sauer Department of Language and Communication, University of Groningen, P.O. Box 716, NL-9700 AS Groningen, Holland The paper discusses the development of rhetorical analyses of political addresses from classical antiquity to modern political communication. A specific genre, the 'epideictic address', is described in detail. It concerns addresses by representative persons. Most epideictic addresses turn out to be 'hybrid' texts because they combine an orientation towards (rhetorical-political) persuasion with an impetus to new 'expressions' which henceforward may be used in order to link socio-cultural practices with personal-political experiences. Therefore, the analytical framework has to be completed by a (critical) discourse analytical approach. Both approaches, the rhetorical and the discourse analytical, are applied to an analysis of (parts of) Dutch Queen Beatrix' speech to the Israeli Parliament. The 'hybrid' character of her speech is discussed in detail as far as perspectivisation devices are concerned. Finally, attention is drawn to the philo-Semitic 'texture' of the Knesset address. Introduction: The Ambiguity of Rhetoric and the Analysis of Political Speeches In this section I would like to discuss what could be called the implicit rhetoric articulated in the media coverage of political events. This comes to the fore especially when public speeches are evaluated in terms of their political success or failure. Terms such as 'grand' public address (e.g. von Weizsäcker, cf. Sauer, forthcoming (a)) or 'plain' failure (e.g. Jenninger, 1988, cf. Ensink, 1992) are used. Another evaluation which is regularly made is that of the rectitude of rhetoric. In the case, for example, of Hitler or Goebbels, or more recently of Le Pen, what is usually acknowledged is their great skill as orators. They are not described as being honourable orators; they are rather called demagogues.By this we mean that they have 'corrupted' the instrument of rhetoric. Other public speeches have not been evaluated as plainly demagogic but are still regarded as ambivalent as far as the real motivation of the address is concerned, e.g. speeches by Churchill, Khrushchev, Reagan, Gorbachev and Thatcher. In these evaluations, mostly contained in news reports, the issue is the untruthfulness of rhetoric in general or of political rhetoric in particular. This issue seems to inspire the evaluative formulations used: on the one hand, the skilful orator is met with antipathy because he probably acts upon a hidden agenda or demonstrates a certain arrogance or even presumptuousness; the stumbling orator, on the other hand, is met with sympathy regarding the obvious struggle he must have had, or taking into account the popular expectation of being 'normal' and demonstrably unexaggerated. However, the problem with evaluations like these is the fact that the concept of rhetoric on which these evaluations are based has not been made explicit nor is it consistent because of overlapping or even mutually exclusive claims within its conceptualisation.

< previous page

page_33

next page >

< previous page

page_34

next page > Page 34

Let us first go back to classical rhetoric, since political speeches are prime examples of rhetorical performance. Communicative goals are at stake, a certain audience is presupposed. The topoi (Greek) or loci communes (Latin) have been more or less determined and do not vary significantly within the same political culture. Certain effects are accomplished or not. Orators aim for approval and build their speeches around certain propositions easily picked up by the media. The notion of rhetoric,hence, is an iridescent concept with normative implications in several dimensions (cf. Klein, 1995; Ottmers, 1996). It may be useful to reconstruct, briefly, its roots in order to develop some distinctions which we will later be able to relate to modern political communication. In this way, I want to follow by and large the proposals put forward by Klein (1995) in an inspiring article on political rhetoric. The aim of this section, then, is to work out some criteria for the rhetoric of political speeches which can be applied to the genre of public address delivered by politicians in general and heads of state in particular. In classical antiquity, the definition of rhetoric was ars bene dicendi,the art of speaking well in public (Quintilian). However, the semantic domain of this art was not at all clear. It varied according to different contexts: in legal and political contextsespecially in the Greek Polis and the Roman Republicit primarily stood for the art of • persuasion; •

in poetry and educational/ instructional contexts, it primarily meant the art of brilliant style.

What is common in these definitionsor discursive practicesis a general tendency to increase oppositions. 1 This is more or less obvious with respect to 'the art of persuasion'; in the judicial lawsuit or political debate, for example, one party can only be successful at the cost of another. But also concerning 'the art of brilliant style', the poor text is defeated by the excellent one. We are all familiar with institutionalised awards for works of art. Here too, one text 'defeating' the other is accomplished by the amplification of (real or presupposed) oppositions. Moreover, the ars bene dicendi has a third dimension which also stems from its adversarial tendency. In this dimension the orator's ethos is addressed: in philosophical thinking, beginning with Aristotle, it signified the quality of the vir bonus (Quintilian) or perfectus orator • (Cicero), the morally good person. An ideal orator had to be (politically and morally) virtuous; he could master the art of persuasive and brilliant speech only if he were truthful and just. Hence, the scope of rhetorics was extended to include the art of good behaviour.The attribution of moral quality to the orator is based on the correspondence between the orator's viewpoints, as perceived by the audience on the one hand, and the values and norms familiar to and/or accepted by them on the other. An orator can acquire credibility by his perfect use of the instruments of rhetoric and also by his irreproachable character (ethos)and his expressed affection (pathos).Thus, rhetoric can be even considered a form of social engineering (e.g. Ottmers, 1996: 12). Only by ontologically connecting the art of good behaviour to the stylistic

< previous page

page_34

next page >

< previous page

page_35

next page > Page 35

brilliance and the persuasion effected by rhetorical means has classical rhetoric been able to create the (logical) concurrence needed to avoid the impression of being a mere technical skill. Yet, critics of rhetoric persistently refer to the ambiguity incurred by the discrepancies observed in what should be brilliant, persuasive and good. Nowadays, this ambiguity still exists. As far as politics is concerned, journalists whose work is observing and reporting parliamentary debates, may point out the quality of a political speech by describing it as a rhetorically successful performance. The spectrum goes from the 'great communicator' (e.g. Reagan) via famous 'harangues' (e.g. Churchill, Khrushchev, Thatcher) to 'elegance' (e.g. von Weizsäcker). These descriptions and characterisations the reader can, no doubt, add a long list of further examplesshow that public opinion pays attention to rhetorical skills, particularly when public controversy is an issue. Public opinion, however, does not generally acknowledge that similar ambiguities already existed in antiquity. 2 To translate the orator's moral appeal into considerations more directly applicable to concrete texts, theorists of rhetoric have suggested transposing the 'vir bonus'approach from the orator's character to the accessibility of good moral values for the audience. The orator's good behaviour is no longer crucial; instead, opportunities and possibilities for good behaviour in the speech situation itself have taken centre stage. Kopperschmidt (1990: 497), to whom I owe this last insight, has argued that 'Verständigung'(the realisation of shared understanding) and consequently the persuasiveness of a public speech can only be secured if the speech itself, though being a singular event, has the structural quality of a dialogue (my translation). The formal character of a monologue, inherent in any public speech, can be compensated for, so to speak, by the incorporation in overarching, successfully communicative processes. This incorporation is warranted either by the dialogic inner structure of the speech itself or by a dialogic, communicative setting in which audience expectations, pro or con, are explicitly met: reactions to other speeches, references to the actual opening of a debate, etc. This means that a public speech can be a 'good' speech if the orator allows his opponent the same freedom he has claimed for himself. Politically, this should be made possible by institutional (preferably constitutional) guarantees in general, in the speech itself by the orator's explicit repudiation of the epithet of infallibility in particular. This brief introduction allows us to distinguish three types of criteria pertaining to the evaluation of political, public speeches: •

aesthetic norms relating to style, usually stemming from a traditional rhetorical thesaurus (e.g. Lausberg, 1960);

•

successful persuasiveness;

•

structural dialogicity.

Although certain political speechesincluding addresses delivered by a head of statecould be analysed partly according to these three dimensions, the criteria do not appear adequate in modern democratic, constitutional circum-

< previous page

page_35

next page >

< previous page

page_36

next page > Page 36

stances. More sophisticated situational factors have made the context of political speeches and their analyses increasingly complex so that a more broadened approach ought to be developed. Rhetoric Versus Modern Political Communication From persuasion to communication planning Classical rhetoric is typically manifested in the public speech genre genus deliberativum.This is a speech of a certain length, and it is relatively autonomous. The orator is speaking face to face with his audience, and he deals with a controversial issue (quaestio)in a pro-con debate, which is immediately decided. The purpose of such a speech is to convince all present in the audience of the correctness of the orator's opinions and of the plausibility of his decision or advice, or, at least, to persuade the audience to decide according to the proposal the orator has outlined. However, this ideal-typical situation does not fit the circumstances of political speeches in parliamentary democracies, because the speeches' preconditions no longer correspond to those of antiquity. Nowadays, electoral success has become a primary objective. An orator no longer speaks on personal title; instead, he is a representative of a political group or party or has another representative function. A public speech, therefore, is part of a larger, more extensive communicative process. The singular speech is a small part in a large mosaic. It can be characterised as a strategic move in an overarching communicative plan, and it can be assessed properly only if the larger context is taken into account. According to Klein (1995), who has compared classical with modem political speeches, the characteristics shown in Table 1 are constitutive for contemporary political speechesin contrast to antiquity. Let me elaborate on these binary concepts, following Klein's argumentation, butin contrast with Klein's worktaking into account those elements in Dutch political culture determining rhetoric's place in society (see, e.g. Witteveen, Table 1 Comparison between classical rhetoric and modern political communication Dimension Paradigm Classical rhetoric Modern political communication Time Singularity Processuality/ sequentiality Context Mono- / Intertextuality duotextuality Orator Individuality Representation Addressee Homogeneous Multiple addressees public Medium Direct contact Mass media Type of Genus Typological diversity speech deliberativum Aim Persuasion Political (campaign) success

< previous page

page_36

next page >

< previous page

page_37

next page > Page 37

1992). In this way, we can anticipate a more precise definition of the genre of political speech which is the issue here. Singularity vs. processuality/ sequentiality Prototypically, in classical rhetorics a speech is considered a singular event which can be qualified by: (a) the unity of time and (b) space, (c) the sequential unity of information, argumentation, audience response, and decision, (d) the unity of audience itself, (e) the unity of main subject, (f) the unity of purpose, i.e. the persuasion of those present with regard to the point at issue. Note that this model only pertains to pre-modern forms of democracy, as in the city states of antiquity where decisions concerning persons or states of affairs were taken by the assembly of all citizens. Pericles' speeches in the market place of the polis of Athensthe proper paradigmare no longer appropriately described, however, as the typical speeches of democracy. In Holland, speeches are still made in town and city squares, of course, but in these cases we are mostly dealing with commemorative addresses and not with speeches calling for an immediate decision on the part of the audience. The Periclesmodel, therefore, can no longer be taken as a guideline for the rhetoric of political speeches. Commemorative addresses, moreover, are losing their singular character, for they are embedded in a whole range ofsometimes even internationalcommemorations. That is also why the unity of audience can no longer be guaranteed: the audience can no longer be observed directly by the speaker, nor is there any insight into its configuration, so to speak. Hence, the orator, nowadays, is held to address different segments of the audience at once, and this, again, is not beneficial to the classical requirement of sequential unity (of information, argumentation and audience response). Additionally, media coverage has become an essential feature of contemporary speeches. In the current political context of the Netherlands, 'being there' in the media, or making sure that the media will report on one's speech event, has become more important than persuading the audience that happens to be around. The success of a public speech can no longer be measured by the applause of the people present, which means that the orator's feedback is received after the next day's media coverage, but no sooner than the television evening news. In Holland, it is not uncommon, moreover, for a news report to only show fragments of a political speech which are then followed by an interview with the orator. The orator explicates, as it were, the audience reception desired. Subsequently, reactions by prominent others are shown. It is only then that the news item has been completed and the next item can be introduced. These features of media coverage show how sequentiality is produced. The Dutch Prime Minister, for instance, has a Friday evening television programme, entitled 'Conversation with the Prime Minister', in which he can reflect on the events of the past week. The interviewer mostly adopts the role of 'feeding' the

< previous page

page_37

next page >

< previous page

page_38

next page > Page 38

prime minister certain key words. These 'conversations', in their turn, will be the subject of yet other media reports. In this way, different spaces and times are combined necessarily in order to give a specific news item (speech item) its adequate coverage position. In the evaluation of political speeches, the unity of time and space, therefore, is no longer decisive. Modern parliamentary forms of debating and decision making can no longer be reduced to the incidental deliberations of a citizens' assemblyit is not even clear that decision making in antiquity is reducible in this way, as Ottmers (1996: 224) argues. These modern forms should rather be taken as tokens of the procedural,institutional concatenation of political (communicative) actions. In this way the processuality of these modern forms of debating and decision making can come to the fore. Important political decisions will be taken at the end of an elaborate procedure: different rounds of deliberation are already passed before public debate in parliament can take place. This is, in fact, paradoxical, since speeches apt to influence decision making are given in confined, internal parliamentary bodies. At the time of public debate, the decision has already been made. (At any rate this applies to the continental European system of parliamentary decision making). Most decisions in the Dutch parliament are made in parliamentary parties; public speeches can usually be characterised as additional explanations or clarifications for the general public of decisions already made, they are no longer relevant for decision making itself. Hence, we could say that most parliamentary speeches are redundantwhich is quite the opposite of calling them singular events according to the classical genus deliberativum. This redundance implies that the persuasive character of public speeches no longer pertains to their being addressed to decision makers, but rather to the general public which is informed through the media. A public speech's relevance for decision making decreases; the public speech's legitimation afterwards, of something already cooked up, is taking its place (cf. Kammerer, 1995). Whether or not the objective of legitimation afterwards is successfully met, depends on the behaviour of the audience (the general public) in elections. In this way, the processuality of parliamentary debating is stressed by this orientation towards future purposes: delivering a political public speech will become a kind of play-acting, at least of theatricality (cf. Witteveen, 1992). Here we recognise the grounds of what has become a familiar reproach in certain sections of the media, namely that politics is untruthful. Whenever, for instance, the number of Dutch voters decreases, the media present this as yet another crisis in politics, related time and again to the disappointing quality of political speeches in particular and to politicians' meaningless or incomprehensible language in general. Mono-/duotextuality vs. intertextuality According to classical rhetoric, two sources of word and phrase choice influence public political speeches: texts created by opponents in a debate as opposed to certain typical, exemplary, often literary, 'standardised' texts. On the one hand, there is the embedding into a pro-con structure which even includes earlier speeches by the orator himself, on the other hand, there are accredited texts that have already met with approval. The transition from monotextuality

< previous page

page_38

next page >

< previous page

page_39

next page > Page 39

to duotextuality is made only implicitly, for, as indicated in the Introduction, the orator has to make sure that he appears trustworthy and honest (that he has ethos).He can achieve the latter only if he is able to avoid obvious contradictions between what he is actually saying now and what he has said before. He should adapt his current phrases to the words he used beforethat is, the audience should be able to (re-)construct the correspondence. A second transition to duotextuality can be based on the topos that overt contradiction, between words and deeds of a debater or between what has been said before and what is being said now, needs scrutiny. Finally, to improve one's speech, classical rhetoric recommends proceeding in accordance with models of previously successful orations (imitatio). Ars bene dicendi,therefore, is seen as an acquired technical skill, adjustable and applicable to different practical circumstances time and again. In this way, as we could recapitulate the classical outlook, 'behind' the speech being delivered the presence of a 'second text' is always presupposed. In the context of modern political communication, forms of duotextuality indicated above can still be observed. However, other forms of political communication are important as well, forms referred to by the term intertextuality.This term has been chosen to take into account a certain complexity of 'intertextual configurations' actualised by politics in general. Apparently, to produce political judgement a whole range of text types is being used. The range goes from leaflets via advertisements (in papers, on radio and television, in posters on the street, etc.) and the organisation of public (campaign) events to different speeches (opening and closing of an election campaign, debating with other candidates, addresses to groups, etc.). For the purpose of an analysis of political rhetoric, selecting just one text out of this wide rangeas usually happens in academic settings would be quite unsatisfactory, because we would only be able to conclude something about, for example, the 'subtle' quality of that text, knowing that the category of 'subtlety' itself is rather problematic. However, the assessment of such quality, if useful at all, depends on an account of the range of texts as a whole, i.e. on a reconstruction of the (political) intertextuality. Regarding the intertextual complexity of certain constellations, Fairclough (1995a: 15) distinguishes between sequential, embedded and mixed intertextuality. The distinction helps to construct a certain order through which our analysis can take effect. If intertextual complexity in a certain case is considered as functional in that concrete situation, then the question of the orator's scope becomes pertinent. Letting this question take centre stage prevents us from exaggerated or inappropriate interpretations. Queen Beatrix, for example, as the head of a state travelling on official businesswhen she has to consult the Dutch government on any public speech in advancehas a scope different from Queen Beatrix delivering her annual Christmas radio addresswhen she is allowed a more personal say. In the simplest case, intertextuality consists of a recurring reference to an 'accredited' text. A speaker thus intimates his wish to pay honour to the previous text, so that the audience can follow the speaker in this respect too and can accept the orator's actual text by comparing it with the accredited pre-text. In earlier

< previous page

page_39

next page >

< previous page

page_40

next page > Page 40

centuries, biblical texts have had this role of accredited text; in socialist settings, references were made in a similar way to texts by Marx, Lenin and others; in political dictatorships, all official texts produced have been made to relate to the dictator's ideology, usually formulated in books (for instance Hitler's Mein Kampf).This way of referring, however, has become obsolete in the era of mass media and parliamentary democracyat least in the Netherlands. To put it sharply, in Dutch political culture, perhaps different from other countries, accredited-text intertextuality is hardly ever used. Imitatio no longer has priority. 3 Occasionally, and then often ironically, an orator is criticised for having delivered what is branded as a 'sermon', but in these cases the tone of voice and the preacher-like performance are intended (what is called actio or pronuntiatio by the classical rhetoricians), less the use of bible quotations: the latter functions as a blend of at least two discourses. In discourse analytical publications, intertextual relationships are normally analysed from the viewpoint of a text that 'combines' different voices within it: 'The question of how voices are woven together, how they are ordered with respect to each other, becomes decisive', as Fairclough (1995b: 84) puts it. In this section, however, I want to draw attention to the situation of the orator who tries to get at least some media coverage, by offering one voiceand a part of his speechto the audience and especially to the media audience. The orator, as we can see it now, desires and is obliged to be a sourcewith respect to other sourcesof an intertextually constructed media report. The (central) part of his speech (and his voice in radio and television broadcasts) could be covered by journalists only, if it is reformulation-oriented,i.e. prepared in order to be picked up by the audience. This orientation towards possible reformulations by (members of) the audience is already well-known in classical antiquity. Yet, under conditions of modern political communication and mass media coverage, the orator is challenged to anticipate strongly the increasing need for reformulatable, quotable, referable, alludable etc. passages. In the Netherlands, indeed, the most important type of rhetorical intertextuality, concerning the point of view of the orator, is the embedding of reformulation-oriented passages in speech texts.Since political speeches are not ordinarily reported completely and verbatim by the media, what the public can read or hear and see is only a fraction of the whole text. The passage in question (a combination of sentences, a kernel sentence or at least some essential clauses or words) the orator attempts to be reported by the media should reflect the central claim of the speech. This specific orientation toward future reformulations of the relevant parts of a speech means that the orator has to stimulate the recollection of his central claim by finding adequate ways of problem-solving (concerning the structure of his text), expressing and formulating. A special technique of phrasing has to be developed: it is intended to ensure the audience noticing the passage or, at least, the audience's recollection of it. The passage should be easily remembered. However, the main target of passages like these is the media; a speech purporting to impact public opinion must be (re-)presented in the media. The rule that reporters cannot cover a public speech completely has only few exceptions: journalists limit themselves to the key passage. Therefore, the speech text must contain at least one real key passage.

< previous page

page_40

next page >

< previous page

page_41

next page > Page 41

Intertextuality with respect to reformulation, then, means that content and structure of speeches are designed in such a way that journalists (and audience members too, of course) are able to find the relevant passage quickly and to transfer it to new texts, by quoting, paraphrasing, indirectly giving restatements or by other means. The modern political orator is obliged not only to take into account the persuasive effects of his speech, as did the Greek and Roman orator, but also to stimulate a specific type of media coverage. Therefore, this type of intertextuality cannot be derived from pre-speech constraints exclusively, such as the character of the whole election campaign or the (inter)dependence on other-party speakers, even though these constraints do determine the orator's actual scope. Additionally, the orator has to prepare a special relationship between the actual text of his speech and future texts written and designed by journalists. Intertextuality, therefore, should be accomplished by a speech text's propensity to apportion at least several passages to new journalistic texts. 4 The final words of a public speech are often particularly suitable for the establishment of such intertextuality, e.g. when a long awaited announcement is made (e.g. the plea for forgiveness expressed by German President Herzog in Warsaw 1995; cf. Ensink & Sauer, 1995). With respect to analysis we should, therefore, take into consideration the pre-history of a speech (constraints and scope), its history (the speech event itself; the text) and its post-history (the speaker's orientation towards and enabling of media coverage; his ability to stimulate journalistic reformulations). Individuality vs. representation Within the paradigm of modern political communication, the speech text often has a metonymical character: it is not autonomous (see pp. 5) but rather part of a larger whole (pars pro toto).The significance of a political speech depends not only on its own content and design, but also on a broad spectrum of other speeches, interviews, written texts, articles, news reports, in short: discursive practices. That is why the orator is not considered to be an individual, but rather a public person. This implies a special kind of representation.5 Present-day political circumstances which determine a specific, contemporary model of representation (party-related or position-related) are different from the circumstances of antiquity, where the distance was small between the orator and the group to which he belonged and the groups the orator wanted to influence according to the theoretical recommendations of classical rhetoric. In antiquity, the domain of rhetoric was limited to the distance a well trained voice could carry. A modern audience generally expects the orator to be at a certain distance: to avoid overly emotional appeals and personal perspectives (moreover, the audience also assumes that the orator knows their expectations). Instead, it expects the clear articulation of generally accepted values and norms. Only in those moments preceding official and public debate can an orator burdened with representational duties try to be innovative:he can set the tone for the discussion of certain subjects. Generally though, representation is modelled according to the expectations of the audience, not least in the case of speeches and interviews held during election campaigns. In the latter situation, all statements will be heard as being part of the political party programme. An average, representative speech,

< previous page

page_41

next page >

< previous page

page_42

next page > Page 42

therefore, contains some sort of reiteration, a paraphrase of an existing (more or less normative) textnotably different from journalists' reformulations (see pp. 8-9)or, where value-systems are concerned, a range of phrases which can be understood as allusions to societal norms and values. An orator is under certain pressure; the higher the rank within the national political hierarchy the less prominence can be given to the detail of everyday political issues. Such a speaker keeps to the overview. Moreover, for someone presumed to rise above political parties, to speak for all citizens, it is imperative to avoid even the slightest misunderstanding. This special kind of representation necessarily implies some indeterminateness with respect to the formulations used. In the Dutch case, we observe that the Dutch are accustomed to their Queen stating what is rather obvious (that she's happy to be somewhere; that it is a special honour for her and for the Netherlands; that society should be concerned about the weak and the poor; that we should take an interest in the fate of refugees, etc.). Or she says something about the special, historical moment (a commemoration, an official reception, an official state visit, the presentation of an award, the acceptance of an award, the opening of an international conference, etc.). In any case, the Dutch are willing to accept a relatively large number of indeterminate phrases and a formal, non-personally involved text structure. Given this order of expectation, the (national) audience will measure all public speeches by Queen Beatrix in the context of consensus which is in keeping with the tradition upheld by Queen Beatrix' predecessor, her mother, now Princess Juliana. Consensus, however, is not an altogether unproblematic notion. It prohibits, of course, that the Queen's speeches be offensive in any way. She cannot directly criticise government policy, nor controversially address 'national' issues or issues that touch national identity. Yet, even though she is to rise above politics, she can still show her personal involvement by choosing certain themes. In general, however, the Queen's avowed distance from everyday life and everyday politics and the indeterminateness of her words will be perceived as contributions to the preferred consensus. As long as scandals can be avoidedthe Dutch do not have a Prince of Wales . . . yetthis consensus-expectation will prevail. The Queen who is not elected to her position, which means that compromises have not been necessary does not face any problems of acceptance, which have become so common within the framework of political communication in general. She will not be reproached for 'masking' the important issues, nor for 'unclear linguistic usage', which has evolved into a recurrent theme for journalists, nor, most particularly, for 'manipulation'. It actually seems, although I have no explicit sources to confirm my impression, that the Dutch are looking forward to a formal speech by the Queen in which she does not follow tradition and tries something new. There are, for instance, highly 'ritualised' speeches, mostly unrelated to national affairs, that may grant her a few personal liberties, e.g. the Queen's Christmas radio addresses. They show that the necessity of representation can be broken every once in a while. This is not unlike the kind of representation appropriate for presidents which also occasionally allows the media to approach the president as a private person.

< previous page

page_42

next page >

< previous page

page_43

next page > Page 43

Homogeneous audience vs. multiple addressees According to the system of classical rhetoric, the orator had to take into account only two groups within his audiencepro and contra. As he belonged to one of them, he could address actual (i.e. already formulated by another orator), or putative problems (i.e. brought about by his own preparations). This description allowed practitioners of rhetoric to fall back on the idea of a homogeneous public. One could concentrate on the central purpose of the speech and relate all phrases, structural devices, and stylistic means to the aspired efficacy of persuasion. In this description, there is not much room for a non-homogeneous audience. Practitioners of classical rhetoric try to make distinctions based on a description of audience characteristics. 6 However, they do not discuss how an orator should deal with the contemporaneous presence of various groups of hearers, and modern politicians are relentlessly confronted with the latter. Multiple addressees and multiple addressing are essential constituents of a political speech situation nowadays (cf. Kühn, 1995). Orators are therefore required to calculate risks and chances. As Fairclough (1995a: 128) puts it: 'Anticipation of the potential polyvalence of the texts that such complex contributions imply is a major factor in their design'. There are two major ways of addressing a heterogeneous audience: •

simultaneous addressing;

•

sequential addressing.

In the first case, textual means are chosen such that a speech can have a certain meaning for all audience groups (e.g. supporters, allies, opponents, participants, and overhearers or casual readers); however, this meaning can sometimes be quite opaque. As shown in the previous section, indeterminateness is a common feature of these texts. In the second case, all addressees are dealt with in a paragraph by paragraph way; the orator addresses one particular group, sometimes explicitly, and then the next, and the next, etc. The disadvantage of this approach is that the unity of text cannot be guaranteed; this problem comes to the fore in a heterogeneity,a kind of stylistic vagueness (cf. Sauer, forthcoming (b)). In the Netherlands, both types of address are frequent. Simultaneous addressing often features indeterminate keywords,e.g. 'social innovation', 'government reorganisation' or 'focus on environment' which are terms used in government declarations at the beginning of a term of office. Commemorative speeches too show the recurrence of certain keywords, such as 'freedom', 'peace', 'good neighbourhood' or 'reconciliation'. Through analysis we become aware of a continuously rearranged pattern of recurring terms. Normally, this kind of rearrangement takes place according to certain shifts which, among other things, may produce ideological effects (cf. Sauer, 1988). The other type of multiple addressing, the sequential organisation of the text, is preferred in those speeches in which the orator on behalf of some institution, reflects on a recent period. The various groups involved are successively accorded appropriate attention. The 'list' character of many of these speeches might not appeal to all audiences. It is, nonetheless, a widely tested means of suggesting exhaustiveness or comprehensiveness.Therefore, these texts too, will

< previous page

page_43

next page >

< previous page

page_44

next page > Page 44

have an ideological effect. Because they seem to address 'everything', the hearer or reader is hard pressed to find deliberate or accidental omissions. In these texts a 'magic' technique is used, well known for instance from litanies, which gives the recipients the impression of completeness and entirety. A kind of trustworthiness with respect to the orator and the content of his speech might be produced, which invokes feelings of solidarity rather than feelings of distance or even criticism. In most cases, however, merely observing the fact of multiple addressing and reconstructing will not be sufficient; adequate analysis requires more. We will have to consider the structural order within which these data are presented, in order to connect them to other perspectives (Sauer, 1989). Direct contact vs. mass media The current necessity of taking into account the orator's attention to media coverage (see pp. 8-9) requires us to find an alternative approach to public speeches, fundamentally different from the face-to-face situation which has been the point of departure in classical rhetoric. The issue is not the stimulation of journalists' reformulations of some crucial passages, which is describable and analysable as the post-history of the speech; instead, the issue is a change in the public character of the speech situation itself. What has changed is that although the actual presentation of the speech is still public,the reception of it takes place in a private setting (in front of the television, or behind the newspaper). Moreover, the time of the speech presentation differs from the time of its reception. These apparently external changes, however, imply a radical change in the notion of authority.In the classical situation, the authority of an orator was constructed by the audience, which had to sit still, listen, occasionally applaud, be excited etc., but only in direct relation to the speaker, who, in turn, could immediately evaluate the impression he made on the audience by the feedback presented to him. He had authority because the audience had made a concrete effort to come to the town square or city hall to listen to his speech, because the audience had made itself dependent on his words and gestures, because it had directed its attention to the orator. To be sure, these characterisations of the audience's efforts have not become obsolete yet. Still, today's average citizen is relatively uninvolved. He is informed of political speeches and of politics in general in his own private sphere, in which he creates his own association with the media. He controls the reception of his information completely: he can choose to stop reading, to surf channels, or to switch off altogether. He is the recipient whose authority is enhanced by being independent from the orator. These radical changes have immense consequences. It is impossible to give a comprehensive evaluation, but we can discuss two particular examples: pseudointimacy and apportioning political broadcasts. Pseudo-intimacy means the tendency of public figures to appear not only in television news programmes but also in entertainment shows: game shows, talk shows, etc. This suggests a kind of intimacy which, however, has nothing to do with real interrelationships. The suggestion is that viewers are related to politicians as if they were real partners in conversation, the role that reporters

< previous page

page_44

next page >

< previous page

page_45

next page > Page 45

and talk-show hosts play. Moreover, debates are no longer shown; instead, confrontations are staged by the interventions of an interviewer, which can be characterised as 'confrontainment rituals' (Klein, 1995: 89). Arguments are not important, cleverness and wit are. Persuasion in a political decision is not important; image-building and amiability are. Even the royal family is involved, when background stories on certain family members are reported. Apportioning political broadcasts refers to the time constraints of television news reports. Only in very special circumstances will parliamentary debates be covered live, at least in the Netherlands. Normally, just a few text fragments (one or two sentences) will be shown. As a result, relevance structures within public speeches will change: only those who are able to summarise their concerns in one statement will get coverage. What is relevant, therefore, is short and most likely to get covered. In the last ten years, when commercialisation of television has been very influential, the following elementary features for speeches getting media coverage, all related to time constraints, have come to the fore: •

brevity;

•

opicality;

•

increasing frequency.

Political statements will be communicated only if they are brief.The 'statement nature' of many speeches in parliament can definitely be explained by this fact. A developed argument hardly ever gets attention, only assertions do. The orator becomes a statement machine.Something or someone that gets attention, moreover, only as long as it or s/he is the topic of the hour.Topicality and oblivion work hand in hand. Usually there is too little time to go into the background of the news (other programmes will do that). Facts can no longer be processed fully because they are pushed aside by new, more topical facts. Non-processing enhances the tendency to 'emotionalise' the news, for emotions, contrary to argumentation, can be evoked and, most importantly, shown quickly. Speeches displaying emotions, therefore, have a greater chance of coverage. The increased number of broadcasting corporations also increases the frequency with which topical events are shown. On every channel the same events are shown, with the same actors delivering the same short statements, or, in the case of expressed emotions, the same sweet tears. That a decision has been taken will be broadcast on all channels; the reasons for that decision, will, however, be given hardly any attention. These developments have left the conditions of classical rhetoric far behind. They present modern politics as a tangle of quarrelling image builders, dominated by populism. Representative speeches by the Queen and perhaps others can help to counterbalance this culture of sound-bites. The part these speeches actually play and how they play it, and also the way in which these speeches do remain unaffected by the media developments sketched aboveall these features of present-day public speech need further inquiry. At any rate, representative speeches seem to profit from the 'lack of patience' which media coverage inevitably produces, they can offer the public at least an alternative by symbolising the directness of 'old-fashioned' rhetoric.

< previous page

page_45

next page >

< previous page

page_46

next page > Page 46

Genus deliberativum vs. typological diversity (focusing on epideictic speech) The above reflections show how classical rhetoric paradigmatically valued the genus deliberativum,in which all rhetorical principles would be duly respected. The modern era has seen how many types of text have been added to the classical list, by the special role of parliament, by the advent of mass media, or by political institutional developments. I will limit myself here to a special type of text, which has, almost against all odds, not lost its classical rhetoric roots, and which has even made an unexpected come-back to the stage of public speech: genus demonstrativum (epideictic address). Numerous researchers have shown that speeches of the genre of genus demonstrativum,which belong to societies organised in a pre-modern way, continue to prove their vitality, not least in contemporary circumstances (cf. Kopperschmidt, 1989, 1990; Ensink, 1992; Ensink & Sauer, 1995; Klein, 1995; Sauer, forthcoming (a)). But what characterises an epideictic address? To answer this, it would be helpful both to go back to the classical sources of rhetoric (cf. Lausberg, 1960), and also to consult recent pragma(linguis)tic and sociolinguistic research. Three genera were distinguished by Aristotle and his many successors: 7 •

genus iudiciale;

•

genus deliberativum;

•

genus demonstrativum.

The genus iudiciale corresponds to the model of indictment and defence in criminal courts, the genus deliberativum corresponds to the model of contributions to parliamentary debate at the end of which immediate decision follows, and the genus demonstrativum corresponds to the model of eulogies in the wider context of celebrations. The genera iudiciale and deliberativum have pragmatic objectives: a change of situation is envisaged. They both aim for straightforward results and immediate success. But apart from this main aim, we can distinguish a whole range of other purposes which support this. We can thus begin to identify a certain structure which characterises these speeches. Incidentally, it is to these genres that rhetoric owes its image of being a manipulative technique, an image invoked implicitly by many critical evaluations of public speeches. The main purpose of the genus demonstrativum is not a change of situation but rather the confirmation and reconfirmation of a situation already existing (see Ottmers, 1996: 20-24, 28-30). The very fact of praise (or blame) indirectly implies a certain change of situation, too. Because evaluations are actually enunciated,and not just deliberated in the mind, norms and values are bound to be discussed, which may 'rigidify' the situation. The role of the orator entails that he is an exponent of the group for which and on behalf of which he speaks. Substitution and representation coincide. The orator gives the group a voice. This is to the group's benefit, for every once in a while it is necessary that a group hears a clear appeal on its behalf to the ties that bind the group together. In modern phraseology, a system of values and norms, expected by the group to be honoured by the group members, needs a voice to be reconfirmed. The immanently festive character of the epideictic address accommodates many aesthetic and stylistic considerations. The genre might work as a transition

< previous page

page_46

next page >

< previous page

page_47

next page > Page 47

point to a more literary rhetoric: narratives may occur, to aspire to sublimity is accepted, maxims can be discussed (often in aphorisms), quotations are likely, etc.; a certain intertextuality will result (see pp. 6-8). The genre has been broadened and will still be open to innovations, for genre diversification is an ongoing process, still continuing under altering conditions of mass media development. Let me leave this general framework and concentrate on one special kind of epideictic address: the commemorative speech. In recent Dutch and European political culture, commemorations have mostly had just one common subject: World War II. In the last ten years between the fortieth and fiftieth anniversaries of the end of the Warseveral 'great' and sometimes controversial commemorative speeches were delivered in the countries involved (Germany, Holland, France, the Czech Republic, Russia, Poland, etc.). In addition to some 'controversial' speeches (as in the case of Jenninger 1988, who had to resign as chairman of the German Bundestag (Ensink, 1992; Sauer, forthcoming (a)), there were many judged as 'successful' and 'impressive' by the media (e.g. Queen Beatrix' Christmas 1994 radio address and her address to the Israeli Parliament in March 1995). Kopperschmidt (1989, 1990) has pointed to the remarkable interest in and appreciation of commemorative speechesin marked contrast with the interest in commemorative speeches of 20 or more years ago. Kopperschmidt's explanation is that representative speeches, delivered mostly on commemorative days, cannot be replaced by other political, cultural, or media types of commemoration. They are clearly irreplaceable because without a representative speech, a commemoration event cannot come to pass. These speeches are given full coverage by the media. Remarkably, though, these speeches do not have any special pragmatic purpose, for nothing will be said and donethat has not been saidand donemany times before. Apart from the performative formula: 'Today we commemorate XYZ' and its multiple linguistic variations, nothing is really predetermined. So one may say that the genus demonstrativum offers many possibilities. The commemoration itself is highly ritualised, a reiteration of rituals performed earlier. Moreover, there is also the fact that orators are mostly persons with representative duties but without political authority: a queen or a president, or the president of a commemoration committee. The media success of recently delivered commemorative speeches, therefore, can be related neither to the purpose of the speech nor to the person of the speaker. It should be related to something else. According to Kopperschmidt, it may be helpful to consider such a commemorative speech as an offering to the public concerning general norms and values. The explicit references to such values serve as a means of reaffirming them, thus providing society with a sense of societal coherence and consensus. This is not self-evident, because other sources for the (re)formulation of consensus have been exhausted; this holds true especially for some religions, for traditional world views, eternal progress myths, old-fashioned ideologies, while simultaneously general despair and resignation prevail. The orator's ritually actualised recollection of the past, even the darkest moments of a national history, which is inevitable as far as remembering World War II is concerned, provides the audience (and the media recipients) with resources for political and moral

< previous page

page_47

next page >

< previous page

page_48

next page > Page 48

orientation.The means of such provision are phrases, formulations, assertions; their purpose is to give social collective recollection and experience a public language. Every phrase addressing 'the terrible past' in public should be carefully deliberated, and the barely warranted phrase determines the margins for the orator. In some cases, he will go too far, which means a provocation (Jenninger, 1988, cf. Ensink, 1982), in other cases the public language used will be adopted immediately (von Weizsäcker, 1984, who offered the formula 'Day of Liberation' to the Germans, cf. Sauer, forthcoming (a)) or there may be space for questioning assumptions (the behaviour of Dutch citizens towards their Jewish countrymen during World War II, Queen Beatrix 1995). These public speeches can be summarised as incorporating a 'new moral meaning, an expression of public religiosity' (van Es, 1996: 2). Persuasion vs. political (campaign) success Present day politicians have to operate in many different fields. Hence, they have to take care not to move too far away from their party's goals. When elections approach, this determines the positions politicians may take. When politicians speak publicly, the content of what they say will depend on the strategy of their party's campaign, internal party agreements or deals, and the profile the politician desires. Considerations as to which coalitions are possible or desirable will exert some influence especially at the end of the pre-election period. No doubt, rhetorical meansin the sense of classical rhetoricwill be used on many levels, and on many occasions. Persuasion is just one means to success. One tries to calculate the possibility of success by employing, among other means, rhetorical devices. Tactical moves, building up one's image, employing 'easy' symbols rather than complicated textual content, power politics, and political careerism do not replace persuasion. But these factors may cause a politician to be unable or unwilling to be persuasive now, in favour of the calculated success at a later moment in time. It is clear that commemorative speeches can hardly be aimed at achieving (party-related) political success. This is in part due to the fact that speakers on those occasions do not operate in a party-related political context, in part because they recur to older rhetoric forms, and in part because they embody the rhetorical difference regarding the usual party-related political communication. Nonetheless, they aim at success. But here, success pertains to the persuasion of the audience to the specific purport of the commemoration. For that reason, epideictic speeches combine the goal of reaching persuasion with the offering of verbal means that have to establish consensus regarding norms and values. Persuasion here means: to convince the audience that the act of commemorating is an important social goal. The orientation towards being successful has a specifically '(socio)linguistic' design: to attempt to have the audience use the offered public language in order to express their own experiences and thoughts by means of those formulations. This mixing of persuasive and discoursal success is characteristic of Queen Beatrix. According to Dutch public opinion, it became clear that Beatrix aimed at being successful in both fields, in the field of persuasionevery time she

< previous page

page_48

next page >

< previous page

page_49

next page > Page 49

delivered a commemorative addressas well as in the field of public discourse as suchby monopolising certain expressions (cf. Verhey, 1995; van Es, 1996). This may be a partial explanation for the fact that heads of state use commemorative events in order to give more profile to their function. The 'empty kingship'as it is established in constitutional monarchies and as it is described here, is a 'stimulating' condition for such forms of public behaviour. It amounts to a function, the sole content of which is to be representative.Whatever is represented may vary according to the occasion. Within this situation, a preference for the moral highground arises almost automatically, since, in the course of a commemorative event, the purpose of persuasion is enlarged by the social purpose of proposing linguistic means of expressing grief, condemnation or disapprovalor gladness, confirmation or approvalof earlier acts or events. The commemorative address as a hybrid text If my argument is correct, then I should be able to propose new ways of determining the specific rhetoric character of epideictic speeches. These addresses are characterised by a mixture of paradigms (cf. Klein, 1995; Ottmers, 1996). In my explanation of this mixture I will use the distinction between classical antiquity and modern political communication. I have made clear already that, nowadays, old and new rhetoric forms and possibilities interact. This interaction may even add to the impact of some addresses or texts. A mixture of paradigms means that with regard to any specific dimension sometimes one paradigm, sometimes another dominates. The interaction between paradigms cannot be described mechanically. Instead, the description is based on the rhetoric of classical antiquity with respect to some dimensions, whereas other dimensions are related to modern political communication (see Table 1). I am restricting myself here to commemorative addresses as the most specific instance of such epideictic speeches. The genre of the commemorative address, however, cannot be characterised solely on the basis of the interaction of paradigms. Rather, it should be characterised as a hybridisation,in view of the fact that modern and classical realisations of the dimensions may occur simultaneously. For example, it is often the case that the impact of a commemorative address is strongly influenced by the person of the orator (the person's charisma), whereas the orator acts in a representative role. This way, the dimension 'orator' is realised with respect to both the ancient and the modern interpretation. Or, to put it differently, the orator profits from the old rhetoric, while acting according to the new. In order to be able to capture these and similar aspects in the analysis, it is necessary to rearrange the categorisation of the dimensions to include the possibility of hybridisation. To highlight this, in Table 2 (a modification of Table 1), a grey cell signals that these dimensions are relevant to an epideictic speech. Two neighbouring grey cells mean that both paradigms are relevant for that dimension. On this basis, it is possible to present a more sophisticated survey of rhetoric criteria and phenomena in political speeches. I have already mentioned discourse analysis with regard to political speeches. In the next section, I will show how I

< previous page

page_49

next page >

< previous page

page_50

next page > Page 50

Table 2 A commemorative address between epideitic speech and modern communication\ Dimensions Mixture of Paradigms Classical rhetoric Modern political communication Time Singularity Processuality/ sequentiality Context Mono-/duotextuality Intertextuality Orator ± Individuality ± Representation Addressee Homogeneous public Multiple addressees Medium ± Directly audience Mass media oriented, with related prominence of orator's voice Type of Genus deliberativum Genus demonstrativum and speech other genres, hybridisation Aim Persuasion Modification and/or assessment of political discourse understand this approach, and will try to clarify the relation between discourse analysis and rhetoric. Later, I will analyse one example of a representative address. A Place for Rhetoric in Critical Discourse Analysis? Within the framework of discourse analysis over the last ten or twenty years, a great deal of research has been concerned with linguistic, sociolinguistic, pragmatic, psychological, cognitive, cultural and other domains of interactions, oral and written texts, advertisements, speeches, institutional language use, media language, etc. Gradually, however, the definition of the term 'discourse' has changed. At first, the term was an overarching indication for both oral and written language use. In this sense, the term was used especially in the Anglo-Saxon area. Other meanings emerged. In France, the term discours was used by e.g. Althusser and Foucault. In Germany, the term Diskurs was adopted by Habermas and the Frankfurt School. At the same time, the fields of research were enlarged: •

historical issues arose (e.g. oracy and literacy in wills);

•

philosophical implications were analysed (e.g. Foucault's 'archaeologies of knowledge');

•

ideological relations received a lot of attention (e.g. racist discourse);

•

stylistic dimensions were discussed (e.g. the style of television advertising);

•

rhetorical aspects were approached (e.g. rhetoric in the courtroom);

•

literary and cultural topics came up (e.g. narratives);

•

forms of gender bias were studied (e.g. sexist language).

Because of this complicated picture, we may characterise discourse analysis as a 'cross-discipline' which covers many domains which coexist and partly intersect. The different approaches have in common that language use is the point of departure. In the analysis, language use is correlated to social and socio-political structures. Different intermediary levels are distinguished: overall societal

< previous page

page_50

next page >

< previous page

page_51

next page > Page 51

structures, institutional structures, group structures, structures of social cognition and personal cognition, and finally the (various) structures of text and talk (cf. van Dijk, 1995). The analytical problem is how to shift from one level to another, because there is no one-to-one relationship between levels. Thus, it is counter-productive to expect that a societal structure is directly reflected in a text. For that reason, discourse analysts mostly focus on partial entities, probably on the assumption that sufficient partial investigations may encompass 'the whole entity'. Although discourse analysts do not tend to see the whole of society as the background to every single speech act, their analyses are often focused on discovering a 'power instance' or a 'power relationship'. The aim is to uncover 'hidden meanings', 'covert purposes' or 'disguised ideological effects'. This is presented as ideological unmasking.Thus, the analyst chooses a place for himself, outside the participants and their specific discoursal context. Sometimes, this may be considered a necessary stage of the analysis, but when there is nothing more, one gets caught in a 'conspiracy hypothesis'. Compare now the approach of rhetorical analysis as proposed by classical rhetoric theory. If I succeed in analysing a certain exemplary address fully in its rhetorical elements, what would be gained by that? I might conclude that the author used a great many rhetorical means and that the text now has become 'transparent' instead of 'opaque'. A possible conclusion might be that the author kept harping on something, or that he tried to manipulate the audience. In such a description, I would construct a 'power relationship', and I would have shown that the address is a 'powerful device'. Extending such a line of reasoning, I might add that the address stabilises social inequality. The appropriateness of such an interpretation depends, however, on my personal insights into the hierarchy of the observed community. But these insights relate my own point of view to my skill to undertake such an analysis. Thus, the argumentation seems circular. To take the hypothesis one step furtherhad this address been delivered by a woman in order to make other women revolt against male war propagandists, what value should I attribute to these 'powerful rhetorical means'? There are two developments in which the aforementioned problems regarding the 'unmasking' approach give rise to further investigation. The first development concerns a practical test. The analysis and interpretation may be considered successful only if one is able to develop alternative practices, or at least contribute to their design (e.g. approaches to 'critical language awareness', Fairclough, 1995a; or the deconstruction of monolithic accounts of the Nazi-period, Sauer, 1989). The second development concerns the character of the analysis itself. It becomes 'critical', in a double sense, as far as 'critique' is directed to other analytical work which restricts itself to explanatory limits, e.g. the concept of (individually distributed) 'background knowledge' or the (technologically shaped) communication model of 'speaker-message-hearer'; and as far as social, political, institutional, ideological and situational determinants and effects of discourse have to be identified. So it proves to be 'critical' towards socio-political phenomena (Fairclough, 1989; Sauer, 1988). The place of rhetoric in this framework of critical discourse analysis is not yet clear. Rhetoric is considered for instance a 'strategic' use of an alien discourse

< previous page

page_51

next page >

< previous page

page_52

next page > Page 52

(Fairclough, 1995a: 153), which underestimates the incorporative capacity of institutional logics and procedures. What a writer feels when 'playing the game', i.e. making use of common rhetorical means in order to achieve his goals, becomes part of his professional routine. As a professional, he is not aware of the fact that his (institutional) functioning entails a certain identityfor instance as a writerwhich is a product of processes of assimilation and accommodation. Playing the game of rhetoric, then, means the acceptance of other connected games. These strategies, including acts of (un)conscious dissimulation, make him part of the institutional tradition of 'self-promotion'. According to Fairclough's argument, self-promotion is becoming a routine, naturalised strand of various institutional activities and identities. What is said by Fairclough about the 'game of rhetoric', is equally valid for a great many other games. Thus, self-deception may occur in the case of the archaic character of narratives, as when I try to enliven my texts with anecdotes (playing a literary game). For example, in a fund-raising letter I might use a structure which I found to be effective in other circumstances (imitation of powerful devices as a 'commercial game'). This leads me to the conclusion that Fairclough does not attribute a systematic place to rhetoric within his approach. Furthermore, he considers rhetoric as a set of tools instead of as a fundamental communicative category. A different approach to rhetoric is offered by van Dijk (e.g. 1995). Van Dijk considers rhetoric part of 'superstructures' or 'schematic structures'. Because he is interested in ideological control in the first place, he expects to reach insight in this by focusing on the manipulation of links between semantic macrostructures and schematic superstructures: e.g. the 'downgrading' of a main topic to a lower level of the schema, or the 'upgrading' of a subordinate topic by assigning more prominence to it. 8 As far as classical rhetoric is concerned, van Dijk highlights only semantic 'figures', such as metaphors, or semantic 'operations', such as hyperbole, understatement, irony, and the like. Hence, his approach is restricted to local categories. As a result, superstructures are attributed a systematic position in the analysis, but the very concept of rhetoric itself remains rather vague. It is not quite clear whether van Dijk's approach allows us to analyse more complex rhetorical aims or rhetorically determined communicative practices, such as reformulations or other phenomena of intertextuality. From the point of view of (critical) discourse analysis, there is indeed some room for rhetoric. Certainly, rhetorical analysis is involved in the description stage (i.e. particularly, text analysis) and considered, then, part of the texture of the text. One is interested in all elements of the texts, on all levels, and one is looking for clues which enable the step to the next stage of the analytical framework. It is less clear which position is granted to rhetoric in the other two stages, viz. interpretation (i.e. processing analysis, linking discourse practices and texts) and explanation (i.e. social analysis, targeting at sociocultural practices). According to Fairclough (1995a: 93), these two stagestogether with the first stage of descriptionrepresent the three dimensions of Critical Discourse Analysis. When rhetoric is predominantly seen as 'figures', then the result of its application is disappointing. However, when rhetoric is related to more global

< previous page

page_52

next page >

< previous page

page_53

next page > Page 53

phenomena, then a more detailed rhetorical analysis is called for. In sum, if one seems to be in need of rhetorical structures, one may attempt such an analysis, embedding it in the general structure of discourse analysis. How much room is needed for this, depends on what one wants to know, and on the text to be analysed. (Rhetorical analysis is in this respect comparable to other rather complex approaches, such as stylistics, textlinguistics, or semiotics). From the point of view of rhetorical analysis, matters look a little bit different. I have already argued that rhetorical structures come into existence whenever an orator or the group he represents capitalises on the complexity of the audience, on conflicting social interests, and on the interaction between political and institutional facts. In order to describe the different aspects of these political processes, one needs to pay attention to the language use found in the texts originating from these contexts. For such a description, discourse analysis is called upon. One hopes to learn from discourse analysis something about discourse genres and text types in order to be able to link rhetorical patterns to textual means. In this process of investigation, various textual relationships are involved, such as emphasis, foregrounding, underlying semantic models, metaphorical shifts, etc. The approach of discourse analysis serves as a means of controlling one's own perceptions, for example, by making comparisons, or by establishing contradictory relations between rhetorical matters and textual devices. As to the other dimensions of socio-political rhetorical communication, a discourse analytical approach is not considered necessary. Anyway, it is not applied. One is satisfied with the insights into the functioning of politics as an institution on its own. On the other hand, the attempt by discourse analysts at linking discursive practices to wider sociocultural structures in fact denies the relative independence of politics. Furthermore, because discourse analysts publish and give lectures, they themselves become part of the political elite. It does not become clear, however, how the insights gained from their analyses are incorporated at this meta level. Theorists of rhetoric on the other hand feel challenged to compose addresses themselves. To them, politics is an experimental field. Most discourse analysts do not adopt such a point of view. They may be competent in many fields, nevertheless they prefer to hide their competence. Furthermore, they display a rather dubious and non-systematic interest in ideological questions which pertain to their societies. Their interest israther partiallyfocused on capitalism, racism, sexism, inequality, right wing extremism, anti-terrorism-terrorism, etc. We find, however, less attention paid to the former Eastern bloc, to communism, socialism, pacifism and to liberation ideologies. Even less attention is paid to discrimination in decolonised countries, to black, red or yellow racism. On the other hand, rather more attention is paid to the way in which enemies are pictured in the West. Islamic fundamentalism, in particular, is focused on, often related to analyses of Allied propaganda in the Gulf War of 1991. It is my contention that paying more attention to rhetorical dimensions will contribute to discourse analysis. In adopting a rhetorical perspective on texts i.e. by adopting the orator's point of view as a public voiceone has to confront

< previous page

page_53

next page >

< previous page

page_54

next page > Page 54

the question of what determines failure or success. This is true even in those cases in which, ideologically speaking, no problems occur. The basis of both rhetoric and discourse analysis is functional-pragmatic. Discourse and discursive elements, such as text passages, text structures, form-and-meaning units, and the like, are regarded as manifestations of actions to perform specific functions. This functional basis proves its value especially in cases •

of strategic or tactical use of speech functions;

•

of discrepancy between the audience's expectations and the concrete realisation of speech functions;

•

of creative and novel language use;

•

in which the orator makes 'ugly' choices in order to solve the complexity of his task.

In these cases, it is not easy to link the texture of the text to the social context. Incorporating rhetoric within the methodological set of tools of discourse analysis will thus contribute to a clearer interpretation and explanation of complications regarding the orator's constraints, functions and dilemmas. Queen Beatrix as Orator: Problem-solving, the Scope, and Ideological Impact of Her Address to the Knesset Creating echoes The state visit of Queen Beatrix (and Prince Claus) to Israel on March 27 and 28, 1995, was summarised in a report on Dutch television. In this reportwhich was enriched with some documentary materialsa few minutes were given to the Queen's address to the Knesset. The Dutch television audience could only see and hear her in a short fragment, in which she uttered the following passage (Paragraph 6 in the speech; here rendered in the spoken version): 9 Most of our Dutch Jews were carried off to concentration camps where they would eventually meet their death. We know that many of our fellow-countrymen put up courageousand sometimes successfulresistance, and often stood by their threatened fellow men, exposing themselves to mortal danger. During our visit to Yad Vashem yesterday we saw their names too among those remembered forever under the trees planted there. But we also know that they were the exceptional ones and that the people of the Netherlands could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow-citizens. This passageor its closing sentencewas quoted, one day later, in most Dutch newspapers. The quotation dominated most reports on the Queen's state visit. In view of the media coverage, one might say that this passage is important and even essential. Other investigations, based on media coverage, confirm this interpretation (Verhey, 1995; van Es, 1996). Several observations may explain the apparent relevance of this passage. Firstly, the passage is an odd element in an address to the Israeli parliament, since it concerns a topic that is relevant to the Netherlands, and that in principle does not concern the Israeli-Dutch relationship (although it becomes apparent that this is not completely true, see below). The oddness of the passage in this situation is

< previous page

page_54

next page >

< previous page

page_55

next page > Page 55

an indication of the communicative conflict between at least two perspectives (see below). Secondly, the passage is carefully introduced by contrasting the Jewish name of Amsterdam, Mokumwhich means 'safe place' (Paragraph 5) with the unsafe and really dangerous situation that followed, especially for the Dutch Jews (see Paragraph 6). Another introductory element is the allusion to the shared knowledge about the destruction of the Jews, by making use of the rhetorically formulated pseudo-negation: 'It is not necessary to call to mind here, in this place, the horrors that the Nazioccupation of 1940-45 brought our country's Jewish population', which occurs immediately before the quoted passage. This double introduction functions as a signal to the audience to pay attention to the following phrases. The same holds true for the Dutch television report in which the preceding day's visit to Yad Vashem is shown. The commentator in the report elaborates on the theme of the Dutch occupation and the persecution of the Jews. Thus, the quoted passage achieves prominence. Thirdly, the way in which this theme is constructed as a topic-to-talk-about,is important here. Queen Beatrix makes a topic publicly discussable which in the Netherlands had been taboo for quite some time, being publicly and representatively not addressed, or only in a very covert way. In the construction of her address, Beatrix had to take this context into account. For that reason she starts to mention the facts: the annihilation of the greater part of the Dutch Jews, without, however, mentioning the perpetrators. She goes on to refer to the positive side of the occupied Netherlands, its resistance, hence the adversaries of the perpetrators. Only then does she mention the 'other' Dutchmen who did not belong to the resistance force, who were not Jews, and who acted as allies to the perpetrators. This, however, is not explicitly said. Rather, she categorises those who offered resistance as the 'exceptional ones'. Only at the end of this passage does it appear that the majority of the Dutch 'could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow-citizens'. We have here a mitigating formulation which offers the opportunity to think that the Dutch had wanted to protect the Jews, but were not able to do so. 10 Whereas before in commemorations in the Netherlands, the Dutch support of the Jews was emphasised, following this address, the reality about the limited nature of this help was publicly recognised. For that reason, the Queen's speech is partly to be considered as epideictic (at least as far as Pararagraphs 6 and 7 are concerned). Even the central commemorative speech function has been realised, with the performative formula (see pp. 14-15): '. . . at the same time asking ourselves in bewilderment and dismay how this could have happened'. Finally, this passage is the Queen's reaction to the request by the Jewish community in the Netherlands and the Dutch community in Israel to correct the positive image of the Netherlands as a country which offered strong resistancewhich in fact it did notand to reduce that image to its true proportions. The passage may be heard as complying with that request (about the background to the passage and about the advisors to the Queen, see Verhey, 1995; about Beatrix' own motives, see van Es, 1996). These four observations, taken together, make it clear that the passage fulfils the rhetorical function of stimulating (and controlling) journalistic reformulations.

< previous page

page_55

next page >

< previous page

page_56

next page > Page 56

The passage is constructed to be easily picked up by the media. This 'reformulation-effect' is part of intertextuality (pp. 6-9). This concept forces us to analyse not merely the speech event itself, but also what went before and what followed it. News reports which incorporated the passage, and the television report which showed Queen Beatrix speaking in the Knesset, pertain to the speech event's post-history.By its very nature, this post-history is open-ended. The development of the post-history cannot be predicted, since new (speech) events, such as other addresses, or media messages, may have links to this address. 11 The address itself is heavily influenced by its own pre-history.In this case, the pre-history too, has an intertextual nature. Queen Beatrix has made a number of speeches before the one in the Knesset, and she has participated in several commemorative events relating to the end of World War II and the liberation of Auschwitz. In her address, she makes reference to these events (in particular, in Paragraph 7). The passage about the Dutch failure to help the Jews is prepared, so to speak, by previous addresses of the Queen herself and by public assessments of the Queen's concern about occupation, war, and the genocide of the Jews.12 The Dutch media's preview of her visit brought expectations to fever pitch. What was the Queen going to say in Israel? For that reason it is safe to say that the Knesset-addresswhatever its other functions may bewas meant to give the proper textual environment for the delivery of this passage which was essentially directed to the Netherlands. This calls for a specific organisation of the textual environment. The embedding of the target passage must be carefully done. A sequential solution13 to the organisation of the text is not possible, since such a solution would be incompatible with the state visit and its necessity of representation (Ensink, this volume). Equally impossible would be the positioning of the passage at the very end of the address. The final position is, from a rhetorical point of view, preferable, especially when one wants to stimulate media reformulations (as in the case of Roman Herzog's Warsaw address, see Ensink & Sauer, 1995). In this case, however, the final position is not possible since the ritual character of a visitor addressing the parliament demands a different closing passage. Putting the paragraph in the opening section of the address is equally impossible. The address must offer its audience an introduction of time, place, and theme, in order to prepare them. Because of the topic's sensitive nature, some tact and care are called for in the way it is introduced. As Ensink (in this volume) shows in his analysis of the thematic development, the address consists of three parts: firstly, the discussion of the historical development of the relationship between the Dutch and the Jewish peoples, in which • the commemoration of the fate of the Jewish Dutchmen is contained: •

secondly, some thoughts about the difficult road towards peace in the Middle East;

•

and, finally, a closing section appropriate to a ritual address.

At face value, the passage we discuss here thus seems to be a 'logical' part of the first part of her speech. On closer inspection, however, it appears that the first five paragraphs are worded in a descriptive way, as for tone and tenor. This is in accordance with whatto the Dutchis their Queen's normal behaviour.

< previous page

page_56

next page >

< previous page

page_57

next page > Page 57

Hence, it may count as the normal expectation. The short sketch of the relationship between the Dutch and the Jews is in agreement with other historical narratives that the Queen has uttered on other occasions. The very fact of the development itself, the specific course and direction of this development are the Queen's contribution to the consensus regarding societal norms and values (see pp. 9-11). The description of Dutch historical developments and of the Jewish influence on the Dutch matches the character of a state visit to Israel, provided that one is prepared to go along with the indeterminate position the Queen chooses regarding 'the Jewish people' and 'the state of Israel', the 'Dutch Jews' and 'fellow-citizens' (see below). The distanced tone of these paragraphs comes to an end when the Queen addresses the period of World War II. In the two paragraphs pertaining to this period, the tone is in accordance with expectations of agenus demonstrativum.This is another reason to consider Paragraphs 6 and 7 as rather special. The content of Paragraph 6 deviates from the pattern of the preceding paragraphs which is only resumed again in Paragraph 8. This deviation marks the relevance of the passage regarding the thematic development. If we confine ourselves to the way in which the Dutch media covered the Queen's address, and pay attention to the way in which they quoted the Queen's words and embedded those words within their own reports, then we might hypothesise that the enabling or even 'provoking' of those media reactions have been the main purpose of this state visitof course in addition to the ritual performance of actions and the uttering of those words which warrant the representativeness of the state visit. The echoes in the Netherlands clearly suggest this hypothesis. The Queen complies with the expectations and rules regarding a state visit. However, because she tries to direct Dutch media coverage to the image of the Netherlands in the context of the abominable situation of the Dutch Jews during World War II, she does more than just that. She violates a taboo, she intervenes in existing texts and discourses about this periodin the Netherlands, but in Israel as welland she tries to impose a new discoursal order. Her shift from 'many of our fellow-countrymen' (the Dutch) to 'the exceptional ones' (a few of the Dutch) is aimed at fundamentally changing an ideologically coloured way of talking about the events of the war. The role of 'hero' attributed to the Dutch in stories about the war, is reformulated as an exception. As the Dutch head of state, Queen Beatrix lends her voice to this ideological intervention.By virtue of her function, and on the basis of the pointedness of her words, this intervention amounts to the introduction into the discourse about World War II of an already known, but as yet not publicly and officially uttered, state of affairs. The Queen's formulation is a point of no return. The 'old fashion' of telling war-time stories is out of date, the 'new' story is presented as more complete, precise and honest. This passage from the speech shows that Queen Beatrix tries to oppose 'emotional' stories and discourses. She acts contrary to the 'populism' which is characteristic of many discursive practices in which experiences about the War are fixed. Her intervention contributes to the complexity of these discourses. This runs counter to what many ideological interventions aim at. Mostly, those interventions try to simplify a complex reality. The Queen's textespecially the

< previous page

page_57

next page >

< previous page

page_58

next page > Page 58

passage oriented to media coverageappeals to the Dutch to abandon simplistic practices and to adopt and accept more complex practices. Apparently the Queen prefers to symbolise the direct contact with her audience, at least as far as Holland is concerned, by considering the mass media as derived from the direct contact (cf. 12-13). In this way, Queen Beatrix contradicts the mass media's preferences for brevity, topicality and increasing frequency. Echoes, and the attempt to control the resounding of these echoes in the Netherlands, confirm the ideological nature of this intervention. At the same time, it gives her the authority to change or influence certain discursive practices in the future. The weakness of philo-Semitism Queen Beatrix' address to the Knesset has a peculiar point of departure. Time and again she returns to the topic of Jewishness. This approach has drawbacks as well as advantages. One advantage might be that, by continually referring to 'the Jewish people', she may leave open who in fact belongs to the Jewish people. In any case, her expression refers to Jews in general, Dutchmen,i.e. especially Jewish Dutchmen, but also Dutch Jews, and Israelis,who include the Israeli population, thousands of Dutchmen, the Jewish people, immigrants and the Palestinian population. In this mixture of general Jewish and political Israeli terms, she succeeds in inflating the Dutch part of the Jews and the Jewish part of the Dutch. At the same time, it gives her the opportunity to formulate the Israeli-Dutch relationship in an uncomplicated way. She does so explicitly in the opening and in the ritualised parts of her address. She does so implicitly in the use of address forms and in descriptions referring to people. The very fact that some formulationssuch as 'Jewish Dutchmen'are opaque in their reference demonstrates the 'special relationship between our peoples' to which she refers at the end of the address. The Queen's approach has drawbacks as well. Because she does not make a clear distinction between Jews, Dutch, and Israelis, she cannot prevent the term 'Jew' from becoming an instance of indeterminateness (see pp. 9-11). This may be expected for almost all concrete concepts in a representative address. The term 'Jew' becomes an instance of vagueness as well. Being vague, however, is not an asset to an orator. Several formulationsespecially those regarding the development of Israel as a nationare vague in such a way that they seem to make notions or concepts euphemisms: over the years much has happened and much is changed (Paragraph 9); a new future (10); these developments (11); closer cooperation between you and your neighbours (12); difficult circumstances (13). These seemingly vague formulations have a distinct function. They convey to the audience that the orator knows what moves the people she is addressing. Hence, the orator consciously decides not to use concrete formulations which might possibly contribute to a conflict of interests. However, the use of the terms 'Jews' and 'Jewish' does contribute to a conflict of interests. Clearly, these terms have been deliberately chosen; other possible terms have been rejected. The address shows a shift from potentially neutral

< previous page

page_58

next page >

< previous page

page_59

next page > Page 59

terms (e.g. 'people', 'citizens', 'countrymen') to potentially partisan terms. This has two main sources: firstly, it results from the above-mentioned indeterminateness. The Queen avoids the use of concrete terms and shifts to the semantics of the audience. Secondly, it results from ideological considerations. Whenever bias has to do with ideology, an orator tries to adopt the dominant ideology which has the approval of the audience. This does not imply the orator's agreement with the ideology. It does imply, however, that it is not precluded that he agrees. At face value, the choice of these ideological formulations may be explained as a form of politeness: the orator uses words which are familiar and agreeable to the audience. 14 He seeks trust and tries to profit from it. Politeness implies the speaker's subjective intentions. But there may be more than just that, namely, ideological motives. The ideology which in Queen Beatrix' speech determines the choice of appellations for people, is Zionism. There are even traces of a historic form of Zionism, namely references to biblical times and the promised land. (The comparison between the Dutch and the Jews is related to these references). More conspicuous, however, is modern Zionism, which has been the dominant ideology since the founding of the state of Israel. This ideology is characterised by a mixture of religious, racial and national presuppositions. The three pillars are: to adhere to the Jewish religion, to belong to the Jewish race, andafter World War IIto live in Israel. The Queen makes many references to these three pillars. Zionism arose at the end of the 19th century, mainly because of growing anti-Semitism and was also influenced by general nationalist tendencies. Because every ideology fights a political struggle against competing ideologies, one may often find traces of these anti-ideologies and anti-perspectives. Within Zionism, anti-Semitism and fascism have become the anti-ideologies to which Zionism itself is opposed. In her address, the Queen mentions other anti-ideologies, such as 'racism, discrimination and xenophobia' (Paragraph 7). She thus shows that she is sensitive to these forms of ideological struggle and their mechanisms. Heads of state of those countries which have a friendly relationship with Israel or have a considerable number of Jewish citizens amongst their populations, should avoid taking a position 'on the wrong side' in this ideological struggle. Of course, it would cause outrage if a head of state of a Western European country formulated ideological points of view characteristic of racism or of fascism. On the other hand, in order to show oneself a friend of Israel it appears useful to adopt an anti-anti-Semitic point of view. And that is exactly what happens in this address. Queen Beatrix warns of 'new forms of racism' (Paragraph 7), and she praises Israel for its 'wide varieties of culture' and 'religious diversity' (Paragraph 9). The address is not overtly Zionist. That would not be tolerated. But any person among the audience who considers himself a Zionist, is not confronted with any unacceptable utterance or point of viewwith one exception, the Queen's appeal for reconciliation (Paragraph 11). A Zionist might even accept this appeal, since it is related to the political future of the state of Israel, and, furthermore, is accepted by many Israelis. The address may be characterised as philo-Semitic.The Queen uses terms referring to Jews at every possible instance. The term 'to be a Jew' becomes an

< previous page

page_59

next page >

< previous page

page_60

next page > Page 60

umbrella term, at a higher level than 'to be Dutch' or 'to be Israeli'. The religious and racial meanings of being Jewish are not distinguished, but merged. The dominant picture is thus of a world divided into Jews and non-Jews. Second to this is the division between Dutch and Israeli. The philo-Semitism thus shown has a catch. Where the real position of Jews is concerned, they are defended against their real or fictitious enemies. A fixed set of clichés is used in the address: Jews as artists, as scientists, as bankers, all contributing to the culture of the Netherlands. However, two questions are neither formulated nor answered. Did these people make their contributions because they were Jewish or because they were Dutch? To which category did they consider themselves to belong? With a positive intention, a division is assumed which maybe did not exist. For that reason, I contend that the philoSemitism in the Queen's address is weak.It does not consider distinctions which may be formulated in a different way, and it does not attempt to link Jews in the Netherlands and Jewish Dutchmen in any other way than their Jewishness. The language of the address does not offer the Jews any other perspective than their being Jewish, but this language is used by someone who evidently is not herself Jewish. Here, ideological transformations are at issue which cannot be controlled by the speaker herself. Problems of perspectivisation According to Sandig (1996: 37) perspective is defined as 'representing (or constructing) something (an object, a person, a fact, an event, an action, etc.) in aspects for somebody from a given situation, at a certain time'. This definition emphasises certain points. The first point is relevance. To utter some phrases from a certain perspective means that the speaker is ascribing one or more aspects to a thing (or to a matter), in order to give the addressee some (verbal and non-verbal) indications of the speaker's point of view. What is made relevant, then, is the fact that the addressee learns (or accepts) to 'look' in the same way as the speaker. The addressee is enabled to link the purpose of the communication to the aspects the speaker has selected and formulated. In this way, relevance is produced by connecting experiences and expectations to the spatial and temporal context in which the speaker performs his communicative act. The second point is that perspective does not exist as an isolated principle. On the contrary, if someone produces a sentence bearing a certain perspective, he can do this only by choosing one prespective from many. Perspectivity, then, is always caused by a selection of one from among other perspectives. The condition for such a selection is the fact that objects, events, persons etc. may be seen differently, so that perspectivity is always potentially multiple perspectivity.In order to fit some object within a perspective at all, there must exist a choice among possible perspectives. One must have other perspectives at one's disposal. The term perspectivisation,then, is used in order to pay attention to the communicative procedure of the construction of a certain perspective. The third point is the dependence of perspective upon the structure and lexicon of a certain language. Generally, there are several possibilities of constructing a perspective within a given language. In English for instance, metaphors, idioms, verbal aspects, adverbs and other linguistic means form the arsenal a speaker

< previous page

page_60

next page >

< previous page

page_61

next page > Page 61

might use. Therefore, when one analyses the perspectivisation devices of a text, it is necessary to bear in mind the battery of devices available in the language. The last point concerns more complex realisations of perspectivisation, such as the change of perspective within a text passage, the doubling of perspective, explicit vs. implicit perspectivisation, and the dynamic of continuous perspectivisation shift. Furthermore, as far as the speaker as an individual is concerned, we may distinguish his point of view from someone else's point of view. Another distinction has to be made as to time: changes of perspective may occur as a now-perspective or a thenperspective. In sum, perspectivisation is a functional-communicative procedure which can be used to realise complex observations and different point of view relations (Simpson, 1993). These procedures enable an orator to control the audience's attentionsubject to thematic developmentand to commit himself to the specific relevance of a part of the text. In general, perspectivisation belongs to the broad spectrum of pragmatically effective linguistic means an orator may selector, under certain circumstances, is coerced to selectin order to make his audience participate in processes which enable the hearers to (re)construct societal experiences. It is clear, then, that ideological purposes can also be achieved by applying perspectivisation strategies. Let us now take a closer look at the commemorative paragraphs of Queen Beatrix' Knesset address (for convenience of reference, each sentence has a letter in brackets): 6 (a) During the most difficult years of the twentieth century, which has been so filled with disaster, Mokum, alas, proved not to be the safe city its name suggested. (b) It is not necessary to call to mind here, in this place, the horrors that the Nazi-occupation of 1940-45 brought our country's Jewish population. (c) Most of our Dutch Jews were carried off to concentration camps where they would eventually meet their death. (d) We know that many of our fellow-countrymen put up courageous and sometimes successfulresistance, and often, exposing themselves to mortal danger, stood by their threatened fellow men. (e) During our visit to Yad Vashem yesterday we saw their names too among those remembered forever under the trees planted there. (f) But we also know that they were the exceptional ones and that the people of the Netherlands could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow-citizens. 7 (g) Fifty years after the end of the war we cannot joyfully commemorate the restoration of our freedom without at the same time asking ourselves in bewilderment and dismay how this could have happened. (h) The recent solemn celebrations at Auschwitz where you, Mr. Chairman, and we were present, evoked those events for us in all their horror. (i) These atrocious memories are a permanent incitement to us all to

< previous page

page_61

next page >

< previous page

page_62

next page > Page 62

remain vigilant against the emergence of new forms of racism, discrimination and xenophobia. (j) It is an urgent duty, not only for governments but also for every individual citizen, to be on the alert and react without hesitation to every sign of a revival of these dangers. We know already that these paragraphs contain the Queen's message from abroad to the Dutch people, transmitted via journalistic intermediaries. Since she has assigned herself the task of intervening in discursive practices in respect of the Dutch self-image, we may expect some shifts of perspectivisation. The following kinds of perspectives appear: (a) Offers a general then-perspective without the orator's involvement, and an anticipation of the result of the historical development. (b) A now-perspective and a here-perspective with the orator's involvement are used in order to explicitly state that shared knowledge about the Jews' horrible fate during the Nazi-occupation of the Netherlands exists and needs no further mentioning. (c) By formulating 'most of our Dutch Jews', Queen Beatrix adopts a specific personal Dutch and non-Jewish perspective, subsequently followed by a general then-perspective, as in (a). (d) A Dutch then-perspective is applied, firstly from the audience's point of view ('We know that'), secondly from the orator's Dutch point of view ('our fellow-countrymen'), thirdly from the fellow-countrymen's point of view ('their threatened fellow men'). This functions as a signal to keep one's distance. (e) A personal then-close-to-today-perspective is chosen which embodies some personal experiences with respect to the symbolic memory of Yad Vashem. (f) ADutch and Israelinow-perspective appears (audience's and orator's involvement) making explicit the low degree of Dutch anti-Nazi and pro-Jewish resistance. (g) In this central performative speech act of the commemoration passage, a general now-perspective with audience's and orator's involvement is adopted, by referring to a then-perspective ('how this could have happened'). (h) The orator's and one special addressee's involvement, by achieving a recent then-perspective, make this sentence particularly relevant. (i) A general now-perspective is chosen (audience's and orator's involvement) in order to direct the public to anti-destructive and anti-aggressive ideological points of view. (j) The passage ends with a general now-and-tomorrow-perspective, without yet a clear involvement of addresser and addressees, by offering an aphoristically designed moral appeal. What we find here is that there is neither continuation of perspective nor duration of involvement patterns. The constellation of perspectives and points of view varies partly according to the thematic organisation of the passage, partly according to moral statements and ritual phrases, partly according to commemo-

< previous page

page_62

next page >

< previous page

page_63

next page > Page 63

rative sequences. The passage seems to be exceptionally dynamic. This underlines Queen Beatrix' claim to give a voice to discourses constructing Dutch history and memory. Because it is her voice which opposes untruthful descriptions of the importance of Dutch resistance, she is able to succeed in stressing the 'just' perspective. On the one hand, this calls for acceptance by the audience: by changing and doubling perspectives and merging different points of view, she seems to be successful. On the other hand, her appeal is more forceful when she comes to give advice to the public about the struggle against anti-democratic movements. The Necessity of Political Rhetoric Many historians of rhetoric assume that hardly any development took place in the theory and practice of rhetoric between the 18th and 20th centuries. The dormant period of rhetoric (Ottmers, 1996; Göttert, 1994) came to an end in the course of the 20th century. At the end of this century rhetoric is very much alive. Categories which hardly played any role in public debate of the 19th century such as persuasion, docere et delectare,orientation towards the audience, and otherswere rediscovered in the first decades of the 20th century. The dark side of rhetoric prevailed in that time, in the context of World War I and afterwards: imperialistic manipulation, propaganda, smear campaigns, mass psychological indoctrination. No doubt, the change of evaluation, viz. the alternating overestimation and underestimation of rhetoric, is related to societal and political developments. It may be hypothesised that the nature, development, and massiveness of decision-making processes are the cause of the renewed interest in rhetoric. Rhetorical processes are related to decision-making and the attempt to get approval for the decisions. We find a good reason here to look for rhetorical processes which were successful, while other processes failed, in getting approval. We should focus on the role of language use here. However, it is not easy to determine whether an address or a series of addresses should be consideredfrom a rhetorical point of viewa success or a failure. The reason for this indeterminate character is the increasing complexity of the communicative and societal context within which the orator acts. There is also increasing complexity among the factors which influence the addresses and their reception. One of these factors is the recent 20th-century history of rhetoric itself, i.e. the fact that prior to the delivery of a speech there may have been successes which the orator would like to emulate, as well as failures from which the orator would like to learn. A present-day orator has to be aware of the simultaneity of rhetoric's renaissance with the formation of nations and national identities. The formation of nations was in part an internal process, but more often than not an external process, in which the nation-in-birth had to fight competing nations or exterior forces such as foreign occupation. An orator cannot simply use the tools of rhetoric which proved successful at that time: their use would certainly characterise him as 'nationalist'. 15 Furthermore, the orator has to be aware of the fact that for more than a century some extremist political movements or ideologies have marked public speaking, particularly, communism (with a

< previous page

page_63

next page >

< previous page

page_64

next page > Page 64

revolutionary and international rhetoric) and fascism (with a nationalist and racist rhetoric). An orator should try to avoid becoming associated with those movements. Finally, the political situation at home influences the orator. Since the goal of public speaking - in conformance with the basic rhetorical situation described in classical antiquity - is to persuade and influence decision-making, the speaker should be aware of internal political relationships. In these relationships, both authoritarian and democratic processes may play a role. An auctor has to decide whether he wishes to influence his audience toward authoritarian or toward democratic social relationships. Hence, present-day research on rhetorical phenomena has to take these complexities and their developments into account. The form and the function of speeches depend upon them. Apart from the fact that any individual speech has a specific structure and rhetorical form, we should consider the influence of that speech on rhetoric itself. In general, we might term this 'the antithetical context of rhetorical devices'. In sum, I consider the commemorative address as a particular, complex arrangement of rhetorical forms and functions which is influenced by the aforementioned factors. The example of Queen Beatrix' address pertains to a rather small country in Europe trying to chase away the ghosts of World War II and the occupation. The state visit offered an occasion to make an attempt at that. Maybe this example is too insignificant for far-reaching conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important to dwell on it further. The main subject, then, is to take the societal experiences designed as discursive practices - of a country seriously. When an orator tries to do so, then it is necessary to have a closer look at the kinds of occasion when these experiences are generated. In her Knesset address - and in previous and subsequent addresses - Queen Beatrix gave voice to reflections and experiences about the place of the Netherlands among other countries and nations, with respect to the painful past (World War II, occupation, annihilation of most of the Dutch Jews). The topics she addressed were determined by chance, up to a certain point. The fact that it happened to be exactly 50 years ago since World War II came to an end, is accidental. But the Queen took this opportunity to fulfil her representative task in a rather specific way. There are no precise rules stating what a Queen has to say whenever she is making a state visit. Of course she should consider the points of view of her government. In this respect, she has a position similar to that of a President who is not at the same time the head of a government, but who holds a representative function. This does not mean, however, that her words are prescribed by the government. She has some scope of her own. Queen Beatrix used this scope to the full extent. She succeeded in drawing public attention to herself as the voice of the Netherlands. She succeeded also in offering the Dutch citizens a series of 'expressions' in order to be able to refer to events of the occupation period expressions which are more consistent with the historical facts. In the Knesset, this occurred for the very first time. Up to then, a more covert language was used, even by the Queen. Rhetoric, thus, is necessary in order to realise such shifts.Rhetoric is also necessary in order to shed light on the role of the orator in such processes of

< previous page

page_64

next page >

< previous page

page_65

next page > Page 65

change. Critical discourse analysis and critical rhetorical analysis should cooperate in order to reconstruct those moments in which discursive practices are modified and take on new forms. Acknowledgement I would like to thank Titus Ensink (Groningen) and Wim Staat (Tilburg) for their support with the translation and formulation of this paper. Notes 1. 'Rhetoric [. . .] is essentially antithetical, for the orator speaks in the face of at least implied adversaries' (Ong, 1982: 111). 2. Another perspective has been presented by the increasingly popular genre of 'applied rhetoric'. Techniques for persuasion are being marked as ethically ambivalent (cf. Klein, 1995: 63). Hence, the ever recurring emphasis on reasonableness and fairness, or, lately, on political correctness. 3. There are exceptions, of course. A newcomer to politics, e.g. a new member of parliament, may go on an intensive training course in public speaking or corporate (political) communication. In such cases, repetition and imitation skills could be applied, making use of exemplary pre-texts, such as well-known former addresses. Intertextuality, then, may contain the way of relating the trainee's own textual passages to accredited passages. 4. If we wish to analyse media coverage of a political speech more precisely, we also have to take into account the role of transcriptions handed out to the press in advance. This transcription is, in fact, as Jakobs (1996) points out, mostly the reason, and not the result, of the original performance. Press handouts become more important than the speech itself, and get coverage in their own right. For instance, when Churchill first spoke of the Iron Curtainin a speech in Fulton, Missouri, in March 1946most reporters who were present omitted the now famous expression simply because it had not been included in the transcription (cf. Jakobs, 1996). 5. Note that the concept of representation here stems from rhetoric; it definitely does not correspond to the rather broad notion of cognitive or psychological representation. 6. See, for instance, Lausberg (1960: 653) who lists the following features under the heading auditor:gentleness, willingness, hostility, attention, docility, erudition, fatigue, personal experiences, etc. 7. In his account of more than 500 years of theoretical and practical reflection of rhetoric, the (unknown) writer Ad Herennium (c. 85 BC) presents the following definitions: 'The task of the public speaker is to discuss capably those matters which law and custom have fixed for the uses of citizenship, and to secure as far as possible the agreement of his hearers. There are three kinds of causes which the speaker must treat: Epideictic, Deliberative, and Judicial. The epideictic kind is devoted to the praise or censure of some particular person. The deliberative consists in the discussion of policy and embraces persuasion and dissuasion. The judicial is based on legal controversy, and comprises criminal prosecution or civil suit, or defence' (Ad Herennium,1994: I.I.2). In fact, this definition functions as a summary of Greek and early Italian investigations into rhetorical matters, immediately before the time of Cicero (at the end of the Forum Romanum as a rhetorical institution) and Quintilian (the first holder of a chair of rhetoric, at the beginning of the Imperium Romanum). 8. Apart from that, notice that van Dijk, in fact, is referring to devices of 'perspectivisation' (Sandig, 1996) or 'point of view' (Simpson, 1993). 9. For convenience of reference, the paragraphs of Queen Beatrix' address are numbered. Notice that the written version differs from the oral one here. 10. The syntactic construction 'could not prevent', which is in fact a double negation, is a clear example of the indeterminateness which characterises a representative address in general (see pp. 9-10). 11. Note, for example, that this very paper is part of the post-history.

< previous page

page_65

next page >

< previous page

page_66

next page > Page 66

12. In such a way, the processuality (see pp. 5-6) of modern political addresses is established, here by means of a concatenation of communicative events. 13. For instance, one specific passage directed to the members of the Israeli parliament, one to the Netherlands, one to Jewish Dutchmen, etc., according to the sequential addressing of a heterogeneous audience (see pp. 11-12). 14. In classical rhetoric, exactly this is meant by captatio benevolentiae (which means something like 'fishing for compliments'). 15. Of course, some orators aim at precisely this effect, e.g. Le Pen in France, but most orators try to avoid this pitfall. References Aristoteles (1995) Rhetorik (translated by Franz Sieveke). München: Fink. Auctor Ad Herennium (1954) De ratione dicendi.(Rhetorica ad Herennium)(edited and translated by Harry Caplan). London: William Heinemann. Ensink, T. (1992) Jenninger: De ontvangst van een Duitse rede in Nederland. Een tekstwetenschappelijke en communicatie-wetenschappelijke analyse.Amsterdam: Thesis. Ensink, T. and Sauer, C. (1995) Political communication as tightrope walking: German President Roman Herzog's commemorative address in Warsaw, August 1, 1994. Politics, Groups, and the Individual 5, (2), 37-50. Fairclough, N. (1989) Language and Power.London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995a) Critical Discourse Analysis.London: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995b) Media Discourse.London: Edward Arnold. Göttert, K.-H. (1994) Einführung in die Rhetorik.München: Fink. Jakobs, G. (1996) Preformulating the news: metapragmatic discourse in press releases. Contribution to the congress on Frame and Perspective in Discourse, held at the University of Groningen, 28 and 29 November 1996. Kammerer, P. (1995) Die veränderten Konstitutionsbedingungen politischer Rhetorik. Rhetorik 14, 14-29. Klein, J. (1995) Politische Rhetorik. Eine Theorieskizze in Rhetorik-kritischer Absicht mit Analysen zu Reden von Goebbels, Herzog und Kohl. Sprache und Literatur 75/76,62-99. Kopperschmidt, J. (1989) Öffentliche Rede in Deutschland. Muttersprache 99, 213-30. Kopperschmidt, J. (1990) Gibt es Kriterien politischer Rhetorik? Versuch einer Antwort. Diskussion Deutsch 21, 479-501. Kühn, P. (1995) Mehrfachadressierung. Untersuchungen zur adressatenspezifischen Polyvalenz sprachlichen Handelns.Tübingen: Niemeyer. Lausberg, H. (1960) Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik.München: Hueber. Ong, W.J. (1982) Orality and literacy. The technologizing of the word.London: Methuen. Ottmers, C. (1996) Rhetorik.Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler. Quintilianus (1995) Institutionis oratoriae (Edited and translated by Helmut Rahn) (2 Vols). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft. Sandig, B. (1996) Sprachliche Perspektivierung und perspektivierende Stile. Zeitschriftfür Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik 26 (102), 36-63. Sauer, C. (1988) Newspaper style and Nazi propaganda. The 'Weekly Mirror' in the 'German Newspaper in the Netherlands'. In W. van Peer (ed.) The Taming of the Text. Explorations in Language, Literature, and Culture (pp. 82-105). London: Routledge. Sauer, C. (1989) Structures of consensus-making and intervention. The concept of Nazi language policy in occupied Holland. In R. Wodak (ed.) Language, Power, and Ideology. Studies in Political Discourse (pp. 3-37). Amsterdam etc.: Benjamins. Sauer, C. (forthcoming (a)) Der Blick nach Rückwärts. 'Befreiung' und 'Selbstbefreiung' in zwei deutschen Gedenkreden (von Weizsäcker 1985, Jenninger 1988). In J. Rehbein (ed.) Funktionale Pragmatik im Spektrum.Hamburg. Sauer, C. (forthcoming (b)) Text und Ideologie. Beobachtungen zur NS-Presse in der Besatzungssituation. In G. Antos (ed.) Die Zukunft der Textlinguistik. Traditionen, Transformationen, Trends. Festschrift für Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Heinemann.Tübingen: Niemeyer. Simpson, P. (1993) Language, Ideology and Point of View.London: Routledge.

< previous page

page_66

next page >

< previous page

page_67

next page > Page 67

van Dijk, T. (1995) Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In C. Schäffner and A. Wenden (eds) Language and Peace (pp. 1733). Aldershot: Dartmouth. van Es, G. (1996) De volkswil van Oranje. Het functioneel lege koningschap lijkt onverslaanbaar. NRC Handelsblad 27 April 1996,1-2. Verhey, E. (1995) Wat Hare Majesteit kreeg voorgezegd en wat zij zelf wilde zeggen. Vrij Nederland 8 April 1995, 7-8. Witteveen, W. (1992) Het theater van de politiek. Publieke retorica en de paspoortaffaire.Amsterdam: Amber.

< previous page

page_67

next page >

< previous page

page_68

next page > Page 68

The Debate Ownership of Speeches and Language Choice Frank Knowles (Aston University): A question of interest to me is the question of what I would call the ownership of the kind of speeches we are talking about. Who actually writes these speeches? They are the result of interaction between the person giving the speech and the speech writer. What do we know about the mechanics by which the actual speech takes its final form? Stephan Elspaß (University of Münster): Related to this: was the speech originally written in English? Or was it written in Dutch and then translated? Christoph Sauer (University of Groningen): An official speech like the Queen's speech in the Knesset is produced by her staff and by some advisers under the responsibility of the government. But there is also a pre-history, at least in this case. Before the Queen's visit to Israel, a public debate had been conducted in the Netherlands on whether or not the Dutch resistance myth should be questioned or not. And some of the ideas of the Queen's advisers had been presented by the media. So we can say that the text was collectively produced. As to the language, the speech was originally given in English, and the press releases by the Information Service were in English and in Dutch. All the quotations in the newspaper reports were in Dutch. Christina Schäffner (Aston University): So are you saying the speech was actually written in English, and for the press releases in the home country it was then translated into Dutch? Titus Ensink (University of Groningen): I don't think so, although I don't have any proof. But as a Dutch person reading this text, I must say that it sounds quite formal but also quite natural as a Dutch text. When you compare it to the English text then I have reason to believe that translators from the Information Service worked on it and translated the original Dutch text into English. The Dutch press release has been produced for the Dutch media, so that they can quote from it, and interestingly, the first sentence says that only the spoken word is valid. Christina Schäffner: This is typical of political speeches. The press releases usually say at the very beginning 'Check against delivery', meaning that the spoken word is the authoritative version. In addition, there is also an embargo, i.e. a time is set when the speech can be made available to the public. This is also important for situations when the speech has been translated because the translation will not go out before the original text has been delivered. Titus Ensink: There is a mixture here between the production process and the delivery process. The latter is the oral presentation by the Queen herself, and that is the valid act of communication, at the level of inter-state communication. But the production process originated, I believe, from the Dutch text, from a team of Dutch advisers and politicians. For the occasion of presenting a speech in the Knesset, a carefully weighed Dutch text was produced and then translated into English. Sue Wright (Aston University): I think there is a very important point here. The

< previous page

page_68

next page >

< previous page

page_69

next page > Page 69

Dutch nation is represented by their Queen who is speaking English. I wonder if you have any evidence about how the Dutch feel about this. After all there is no need for English to be spoken because the Knesset is a Hebrew-speaking meeting-place and the Queen is head of a Dutch-speaking people. Presumably it would have been possible to get an interpreter to interpret from Dutch into Hebrew. Christina Schäffner: This struck me as well. English is neither the mother tongue of the speaker nor of the audience. So how can this use of English be accounted for? Titus Ensink: This is related to the Dutch culture. In the Dutch monarchy, it is known right from the cradle who will be the next monarch, and thus head of state. The whole education of the Crown Prince or Princess is aimed at the tasks the head of state has to fulfil, and the education includes linguistic competence. For example, the Queen is perfectly able to present a speech in English or French or German, when the occasion requires her to do so. Sue Wright: I accept that and obviously, in a French environment, speaking French would be to honour your hosts. It's a way of flattering the people who receive you. But to speak English in a Hebrew-speaking Parliament is very interesting. It says a lot about the feelings, or lack of them, of the Dutch people for their language. I cannot believe that other European nations would accept that so easily. Titus Ensink: In France, for example, this would be a problem, because of their specific law. But I think in the Dutch culture, it is not a big deal. Eve-Marie Aldridge (University of Portsmouth): Isn't it a fact, or should I rather say a myth, that in the Dutch context, English is really looked upon as a second language, and not as a foreign language? Titus Ensink: This is true. I think for many Dutch people English is some kind of status symbol. Eve-Marie Aldridge: When you have reached a certain level of education, then it is taken for granted that you can deliver anything you want to say in English. Titus Ensink: If Queen Beatrix were to deliver an address like this in Holland itself, speaking in English would not be appropriate. But in this case she is visiting another country, and politicians from this country have been shown in the media, delivering addresses in English. So speaking English does not seem to be strange. I have not read any remarks about this speech where the use of English was criticised. Theo van Leeuwen (London College of Printing): One other suggestion to make comes from a book about the Dutch culture in the 17th century by Simon Schama called The Embarrassment of RichesAn Interpretation of Dutch Culture in the Golden Age.The author points out very clearly that Dutch culture has got two sides to itthe side it shows to the world and the side that is turned inward. The former comes from the merchant trading heritage, it is very open, and this is the side most people see when they go to Holland. This is the side where people in all kinds of public endeavours are using other languages. However, the side that is turned inward, the culture itself, is very much only for the Dutch. The

< previous page

page_69

next page >

< previous page

page_70

next page > Page 70

Dutch do very little to promote their literature and culture in other countries, even though they have a rich culture. So this is all a relative matter, but the proficiency of the Dutch in English can be explained because of this particular background. Christina Schäffner: But the choice of the language is indeed a delicate and interesting question. Whenever there is an important political occasion, it is normal for public figures, and politicians in particular, to deliver their speeches in their mother tongue and have them interpreted, even if they speak the foreign language quite fluently. It is mainly for status reasons that they use their mother tongue because sometimes they want to avoid misinterpretations or they want to convey slight nuances. After all, they often represent the position of their government, therefore the choice of the mother tongue is a deliberate choice. In this particular case, there is no obvious need for the Queen to speak English, because simultaneous interpreting could have been provided. Theo van Leeuwen: I think it is also very curious because in the current situation, with the near dominance of English, I am a bit worried about how far other members of small countries are prepared to go. I am less worried about not speaking Dutch in public. Although this doesn't mean I would not be worried if Dutch were to disappear. But this is another matter and is related to this aspect of the public side and the inward-looking side of the culture. Eve-Marie Aldridge: The Dutch people obviously don't feel that their own language is being slighted if their head of state speaks English, as the French would. Paul Chilton (Aston University): I think the choice of language here tells us more about the status of Israel than about Dutch culture. The fact that we are not having the speech interpreted into Hebrew is, I think, a significant point and it points to the peculiar status of Israel as a nation state in the international system and its peculiar relationship to the English-speaking world. It is perceived not only as an Israeli Hebrew-speaking state but also as having a very special relationship with the United States and to a lesser extent with the UK, and it may be that this is what the choice of language symbolises. Frank Knowles: It was explained to us that Queen Beatrix is extremely circumscribed as to what she can say. This could create a tension when she is asked to say something she would rather not say or when she is prevented from saying something she rather would say. In other words, in my view the Queen herself hasn't got any ownership of that speech. Julian Edge (Aston University): When you ask in whose name the Queen is speaking, you have a problem. What hit me when reading the speech was first of all the representation of Holland by the Queen. Then, towards the end of the speech, there is quite a dramatic shift: she is representing the European Union, and a very clear political position vis-à-vis Israel is articulated. Titus Ensink: In my paper I have formulated the hypothesis, that especially for the passage that you are referring to, the Dutch government is liable, although I am sure that you will not get any official acknowledgement of such a hypothesis.

< previous page

page_70

next page >

< previous page

page_71

next page > Page 71

In contrast, Queen Beatrix herself has had more influence on the first part of the speech. Julian Edge: But it seems to me that while the voices change, the actual patterning of the text is very much one piece. There are matching patterns between the paragraphs of the first part and the paragraphs of the second part of the speech which have quite impressive coherence, even though the voices change. Christoph Sauer: I think that ownership is a very interesting question, because it can be looked at from different perspectives. We encountered enormous problems in getting the video recording of the speech. This is a form of ownership in a direct sense. Some heads of state prepared different speeches during the commemorative years 1994/1995 which they delivered on different occasions. In these addresses, some ideas were exclusively expressed by one particular politician. This is another way of claiming ownership of some topics. Maybe this is an old fashioned way to look at ownership and we may need new ways to account for the problem. But these are highly interesting questions: who owns a speech, or a language, or a topic? Speaker Intention and Effect/The Concept of Reformulation Titus Ensink: What happens to ownership once the media report on a speech? This brings me to another point: I think that there is circularity in Christoph's reasoning about discourse analysis of a speech and a speech having media impact. You have to prove that the orator is aiming at getting media attention and subsequent media discourse, but from the fact that a speech gets media attention, you cannot prove that it was the orator's intention to get it. David Pritchard (Aston University): I think that there is a general problem: when people look at discourse they do not always distinguish between what the intention of the speaker was and what the effect was. They tend to assume that the actual effect was also the intended effect. Norman Fairclough (University of Lancaster): When you speak of the impact of a speech, particularly in relation to media coverage, could you clarify again what you mean by 'reformulation'? Christoph Sauer: Concerning the question about impact and intention and proving the relationship, I would like to say that I differentiate between the pre-history, the history and the post-history of an event. This is a form of historisation of discursive events which helps us to analyse more complex discursive situations. But my aim was not to reconstruct the intention of the speaker. What I see as a discourse analyst is the text itself, e.g. the text of the media coverage. As discourse analysts, we are not looking at the intention of the speakers, but at the products. I relate what I can find in the text to situational contexts. The discussion in my paper on the shift from classical rhetoric to modern political communication is meant to make us aware of the complex processes involved here, and media coverage and embedding of quotations are nowadays part of the production and reception side of a speech. As a hermeneutic analyst I try to find some indications to establish what is involved. What I mean by the concept of reformulation is the intertextuality, or interdiscursivity, between the speech and the media coverage. If an address is oriented towards

< previous page

page_71

next page >

< previous page

page_72

next page > Page 72

media coverage, and if it is intended that certain passages will be quoted in news reports, then I call this reformulation. Reformulation is what journalists do and not what the speaker does. The speaker is stimulating reformulation but is not actually reformulating him- or herself. Eve-Marie Aldridge: I noticed in my research on political speeches that some parties distribute the speeches of their party leaders to the press with a front-cover giving a summary of that speech or highlighting the main points they wish the media to cover, which is a sort of pre-formulation of the reformulation. Julian Edge: President Reagan always had a person who came out to us and said 'what the President meant to say is . . .' Norman Fairclough: I felt that in the way you use the concept of reformulation you seem to be undecided between two things. On the one hand, the concept of reformulation seemed to suggest to me something like the notion of sound bites, that is an attempt to actually formulate after the speech in a way that can be taken over in the media with minimum change, for example in the headlines. I did not find much of that in Queen Beatrix' speech, I have to add. Your notion of brevity was also pointing in that direction. However, when you came to the speech itself, it struck me that your emphasis was actually on a different conception of deviation of markers. You pointed out that the first five paragraphs were descriptive but then, and I think you are right, there was a sudden change in Paragraphs 6 and 7, and you argued that the paragraphs stood out for that reason. It struck me that you seemed to be pointing to two rather different things, that's why I was uncertain what was meant by reformulation. Your comments now have clarified it. You said that it was not what the speaker was doing but what the journalists were doing. So my next question to you is what was the speaker doing to make the journalists do that? What's going on in the text that sparks off this process of reformulation by the journalist? Christoph Sauer: It seems to me that speakers already know what journalists are seeking, so they stimulate the search process amongst journalists. This can be done directly, for instance when a speaker says 'this is off the record . . .', or 'now this is very important . . .'. This emphasis is usually indicated phonologically, by modifying the voice. There are different ways to stimulate such searching processes. In Queen Beatrix' address, there are specific forms of signalling. In the first five paragraphs, the history of the Dutch and Jewish relationship for four centuries is mentioned, which is a distant description. At the beginning of Paragraph 6, there is an evaluation formulation 'During the most difficult years of the 20th century, which has been so filled with disaster, . . .'this is the first signal to the media that the shift is beginning. In the second sentence 'It is not necessary to call to mind here, in this place, the horrors . . .'now the topic is clearly established, and this is the second signal to the media. Then she begins anew by a description phrase: 'Most of our Dutch Jews were carried off to concentration camps . . .'. As a journalist seeking such quotations in order to put them in my news report, I have different signals where to find them. In Queen Beatrix' case, this is very distant. Other politicians, like President Reagan, do it sequentially, and so we can follow the sequences. If there was a sequence which was essential to a certain public, it can be put forward to the news reporter. Here

< previous page

page_72

next page >

< previous page

page_73

next page > Page 73

the signals are more indirect. But there are always clear shifts and signals that help the journalists to establish what the essential topic is. Titus Ensink: I wonder whether journalists need these signals. For example, when you consider media analysis, e.g. writings by Galtung and others, a question is: what does it mean to establish newsworthiness? You approach it from the text, but I think you might try a different approach. Take, for example, an average Dutch journalist who is accompanying the Queen on her visit. What is most novel in a speech for him/her? I mean most novel in its own right, apart from the way it is signalled or formulated. Christoph Sauer: Novelty functions as a signal too . What I did was to show the embeddedness of novelty, but novelty as such is a signal. All the things that are novel would be interesting to a journalist. Brevity and Topicality Norman Fairclough: I would like to ask Christoph where brevity would come in. You have explicated your notion of deviation, but you also seem to be saying that the speech had the qualities of brevity and topicality, but I do not see that brevity. Eve-Marie Aldridge: I can see topicality, in the sense of the whole subject of coming to terms with the past. A lot of documents are coming out that have been hidden for the past 50 years, and now some myths are blown up. If you have a skeleton in the cupboard, then it is better to open it up and say 'Oh, I had forgotten about it', than have your neighbour do it. The journalists have picked this up because it was an internal Dutch matter, but I think that they missed why it was in the speech in the first place. This is why you could say that the speech is going either in two different directions or that it is very coherent. Julian Edge: Perhaps that is not a case of 'eitheror'. There are different voices speaking to different addressees, and you can read different things into it. What I understood Christoph to be saying in this respect is that one of the strands here was particularly aimed at the home audience, and that, separate to anything specifically signalled in the text, the spin doctors were there to brief the Dutch press. That is, they would say something like 'Just listen to what she will say about. . .' and given they were listening to that, it was therefore necessary to have a clear and brief sentence in the speech, so that the Dutch press, having been briefed to watch out for it, could pick out the sentence in Paragraph 6 that said 'the people of the Netherlands could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow-citizens'. Norman Fairclough: But is it a matter of the properties of the text or of the pre-history, in that they knew there was something in there to look out for? Titus Ensink: In order to answer this we may have to speculate about how a journalist's mind works. Christoph Sauer: The German Bundestag President Jenninger was reproached for the way his text was delivered, and he had to resign. The reproach was that as a representative politician you have to take into account the possible media coverage of what you are saying, and this may indeed be very critical. But let me

< previous page

page_73

next page >

< previous page

page_74

next page > Page 74

add some comments on the aspects of direct contact in classical rhetoric versus mass media coverage in modern political communication. The features I listed in my paper, i.e. brevity, topicality and increasing frequency, are general statements on normal political addresses. Queen Beatrix is returning to a certain extent to classical rhetoric. She does not accept these forms of brevity, topicality and increasing frequency which politicians normally make use of. She returns to classical rhetoric and establishes the idea of direct contact'it is me who says so and it is me who is giving my voice to this topic'. She refuses to be a machine which is putting out political statements. She wants to affect and she wants to intervene in ongoing discourses, that's why she acts more in the way of classical rhetoric. However, it is only for this specific address to the Knesset that these three features are not applicable. Eve-Marie Aldridge: Yes, because she is not a politician. Her role is that of an ambassador, so the three features you mention as normally appertaining to political speeches do not apply here. However, she has to put a greater deal of phatic communion in the speech, and coax and cajole her audience in order to deliver the last part of her speech, which is a sort of moral indictment of the attitude of Israel towards its neighbours. Stephan Elspaß: It's also related to the text type, i.e. the speech being an epideictic address. You don't expect to find these features in an epideictic address, but you would expect them in other text types, for example in election campaign speeches. Norman Fairclough: But in your paper, you seem to be saying that in fact she is doing all those things, i.e. making use of brevity, topicality, increasing frequency, and also resorting to classical rhetoric. Christoph Sauer: Maybe I would say that her brevity depends on other speeches. By giving only a small amount of novelty to her speech, she has her own way of arriving at brevity. The same goes for topicality. And as to increasing frequency, she delivered several speeches during the past two years, and this is her specific way of establishing direct contact with people. In this way she gives a specific interpretation to this aspect of frequency which is necessary for a politician. Intertextuality Titus Ensink: Her 1994 Christmas radio address had some considerable impact on Dutch society because of one short passage in which the Queen said that the Dutch were used to thinking about the war in terms of right and wrong. But that is wisdom in hindsight, because at that time this was not so clear. But in saying this she actually paved the way to position herself as somebody who is able to calibrate the moral standards by which these very sensitive periods of history have to be measured. I agree with Christoph that she does not devote much space to this in her address, but she is not making these statements for the very first time, she has said so before, and that makes it recognisable. Christoph Sauer: In Paragraph 11 there is another quote from her Christmas address. She says 'Once peace is concluded reconciliation must follow'. This was a central statement in her 1994 Christmas address. For this statement she was awarded a prize, the Karlspreis, by the German president Herzog. In his laudatio,

< previous page

page_74

next page >

< previous page

page_75

next page > Page 75

Herzog quoted this sentence as an important contribution to peace and freedom in Europe. Establishing the concatenations of topics by giving her voice to them may be her specific way of managing both modern and old-fashioned forms of acting as an orator. Christina Schäffner: You know this because, as a Dutch person, you have the intertextual knowledge. But how would other people know that she is quoting herself when there is no explicit signal? Christoph Sauer: There are different signals, such as the strangeness of some passages, at least in the last parts of her address. In Paragraph 11 there is her attempt to describe the historical development. This stops at a certain moment because history has not yet been fulfilled, and then she starts to say something about the future. But this is not only saying something, but advising people what to do. Stephan Elspaß: I think this is where the concept of the multiple addressees comes in. She is not just addressing the Knesset, she is also addressing the Dutch people. They will recognise the sentence. Titus Ensink: I have already referred to the general 'we' that most speakers in these situations tend to use. 'We' is used to present moral statements of a very general character, hand in hand with a point of view belonging to just about everyone. This technique is used by the Queen too, but it can be recognised in other speeches as well. I think it is a technique which is typical of this genre of political speeches. Eve-Marie Aldridge: It gives you more authority: you speak in your name and in the name of all those people who are supposed to agree with you. But we are talking about Queen Beatrix as the representative of the Netherlands, when in fact she mentions the European Union several times. As one of the 15 heads of state of the European Union, she carries the weight of that community behind her, as well as being constrained by it on the political level in what she says. Christoph Sauer: And such constraints influence the formulations. Why is she saying 'Once peace is concluded reconciliation must follow'? Is this old-fashioned wisdom? Why doesn't she say 'we hope that you reach reconciliation with your neighbours'? In such choices of formulation you can prove not only the distance of the speaker, but also the control of intertextuality and the specific audience-orientation. Choice of Formulations in Relation to Intention and Effect Christina Schäffner: Consideration of the audience and their specific attitudes and feelings is certainly an important factor in writing a speech. I wonder whether you have any information about how the speech was received in Israel. What and how did the Israeli media report about the event? Christoph Sauer: We do not really have enough information about this. There were pressure groups in Israel, for example Dutch immigrants. But in general, this visit was not of much interest to the people of Israel. Titus Ensink: The speaker of the Knesset had some trouble in filling the room. Not all the Members of Parliament had come and so he had to find some retired

< previous page

page_75

next page >

< previous page

page_76

next page > Page 76

Members to increase the audience. Maybe they thought they had heard enough philo-Semitism in the Knesset. In fact, the situation was not really a difficult one for the Queen, but she herself made it difficult. If Paragraphs 6 and 7 had been left out, no one would have been really concerned. David Pritchard: Yes, because the speech is fairly inoffensive until Paragraph 6. It refers to what we have got in common, how friendly we have beennothing to upset anyone. And then suddenly a contrast, a change: the 'safe place' in Paragraph 5 is said not to have been a safe haven at all. Sue Wright: I am really surprised that the speech had such an impact. It seems to me to be a reaffirmation of traditions and a celebration of all the Dutch qualities and high moral standards. In Paragraph 4 she speaks of the 'safe haven' back in the past, in Paragraph 5 of 'Mokum, the safe place', in Paragraph 6 of 'courageous resistance'. Then there is the concession that these Dutch people were the exceptional ones, but she does not say that the others collaborated, but just that 'they could not prevent the destruction of their Jewish fellow citizens'. And then she goes on speaking about the support of the Dutch people for the Israeli state. Reading that for the first time it did not strike me at all that there is in fact criticism or recalibrating of what happened. That must be a dialogue which is going on within the Netherlands, and this is brought into the interpretation, or added to it. It is not really in the text. In the text, the Queen does not criticise the collaborators. Eve-Marie Aldridge: The criticism is easy to sense when you look at her formulations. She is using modals: 'they would eventually meet their death', and in the last sentence 'could not prevent'. This modalisation tends to attenuate the responsibility of the Dutch 'agents' regarding what happened to the Jews which a sentence such as 'they eventually met their death' or 'did not prevent' would increase. Titus Ensink: The whole textual environment is by implication rather negative. When you read on to Paragraph 7, we have 'in bewilderment and dismay', and then 'it is an urgent duty, not only for governments but also for every single citizen, to be on the alert and react without hesitation . . .'. The implication is that the Dutch were not on the alert, they did not react, but they hesitated. Sue Wright: But does this make them agents? The implication is they too were cowed by the evil. As a reader, these sentences do not strike me as an attack. Julian Edge: But if the field in which this appears is that 'we were the brave resistance fighters and we did everything we could', if this is the myth that people live with, then to raise this issue in this way is indeed a criticism. Sue Wright: But 'safe haven, courageous resistance, exception . . .' it's the Dutch within a greater whole. I think you could still read it in the sense of the 'Dutch as heroes'. Anita Fetzer (University of Stuttgart): But if we have a close look at the actual surface structure of the text and analyse it in a Gricean framework, that is to say, not just look at what is said, but also what is implicated, there is evidence that her utterance 'But we also know that they were the exceptional ones . . .' implicates, firstly, that we know something else. However, this 'something else'

< previous page

page_76

next page >

< previous page

page_77

next page > Page 77

is not explicitly stated in the text and has to be interpreted by the audience. This implicature is triggered by 'also'. Then there is a second implicature, more precisely, an entailment, triggered by 'the exceptional ones', which supports the previous claim. I think there are strong hints, especially when we take the cultural context into consideration, that the Queen was conversationally implicating that not all Dutch citizens were part of the resistance but that some were in fact collaborating. Had she delivered that speech in a purely Dutch context, almost every member of the audience would have detected this indirect criticism of the myth that all Dutch were heroes. Eve-Marie Aldridge: When I read the second sentence in Paragraph 8, 'The founding of the State of Israel was welcomed with great enthusiasm in the Netherlands', I thought it could be understood in two different ways: the Dutch were happy for the Jews who at last had found their own home, or the Dutch saw the potential departure of the Jews as a 'good-riddance' type solution to any problem which may arise between the two communities. Christoph Sauer: I hope to have demonstrated in my comments on perspectivisation in my paper, that it is extremely complicated to effect shifts in perspective. I think these shifts are done in order not to make it so explicit that she is blaming her own people. This is a very crucial message, not only from the point of view of media coverage, but also when you look at the content of the speech. It is given complicated perspectives by various means: by a historical description, by referring to general knowledge, e.g. saying 'we know that', by mentioning the visit to Yad Vashem, giving names, the signal 'but', and also by saying 'could not prevent' instead of 'did not prevent'. These are different aspects of a very dynamic perspectivisation, and this is done in order to make the criticism not so explicit, but to express it nevertheless. These two paragraphs function as an epideictic address within an otherwise structured address. An epideictic address gives people a chance to act and to react on norms and values even if there is a risk that this will be harmful. This is one of the ways why epideictic addresses are useful as an old-fashioned rhetorical address. And it was also very important for the Dutch media. Titus Ensink: The message concerns the Dutch self-image which the Queen represents, but at the same time she uses her position to make a correction. Eve-Marie Aldridge: She is using a historical perspective in order to put her point across, which may be that although the Jewish community was not as well received and treated by the Dutch as was currently believed, it is now really up to them to fight their own fight. Her emphasis is on what is happening now to the Jews who, if they want to survive as a nation-state, have to come to an agreement with their neighbours and stop the endless fighting, as the lessons of history show that such fighting can only endanger and possibly destroy Israel's existence. David Pritchard: It is partly in mitigation of the later demands that they make peace, but it is also what they are expected to doi.e. apologise. Representativeness and Power Theo van Leeuwen: It is philo-Semitism that really hits the nail on the head, it is

< previous page

page_77

next page >

< previous page

page_78

next page > Page 78

an essential component, and not just since after the War. There has long been a significant strand of neo-orthodox Protestantism in Dutch churches which attempts to re-judaicise the theology, and this is a very influential cultural strand. But let me raise another point. The speech has been characterised as a discourse which recalibrates consensus. But one could still ask in which way it is representative. Is it representative in the sense that it is merely clinching a process of discussion and negotiation which is taking place in society, and the Queen as a representative voices the consensus. Or, on the other hand, does the speech itself readjust political opinions? In the latter case, it actually has power, i.e. the discourse is not only representing something but it is a powerful discourse. Or is it something in between, i.e. it is representative but at the same time it has power? This is something we can see in other genres too, in Media Discourse for example, where the journalists have to constantly reinforce their representativeness. For example in political interviews, the questions a journalist puts to a politician have to be voiced as questions that are representative of the public. We need to ask what this representativeness really is and what forms it takes. Titus Ensink: In dictatorships, for example, the dictator can make his words representative, just on the basis of his power. But here we are talking about situations where power is not that strong. Let's consider the Jenninger case againhis political position as Bundestag President made him representative. He failed with his speech, and within one day he had to resign because he had failed in his representative action. Queen Beatrix is in a position in which she has some moral power, and she has also some political influence, but she does not hold formal power within Dutch society. So when you are asking about the relationship between power and representativeness, I think that representativeness is first of all found in the official position or function. It depends on the quality of the incumbent of that function, i.e. how he or she fulfils it, whether this function also gets some moral authority. Queen Beatrix has succeeded in becoming an undisputed monarch, she has succeeded in delivering a lot of speeches that were fully accepted by the Dutch people, she has succeeded in obtaining an authority which backs up her representative function. The Queen has a position in which she has to prove her representative authority time and again. Theo van Leeuwen: You have stressed the moral authority which in turn is built up through her being representative. But how can we account for the fact that she does not necessarily have the right to act solely on her moral authority? She has an accountability just like a journalist might have. Titus Ensink: Officially she has no room for manoeuvre, but in reality she does have room, as long as her ministers do not prevent her from using it. Theo van Leeuwen: But she has advisers, hasn't she? I find it difficult to accept that she can act quite as autonomously as you have depicted it. Are there no promptings, no meetings to discuss her speeches, what she is going to say? Titus Ensink: Your comment points to the problem pertaining to the position of a monarch in a democracy. Interestingly there has been a debate on this issue in the Netherlands because Queen Beatrix had consulted several advisers, also on the occasion of the visit to Israel. Some of them had been quoted in the press.

< previous page

page_78

next page >

< previous page

page_79

next page > Page 79

There was a debate on that, and some people, one of whom was the Dutch Prime Minister, took the position that advisers should not reveal in public what they say to the Queen. Others argued that the Queen should be open to public scrutiny and control, otherwise there would be the possibility of an anonymous group of advisers having considerable influence on public affairs. David Pritchard: However much influence advisers may have on the content of a speech, I imagine that these speeches are put together firstly with a view to what journalists are likely to say, and then secondly to what public opinion might think. And also when journalists are writing about a speech, they have to consider what other people might think of what they have written. So no-one really is ever in contact with public opinion as such, I think it's more journalists' opinions presented in a specific form. And I think this must be the primary consideration for people who give advice as to what to say in a speech and how. Theo van Leeuwen: Public opinion is often expressed by the use of 'we', formally indicating that a speaker is not speaking for him- or herself, but rather for 'us', i.e. citizens, or Dutch people, etc. Sue Wright: But thinking of representativeness: 'we, the nation' or 'we, public opinion', these are two different things. 'We, the nation' is a fabrication, something which the power elites are constructing, and this is an ongoing process. People are socialised into 'we, the nation', especially through education and the media. Christoph Sauer: When we speak about representativeness and power, we have to make a distinction between political power, economic power, and other concepts of power. When Queen Beatrix succeeds in establishing herself as an important political voice for the Netherlands, then she gives a certain power to the institution of the monarchy. For example, once every four years, after the elections, the Queen, or King, is responsible for starting the negotiations for the formation of a new government, and this is a direct way of exercising political power. I think the fact that she uses English in the Knesset may be a certain allusion to economic power. Using English as a lingua franca may be part of a globalisation process to which she contributes, in this case linguistically. Norman Fairclough: Titus, I noticed that in your table there are often question marks next to a 'we', and I was glad to see them. But you seem to focus on the different referents of 'we' and the oscillation between them. However, we should also focus on the notion that the scope of 'we' is often extremely vague and ambivalent. Titus Ensink: You have a point there. I have forced myself to do this analysis in the way I did it, and inevitably sometimes classifications are unnatural. However, it is better to do this than not to classify at all and just rely on impressions. Norman Fairclough: Sure, and in some cases the scope or referent is clear. But we must also realise that there are cases where the referents are vague, and I think one should say that the referent is vague instead of trying to pin it down. There is a danger in pretending that something is clear when in fact it isn't. Christina Schäffner: In some cases the referent is vague in that we have multiple interpretations. We have looked at speeches by John Major at the annual party

< previous page

page_79

next page >

< previous page

page_80

next page > Page 80

conferences, and there is a kind of merging of the referents, 'we, the Party', 'we, the government', and 'we, the nation' are blended and overlap so that you can't really identify one clear referent. I think this is a rhetorical move and also something typical of this genre. Titus Ensink: Christoph and I have analysed a speech by the German President Herzog in the same way. Herzog was addressing the Poles as a representative of the German nation who, during the Second World War committed crimes against the Poles. He starts with 'you and I' and 'I'm here in order to reach out my hand to you', and at the end of the speech he says 'I bow my head and ask forgiveness for what we have done' i.e. 'we, the Germans'. In the middle part of the speech, however, Herzog uses 'we' in a more general sense, he is actually merging the referents, for example 'we regret the war', this is 'we and you', and not only 'we the Germans' and 'you the Poles' but also 'all we people'. You are right, it is vague, but it is also rhetorically more effective, since it invites all people to identify with what is being said and feel represented by it. I think that such a classification of personal pronouns is an important indicator of the position the speaker is actually taking. Julian Edge: Titus, I would like to ask you about your analysis, particularly where the Foreign Office position comes into the address. If one looks at that voice, that message, perhaps there is more coherence in the whole speech than one sees if one focuses only on that part of the message which is addressed to the Dutch people. Paragraph 1 starts with the mythological, and then it continues into the historical, more or less up to and including Paragraph 9. Paragraph 5 says, 'We are the same people', and Paragraph 9 repeats the notion of being the same people. Then we get a temporal marker 'now' at the end of Paragraph 9: 'now that Israel . . .'. This 'now'-situation is linked to the discourse marker 'Mr Speaker', and this signals a shift of focus onto the problem we are faced with in the current situation. In Paragraph 11, 'we' is used to denote the European Union which wants to make suggestions, and the question that is repeatedlyalbeit implicitly posed is now, 'Are we Israel and the EU the same from these perspectives?' The three issues in Paragraphs 11, 12 and 13the need for reconciliation, the need to put behind one the hindrances listed here, i.e. the problems with neighbouring countries, and the need to adhere to democracy are singled out as issues which the countries of the European Union once faced, and which Israel faces now. Will Israel respond in the same way? For me this is the dialogic aspect of the speech, and ties back to the problematic Paragraph 7, which steps out of the historical review. It is here that the speaker first of all raises the issue of remaining vigilant against new forms of discrimination, xenophobia, and racism in Israel itself. These three points are raised again in the last paragraphs, but in the context of the need of reconciliation and the commitment to democratic solutions. What I found bizarre in the first reading is to which lengths the Queen went to play up those elements of sameness in the opening paragraphs. It was only when I got to the end of the speech when I realised that it was rhetorically necessary if one intended to use that sameness later as the basis for a kind of a challenge. Titus Ensink: But let's say that a head of state addresses the Dutch Parliament

< previous page

page_80

next page >

< previous page

page_81

next page > Page 81

and says that the only solutions for the Netherlands would be democratic solutions. I think that would cause a scandal. Here that did not happen. Eve-Marie Aldridge: Why would it cause a scandal? Titus Ensink: Because of the implication that non-democratic solutions are relevant, are being considered. Eve-Marie Aldridge: But this is not what she says. Christoph Sauer: But this is the implication. Speaking in this way does not make any sense. Eve-Marie Aldridge: It does make sense if you look at the way the international community looks at Israel. Israel is often and strongly criticised for its actions. Christina Schäffner: But are you allowed to do this as an outsider? Is it not interference in internal affairs? Eve-Marie Aldridge: She is very complimentary to the Knesset because she has a hard message to pass on. It could be called interference in Israel's internal affairs, but remember that Israel has been making representations to become a member of the European Union. It is already an official member of the 'Espace francophone', although French is not an official language in Israel. Queen Beatrix may well disguise a sort of message related to the price to pay for entry into the EU. Anita Fetzer: What is very important in the framework of analysing political discourse it to explicitly take into consideration the heterogeneity of the audience. The 'you' referring to the audience really ought to be differentiated with regard to the political views of the audience. It could have an inclusive and an exclusive reading. And in the Knesset, some of the audience are in favour of the policy of 'peace for land'. For them, it would actually be a very positive comment. Titus Ensink: My own interpretation is the following: If you look at my Figure 1, and if you interpret this sentence in the horizontal box, then it can be seen as insulting, but not really if you put it in the vertical boxthe Knesset representing the State of Israel at present. We know that there are right-wing extremists and Palestinian extremists, and both are threatening democratic processes. Therefore Israel as a State has to follow the path of democracy and these extremist forces must not come to the foreground. If that is the message it may be acceptable. But after my initial reading of the speech I was a bit confused, and I was just wondering how you might see it. The first time I read this, it struck me as very peculiar and potentially insulting to say within a Parliament 'the only solutions for your country are democratic solutions'. Eve-Marie Aldridge: What she is saying as well is that anti-Jewish sentiment always arose when there were non-democratic powers in the countries concerned. If the same is allowed to happen in Israel, then this would be the end for that country. David Pritchard: Is this not quite a common device? For instance, when Clinton visits Yeltsin he may well say that the only way forward for Russia is through democratic reform, even though he knows that half the people in the room may be thinking otherwise.

< previous page

page_81

next page >

< previous page

page_82

next page > Page 82

Contextualisation Theo van Leeuwen: I would like to add the aspect of contextualisation. Your analysis is mainly an analysis of the discourse, the genre. But I wonder if it is possible to link up this analysis of genre with an analysis of how a particular issue is constructed in discourse, for example by asking which ideas are connected with which discursive techniques. Titus Ensink: I have no ready-made answer to this. If you look at just one case, you have of course a simple and isolated case which leaves too many questions open concerning which approach you should take and what is specific for the operation of the genre. Theo van Leeuwen: In discourse analysis, we can make two kinds of choices. As analysts of texts that are important in society, we can start by looking at speech acts in studying a political speech and naturally veer towards the issues you want to highlight in the discourse, in your case, for example, the issue of the Second World War or of anti-Semitism. On the other hand, we can also take the whole issue of, let's say philo-Semitism or anti-Semitism to see how it is treated in other texts or genres from the same period. These two approaches would highlight different things, they would provide us with different kinds of knowledge, but, of course, both are important. Titus Ensink: It depends on what you want to find out, and in this sense it is a matter of choice. Speaking for myself, I came into this particular field by chance, namely via the Jenninger speech. I decided to analyse it more systematically because I was amazed at what I intuitively felt to be there. A few years later, having looked at more instances of this genre and linking the analysis to my original background as a linguist, I have made the choice to focus on language behaviouri.e. to find out why these speeches are constructed the way they are, and how we might explain the effects they apparently have. However, I fully agree with you when you say that you can look at a speech from different perspectives. And by combining them all, we will get a fuller picture of what is at stake. You mentioned that most of the speeches we analysed are concerned with war or anti-Semitism or colonialism. This is true, and there are patterns that relate to particular human groups, or to nations who waged war against other nations, as well as to theirsometimes problematicrelationships today. Such general themes are related to the discoursal situations which we have decided to focus on, i.e. epideictic addresses. Other analysts may not be interested just in a few speeches, but rather in the management of international relationships. But then again, you may see that discoursal actions have a great impact upon international relations. Let me just illustrate this by referring to President Walesa's commemorative speech on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Warsaw uprising. Although in 1944, the Germans were the factual perpetrators, the Russians were 'passive' perpetratorsthey refused to help. In his speech, Walesa refers to just one event in the post-war period, namely the former German Chancellor Brandt, on the occasion of his visit to Warsaw in order to sign the Oder-Neisse treaty in 1970, falling to his knees in front of a monument. Walesa said to the representative of Germany: 'There is a long way to each other across a sea of blood'. Then he

< previous page

page_82

next page >

< previous page

page_83

next page > Page 83

continues 'Glory to those who knelt down in Warsaw. It was an important and significant gesture on the way to reconciliation of our states and nations'. This one action is singled out as being decisive for reconciliation. This can be explained as a kind of intersection of discursive events and of the way that people and nations feel about each other. Rhetoric and Critical Discourse Analysis Christoph Sauer: What is also important in discourse analysis is that not only the discursive representation of, for example, racism can be analysed, but also the situation of the analyst has to be taken into account. One of the essentials of discourse analysis, and especially Critical Discourse Analysis, is that the analyst her- or himself is part of the analysing process. For example, how can racism be avoided in society? Not only by saying that it is forbidden to be a racist, as Queen Beatrix did, in a rather pedagogical way. We have to find out more intelligent ways to avoid being racist, while at the same time we have to be able to act upon differences. In racist discourse, differences are directly linked to values. But we have to learn not to make such direct links. I am pleading for paying more attention to rhetoric because in public speeches we can see how different genres come together in one discourse. If we want to discuss political questions that concern our socio-cultural practices we have to learn to argue effectively, because the truth about a society and its values does not reveal itself. There has to be a voice which tells the truth, there has to be a text which links the truth to the situation, the addressees, etc., and in my view rhetoric is the best way to account for all these aspects. Norman Fairclough: I would link those comments that you have just made to a failure we often see in critical discourse analysis for people to reflect on their own relationship to social movements, on their own social positioning. That is, a tendency to act as if one was speaking as a critical analyst only out of the academy, in a kind of social vacuum, so that one could pontificate without reflecting on the basis of what one is saying in the relationship between the academy and social movements. Rhetoric may be a way into this, but I would look into it institutionally. I think you are raising a serious criticism about critical discourse analysis, but one which has been raised within the discipline, i.e. critical discourse analysts are aware of it. I would also like to say that I would agree with Christoph that there is room for both rhetoric and critical discourse analysis in analysing political discourse, as he argues in his paper, although I would draw a different line between them. I argue about this more extensively in my written reply. Actually, I find more critical discourse analysis in your paper than I think you are conceding. The discussion concerning the two tables in your paper is, I think, a very interesting illustration of the changes in the political world and the changes in the world of discourse. However, I would argue that your analysis in this section specifies the conditions for modern rhetoric, but it is not a rhetorical analysis. You are actually characterising, what I have called the order of political discourse. Christoph Sauer: My idea of political communication in the form of political speeches is that they are essential in bringing collective norms and values to the

< previous page

page_83

next page >

< previous page

page_84

next page > Page 84

people. I found it essential to pay more attention to this genre of political speech where old and modern forms of addressing people merge, and so I made use of rhetorical means. When you say that the analysis is in fact a modern discourse analysis, and not a rhetorical one, this means that this shift from classical rhetoric to modern political communication requires a methodological shift from rhetorical analysis as assigning categories to portions of a text to discourse analysis. This shift to discourse analysis is very logical, in my mind. All rhetorical analysis is categorical analysis. There are elements and they are assigned labels, and you end up with a large number of labels, but what do you actually do with them? You can describe political discourse from various dimensions, e.g. from a stylistic or ethical dimension, but the complex form of political communication also needs some in-between levels in order to analyse the texture of the text. That's why I have made use of rhetoric, poetic, stylistic and other means which I find necessary in this context. In order to analyse the full potential of the text it is my firm belief that it is necessary to fit rhetorical analysis into discourse analysis, although there is no sharp division between the two. Frank Knowles: If you take the position of classical rhetoric, you would find a closed set of figures to which various manifestations in discourse need to be assigned. In the other case, however, you are free to create a label ad hoc,you have an open set of labels. Of course the systematisation and rationalisation has to occur later. But it gives you great freedom, although the utility of that needs to be measured. Christoph Sauer: It is not my intention to create new labels. In classical rhetoric much work has been done and there is a sophisticated system of categories, so why not make use of it in analysing actual texts. It is sometimes necessary to find new labels, but if the labels of classical rhetoric are working, I'll use them, although not in a mechanical way. Eve-Marie Aldridge: There isn't a lot of difference between the way people try to manipulate people now, even with modem technology at our disposal, and the way they did it thousands of years ago. To me, the division between for example singularity and processuality seems a little dubious. You could look at the classical rhetoric classification and enlarge it to take into account today's media, but essentially I do not feel that there is much difference between yesterday and today. Paul Chilton: I wonder if the distinction between classical rhetoric and modem political communication isn't a bit exaggerated, and there is also a slight confusion of the categories. The classical rhetoric column in your table is based on the descriptive rhetoric of Quintilian, Cicero, etc., whereas the modern political communication column appears to be describing what you perceive as actual communicative processes. Are these not different things, descriptive frameworks on the one hand, and real life situations on the other? What we are really looking at are social differences. Communicative practices that people employ are a function of their social relationships. There may well be continuities between ancient Greece and Rome and present-day Europe, and there may also be discontinuities. Christoph Sauer: It is more complex than just a combination of continuity and

< previous page

page_84

next page >

< previous page

page_85

next page > Page 85

discontinuity, but my distinction may be a bit artificial. I do not start at the descriptive stage of classical rhetoric. I start with the ontological stage, with Aristotle. In the column on classical rhetoric, I present a model of a speaker in a situation where there is an actual audience, and not only a description of the text. This model of political communication in Antiquity is contrasted with modern political communication in order to find more points of view from which we can do our analysis. In the case of Queen Beatrix, I have highlighted some of the cells in order to show that a lot of both older and modern means are employed, and this is a bit artificial, I have to admit. Eve-Marie Aldridge: This is certainly useful to start with, but what I fear is that, generally speaking, by doing this we tend to reduce the impact of the old system as opposed to the new one, and in a sense it seems to me the wrong way of looking at it. I would like to see more continuity. Christoph Sauer: But what is the right way of looking at it? To say that even now the same structures exist in discourse as existed hundreds or thousands of years ago? I would invite you to take into account that even if we can ascribe such a set of rhetorical categories to actual discourse, we still have to work out the impact of the text or discourse, how it is linked to audiences and other discourses, why is has the textual structure it has, etc. We have to go further when we are doing discourse analysis.

< previous page

page_85

next page >

< previous page

page_86

next page > Page 86

Rhetoric and Critical Discourse Analysis: A Reply to Titus Ensink and Christoph Sauer Norman Fairclough Centre for Language and Social Life, University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA 1 4YT I agree with Christoph Sauer that there is space for both rhetorical analysis of political discourse and CDA of political discourse, but I want to draw the line between them rather differently. Sauer suggests that in the speech analysed there is both an attempt to persuade and an attempt to reshape discursive practices to offer Dutch people a new discourse for talking about Dutch Jews in the Second World War. Hence he suggests we need to recognise the heterogeneity of such a speech, that it mixes the paradigms of classical rhetoric and modern political communicationand so we need both rhetorical analysis and (critical) discourse analysis. I feel comfortable working with a contrast of roughly this sort though I would word it differently. I would say that in any analysis of discourse we need a double orientation, to (a) the specificity of the particular discursive event, to what is particularly being done here and now; and to (b) the relationship between the particular discursive event and the order of discourse. By an order of discourse I mean the structured set of discursive practicesof different discourses, and different genresassociated with a particular social space, which may be defined at varying levels of generalityParliament, television, politics, even society (Fairclough, 1992). The discursive event of the Queen Beatrix speech is doing persuasive work, but at the same time is according to Sauer's account intervening in the existing Dutch political order of discourse to try to reshape it. The two orientations I am suggesting are not strictly separate: orientation to the specificity of the discursive event includes orientation to how it reworks the social resource of the existing order of discourse; but it also includes the concerns of stylistic, pragmatic and rhetorical analysis. I see CDA in this perspective as concerned with mapping connections between texts and the social order, via the mediating concept of order of discourse. An order of discourse is a specifically discursive take on the social order. I should say that CDA is not a single position but a family of positions liable to rather sharp family squabblesand it's changing over time (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997). Sauer's characterisation of CDA strikes me as a mixture of accurate observation, critiques which are accepted by significant sections within CDA, and stereotype. A critical perspective on discourse is for me a perspective which is concerned with showing up often opaque connections between language and other aspects of society and culture. I am particularly interested in how changing discursive practices relate to wider processes of contemporary social and cultural changee.g. in discursive aspects of the marketisation of domains of social life which were until recently kept at a distance from markets, like education. So it is not just ideology critique.

< previous page

page_86

next page >

< previous page

page_87

next page > Page 87

From this perspective, I find more CDA in Sauer's paper than he concedes is thereI might even provocatively say more CDA than rhetoric! The whole of the second section of the paper is taken up with an interesting discussion of recent change in the political order, and change in the political order of discourse. The analysis in this section specifies the conditions of modern rhetoric, but of course it is not in itself rhetorical analysis. In so far as it is analysis of the shifting political order of discourse, in my terms it falls within CDA. I want to engage with some of Sauer's points in this section in that spirit. I wholeheartedly agree with Sauer's claim that given the specific intertextual properties of contemporary political discourse, selecting just one text out of (the) wide range (of text types in use) would be quite unsatisfactory, because we would not be able to conclude anything about, for example, the rhetorical quality of the text. I see this on the one hand as harmonising with my claim earlier that we need a double orientation in discourse analysisto the specificity of the discursive event, and to the order of discourse including a locating of the texts under analysis within the configuration of text types (in Sauer's terminology) which constitute what we might call their intertextual horizon. The way Sauer locates and problematises the commemorative speech as a particular sort of epideictic address within the contemporary order of political discourse is exemplary for this dimension of analysis. On the other hand, Sauer's emphasis on the processuality and sequentiality of contemporary political discourse fits in with the thought I have recently been turning over that the unit of analysis for contemporary political discourseand indeed other types of discourseshould not be the text (as in classical rhetoric) but what I have called the intertextual chain (Fairclough, 1992). An intertextual chain is a series of text types which are regularly and systematically linked and characterised by more or less regular transformational relationships and recontextualisations across the text types. For instance, as Sauer points out, the individual political speech is no longer the politically important unit, it is the series which connects the speech to media reports of it, to other speeches or interviews or statements produced in response to it and their own media reportage, and one might add to the potential recontextualisations of speech and reports in for instance ordinary conversation but also in types of media discourse which are not necessarily per se political in a direct sense. What this orientation to intertextual chains highlights for me which I find missing from the Sauer and Ensink papers is that the analysis of political discourse needs to attend to the boundaries and flows between political discourse and other adjacent orders of discourse. Sauer comments at one point that the attempt by discourse analysts at linking discursive practices to wider sociocultural structures in fact denies the independence of politics. As I think Sauer's account in the second section already begins to suggest, contemporary politics is less and less independent. Social and political theorists have pointed to the increasing difficulty in demarcating the political. For instance, politics increasingly overlaps with media, and through the mediation of media, with everyday life. This is not to deny any specificity to the political or political discoursethey can and should be analysed as a partially separate domain as Sauer does. But we also need to recognise that so to speak the shifting inside of the political order of discourseits shifting internal economycomes out of its shifting articulations

< previous page

page_87

next page >

< previous page

page_88

next page > Page 88

with other orders of discourse, its shifting outside (Fairclough, 1995). Moreover, analysis of the political order of discoursea necessary complement as I have been suggesting to analysis of particular political discursive eventsalso needs to focus on a major schism within the political order of discourse between the discursive practices of official, central, national politics, and the discursive practices of what Ulrich Beck calls subpolitics, grassroots politics (Beck, 1995). Let me also bring in here Ensink's statement that 'although some critical linguists might claim that any use of language may be considered political, in the sense that ideology or world-view is involved, I will restrict the term political speech to language used by politicians, i.e. the people who are professionally involved in the management of public affairs'. Ensink's criticism is well-taken: to say everything is political is to say nothing is political, so we do need to focus upon the specific social domain of the political. However, with two provisos. The first as I have already suggested is that we should not reduce political discourse to the discourse of professional politicians as Ensink suggeststhat would be to arbitrarily cut out the dynamism of politics and political discourse. The second is to recognise that the limits of the political are socially constructed and open to reconstruction, and that we can correspondingly perhaps recognise discourse as political in two senses (I owe this suggestion to Erzsébet Baràt, University of Szeged): (a) in that it belongs within the terrain which is currently constructed as the politicaland since this will be a disputed terrain, political discourse even in this first sense is not awfully determinate, and (b) in that it is political in a more generic sense (which we would need of course to agree upon). Let me come to the analysis. I want to do no more than point to two analytical angles I would want to pursue from the perspective of CDA. The first is the heterogeneity of the speechbut heterogeneity in a different sense from Sauer's. The question that interests me is how Queen Beatrix manages the formal and ceremonial nature of the discourse while sustaining an informal communicative relationship with her audience and while managing the discourse of international diplomacy. Let me just refer to one sentence, in Paragraph 11: 'The breakthrough that was brought about by the visit of the Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to your land remains unforgettable'. 'Breakthrough', 'land', and 'unforgettable' belong I think to three different discourses, and their collocation here effects a slippage between diplomacy, ceremonial ritual, and ordinary lifeworld experience. It also illustrates what I said earlier about boundaries and flows between orders of discourse: the external relations between the order of discourse of politics and the order of discourse of the lifeworld are internalised in the collocations of this text. My second point can be introduced by focusing on the word 'land': in ascribing it to a discourse of ceremonial ritual, I am responding as a native speaker of British English to the rather archaic selection of this word to refer to a country rather than say, 'country'. But this speech was delivered by a Dutch woman in Israel. Is my British reading of it really unproblematic? and Sauer and Ensink's readings of it? doesn't something follow for our analysis of political discourse from the fact that so much political discourse is generated, distributed and consumed against the horizon of an emergent global order of discourse (Fairclough, 1996)?

< previous page

page_88

next page >

< previous page

page_89 Page 89

References Beck, U. (1995) Postmodern politics. In U. Beck, A. Giddens and S. Lash (eds) Reflexive Modernization (pp. 1-45). Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change.Cambridge: Polity Press. Fairclough, N. (1995) Media Discourse.London: Edward Arnold. Fairclough, N. (1996) Globalisation of discursive practices: Update 1996WWW address http:/ /bank.rug.ac.be/global. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In T.A. van Dijk (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. Vol. 2 of Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (pp. 258-84). London: Sage.

< previous page

page_89