الفهرس 
titleOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 243 |  |  |
| | | from | 243 | | |
Abstract
The aim of the present study is to show how Douglass manipulates the formal aspects of language to convince and control an adversary white audience. Thus, it analyzes the linguistic power markers of pronouns, lexicon, modality and pragmatic speech acts in four of Douglass’ speeches. It also presents the ideological and rhetorical strategies employed by Douglass to win over his white audience.
Theoretical Framework:
The thesis investigates language as a power tool within the framework of CDA (Van Dijk (1998), Fairclough: 1989). It draws on the ideological analysis of language relying on Thompson’s modes of operation (1990) and Halliday’s concept of Theme/Rheme (2000). The major analytical tools in the study are: Cohesion (structural and non-structural), Modality, and Speech Acts (Austin: 1962; Searle: 1969).
Data:
The data of the study consists of four of Douglass’ speeches delivered at different times for different purposes.
I. ”I have Come to Tell You Something about Slavery” (1841): Its purpose is to inform the white audience about a different side of slavery which they know little about.
II. ”The Free Negro’s Place is in America” (1851): Its purpose is to strengthen the free coloured people’s stance in America by refusing to be driven away from their ’native land’.
III. ”What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” (1852): Its purpose is to expose the American system which upholds and supports slavery. Douglass achieves this by reproaching and attacking the different institutions which encourage slavery.
IV. ”We Ask Only for our Rights” (1855): Its purpose is to fight for and justify the rights of the free coloured people in America.
Research Findings:
Douglass’ speeches are all goal-oriented; thus, he adapts his strategies to fit his audience’ acceptance and to serve his goals. Douglass’ mastery of the dominant discourse, his facility with rhetorical strategies, and his knowledge of the audience’s ideology enabled him to influence his white audience. He does so by using the same tools of white hegemony which sought to exclude and dominate the black race. Thus, Douglass is able to contest contemporary dominant ideology by employing the same ideological and rhetorical tools to expose and defuse the existing ideological distortions. His choice of strategies differs according to the situation and purpose of the speeches, where he stoops to conquer at times, or refutes prevalent pro-slavery arguments, or at other times he resorts to pathos and other ideological strategies. All of these strategies and maneuverings together with his linguistic and pragmatic tools serve Douglass’ anti-slavery goals. Thus, the linguistic elements employed by Douglass are a reflection of his ideological strategies adopted to control the audience. This can be summed up as follows:
First, linguistic power markers are manifested in the cohesive tools of personal reference and lexical collocation. While personal reference is manipulated by Douglass to establish the power relation between the participants in the speech situation, the choice of lexicon forwards the desired ideological goals. Thus, Douglass’ choice of antonyms serves to unveil and expose the social and racial dichotomy as well as the discrepancy between the white race’s words and their deeds; whereas his employment of synonyms and lexical collocation enhances his intentions by giving prominence of certain messages over others.
Second, parallelism also adds power to the speeches by foregrounding Douglass’ intended messages thereby broadening his audience’s awareness towards certain issues.
Third, modality is also related to power as it reflects the degree of the speaker’s authority as well as his degree of certainty towards what he utters. Thus, Douglass’ use of modal elements manifests his strategy of stooping to conquer which changes gradually from ostensible modesty to confidence with the progress of the speech. It also reflects the degree of power which Douglass portrays for himself.
Finally, language power is seen to appear in its ability to communicate more than what is stated by the speaker. Thus, Douglass’ skilful employment of speech acts is employed to persuade his white audience and to get them to change the status quo. The speeches comprise a network of assertives, commissives, expressives, and directives that work together and succeed in bringing about a social change. Hence, all Douglass’ speech acts are goal-oriented, i.e. they serve in forwarding the ideological strategies and in influencing the audience one way or another.
The preceding content is distributed in the following chapterization:
Chapterization:
The Introduction defines the historical and ideological setting of the speeches.
Chapter I sheds light on the main linguistic theories and terminology that will be applied in the analyses of the speeches in the following chapters.
Chapter II examines the structural development of the selected speeches and throws light on how Douglass used ideology to establish power as well as the methods of argumentation used by him in persuading his audience. It also illuminates the Theme/Rheme structures showing how Douglass manipulates the structuring of the message to obtain his desired goals.
Chapter III explores how Douglass’ use of pronouns and lexical items such as synonyms, antonyms and lexical collocation to establish power relations and to achieve cohesion in the speeches.
Chapter IV tackles the structural elements of cohesion (parallelism) illuminating its significant role in controlling the audience through rhythm and foregrounding.
Chapter V examines the role of modality in conveying and enforcing power and control. It reveals the intentions of the speaker towards what he is saying and his image of himself (powerful and modest).
Chapter VI adopts a pragmatic analysis of the speeches which is vital as it views language as a form of action and thus interprets it in the light of a series of goals and intentions. This chapter identifies the significant speech acts that produce a desired effect on the audience.
The Conclusion sums up the findings of each of the previous chapters drawing all the loose threads together.
The thesis has attempted to answer the question of how Douglass managed to transform the audience’s stance from pro-slavery to anti-slavery. In a nutshell, the language Douglass uses is a network of syntactic, lexical and pragmatic features that work harmoniously together to promote calculated reactions in his audience.