A C T A U N I V E R S I T Ä T I S L O D Z I E N S I S F O LIA LIN G U IST IC A 36, 1997
P iotr Cap
O N T H E P R A G M A T IC O R G A N IZ A T IO N O F J F K ’S IN A U G U R A L S P E E C H
1. INTRODUCTION
A s an y th in g in the U SA A m erican presidents are subject to variou s statistics. T h e one presented by “ C hicago T rib u n e ” in 1964 classifies Jo h n F itzg erald K en n ed y as the 5th best president in h isto ry , losing only to W ashington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Roosevelt. Interestingly enough, how ever, th e u p d ated survey am o n g h istorian s carried o u t by the m ag azine in 1984 brings som ew hat different results, the president occupying the 14th position.
H isto rian s generally agree o n the p o in t th a t K en n ed y ’s p o p u larity am o n g his contem poraries and the resulting overestim ating o f the effectiveness o f his presidency were n o t due to the quality o f the ad m in istratio n ’s policies (which actually b ro u g h t ab o u t the C u b an crisis and o th er intern atio n al tensions) but ra th e r to the presid ent’s com m unicative capacity [see e.g. P a s t u s i a k 1987].
T his p ap e r explores K e n n ed y ’s com m unicative skills from a linguistic perspective, th a t is, looks at how m essages are organized an d packaged linguistically an d, also im p o rtan t, how the speak er exerts his c o n tro l u p o n th e h e a re r’s u n d erstan d in g o f the conveyed in fo rm atio n . T h e in au g u ral speech has been tak en as d a ta source m ainly for its length an d universality. In o th e r w ords, I believe th a t a presidential in au g u ral m o n o lo g u e gives the sp eak er eno ugh tim e to develop a sequence o f ideas concerning th e situ atio n “ h om e and a b ro a d ” , fu tu re policies etc. Since th e range o f topics th e new p resident is supposed to raise is usually extensive, th e in au g u ral gives him a chance to really enact the leadership and win th e su p p o rt o f th e n atio n th ro u g h careful and coherent presentation o f solutions to problem s concerning p a rtic u la r g roups o f interest in the society and in th e w orld. In sh o rt then, the in au g u ra l speech con stitu tes a test o f the p re sid e n t’s ab ility to establish a link o f co m m u n icatio n betw een him and the n atio n expecting a clear, satisfacto ry list o f the lead er’s inten tions.
K en nedy was a m aster o f linguistic fulfilm ent o f the h earer’s expectations. H ow ever, a p a rt from p o in tin g to the “m essage acceptance fa cilitato rs” he used to ensure th e p o p u larity o f his prog ram m es I shall also m a k e an a tte m p t a t show ing th a t o n a m o re careful reading o f th e tex t o f th e in au g u ra l the “ facilitato rs” ap p e ar to tu rn into certain m an ip u lativ e devices w hose use seems to be su b o rd in ated to the idea o f raising th e degree o f vagueness o f the w ords used. T he im possibility o f recognizing som e prag m atic elem ents on the first listening to the inau gu ral an d , as we will see in a m o m en t, the lack o f linguistic analyses o f political speeches in K e n n e d y ’s times, w ould th en explain a t least to som e extent the m entioned discrepancies in K e n n e d y ’s degree o f popu larity over years.
A n o th e r, and perh ap s even m o st im p o rta n t objective o f m y stu d y is to p ro v e the very analysability o f political d isco urse/tex t in strictly linguistic term s. A lth o u g h it w as already F ran k lin D e la n o R oosevelt w ho consulted professional linguists while w riting speeches (NB: K en n ed y rarely did th a t), n o t earlier th a n in early 1980s were first attem p ts m ad e at co n stru c tin g descriptive analyses o f political language (for exam ples o f this k in d o f research, see e.g. Safire 1988, L a k o ff 1990, H in ck 1993). N o n e o f them , how ever, featured a study o f “m inim al u n its” o f a fo rm a tte d text, which som e co n tem p o rary linguists (e.g M a n n and T h o m p s o n 1983] ad v o c ate fo r d iscourse/tex t analysts. C o nsequently, I see this p ap e r as a co n trib u tio n to a system atic study o f w h a t P o l a n y i [1983] calls “ L arge Scale M o n o logues” o r “ L S M s” w ithin the area o f political language, th e analysis o f w hich, I believe, is capable o f exhibiting m an y interesting links betw een th e sp e a k e r’s m essage, its illocutionary force a n d , finally, the p ra g m a tic effect it exerts u p o n the hearer, w hose attitu d e s ultim ately determ in e the degree o f th e p resid en t’s p opularity.
I t is n o t easy to p ro p o se a self-coherent set o f criteria o f th e analysis o f a political LSM , fo r m ethodo logical reasons. T h e key problem here is th e d istin c tio n betw een th e n o tio n s o f “ d isc o u rse ” an d “ te x t” , w hich ap p e ars to be som ew hat vague in the co n tex t o f a situ atio n in w hich the sp eak er actually reads aloud an already p repared text. T h e general linguistic c o n tro v ersy over w hat the difference betw een discourse an d text really is d oes n o t facilitate the analysis, either. F o r instance, L ab o v (1972: 252) defines discourse as “ one utterance follow ing a n o th e r in a ra tio n a l, r u le-governed m a n n e r” (italics m ine). F o r B r o w n and Y u l e [1983: I] discourse is sim ply “ language in use” . S t u b b s [1983: 9], in tu rn , takes slightly m o re literary ap p ro ach , trea tin g discourse in term s o f “ w h a t is sp o k e n ” an d text as “ w hat is w ritten ” . T o com plete the im age o f the co n tro v ersy let m e finally q u o te H a l l i d a y an d H a s a n [1976: 1]: “ T e x t is any passage, spoken o r w ritten, o f w hatever length, th a t fo rm s a unified w h o le” (italics m ine).
T his p ap e r, fo r its su p ero rd in ate prag m atic fram ew o rk, analyses th e in a u g u ra l’s characteristics in b o th discursive and textu al term s. M y ap p ro ach is n o t ju s t the result o f the a p p a re n t linguistic co ntro versy discussed above; it ra th e r follow s the Searlian idea o f the close relatio n betw een tw o stran d s in p hilo soph y o f language: one th a t concen trates on the uses o f expressions in speech situ atio n s and the o th er th a t con cen trates o n the m ean in g o f sentences. A ccording to Scarle, “ they are strongly related because fo r every possible speech act there is a possible sentence or set o f sentences w hose literal u ttera n ce in a p articu lar co n tex t w ould co n stitu te a p erfo rm an ce o f th a t speech a c t” (1969: 19). In the case o f K en n ed y ’s in au g u ral the relation is em phasized by the fact o f perfo rm in g dicourse (th a t is, using language) based on text (th a t is, on a string o f sentences w hose con nectedn ess is overtly m ark ed by m eans o f p u n ctu atio n , division in to p a ra g ra p h s, etc.).
A ccom p anying the discussed difference in o pinion s on th e statu s o f d iscou rse/text is a general agreem ent am o n g linguists [see e.g. B o l i n g e r 1975; G r i m e s 1975, etc.] o n the p o in t th a t an analysis o f a m o n o lo g u e can only be carried out along the track delineated by its levels o f organization. I have decided to fo rm a t the text in to sentences (only in ra re cases do I deal w ith th eir internal stru cture), w hich are seen as basic “ c o n ta in e rs” o f the m inim al units o f co m m unication, th a t is, individual speech acts w hose analysis is supp o rted by the study o f relatio n al p ro p o sitio n s [ M a n n and T h o m p s o n 1983], topicality and cohesion/coherence w ithin p arag rap h s in w hich they occur. T h e in term ediate level o f the L S M ’s o rg a n iz atio n is a section, w hich, in the light o f the pragm atic ap p ro ach to the analysis, is referred to as Speech E vent [see H y m e s 1972]. T h e th ree speech events distinguished in this p ap e r arc ad dition ally analysed w ith respect to e.g. certain social psychology issues and rhetorical devices, w hich are occasionally po in ted to in the developm ent o f the p artic u la r section. F inally , th e three speech events are considered as auxiliary and p re p a ra to ry for th e em ergence o f one g lo b al/m acro speech act, expressing the general idea o f th e LSM . In o th er w ords, follow ing V a n D i j k [1977] it could be said th a t the process o f establishing L S M ’s m acro speech act requires the d eletio n o f auxiliary and p re p a ra to ry sequences o f speech acts and as we will see the m acro speech act identified in the final “ L et U s Begin A n ew ” section h as been distinguished exactly in this way (for the discussion o f now o bv io us re la tio n betw een th e theory o f global speech acts and th e th eo ry o f m acro ac tio n , see again V a n D i j k 1977: 232-245].
T h e full list o f criteria em ployed fo r the analysis o f th e in au g u ra l looks th en as follows:
- top icality (in the sense o f sim ply “ w hat a given p a ra g ra p h is a b o u t” ). - speech acts (individual).
- cohesion/coherence. - m etap h o r/sy m b o l. - nom inalizations. - rheto rical devices.
- social psychology theories applicable to the study.
A t this m o m en t I feel obliged to m ak e tw o p o in ts clear. F irst, I am aw are o f the fact th a t the provided set o f criteria m ay n o t be exhaustive; nevertheless, I consider it sufficient fo r draw ing conclusions w hich are in line w ith th e discussed objective o f this piece o f research. Second, alth o u g h som e o f th e c rite ria seem to be su b o rd in a te d to larg e r ca te g o ries o f textual/discursive evaluation (e.g. relational p ro p o sitio n s vs coherence), th eir in div idualization is supposed to stress the p articu larly im p o rta n t role they play in the analysis.
F inally, in the light o f the controversy over w heth er th e d eriv a tio n o f the illo cu tio n ary force o f an utteran ce finds its source in the successful realisatio n o f the sp eak er’s in ten tio n o r in the listener’s in te rp re ta tio n o f the u tteran ce [see e.g. A u s t i n 1962 vs. S e a r l e 1969] it should definitely be underlined th a t no analyst deprived o f the d a ta concerning th e im m ediate p e rlo c u tio n a ry effect o f th e L S M can ta k e full re sp o n sib ility fo r th e ab so lu te objectivity o f the study. In the case o f this p ap e r, how ever, a tte m p ts have been m ad e to raise the degree o f th e analy tic objectivity, m ain ly via co n tra stin g h isto rian s’ opinions on K e n n ed y ’s p erfo rm an ce [see e.g. G eo rg e K a t e b 1969; T h eo d o re D r a p e r 1969] w ith th e effects o f the research in to the actual text o f the in au g u ral (for exam ple, th e “ prom ises and w arnings” from the second section o f the speech have been identified as such p artly on the basis o f h isto rian s’ conviction th a t the p re sid e n t’s c o n tem p o raries stressed the co m b in atio n o f conciliato ry m o o d o f his speech w ith sharpness o f p artic u la r phrases used). Let it also be rem em bered th a t cases in w hich th e source o f th e illo c u tio n a ry force re m a in ed vag ue ultim ately gave rise to the hypotheses concerning m an ip u lativ e aspects o f the in au g u ral, th e discussion o f w hich has been in co rp o rated in to th is study.
2. I TAKE U P T H E T O R C H FO R A N EW G EN ERA TIO N AS T H E M A C RO S P E E C H ACT O F K EN NED Y ’S IN AU GU RAL
T h e three speech events co n stitu tin g the m acro speech act h ave been labelled as follows: W H A T W E A R E
W H A T W E C A N D O
L E T US B E G IN A N E W , the global speech act h aving been identified on the analysis o f the th ird section o f th e in au g u ra l via th e
deletion o f the auxiliary an d p re p a ra to ry sequences o f speech acts ap p e arin g m ainly in its first and second section. In o th e r w ords it is assum ed th a t K en n ed y w ould n o t have been able to convey the m ain idea o f th e speech b u t fo r the in tro d u c tio n o f a certain n u m b er o f relevan t p erfo rm ativ es into the p re p a ra to ry p a rts o f his perform ance.
T o avoid obscurity I refer to every sentence o f th e text only by its n u m b er in the developm ent o f the speech. T h e sam e principle ho ld s fo r p arag ra p h s; in this case, how ever, I use R o m an num erals (the text o f the in au g u ra l is provided in its full fo rm a t in the A ppendix). T h e italicised p a rts o f sentences em ployed fo r th e analysis o p erate only as m ark e rs explaining p artic u la r characteristics o f the text an d a p p e a r in paren theses, occasionally accom panying a b rief com m ent on the fu n ctio n o f a given frag m en t o f th e p ro g ressin g speech. A t places, th e choice o f tex tu al exam ples is highly selective (see e.g. N om inalization s), fo r it bases o n the degree o f im portance o f the w ord/phrase to the analysis w ithin the fram ew ork o f the criterion used.
T h e analyses o f the three speech events end w ith sum m aries w hich are m e a n t to reveal the prag m atic links and tran sitio n s betw een th e sections o f the inaugural.
2.1. Speech event 1: W H A T W E A R E (I-V ; 1-9)
2.1.1. Topicality
1; 1 -2 : cyclicity o f d em ocratic change in the h isto ry o f A m erica.
II; 3 - 4 - 5 : outline o f the w orld situ atio n , A m erican dem ocracy en dang ered . Ill; 6 - 7 : historical oblig atio n o f the U S A to defend h u m an rights.
IV; 8 (transitional): letting th e w orld k n ow the A m erican o b lig atio n. V; 9 (transition al): call for listening to the details o f “ w h at th e U S A have
to o ffer” .
2.1.2. Speech Acts
I; 1 -2 : assertion. II; 3 - 4 - 5 : assertion.
I l l ; 6: assertion; 7: d eclaratio n , indirect w arning (con ceptual in tro d u c tio n to the idea o f the m acro speech act).
IV; 8: d ec la ratio n , indirect w arning (in fact, in terpreted later by V ietnam haw ks as evidence o f K e n n ed y ’s determ ined C old W a r m in d -set, see e.g. D r a p e r 1969).
V; 9: conclusion, indirect in v itatio n to fu rth e r listening.
2.1.3. R elational Propositions
7-2; 3-4: reason (for; the chosen linkage p a tte rn is definitely in line w ith the descriptive ch a rac te r o f the tw o initial p a ra g ra p h s since it triggers the sp ea k er’s p re sen tatio n o f ex planatory b ack g ro u n d fo r stro n g claim s m ad e in I and 3; the ex trap o sitio n o f the conjunctive f o r m ay serve the p u rp o se o f attra c tin g the listener’s atten tio n ).
4-5: sequence (and; the second p a rt o f the text is u n d ersto o d to follow the first one; ela b o ra tio n w ithin 5).
6 - 7 : ju stificatio n (6 explicitly attem p ts to establish the ap p ro p riaten ess o f th e perfo rm an ce o f the speech act in 7; elab o ratio n : object (Am ericans) - a ttrib u te (born in this century...) w ithin 7).
7 -8 : ju stification .
8 - 9 : concluding re statem en t (sequence w ithin 9).
2.1.4. Cohesion - Coherence
4 - 5 : (linking c o n c ep t o f d an g e r: pow er vs at issue).
6-7\ (linking con cep t o f histo rical obligation).
6 -7 -8 : (im plicit tra n s itio n a l link: “ w h a t we a r e ” d e te rm in in g “ w hat we are read y to d o ” ).
2.1.5. Metaphor/Symbol
7 (a sym bolic use o f torch subordinated to the idea o f conceptual intro du ction to the full p erform ance o f th e global speech act).
8 (m eta p h o rizatio n fo r euphem istic purposes in p a y any price ... to assure the survival and success o f liberty; the expression h avin g been derived from the un derlying L IB E R T Y IS S U B JE C T T O P U R C H A S E concept, ca p ab le o f obfu scatin g the literal m ean ing o f th e u ttera n ce (give lives?)). 1 -2 : co n ju n ctio n (for).
3-4'. co n ju n ctio n (for). 4-5: co n ju n ctio n (and). 8-9: reference (this).
2.1.6. Nominalizations
1 freedom . 5 rights o f man.
8 liberty, all the expressions leaving th eir in te rp re ta tio n to th e listener, w ho m ay be tem pted to adjust the understanding to his/her ow n expectations).
2.1.7. Rhetorical Devices
7-8: (o rato rical, L incolnesque /ef-phrases, w hich the speaker ca n use n o t only for the p u rpose o f underlining the solem nity o f th e ocassio n b u t also fo r shifting his responsibility for the proposed actions, th u s avo iding any direct en actm en t o f leadership).
2.1.8. Social Psychology Theories Applicable To The Study
8 (... support any frien d , oppose any fo e ... expression m akes p a y any price ph ra se acceptable to the public, d u e to h u m an tendency to avoid m en tal d isso nance resulting from th e ju x ta p o sitio n o f u n q u estio n ab le vs q u es tio n ab le claim s (linearly presented w ithin the e n u m eratio n p a tte rn ), the la tte r ones being m a d e “ c o n s is te n t” w ith th e liste n e r’s beliefs (see consistency theories, F e s t i n g e r 1957).
2.1.9. Conclusion
T h e general idea o f the first section o f K e n n e d y ’s in au g u ra l speech is to present h istory-grounded spiritual im age o f co n tem p o rary A m erica th a t w ould justify the p re sid e n t’s conception o f fu tu re policies, m ak in g them seem n atu ra l in historical co ntext. In o th er w ords, the illocution ary force o f Speech E vent 1 facilitates the listener’s acceptance o f th e exposé o f “ prom ises and w arn in g s” th a t co n stitu te the p re sid e n t’s vision o f fu tu re and a ttitu d e to w ard s various “ interest g ro u p s” in the w orld.
T h e section seems to be divisible into tw o p arts. In the first “ descriptive” p a rt K e nnedy outlines hard ly questio n ab le beliefs an d values o f th e n a tio n , w hereas in the second “ feeling o f o b lig a tio n ” (to defend freedom , rig h ts o f m a n , in d ep en d en ce etc.) p a r t he g ra d u ally p re p are s a to p ical an d
in ten tio n a l tra n sitio n in to the second section o f th e speech, su b o rd in ated to th e necessity o f explaining H O W the U S A are going to defend w orldw ide th e ir sacred ideas o f liberty and h u m an equality.
T h e linguistic realization o f the Speech E ven t 1 in ten t ap p ears to be as follow s. K en n ed y begins the speech w ith a series o f assertions and highly descriptive topicality, su p p o rted by easy-to-follow cohesive fram ew o rk and ra th e r “ sta tic ” reason/sequence relatio n al p ro po sitio n s. H ow ever, once the o b lig atio n to act is first suggested {6-7), th e cohesion o f the text gives way to som ew hat com plicated in in ten t decoding stru ctu res o f coherence (8), perfo rm ativ e topicality appears, and ju stificatio n relatio n s co m b in ed w ith stro n g d ec la ratio n s/in d irect w arnings sta rt paving th e w ay fo r revealing “ w hat A m erica can d o ” to enact the oblig atio n im posed u p o n th e co u n try by its heritage.
A m o n g the textual devices w hich m ay seem attractiv e and com m unicable, bu t which arc in fact highly m anipulative there are m ainly nom inalizations and th e discussed m e ta p h o r, cap ab le o f lim iting th e listen er’s u n d ersta n d in g (consistency theory!) o f the speech to w hat suits interests o f th e sp eak er o p eratin g w ith the so-called “ vessel w o rd s” . Also em ployed fo r m an ip u lativ e purposes are /^/-phrases (responsibility shift) and cohesion/coherence im b alan ces (it seems logical to conclude th a t K en ned y uses cohesive stru ctu re s to sim plify the process o f decoding the m essage, w hereas his coherence often obfuscates the m eaning, which , as he can say at any m om ent, “is still th ere”).
2.2. Speech event 2: W HAT WE C A N D O (V I-X III; 10 - 26)
2.2.1. Topicality
VI; 10-12: A m erica will rem ain loyal to its old allies.
V II; 13-15: A m erica will n o t exert any colonial control over newly liberated states unless they d o n o t su p p o rt th eir freedom (in case o f com m u nistic subversive actions?).
V III; 16-17: G uided again by a sense o f h isto rical o b lig atio n to assum e responsibility for w orld affairs A m erica will help p o o r peoples help them selves (!) to elim inate the possibility o f civil w ars o u tb rea k .
IX ; 18-21: A m erica will initiate a new alliance f o r progress to en su re th a t the w estern hem isphere rem ains m aster o f its own house.
X ; 22: A m erica will su p p o rt the U nited N a tio n s to m ak e the o rg a n iz atio n act effectively.
X I- X II I; 23-26: A m erica is read y to begin anew- w ith those nations who w ould M A K E T H E M S E L V E S our adversary (!; ca p ita lisatio n s m ine
- m an ip u lativ e shift o f political responsibility) - m u tu a l quest f o r peace, no m ilitary concessions being offered. 26 (tran sitio n al) und erlines the necessity for cooperative actions w hose details are going to be presented in the final section o f th e inaug ural.
2.2.2. Speech Acts
VI; 1 0 -1 2 : prom ise, assertion.
V II; 13-15: prom ise, d ec la ratio n , indirect w arn ing (o f A m erican interference in the case o f being soft on com m unism ; historical analogy b ac k u p used fo r the p erform ance o f the act o f w arning; all th e speech acts im posed u p o n one addressee (!), expected in fact to follow the U S p olitical line). V III; 1 6 -1 7 : em pty prom ise, d ec la ratio n , m o tiv a tin g assertion.
IX ; 18-21'. prom ise, assertion, declarative w arning (recipients o f th e acts o f prom ise an d w a rn in g different).
X ; 22: prom ise.
X I- X II I; 23-26: p ro p o sal, indirect assertive w arning, persuasive conclusion in th e tran sitio n al 26.
2.2.3. Relational Propositions
10-11: m o tiv a tio n /re aso n .
10-12: m o tiv a tio n /re a so n (oversentential).
11-12: thesis-antithesis (tw o conceptions contrasted , K en ned y identifying with o n e and rejecting the other; the stru ctu re app ealing to th e listener as providing a clear-cut vision o f the w orld; thesis - antithesis also w ithin 12). 13-14; 13-15 (oversentential): elab o ratio n (abstraction : instance, a useful
schem e fo r creating an im pression o f being specific).
14-15: thesis - antithesis (but; elab o ratio n - ab stractio n : in stan ce w ithin 15, the sentence clearly violating the G ricean m axim o f m a n n e r fo r the in tro d u c tio n o f the sym bolic elem ent into the “ in stan ce” p a rt, com bined w ith “ highly” co h eren t them -those relatio n [consider the un clear statu s o f th e referen t o f those - does the p ro n o u n refer to p a st situ a tio n as th e d eclarative ch a rac te r o f the text m ig h t suggest o r d oes it serve th e p erfo rm an c e o f the future-oriented act o f w arn in g ?]).
16-17: m o tiv a tio n /re a so n (reason w ithin 16). 18-19: th esis-an tith esis (reason w ithin 18).
19-20: 19-21 (oversentential): e la b o ra tio n /so lu tio n h o o d (it seems strange th a t a so lu tio n h o o d - like p a tte rn com es first so late in the speech, for
its use benefits the speaker in term s o f triggering the listener’s conv iction th a t the speaking person is capable o f dealing w ith public problem s). 2 0 -2 1 : sequence (and).
22 (within): reason.
23 (w ithin): elab o ratio n - ab stractio n : instance; reason (before). 23-24: thesis - antithesis (quest fo r peace vs not ... weakness).
24-25: elab o ratio n - ab stractio n : instance (not ... w eakness vs arm s ... sufficient).
25-26: sequence (e la b o ratio n - ab stractio n : instance w ithin 26).
2.2.4. Cohesion - Coherence
1 0 -1 1 -1 2 -1 3 -1 4 : reference (we-we; states-them ).
14-15: re fere n ce/c o n ju n c tio n (we- -vve; but).
15 (w ithin): reference (if those is to contribute to future perform ative orientation o f directly form ulated m essage).
18-19: reference (this). 20-21: co n ju n ctio n (and).
22 (w ithin): reference (it - its), co n ju n c tio n (and).
23-24: reference (nations - them). 24-25: co n ju n ctio n (for).
15 (w ithin; provided th a t those is trea ted as a device fo r historical analo gy build up, aim ed a t c o n stru ctin g an indirect act o f w a r ning).
16-17: (free society - A m erica). 19-20: (hostile pow ers vs oppose
aggression or subversion).
23 (w ithin; nations vs both sides; this, coherence-based idea o f d i vision seems to be globally in coherent w ith the prevailing co n cept o f w orldw ide unity in co op eratio n).
24-25: (not ... weakness vs arm s ... sufficient).
25-26: (needs lo o k in g back fo r the iden tification o f “ b o th sides” ). 26 (w ithin; nations vs both sides).
2.2.5. Metaphor/Symbol
15 (including the concept o f tiger (w hose asso ciatio n w ith th e U S im age requires in fact reading the text) in to on e o f th e m o st com plicated p ragm atically (see above) segm ents o f the en tire speech raises th e degree o f vagueness o f the w ords w hich are norm ally supposed to e lab o rate
on the preceding p a rt o f text carry ing general in fo rm atio n . A lso, th e use o f the sym bol forcefully in trod uces the en u m eratio n o f capabilities o f the A m erican superpow er).
2.2.6. Nominalizations
1 2 -1 3 : (the units challenge and iron tyranny seem to lack som e agentive e la b o ra tio n , typical o f e.g. verbal co n stru ctio n s (“T h e Soviets challenge u s...” ) th a t usually co n trib u te tow ards clarification o f the link betw een the agent and th e experiencer).
2.2.7. Rhetorical Devices
11-12: (parallelism for o ra to ric al effect).
20-21: (let for responsibility shift and o ra to ric al effect).
V I-X I (initial repetitio n s o f to addresses for p ro d u cin g the im pression o f being organized and “ having everything u n d er c o n tro l” ).
25 (d o u b lesp eak fo r vagueness).
2.2.8. Social Psychology Theories Applicable To The Study
In the second section o f his inaugural K e nn edy produces a n u m b e r o f confusing addresses to opinion leaders (see th e “ tw o-step flow ” m o del o f co m m u n ic a tio n , L azarsfeld 1948) in p a rtic u la r c o u n trie s/th e ir po litical in stitu tio n s, letting them publicly d isto rt the m essage (consistency th eory) via selecting its highly “ p erip h e ral” in terp re tatio n s. Being th u s able to c o u n te r any u n d esira b le in te rp re ta tio n o f his vague lan g u ag e b o th in A m erica and on the in tern a tio n al scene, the president deprives h im self o f the c o n tro l u p o n the processed in fo rm atio n th a t is going to circu late ro u n d the territo ries referred to as “A m erican spheres o f influence” ).
2.2.9. Conclusion
T h e second section o f the inaugural is supposed to answ er the qu estio n how K e n n e d y ’s ad m in istratio n , burdened w ith its m o ral o b lig atio n , is going
to su p p o rt freedom and independence aro u n d the w orld. S im ultaneously, it is m e a n t to help the president en act his leadership via th e global, organ ized, forceful and clear-cut p re sen tatio n o f foreign policies, lead in g to th e conclusion th a t the o th er superpow er should also becom e engaged in th e co op erativ e process o f solving w orld problem s. T h e com m issive speech p a tte rn (enum eratio n o f capabilities) chosen fo r the p erform ance o f Speech E v en t 2 facilitates the process o f encoding th e discussed intent.
T o generate the illocutio nary force o f Speech E ven t 2 K en n ed y m ak es use o f the follow ing linguistic devices. E m ployed fo r creatin g the im age o f A m erican pow er are com b in atio n s o f prom ises an d w arnings, usually p ro v id ed w ith in the fram ew o rk o f th esis-an tith esis sequences (13 -15 ). T hese sequences play a n o th e r very im p o rta n t role, c o n trib u tin g to w ard s evok in g b lack -an d -w h ite p ercep tio n o f th e w orld o n th e p a r t o f th e listener (note the frequent use o f but) w ho finds co m fo rt in specification “ w h a t’s good and w h a t’s b a d ” an d also in h aving a lead er th a t shares his belief in universal tru th s (note the fact o f p resen ting them in sim ple language, based o n cohesive relations as in 10-12, 18-19). F inally, re m e m b erin g th a t the listen er ev alu ates th e p e rfo rm a n c e o f th e sp e a k e r o n the basis o f clear org an izatio n o f the speech and degree o f su p p o rtiv e detail, K en nedy develops a series o f topics th a t seem to satisfy all th e “ g ro u p s o f in te re st” ad d ressed , n arro w in g d o w n th e m essag e th ro u g h the use o f é la b o ratio n -ab stra ctio n : instance schem es, how ever m islead in g they m ig h t tu rn o u t to be (15; 2 4 -25 o r 20, w hich does n o t even n am e the hostile powers).
It can be observed th a t alth o u g h K en ned y freq uen tly reso rts to “ em pty p h ra ses” as in 11-12, the fragm ents o f the text w hich are addressed to th e represen tatives o f territories co n stitu tin g A m erican spheres o f influence are built w ithin coherence-based fram ew orks, capable o f obfuscating the em ployed m eanings, w hich in th a t case ap p ear in extrem e density (V II-V III). T h e in tersen ten tial coherence com es o u t again in its full shape to w ard s the end o f th e section, w here K e n n ed y feels obliged to fo rm u la te c o n c lu d in g d e c la ra tio n s (23~26\ n o te how the a p p a re n tly n e u tra l s ta te m e n t in 25 com bines w ith 24 to form an assertive w arning). T h e vagueness o f th e text seems to be achieved n o t only by the m an ip u lativ e use o f com plicated relatio n s o f coherence, b u t also th ro u g h dou b lesp eak (25), n o m in alizatio n s (12-13) , lack o f overtly-m arked statem ents o f u n d erta k in g resp on sibility (we p ro n o u n replacing the first p erson singular I), and u n clear sym bolism (15). Still, rem em bering th a t the discussed elem ents are h ard to identify on the first listening to (or even reading) th e text o f th e speech it should be concluded th a t fo r the reasons suggested in th e preceding p a ra g ra p h s the second section o f the in au g u ral brings K ennedy m uch closer to achieving successful linguistic im position o f the m acro speech act.
2.3. Speech event 3: LET US B E G IN A N E W (X IV -X X V II; 2 7-5 2 )
2.3.1. Topicality
X IV ; 27-29: to begin anew a series o f neg o tiatio n s based u p o n th e p rinciple o f m u tu a l sincerity and civility.
X V ; 30: to seek unity, n o t division.
X V I; 31: to establish w orldw ide control o f arms.
X V II; 32-33: to establish scientific and econom ic c o o p e ratio n betw een both sides.
X V III; 34: to unite efforts to give freedom to the oppressed in the w orld (L incolnesque q u o ta tio n from the E pistle o f S ain t P aul to th e R o m an s; last o f the eight consecutive sentences begun w ith let).
X IX ; 35: to c o n stru c t (on the basis o f c o o p e ratio n ) new w orld o f law and peace.
X X ; 36-38: com pleting the task needs decades, b u t tim e has com e to start. X X I; 39-41: all A m ericans sum m oned to “ begin” the course, their contribution
being decisive fo r its success or failure.
X X II; 42: specifying the course: a struggle against the com m on enem ies o f man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war (!).
X X III; 43-44: call fo r a global alliance ready to fight the com m on enem ies o f man.
X X IV ; 45-48: K e n n ed y ’s “ w elcom ing” his political responsibility, revelation o f a sense o f m ission ( / used fo r the first(!) tim e in the speech). X X V ; 49: idealistic call o n A m ericans to dedicate th eir actio ns to th e
benefit o f th e coun try .
X X V I; 50: call on citizens o f the world to jo in A m erica in all efforts to ensure w orldw ide freedom o f m an .
X X V II; 51-52: K e n n e d y ’s ad m in istratio n is read y to com e up to high standards o f strength and sacrifice, leaving the ev a lu a tio n o f its actio n s to fu tu re histo rian s an d realizing th a t on earth G od ’s w ork m u st truly be our own.
2.3.2. Speech Acts
X IV ; 27-29: p ro p o sa l, assertive w arnin g {sincerity....to p ro o f). X V ; 30: p ro p o sa l.
X V I; 31: p ro posal. X V II; 32-33: p ro p o sal.
X V III; 34: p ro p o sa l, co m m an d (in the light o f th e precisely arrang ed sentential context, w hich, d u e to the avoidan ce o f “ let us give freedom to ” co n stru c tio n , distances the U SA from th e im age o f th e “ o p p re sso r” , indirectly im posed u p o n “ the o th er side” ).
X IX ; 35: co nditioned p ro p osal.
X X ; 36-38: assertion (for underlining th e lead er’s sense o f h isto ry - co m p are th e first section o f the speech), proposal (declaration o f spiritual strength). X X I; 39-41: assertion (responsibility shift; activ ating the n a tio n th ro u g h the
im p o sitio n o f historical o blig atio n - com p are the first section o f the speech; p o ssible n egativ e p e rlo c u tio n a ry effect o f 41 alleviated by stressing the im p o rtan ce o f individual effort in leading th e cou n try ). X X II; 42: co m m an d (in the co n tex t o f the p erfo rm an ce o f X X I; use o f
a psychological technique for gaining public acceptability o f struggle against ... war idea - see th e oncom ing set o f com m en ts o n social psychology issues relevant to the analysis o f th e section).
X X III; 43-44: q uestion, indirect request.
X X IV ; 45-48: assertion, d ec laratio n , assertion (first o v ertly-m arked (/..) e n actm en t o f leadership in the speech).
X X V ; 49: co m m an d , indirect request (conclusion from III, X X I etc.). X X V I; 50: com m and, indirect request (conclusion from V II, X III, X V III etc.). X V II; 51-52: co m m an d , indirect declaratio n , concluding rh eto rical p ro p o sa l,
assertion.
2.3.3. Relational Propositions
27-28: elab o ratio n - ab stra c tio n : instance (circum stance w ithin 27 (let us ... - remembering...), th e relatio n arising w hen one p a rt o f text establishes a situ atio n , and the o th er p a rt is in terp reted w ithin o r relative to th a t situation).
2 7 -2 9 (oversentential): elab o ratio n - abstractio n : instance. 28-29: thesis - antithesis.
30-31: sequence (thesis - antithesis w ithin 30 (instead o f); reaso n w ithin 31 (and)).
31-32: sequence (thesis - antithesis w ithin 32 (instead o f)). 32-33: e la b o ra tio n - ab stractio n : instance.
33-34: sequence (reason w ithin 34).
35 (w ithin; c o n d itio n (if-let), e la b o ra tio n - a b s tra c tio n : in sta n c e (new endeavor - new w orld o f law), thesis - antith esis (not... - but...).
36-37: sequence.
(3 6 -3 7 )-3 8 : concession (the speaker acknow ledges in but let us begin the a p p ro p riaten ess o f one p o in t w hich d etracts from the o th e r p o in t m ad e in the preceding 36-37).
3 9 -4 0 : reason (co n ten t, i.e. idea o f “ o b lig atio n ” as the m ark e r)
40-41'. sequence (symbolic basis o f the relation {give testimony-graves = died)). 4 0 -4 2 (oversentential): sequence (w ithin ; do u b le thesis-antithesis (;not-though) as th e “ th e sis” c o m p o n e n t in th e su p e ro rd in a te thesis - a n tith e sis relatio n (n o t... - but...), do u b le elab o ratio n (process: step; ab stra ctio n : instance)).
43-44'. e la b o ra tio n - whole: p art.
45-46: circum stance ( history; thesis - antithesis w ithin 46 (...do not shrink from ... - ...welcome...) - contrast with previous implicit responsibility shifts). 46-47: e la b o ra tio n - set (the president represents the cou ntry): m em bers. 47-48: reason (elaboration - abstraction : instance w ithin 48 (endeavor-energy,
fa ith , devotion)).
49-50: (w ithin; concluding, stro n g thesis - antithesis; idealistic a p p ro a c h reaching the very peak, expressed w ithin “ b lack -an d -w h ite” fram ew o rk (“ I am telling you w hat you should d o ” a ttitu d e ) used as a vague- ness-based m essage acceptance “ fa c ilita to r” ).
51-52: sequence (ask o f us... - lead the land...).
2.3.4. Cohesion - Coherence
2 7 -28-29: reference (us-us).
30-31: reference (both sides-both si des).
34-35: reference (both sides-both si des).
35-36: reference (endeavor-this). 36-37: reference (this-it). 37-38: co n ju n ctio n (but).
43-44: reference (we-you (as p a rt Of W£?)).
45-46: reference (defending freedom - this responsibility - n o te the cla rity o f the cohesion-based en ac tm en t o f leadership).
46-47: reference (1-Г). 47-48: reference (us-we). 48-49: co n ju n ctio n (so).
32-33-34: (both sides-us (political co n tex t as th e link)).
39-40-41: (In yo u r hands, m y fello w citizens... - ... each generation o f Am ericans... - ...graves o f you ng Americans - realistic presentation o f the dangers o f service th ro ug h th e coherence-based structures). (40-41)-42: (general in fo rm a tio n vs
us for th e im position o f personal involvem ent; the idea o f struggle against... war so rt o f “ spirited in to ” th e text).
(4 4 -4 8 )-4 9 : (m oral o blig atio n - ide alism relation as the linkage p a t tern).
49-50: (c o m p a ra tiv e ex ten sio n o f the abo ve relation).
51-52: (let us... - ...lead the land con d itio n ed by o b lig atio n to re veal strength and sacrifice).
2.3.5. Metaphor/Symbol
42 (su p p o rtiv e use o f trum pet fo r p rag m atic, h isto ry -g ro u n d ed idealism ). 43 (forge...alliance m etap h o ric al expression fo r u nd erlining difficult, b u t
n o b le ch a rac te r o f the new endeavor - co m p are the b lack sm ith ’s jo b - in line w ith the m anipulatively presented idea o f the im p o rtan ce o f individual effort in leading th e co u n try (39)).
46 (negation o f the im aginative shrink fr o m p h ra se fo r creatin g the a u ra o f the p re sid e n t’s greatness).
48 (new ideas seen in term s o f fir e o f new, historic endeavor (n ote the developm ent o f the torch concept), th e m etap h o riz atio n c o h e ren t w ith Speech E vent 3 function).
2.3.6. Nominalizations
A gain, the w ords/phrases like national loya lty (40), struggle (42), sacrifice (51), etc. lack com plem en tatio n , w hich could p ro vide fo r answ ering the arising questions, respectively, “ to w h o m ” , “ o f w h at k in d ” , “ to w h at ex ten t” and so on, thus clarifying the m essage (com pare verb + com plem ent c o n stru c tio n s, e.g. “ to sacrifice life” ).
2.3.7. Rhetorical Devices
- L e t repetitio n s for: responsibility sh ift/un derlin in g the length o f the list o f p ro p o sa ls/o ra to ric a l effect.
- A ntitheses fo r the en actm en t o f leadership (“ I am telling y ou w h at you should d o ” attitu d e , gradually prep arin g th e listener fo r th e stro n g est explicit im position o f presidential p ersuasion in 49).
- R h eto rical questions (X X III) for underlining th e sp iritu al stren g th perv ad in g the indirect answ ers (X X IV ; “ Yes, we can ’cos w e’re A m eric an s” attitu d e).
- E levated language co heren t w ith the im p o rta n t historic effo rt p h rase, follow ing the idea o f K e n n ed y ’s “ new beginning” .
- G lo b al perspective tak en in 33 for stressing th e p re sid e n t’s leadersh ip capacity.
2.3.8. Social Psychology Theories Applicable T o T he Study
- T h eo ry o f E xpo su re L earn ing ( Z a j o n c 1980; the m o re people are exposed to an idea, the m o re they arc a p t to accept it. Z im b a rd o and L eippe 1991; people find co m fo rt in fam iliarity) - n o te the repetitive use o f p ragm atically conciliatory let phrases ensuring the leader the im age o f a realist w hose p rim ary objective is to p u t an end to th e cold w ar p eriod.
- C onsistency T h eo ry (K en n ed y ’s nom inalization s can trig ger the em er gence o f dissonance betw een the m e a n t illocution ary force and th e exerted p e rlo c u tio n a ry effect, w hich form s the basis fo r linguistic m an ip u latio n - rem em ber the assu m p tio n o f C. T . discussed in 2.1.).
- S piral o f Silence T h e o ry (N o e lle -N c u m a n n 1991; c o m m u n ic a tio n effects are the greatest w here the m essage is in line w ith existing op in io ns, people su p p o rt p o p u la r views, suppressing u n p o p u la r ones, to avoid social isolatio n ) - n o te the high frequency o f the p resid en t’s use o f m o rally u n q u estio n ab le slogans {fruitful life f o r all m ankind, world o f law etc.) for m ak in g the speech a p p a ren tly com m unicable.
- M essage A cceptance T heory ( K a r l i n s a nd A b e l s o n 1970; if the sp eak er can get the listener to agree w ith him on a few linearly presented issues, the m u tu a l agreem ent on th e sequentially follow ing them claim s is reached m uch m o re easily) - in 42 K en n ed y “ a ttac h es” th e war idea to th e preceding sequence o f hard ly d isp u tab le co m m and -like p ro p o sitio n s, th u s lim iting the listener’s range o f “ u ndesirable” c o n n o ta tio n s related to the possible m ilitary engagem ent o f the coun try.
2.3.9. Conclusion
F ollo w in g the tran sitio n al conclusion (26 - co op erativ e effo rt needed to solve w orld problem s), in the th ird section o f th e in au g u ral K en n ed y develops a series o f general pro p o sals directed at th e cou ntries o f th e Soviet bloc, sim ultaneously m ak in g an idealistic call on A m erican people. N eith er, how ever, th e expression o f the p rop osals seems con ciliatory, n o r the call is fully clear, w hich a p p e a rs to u n d erm in e th e p rin cip les stressed by K ennedy in the fam ous K ennedy-N ixon debates [see H i n e k 1993]. P aragraph X IV , fo r exam ple, co n tain s an assertive w arning, while p a ra g ra p h X V III co n stitu tes in fact a com m and. E m ployed for th e p u rp o se o f suggesting “ w h a t th e o th er side should d o ” are freq u en t thesis-antithesis co n stru c tio n s (2 8 -2 9 etc.), one o f them used also fo r revealing “ w hat the w orld should
d o ” (50). T hese p a rts o f the section w hich are addressed prim arily to the A m erican n atio n carry in tu rn presidential responsibility shifts [39-41), accom panied by m anipulatively coherence-based phrases, w hose im plicit p u rp o se is to p re p are A m ericans for years o f sacrifice, w ith o u t telling them explicitly w h a t it (sacrifice) m ean s (42), or pro vid in g them w ith a reaso n ab le e x p lan a tio n W H Y they should agree u p o n person al engagem ent in public affairs, “ decisive” fo r the success o f the course (except for fulfilling the h istorical oblig atio n , its b u rden in fact im posed on the n a tio n by the president - see X X IV ).
T h e very idea o f L E T US B E G IN A N E W lies th u s n o t so m u ch in the spirit o f the general p ro p o sals an d em pty calls, as in th e p re sen tatio n o f th e em ergence o f a new leader, w hose c o m b in atio n o f idealism , a sense o f history, cool passion, realism and pragm atism hardly bears any resem blance to the characteristics o f o th er post-w ar presidents o f the U SA . E n ac tin g th e leadership, K ennedy ultim ately uses the first p erso n sing ular p ro n o u n in 46, revealing the m ix tu re o f idealism an d histo rical prag m atism in X X . It is interesting to n o te th a t these p arts o f the text w hich best ch aracterize the presid en t as the genuine leader o f the co u n try are cohesion- and thesis-antithcsis-based for th e p u rp o se o f p erlo cu tio n ary clarity. F re q u e n t n om inalizations, how ever m uch vagueness they m ig h t trigger, are convincing, since th e listen er rarely u n d erm in e s basic values o r m o ra l o b lig a tio n s (consistency theories, spiral o f silence etc.!). F inally, repetitio n s o f th e sam e ideas (pragm atism -based c o o p e ratio n , w orldw ide u n ity in effo rt) en su re K en n ed y positive co m m u n icatio n effects (exposure learning).
W h a t seemed ap p a ren tly “ new ” in K en n ed y ’s political p erso n a in 1961 can easily be identified on the analysis o f the m acro speech act deriv atio n . A s it has already been m en tio n ed , K e nnedy w ould n o t have been ab le to convey the m ain idea o f the speech b u t for the in tro d u c tio n o f a certain n u m b er o f relevant perform ativ es into these p a rts o f his perfo rm an ce (Sections 1/2, P a ra g ra p h X IV opening the th ird section) w hich h av e th e auxiliary an d p re p a ra to ry fu n ctio n for the ultim ate, explicit (/...) verbal en a ctm en t o f a new type o f leadership. T h e p re sen tatio n o f th e p re sid e n t’s sense o f h isto ry (Section 1) co n stitu tes a basis fo r the p re sen tatio n o f the president’s realistic, organized approach to world problem s (via the recognition o f the US m issionary role; Section 2), w hich in tu rn lays a fo u n d a tio n fo r the p re sen tatio n o f K e n n e d y ’s p ragm atism -based idea o f w orldw ide u nity (via the reco gnition o f its necessity; Section 3), com bined w ith th e idealistic con cep t o f p assio n ate, bu t still co n tro lled , great d eterm in a tio n . C o n sid er the in au g u ra l speeches o f T ru m a n or E isenhow er and it should becom e clear th a t in the light o f th eir perfo rm an ce the linguistic re alizatio n o f K e n n e d y ’s ap p a re n t in ten tio n s strikes the listener w ith its u n iq u e c h a ra c te r
in term s o f b o th the course p resen tatio n (unity!) and lead e rsh ip ’s im age (pragm atism !), th e tw o elem ents d eterm ining the very n a tu re o f th e global speech act identified tow ards the end o f Section 3, th a t is, o n the listen er’s collection o f all “ d a ta ” explaining the sp eak er’s intent.
3. C O N C LU SIO N (I PA SS T H E T O R C H TO A N EW G EN ERA TIO N AS T H E ALTERNATIVE?)
H o w ev er seem ingly c o h e re n t an d , m o re im p o rta n t, co n v in cin g th e seq u e n tia l linguistic re alizatio n o f th e I T A K E U P ... id ea m ig h t be, 1 guess the altern ativ e m acro speech act should com e as n o su rp rise to th e re a d e r o f th is p a p e r, fo r m u ch h as alread y been said a b o u t th e m an ip u lativ e essence o f certain elem ents intro duced in to K e n n e d y ’s in a u gu ral speech fo r the p u rp o se o f shifting the presidential responsibility u p o n the A m erican people (let co n stru c tio n s, vague coherence relation s etc.). In closing, I w ould like to com m ent on two textual characteristics w hose absence from K e n n ed y ’s p erform ance decisively co n trib u tes to w ard s perceiving th e in ten t o f the in au g u ra l in the way suggested abo ve, given obviously th a t th e recipient o f the global m essage has an access to the text and read s it closely.
O ne o f the textual “ sh o rtco m in g s” I have in m ind is the lack o f so lu tio n h o o d relatio n al p ro p o sitio n s, w hose presence in a tex t elab o rates o n the m essage in term s o f providing im m ediately the addressee w ith a set o f so lu tio n s to problem s item ised by the speaker, qu ite o ften w ith the in te n tio n o f stressing his/her realism and sense o f responsibility. In K e n n e d y ’s speech th e relatio n o f so lu tio n h o o d does n o t in fact link individual sentences, b u t holds betw een larger units: the closing p a r t o f Section 2 an d th e p ro p o sals-p ack ed , opening p a ra g ra p h s o f Section 3, w hich, in the light o f the lack o f elab o ratio n on p a rtic u la r p ro p o sals, indirectly w eakens the presidential enactm ent o f leadership (see the com m en ts on the ro le o f p ro p o sals in the p re sen tatio n o f K e n n ed y ’s p ra g m a tic idea o f unity).
T h e m entio n ed lack o f descriptive elab o ratio n o n p ro p o sa ls expressed in p a ra g ra p h s X IV -X IX com pletes the evidence in fa v o u r o f read in g the tex t th ro u g h the prism o f the alternative m acro speech act fram ew ork . L o o k a t th e g ra p h below (h o riz o n ta lly -n u m b e r o f p a ra g ra p h s; vertically - n u m b e r o f w ords in each p a ra g ra p h ) and it will becom e clear ho w little K en n ed y was able to say w ith respect to the p ro p o sitio n s supp osed to suggest new so lutions and the explicit will to u n d erta k e p resid en tial re sp o n sibility.
100 -9° - - F I I” 80 -7 0 ---- 1 : ~ Г” 60 -50 - I— П Г~ 40 - —i ■] о 30 - _ I 1 ~ 2 0 - _ - Г " 10 - _ о 4 I I н I I — I t - I M
ЩЦ
I 1 з 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27Obviously, both the “superficial” and the “p ro fo u n d ” interpretations o f the p ragm atics o f K e n n ed y ’s perform an ce are only exam ples o f m y subjective a p p ro a c h to the analysis o f a political LSM an d , fo r the reaso n o f the discussed p erlo c u tio n a ry research lim itations, can hard ly co n stitu te an y th in g else th a n an a tte m p t a t draw ing conclusions from the existence o f w h a t I w ould call “ illocutionary force clusters” expressed via speech acts an d their supportive textual environm ent (relational propositions etc.). However, the very possibility o f draw ing these conclusions, which tend to be in line w ith political science and historical findings, seems to prov e the analysability o f a political LSM w ithin the fram ew ork o f a form alized linguistic set o f criteria.
T h e choice o f criteria em ployed for this analysis h as been d eterm ined to a certain extent by the accessibility o f linguistic d ata. U n fo rtu n a te ly eno u g h , having no access to the full recording o f K e n n ed y ’s speech, I decided to exclude from the analysis the observations m ade on listening to the excerpts o f the p erfo rm an ce (e.g. concerning the p resid en t’s tendency to use rising or falling-rising in tonation with high term inal pitch in declarative sentences, which could shed som e light on the challenging p ro p erties o f the text [H a 11 i d a у 1967]). I believe th a t fu tu re research o n political LSM s should co n sid er the phonological aspect o f the perform ance as extrem ely im p o rtan t in th e context o f all possible extensions o f the proposed list o f ev a lu a tio n criteria.
A P P E N D IX
T he inaugural spccch of president J . F . Kennedy W ashington, D. C ., Ja n u a ry 20, 1961
I ( / ) W e observe to d ay no t a victory o f a p a rty b u t a celeb ratio n o f freedom - sym bolizing an end as well as a beginning - signifying renew al as
well as change. (2) F o r I have sw orn before you and A lm ighty G o d the sam e solem n o ath o u r fo rebears prescribed nearly a cen tu ry an d th ree q u a rte rs ago.
II (3) T h e w orld is very different now . (4) F o r m an ho lds in his m o rta l h an d s th e pow er to abolish all form s o f h u m an pov erty an d all form s o f h u m an life. (5) A nd yet the sam e revolutionary beliefs fo r w hich o u r fo rebears fo u g h t are still at issue a ro u n d the globe - th e belief th a t th e rights o f m a n com e n o t from the generosity o f th e state b u t from the han d o f G o d .
III (6) W e d are n o t forget to d ay th a t we are th e heirs o f th a t first revolution . (7) Let the w ord go fo rth from this tim e and place, to friend an d foe alike, th a t the to rch has been passed to a new g en eratio n o f A m erican s-b o rn in this century, tem pered by w ar, disciplined by a h ard an d b itte r peace, p ro u d o f o u r ancient heritage - an d unw illing to w itness o r perm it the slow und o in g o f those h u m an rights to w hich this n atio n has alw ays been com m itted, an d to w hich we are com m itted to d a y a t h om e an d aro u n d th e w orld.
IV (5) Let every n atio n know , w heth er it wishes us well o r ill, th a t we shall pay an y price, b ear any b u rd en , m eet any h ard sh ip , su p p o rt any friend, opp ose any foe to assure the survival and success o f liberty.
V (9) T his m u ch we pledge - and m ore.
VI (70) T o those old allies w hose cultural and spiritu al origins we share, we pledge th e loyalty o f faithful friends. (77) U nited, th ere is little we c a n n o t d o in a host o f cooperative ventures. (12) Divided, there is little we can do-for we d a re n o t m eet a pow erful challenge at o dds and split asu n d er.
V II (13) T o those new states w hom we welcom e to th e ra n k s o f the free, we pledge o u r w ord th a t one form o f colonial c o n tro l shall n o t h ave passed aw ay m erely to be replaced by a far m o re iron ty ran n y . (14) W e shall n o t alw ays expect to find them su p p o rtin g o u r view. (15) B ut we shall alw ays ho p e to find them strongly su p p o rtin g th eir ow n freedom - and to rem em ber th a t, in th e p ast, those w ho foolishly so ug ht p o w er by riding the back o f the tiger ended up inside.
V III (16) T o those peoples in the huts and villages o f h a lf th e globe struggling to b reak the bonds o f m ass m isery, we pledge o u r best efforts to help them help them selves, for w hatever period is required - n o t because the C om m unists m ay be do in g it, n o t because we seek th eir votes, b u t because it is right. (17) I f a free society c a n n o t help th e m an y w ho are p o o r, it c a n n o t save the few w ho are rich.
IX (18) T o o u r sister republics so u th o f o u r b o rd e r, we offer a special pledge - in a new alliance for progress - to assist free m en an d free governm ents in casting o ff the chains o f poverty. (19) B ut this peaceful revo lu tio n o f h o p e c a n n o t becom e the prey o f hostile pow ers. (20) L et all
o u r n eighbors know th a t we shall jo in w ith them to op p o se aggression or subversio n anyw here in th e A m ericas. (27) A nd let every o th er pow er k now th a t this hem isphere intends to rem ain the m a ste r o f its ow n house.
X (22) T o th at world assembly o f sovereign states, the U nited N ations, o u r last best h o p e in an age w here the instru m en ts o f w ar have far o u tp ace d the in stru m en ts o f peace, we renew o u r pledge o f su p p o rt - to p rev en t it from becom ing m erely a fo ru m fo r invective - to stren gthen its shield o f th e new an d the w eak - and to enlarge the area in w hich its w rit m ay run.
X I (23) F inally, to those natio n s w ho w ould m a k e them selves o u r adv ersary , we offer n o t a pledge b u t a request: th a t b o th sides begin anew the qu est fo r peace, before the d a rk pow ers o f d estru c tio n unleashed by science en g u lf all h u m anity in p lanned or accidental self-destruction.
X II (24) W e d a re n o t tem p t them w ith w eakness. (25) F o r only when o u r arm s are sufficient beyond d o u b t can we be certain beyond d o u b t th a t they will never be em ployed.
X III (26) B ut n eith er can tw o great an d pow erful grou ps o f n atio n s ta k e co m fo rt from o u r p resent course - b o th sides overb u rd en ed by the co st o f m o d e rn w eapons, b o th rightly alarm ed by the steady spread o f the d ead ly ato m , yet b o th racing to alter th a t u ncertain balance o f te rro r th a t stays th e h an d o f m a n k in d ’s final war.
X IV (27) So let us begin a new - rem em bering on b o th sides th a t civility is n o t a sign o f w eakness, and sincerity is alw ays subject to p ro o f. (28) Let us never negotiate o u t o f fear. (29) B ut let us never fear to negotiate.
X V (30) L et b o th sides explore w hat pro blem s un ite us instead o f b elab o rin g th o se problem s w hich divide us.
X V I (31) Let b o th sides, fo r the first tim e, fo rm u late serious an d precise p ro p o sa ls fo r the inspection an d co n tro l o f arm s - and brin g the ab so lu te pow er to destro y o th e r n atio n s under the absolute c o n tro l o f all n atio n s.
X V II (32) L et b o th sides seek to invoke the w onders o f science instead o f its terro rs. (33) T o g eth e r let us explore the stars, co n q u e r th e deserts, eradicate disease, ta p the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and com m erce.
X V III (34) L et b o th sides unite to heed in all corn ers o f the e a rth the co m m an d o f Isaiah - to “ un d o the heavy b urd en s an d to let th e oppressed go free.”
X IX (35) A n d if a beachhead o f c o o p e ratio n m ay p u sh back the ju n g le o f suspicion, let b o th sides jo in in a new end eav o r - n o t a new b alan ce o f pow er, b u t a new w orld o f law, w here the stro n g are ju st an d th e w eak secure an d the peace preserved.
X X (36) All this will n o t be finished in the first on e h u n d re d days. (37) N o r will it be finished in the first one th o u sa n d day s, n o r in th e life o f this ad m in istratio n , n o r even perh ap s in o u r lifetim e o n this p lan et. (38) B ut let us begin.
X X I (39) In y o u r h ands, m y fellow citizens, m o re th a n m ine, will rest the final success o r failure o f o u r course. (40) Since this co u n try was founded , each generation o f A m ericans has been sum m oned to give testim ony to its n a tio n a l loyalty. (41) T h e graves o f young A m ericans w ho answ ered the call to service su rro u n d the globe.
X X II (42) N ow the tru m p e t sum m ons us ag ain -n o t as a call to b ear arm s, th o u g h arm s we need - n o t as a call to b attle, th o u g h em b attled we are - b u t a call to bear th e b u rden o f a long tw ilight struggle, year in and year o u t, “ rejoicing in hope, p atien t in trib u la tio n ” - a struggle against the com m on enemies o f m an: tyranny, poverty, disease, and w ar itself.
X X III (43) C an we forge against these enem ies a gran d an d global alliance, N o rth an d S outh, E ast and W est, th a n can assure a m o re fru itfu l life fo r all m an k in d ? (44) W ill you jo in in th a t h istoric effort?
X X IV (45) In th e long history o f the w orld, only a few g en eratio n s have been g ranted th e role o f defending freedom in its h o u r o f m ax im u m d anger. (46) I d o n o t shrink from this responsibility - I w elcom e it. (47) I d o n o t believe th a t any o f us w ould exchange places w ith any o th er people o r any o th er generation. (48) T h e energy, the faith, the d ev o tio n w hich we b ring to this endeavor will light o u r co u n try and all w ho serve it - and the glow from th a t fire can truly light the w orld.
X X V (49) A nd so, m y fellow A m ericans, ask n o t w h at yo u r co u n try can do fo r you-ask w hat you can d o for yo u r co un try .
X X V I (50) M y fellow citizens o f the w orld, ask n o t w h at A m erica will d o fo r you, b u t w hat to g eth er we can d o fo r the freedom o f m an .
X X V II (51) F in ally, w hether you are citizens o f A m erica o r citizens o f the w orld, ask o f us here the sam e high stan d ard s o f stren g th and sacrifice w hich we ask o f you. (52) W ith a good conscience o u r only sure rew ard, w ith h isto ry the final ju d g e o f o u r deeds, let us go fo rth to lead the land we love, asking his blessing and his help, b u t know ing th a t here on ea rth G o d ’s w ork m u st tru ly be o u r own.
REFERENCES
A u s t i n , J. L. (1962) How ю Do Things with Words. Oxford: C larendon Press. B o l i n g e r , D. (1975) Aspects o f Language. New Y ork: H arcourt Brace Jovanovich. B r o w n , G. and Y u l e , G. (1983) Discourse Analysis, Cambridge: Cam bridge U niversity Press, v a n D i j k , T. A. (1977) Text and Context. L ondon: Longman.
D r a p e r , T. (1969) “ Vietnam: F rom Kennedy to Johnson” . In B. J. Bernstein (ed.) Twen-
tieth-Century America. New Y ork: H arcourt, Brace & W orld, Inc.
F e s t i n g e r , L. (1957) A Theory o f Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
G r i m e s , J. (1975) The Thread o f Discourse. The Hague: M outon.
H a l l id a y , M . A. K. (1967) Intonation and Grammar in British English. T he Hague: M outon. H a l l i d a y , M . A. K . and H a s a n , R. (1976) Cohesion in English. L ondon: Longm an. H i n e k , E. A. (1993) Enacting the Presidency. W estport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Н у m e s , D. (1972) “ M odels o f the Interaction o f Language and Social Life” . In J. G u rn p e r t z (ed.) The Ethnography o f Communication, 35-71. New Y ork: H olt, R inehart and W inston.
K a r l i n s , M . and A b el s o n H. I. (1970) Persuasion: How Opinions and A ttitudes Are
Changed. New York: Springer.
K a t e b , G . (1969) “ Kennedy As Statesm an” . In B. J. B e r n s t e i n (ed.) Twentieth-Century
America. New York: H arcourt, Brace & W orld, Inc.
L a b o v , W. (1972) Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University o f Pennsylvania Press. L a k o f f , G. (1990) “ M etaphor and W ar” , distributed via com puter nets.
L a z a r s f e l d , P. L. (1948) The People's Choice: How the Voter M akes Up H is M ind in
A Presidential Campaign. New Y ork: Duell, Sloan & Pearce.
M a n n , W. C. and 1 h o m p s o n , S. A. (1983) “ Relational Propositions in D iscourse” . In U SC /Inform ation Sciences Institute: Technical Report RR-83-115.
N o e l l e - N e u m a n n , E. (1991) “The T heory o f Public O pinion” . In J. A. A n d e r s o n (ed.) Communication Yearbook 14: 256-287, N ew bury Park, CA: Sage.
P a s t u s i a k , L. (1987) Prezydenci. W arszawa: K rajow a Agencja Wydawnicza. P o l a n y i, L. and Scha, R .J. (1983) “ The Syntax o f D iscourse". T ext 3: 261-270.
S a f i r e , W. (1988) Lend M e Your Ears.Great Speeches in History. New Y ork: W. W. N orton & Com pany.
S e a r le , J. R. (1969) Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cam bridge University Press.
Z a j o n c , R. B. (1980) “ Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need N o Inferences” . American
Psychologist 35: 151-175.
Z i m b a r d o , P. Ст. and L e i p p e , M. (1991) The Psychology o f A ttitude Change and Social
Influence. New Y ork: M cG raw-H ill.
P iotr Cap
PR A G M A T Y K A O R G A N IZ A C JI P R Z E M Ó W IE N IA IN A U G U R A C Y JN E G O J. F. K E N N E D Y ’E G O
A utor podejm uje próbę analizy monologu politycznego z perspektywy teorii aktów mowy. W studium tekstu kategorią porządkującą i nadrzędną w stosunku d o zaproponow anych ośmiu kryteriów analizy (m. in. kohezji i koherencji) jest tzw. m akroakt mowy. O pisany proces jego lingwistycznej derywacji naświetla problem efektu perlokucyjnego przemówienia, który, w odczuciu autora, nosi znam iona manipulacji językowej opartej w znacznej mierze na w ykorzystaniu psychologicznych technik perswazji.
