Power of Language How Discourse Influences Society - Chapter 3

Chapter 3
Language and racism
Introduction: definitions of ‘racism’ 3.1
In this chapter, we will be looking at the complex issue of racism, which

can be examined from many perspectives. It has been the subject of
literally thousands of articles and studies. We cannot, of course, consider
all the ways that researchers have approached this issue. But we will
examine the issue from a linguistic point of view, and more specifically
from the point of view of SFL and CDA.
In order to understand what racism involves and who it affects, we will
Copyright © 2006. Equinox Publishing Ltd. All rights reserved.
start by briefly examining four definitions of racism. Definitions are a

genre, a specific type of discourse. Read through them and, as you do
so, try to find some common elements, particularly at the start of each
definition, that relate to the Ideational Metafunction which you learned
about in Chapter 2 – the participants and processes.
Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically

superior to members of other races; racism is discriminatory or abusive
behaviour towards members of another race. (Dictionary.com)
Racism refers to the belief that human races have distinctive character-
istics which determine their respective cultures, usually involving the
Young, Lynne, and Brigid Fitzgerald. Power of Language : How Discourse Influences Society, Equinox Publishing Ltd, 2006. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/hud/detail.action?docID=411088.
Created from hud on 2017-10-19 01:17:22.
68 The Power of Language: how discourse influences society
idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule or dominate
others; offensive or aggressive behaviour to members of another race
stemming from such a belief. (Macquarie University, Australia, 1998:
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission)
Racism is more than personal prejudice; it involves carrying into effect

one’s prejudices, resulting in discrimination, inequity and/or exclusion.
Racism is understood as the negative valuing and discriminatory treat-
ment of individuals and groups on the basis of their race. Racism can be
manifested in both personal attacks and insults and in the structure of
social institutions. (Carleton University, Canada: Human Rights Policies
and Procedures)
Racism is a set of beliefs (often complex) which asserts the natural supe-
riority of one racial group over another, at the individual but also the
institutional level. In one sense, racism refers to the belief that biology
rather than culture is the primary determinant of group attitudes and
actions. This belief can then be used to extol the inherent superiority
of certain ‘races’ and justify deferential treatment and social positions.
Racism goes beyond ideology, however, involving discriminatory
practices that protect and maintain the position of certain groups and
sustain the inferior position of others. (Freeservers.com)
You likely noticed that each definition begins, not surprisingly, with the
Topical Theme racism. As well, defining is a way of explaining a ‘state of
being’ so each definition also begins with a Relational process: is or refers
to. We only talked about Relational processes in general in Chapter 2,
but there are in fact several different types. In this discourse, there are
Relational processes of Identification, which has two participants – the

object being identified, which is called the Token, and the Value attached
to it. For example, we could chart the first clause of the first definition
as follows:
Token Process: Relational/ Value

Identification
Racism is the prejudice that members
of one race are intrinsically
superior to members of other
races
Chapter 3: Language and racism 69
To explore commonalities and differences between these definitions, we

list below all the Values associated with the Token racism.
• discriminatory or abusive behaviour …
• belief that human races have distinctive characteristics…
• offensive or aggressive behaviour…
• more than personal prejudice…
• negative valuing and discriminatory treatment…
• set of beliefs which asserts the natural superiority of one racial
group over another
• the belief that biology rather than culture…
• discriminatory practices…
What this list of Values tells us is that racism is about beliefs and behav-
iours, or, more specifically, that racism goes beyond a belief – the way one
views people of another race – to have a significant impact on behaviour
– how one acts towards them.
We have examined definitions of what is thought of as traditional racism. Views from the theorists:
Peter Teo writes of a new type of racism that is, according to him, more Peter Teo
subtle and thus ‘insidious’. He looks at: View of racism
… the changing nature of racism and ethnic domination in modern

and increasingly cosmopolitan societies such as the United States of
America, Western Europe and Australia. The people who practice
this ‘new racism’ believe in and uphold the basic values of democratic
egalitarianism, and would thus emphatically deny that they are ‘racist’
(as defined by van Dijk, 1993). Nevertheless they would speak or act in
such a way that distances themselves from the ethnic minority, engaging
in discursive strategies that blame the victims for their circumstances

on their own social, economic and even cultural disadvantages. For
instance, the vicious circle of low educational achievement, limited
employment opportunities, poverty and consequent assimilation into a
culture of drugs and crime among African Americans would be ration-
alized by these ‘new racists’ as stemming from the minority’s alleged
lack of drive and desire for achievement and over-reliance on social
welfare. (Teo, 2000: 2)
The Ideational Metafunction has allowed us to identify the main features

of these definitions in terms of the first set of participants and proc-
esses. However, there is another general function of language called the
Interpersonal Metafunction that also contributes to how a discourse
creates meaning for readers and listeners. This function has to do with
two related aspects of a discourse: how people exchange information, and
the speech roles that people play when they interact with one another.
The writers of definitions, for example, are givers of information and
they provide this information in the form of statements. As the readers of
definitions, our role is as receivers – in this case, silent receivers because
we have no way of responding.
Definitions are characterized by statements. In fact, we would find it very
odd if a definition included a question or a command – the two other
ways that people exchange information. When SFL researchers talk about
these three different ways of communicating – statements, questions,
and commands – they are talking about one aspect of the Interpersonal
Metafunction called Mood.
mood versus Mood

‘Mood’ is a word that can be used in two ways. The first is more popular
and general; it refers to how people feel. In SFL research, the term Mood
has a more specific meaning; it refers to whether a clause is a statement,
question or command. To distinguish between these two meanings, we
will use ‘Mood’ with a capital ‘M’ for our SFL and CDA analyses.
In this chapter, we are going to start with an overview of Mood. Then
you will have a chance to explore one particular Mood – question – in
a CDA analysis of a racism discourse called the Race Relations Survey.
As you do this, you will be looking at how people interact with each
other in terms of speech roles, attitudes and positions towards each
other and the information they are exchanging. We will then move on
to another aspect of the Interpersonal Metafunction called modality
– a term used to describe one way that people express their positions
through language. Later in this chapter, you will use what you learn
about modality to analyze how attitudes are realized in an editorial
on racism.
3.2 Mood: an overview

Mood is a term that SFL researchers use in general terms to describe
what happens to the arrangement of the Subject and Verb in a clause.
However, we want to emphasize that, in our discussions, we are only

dealing with clauses with Finite Verbs.
3.2.1 Reviewing the Finite

You may recall that we discussed the Finite versus the non-Finite in
Chapter 2. As a reminder, we have included the chart from Chapter 2
dealing with this topic.
Finite vs. non-finite verbs
Finite verb Non-finite verb

Definition: Definition:
a verb or the auxiliary that a verb form that has no
precedes it which indicates indication of past, present or future.
the past, present or future.
Examples: Examples:
I am happy. To be happy is important.
He went to the restaurant. Going to restaurants is a way to relax.
She has eaten in the cafeteria Eating in the cafeteria all year is terrible.
for the whole year.
What you see in the box is that we can achieve Finiteness, that is, root-
ing the discourse in a particular time – past, present or future – either
through the main Verb or through the Auxiliary that precedes it. Why is
the Finite element important? It ‘anchors’ the clause so that its meaning
can be discussed, argued about, and contested. For example, let us look at
a clause from one of the racism definitions: Racism goes beyond ideology.
In this clause, we know that the Verb is goes beyond. Here is how this
clause could be argued about in a sample discourse.
Joe: According to the book, racism goes beyond ideology.
Mary: I don’t think it does.
Joe: Why not?
Mary: Racism doesn’t have to go beyond because it automatically includes it.
The reason this argument can take place is because the Finite is rooted in
the ‘here-and-now’ and is debatable. What happens if we use a non-Finite
to talk about racism and ideology? Can we argue about it?
Joe: Going beyond ideology is included in racism.

Mary: It isn’t.
Joe: It is.
Mary: It’s not included.
Joe: Oh, yes it is.
As you may have noticed, Joe and Mary are not arguing about whether
or not racism goes beyond ideology in the second example. Rather, they
are arguing about whether ideology is included in racism because going
beyond is non-Finite and cannot be argued about. On the other hand, is
included is Finite and, therefore, can be contested.
Views from the theorists: Martin (2000: 281) succinctly discusses the non-Finite and the Finite
Jim Martin and the roles each can or cannot play in discourse. He explains that the
Finite versus non-Finite non-Finite Verb is not negotiable:
Non-finite clauses, in other words, are clauses which might have been
part of an argument, but have been backgrounded, to take them out of
the repartee. Non-finite clauses simply remove the dialogic potential
by eliminating the meaning which makes a clause negotiable – its
finiteness.
3.2.2 Arrangement of Subject and Verb

As we noted above, Mood involves the arrangement of the Subject and
Verb in a clause. The arrangement is important because it generally
creates the three different ways of communicating that we mentioned
above – stating, asking, and commanding. Look at how the Subject and
Verb rearrange themselves in the following three examples to create

meaning.
• Statement: The teacher defined racism. (Subject + Verb)
• Question: Did the teacher define racism? (In English we often
have to add an additional auxiliary to the Verb such as do, does,
did, has, have and had, or is and are in order to create a ques-
tion. So the arrangement here is Auxiliary + Subject + Verb.)
• Command: Define racism. (Verb only; Subject understood)
Of course, native speakers of English do not have to think about these
arrangements when they decide to switch from one Mood to another. It
is something they learned as they acquired the language. Let us look at
each of these Moods more closely to determine their significance.
3.2.3 The three types of Mood
Declarative: the speaker/writer gives information in the form of

a statement.
Interrogative: the speaker/writer asks for information in the
form of a question.
Imperative: the speaker/writer gives or asks for information or
action in the form of an order/command.
The Declarative Mood: making statements
Statements are a way that speakers/writers provide information. Look

at this example from one of the definitions: Racism is discriminatory or
abusive behaviour towards members of another race. As we discussed
above, the Ideational meaning is realized by the participants racism and
discriminatory or abusive behaviour, as well as by the Relational process
of Identification: is. As you have also seen, the writer of this definition is
taking on the speech role of the giver of information. The Mood choice
of Declarative is an important way to tell people what you think about
things. When you make this choice, you do two things:
1) take on the speech role of being a provider of your viewpoint
about a subject/issue; and
2) put your listener/reader in the speech role position of being a
receiver of that viewpoint.
From a CDA perspective, the Declarative Mood, which indicates the abil-
ity to give information, can place the speaker in a position of power; in

many situations, the exchange of information may not be between equals.
So CDA researchers typically analyze discourses in different situations
to determine whether the two interactants in the discourse/situation are
equal. For example, the doctor-patient relationship is one of inequality.
Although the patients provide information to the doctor about their
history or symptoms, doctors then define the patients’ problems and
tell the patients what they should do. Another obvious case of unequal
power occurs in the classroom where a teacher is the power figure, and
is generally the giver of information. Students may also be able to give
information, but the teacher has the power to affirm or reject the student’s
information. If you think about your culture, you will realize that there
are many other people who have the power to give information or tell
you what to do, such as politicians, judges, and policemen.
Declaratives: summary
• Structure: Subject + Verb
• Speech role of speaker/writer: Giver of information
• Example: Racism is a social issue.
• CDA perspective: Who has the power to be the giver of infor-
mation, and why? How does the giver of information use this
power?
Interrogatives: asking questions
But what happens if you do not know something about a subject or issue
and you want to learn more? Then you must choose another Mood – the
Interrogative. If you decide to play the speech role of questioner, then
you are not giving information, but requesting it. There are two ways of
asking questions.
1) The first type is in the form of the question we discussed earlier:
Did the teacher define racism? This type of Interrogative gener-
ally requires only a yes/no answer.
2) The second type is called a wh-interrogative, and can be identi-
fied by any question that begins with who, what, which, when,
why and how. An example of this question would be: Why did
the teacher define racism? This kind of Interrogative has several
characteristics:
• The question word: who, what, which, when, why or how

comes before the Verb.
• The question is open-ended with the answer probably
beginning with: because…
Again, let us look at questions from the point of view of CDA. The power
issue is who has the right to ask questions, and why?
Interrogatives: summary
• Structure: Auxiliary + Subject + Verb (except for wh-interroga-
tives)
• Speech role of speaker/writer: Requester of information
• Example 1: Did the teacher define racism?

• Example 2 (who-interrogative): How did the teacher define
racism?
• CDA perspective: In the above examples, who has the power
to ask questions? Why? What does the ‘right to question’ tell us
about the relationship between the asker and the responder?
Imperative Mood: issuing commands
You may recall that, in Chapter 1, President Bush spoke mostly in state-
ments except for one important instance. Near the end of the speech, he
switched from the Declarative Mood to the Imperative Mood when he
said: Make no mistake about it. People who can issue orders are generally
those who are in a more powerful position in a relationship – as the
President was as regards other Americans and (he believed) his unknown
enemy. Let’s take another example. In a classroom, who could use the
Imperative Mood and say: Tell me what you know about racism – the
teacher or a student? Clearly, in a classroom situation, the teacher has
the power to be in the speech role of demander.
The Imperative Mood has several characteristics:
• As we noted above, it is the only Mood in which the Verb comes
first in the clause.
• The Subject you is understood. We would never say: Define
racism unless there was someone to whom we were addressing
the order. This someone could be either present or imagined in
the case of written instructions.
• The Imperative can be softened by the use of the word please as

in: Please define racism.
Although most recognizable when in the form of commands, orders
can be realized not only by commands, but also by questions and state-
ments:
• Use of a question: Would you define racism? Note here that this
is asked by a teacher; the command is being realized by a
question. But it is nonetheless a command. How often have you
been commanded through questions?
• Use of a statement: It would be a good idea for you to learn the
definition of racism. What the teacher is really saying is: Learn
the definition of racism. It will be on the next test.
CDA researchers are interested in studying situations in which some

people issue orders and others follow these commands because of prec-
edent or assumptions that both parties may hold. Commanding and
obeying are often indications of inequality in relations; CDA researchers
want to make people aware of the linguistic features of situations in which
the interactants are not equal.
Imperatives: Summary
• Structure: Verb; no Subject (understood)
• Speech role of speaker/writer: Demander of information
• Example 1: Define racism.
• CDA perspective: Who has the power to command? Why?
What does this power tell us about the relationship between the
commander and the person who obeys?
To sum up: Mood is realized by Declaratives, Interrogatives, and

Imperatives. In each case, CDA researchers focus on the speech roles
that speakers/writers and listeners/readers assume in their interactions
with each other, as demonstrated by Mood. This focus is very different
from the one we discussed in Ideational considerations, where we were
interested in who was doing what to whom in a variety of discourse
events. With Mood, we explore how people position themselves inter-
personally, that is, towards each other, while exchanging information in
these different situations.
Views from the theorists: Eggins points out that a clause has two components:
Suzanne Eggins
There is one component (you can’t…) that gets bandied about, tossed
Mood
back and forth to keep the argument going, while the second part of the
clause (do that these days…) disappears once the argument is underway.
The component that gets bandied back and forth is what we call the
mood element of the clause… The rest of the sentence is called the
residue. To discover which part(s) of the clause constitute the mood
element, we ask which part of the clause cannot disappear when the
responding speaker takes up his/her position… (1994: 154–155)
Eggins also points out how we can identify the part of the clause that is
the mood element by adding a Tag at the end of a declarative sentence
to turn it into a question. We may do this to soften or to ‘temper’ our
words, as Eggins puts it. So, in the sentence ‘He is smart, isn’t he?’ we have
added a tag to pose a question. The parts of the clause that get picked up
in the tag ‘are the mood constituents of the clause’ (ibid: 155).
To sum up, clauses have two elements: the mood and the residue. The
first carries forward the argument while the latter can be left out.
The Race Relations Survey 3.3

The Race Relations Survey below is a discourse characterized by ques-
tions and answers. First, study and then respond to the Survey. As you
do so, consider the five questions below. We have purposely left them
open-ended. We thought it would be interesting for you to answer them
based on your initial responses and then to compare them with the
answers provided by the SFL and CDA analyses that follow the Survey.
Jot down your reactions and discuss them with the class. Then compare
them with the analyses.
Questions to consider Discussion

1. What is the speech role of the questioner?
2. What speech role do I play in answering the questions?
3. How do different forms of questions change the position of the
responder?
4. Are some of the questions ‘stacked,’ leading to specific kinds of
answers?
5. How do the different questions reflect the writer’s attitudes and
positions?
The Race Relations Survey
1. What is your opinion about race relations in the United States/Canada?

For the purpose of this survey minorities always refers to:
• African or African Descendants
• Asians or Asian Descendants including (Pacific Islander i.e., Native
Hawaiians)
• Indigenous Peoples (such as American Indians/Native Americans,
Eskimo)
2. In your view, are racial minorities routinely discriminated against or not?
• Yes
• No
• No opinion
3. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is where you
live?
• Very serious
• Somewhat serious
• Not too serious
• Not serious
• No opinion
4. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is at your place
of employment or school?
• Very serious
• Not too serious
• Not serious
• No opinion
5. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is in health
care?
• Very serious
• Not too serious
• Not serious
• No opinion
6. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is in the
practice of law?
• Very serious
• Not too serious
• Not serious
• No opinion
administration of justice?
• Very serious
• Not too serious
• Not serious
• No opinion
8. Do you think that relations between racial minorities and whites will
always be a problem or that a solution will eventually be worked out?
• Will always be a problem
• Will eventually be worked out
• No opinion
9. How do you think white people feel about racial minorities?
• Only a few white people dislike minorities
• Many white people dislike minorities
• Almost all white people dislike minorities
• No opinion
10. How do you think racial minorities feel about white people?
• Only a few minorities dislike whites
• Many minorities dislike whites
• Almost all minorities dislike white
• No opinion
11. Who do you think is more responsible for poor status of race relations?
• Whites mostly responsible
• Minorities mostly responsible
• Neither
• Both
• No opinion
12. On the whole, do you think most white people want to see minorities get
a better break, or do they want to keep minorities down or don't you think
they care either way?
• Minorities to get a better break
• To keep minorities down
• Don't care either way

• No opinion
13. Over the last 10 years, how has the quality of life changed for racial
minorities?
• Has gotten better
• Has stayed about the same
• Has gotten worst
• No opinion
14. What do you think about racial minorities chances for good employment?
• As good a chance as whites
• A better chance than whites
• Not as good a chance as whites
• No opinion
15. What do you think of racial minorities chances of getting a good
education?
• No opinion
16. What do you think of racial minorities chances of getting quality health
care?
• No opinion
17. What do you think of minorities chances of being stopped by a police

officer?
• No opinion
18. What do you think of racial minorities chances of being imprisoned?
• No opinion
http://academic.udayton.edu/race/ (Accessed February 2003)
Analyzing the Race Relations Survey: Questions 1–10

You probably noticed that the Survey has a range of question types. Some
are simple, only asking for yes/no/no opinion answers. Others are more
complex and the form of the question leads to different kinds of answers.
As you will see in our analysis below, questions are not neutral, although
at first glance they seem to be so, and the speech role assigned to you
as the responder can vary in subtle ways. A survey such as this one also
provides answers from which readers can make choices. As analysis will
also show, the answers can be as value-laden as the questions.
Questions, like statements and commands, originate in the writer’s/
speaker’s view of the world. One of the goals of CDA is to make these
views more transparent so that we can better understand both the inten-
tions of the interactants and the Mood choices that people have made.
Changing the reader’s speech role

Questions 1 and 2 provide examples of the way the survey writer puts
readers into different speech roles.
1. What is your opinion about race relations in the United States/Canada?
For the purpose of this survey minorities always refers to:
2. In your view, are racial minorities routinely discriminated against or not?
Question 1 is an example of a wh-interrogative. This question is open-
ended; you could answer it any way you like – with a sentence, a para-
graph, even an essay. It does not compel you to make any choices except
to stay on the topic. Question 2, on the other hand, essentially forces you
to answer yes or no. (You may also answer no opinion; however, since the
survey is designed to find out people’s views, we will focus on the more
meaningful answers.) The yes/no alternative puts you, as the responder,
into a much more restricted speech role than you were in Question 1.
You are forced into making a one-word answer, either yes or no, and you
have no way of explaining this response. As we analyze the survey, you
will see that the writer’s choice of question types places the reader into
different positions.
Assuming a problem
Questions 3–7 are a series of questions that start with How followed by
the words serious a problem. Look closely at the questions and consider
the ways they are different from Questions 1 and 2.
3. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is where you

live?
4. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is at your
place of employment or school?
5. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is in health
care?
practice of law?
administration of justice?
The how questions are not open-ended as Question 1 was; nor do they
restrict you in the same way as Question 2. These five questions control
the reader in a different way. Take a look at them again and see if you
can pick out the feature that makes them distinctive.
The significant difference is that the questions all begin with: how serious
a problem, thereby assuming that a problem about racial discrimination
does indeed exist, affecting many aspects of our society: health care,
neighborhood relations, school, employment, law, and justice. As the
responder, you must agree with this assumption in order to choose an
answer. One way to see this clearly is to pose a question about racial
discrimination that assumes the reverse – that the problem does not
exist.
Let’s take a few minutes and try to reword Question 3 in a way that makes
the reverse assumption.
• How does it differ from the original Question 3?

• Does it sound like Questions 1 or 2?
• And how does it change the speech role of your reader – does it
narrow or broaden it?
The important point is to understand that questions can be posed in a
variety of ways and the speech roles of listeners/readers change accord-
ingly.
Question 8 is not a wh-interrogative like Questions 3–7, but it is similar
because it also makes an assumption – that relations between racial
minorities and whites pose a problem.
8. Do you think that relations between racial minorities and whites will
always be a problem or that a solution will eventually be worked out?
In Question 8, there are only two possible answers: Will always be a

problem and Will eventually be worked out. In a way, this is like Question
2 with its yes/no choice – you have only two alternatives. However, unlike
Question 2, your answers are predetermined by the question; you can
only answer within the parameter that race relations are a problem, much
like Questions 3–7. This obviously narrows your speech role. You cannot
say that there is no problem (as you could in Question 2). You can only
say the problem will always be bad or it will go away.
One way to rephrase this question in such a way that it does not make
this assumption and thus narrow the readers’ speech role would be to
say: How do you think relations between racial minorities and whites
will eventually be worked out?
Questions 9 and 10 are interesting because without the answers, these
questions could be very open-ended.
9. How do you think white people feel about racial minorities?
• Only a few white people dislike minorities
• Many white people dislike minorities
• Almost all white people dislike minorities
• No opinion
10. How do you think racial minorities feel about white people?
• Only a few minorities dislike whites
• Many minorities dislike whites
• Almost all minorities dislike white
• No opinion
Notice, however, that the answers assume that ‘dislike’ exists between
whites and racial minorities. In fact, the real question here is: How
much do you think x dislikes y? except that the writer chose not to pose
it in that fashion. We are not sure why this is so – perhaps because it
would have been too strong an assumption. At any rate, the answers
limit your speech role as provider of information because there is no
choice that provides a more positive response. Imagine how different
these questions would be if the answers had ‘like’ instead of ‘dislike’ in
the possible responses.
Also consider what would happen if we rephrased 9 and 10 to read: Do
you think white people like or dislike racial minorities? Do you think racial
minorities like or dislike white people? and changed the possible answers
to like or dislike. What kind of assumption underlies this new choice of
answers? How do they broaden the readers’ speech role or narrow it?
From our perspective, this re-phrasing assumes strong feelings between
whites and racial minorities and does not allow for any emotion between
liking or disliking. According to this question, whites and racial minorities
can have no neutral feelings about each other. This obviously narrows
the speech role of the reader to an answer that is similar to yes/no with
no opportunity to indicate any range in feeling.
Analyzing the Race Relations Survey: Questions 11–18

We have now provided you with different ways of looking at questions
and their answers. In this section, you will have a chance to undertake
your own critical discourse analysis of the remaining questions and
answers.
CDA questions Take some time to carefully read Survey questions 11–18. You will notice
that after each Survey question, we pose one or more CDA questions.
Answer each CDA question in writing.
Question 11
11. Who do you think is more responsible for the poor status of race
relations?
• Whites mostly responsible

• Minorities mostly responsible
• Neither
• Both
• No opinion
1. What are the assumptions on which this question is based?
Check both the question and answers.
2. What would happen to the speech role of readers if the question
was: Do you think minorities or whites or neither are responsible
for current race relations?
Question 12
12. On the whole, do you think most white people want to see minorities
get a better break, or do they want to keep minorities down or don’t you
think they care either way?
• Minorities to get a better break
• To keep minorities down
• Don't care either way
• No opinion
1. How does Question 12 constrain readers?
2. Is there a way of asking this question that would broaden the
speech role of readers?
Question 13
13. Over the last 10 years, how has the quality of life changed for racial
minorities?
1. Why do you think the writer posed this question?
2. Is the speech role of readers who are members of racial minori-
ties different from those who are not? If so, why? If not, why
not?
3. What assumptions are contained in the question?
Questions 14 to 18
14. What do you think about racial minorities chances for good employment?

• No opinion
15. What do you think of racial minorities chances of getting a good
education?
(same answers as 14)
16. What do you think of racial minorities chances of getting quality health
care?
17. What do you think of minorities chances of being stopped by a police
officer?
18. What do you think of racial minorities chances of being imprisoned?

1. What are the assumptions underlying questions 11–18?
2. Have you seen this kind of assumption elsewhere in the Survey?
Where?
3. How narrow or broad is your speech role as a responder? Why?
Summing up Interrogatives
CDA researchers closely examine Interrogatives in a variety of discourses
such as the Survey. It is important to recognize the assumptions on which
the questions are based, and how these assumptions place listeners/read-
ers into speech roles with only a narrow choice of answers. Without
being aware of it, listeners/readers can be strongly influenced by the
way questions are posed. This Survey, for example, limits a responder’s
perspective on the issue of racism in ways that ensure that the responder
expresses the same beliefs as the writer. The CDA researcher could then
ask: What are the interests of the people who created the Survey? How
do they want to influence readers? Why? In doing this, the research-
ers can begin to make transparent the underlying assumptions. Such
demonstrations allow you to become more sensitive to, and aware of,
how language choices influence the ways in which you can respond. If
you are ever the developer of a survey or questionnaire, you will be able
to take a CDA approach by posing questions that do not constrain your
readers, thus allowing for a broader discussion. In other words, you may
be in a position to bring about change.
3.4 Modality: an overview

When President Bush said in his speech: Our country mourns for the loss
of life, he was not expressing his opinion. Rather, he was stating what
he considered to be a truth – as in yes, this is happening. Similarly, this
is not about how to break stereotypes in the ‘Melanie Speaks’ text is true
according to the writer. When you studied the Ideational Metafunction,
you found out how participants, processes, and circumstances allowed
speakers/writers to tell others how they viewed the world through their
presentation of information. But what happens when a speaker/writer

wishes to modify his/her discourse to express a position that is not yes
but not no either? This in-between area is what SFL analysts call modality
and it expresses four different stances:
1) Probability: how likely the speaker/writer feels that something
may occur. For example: Racial discrimination might come to an
end.
2) Frequency: how often the speaker/writer feels that something
may happen. For example: Racial discrimination usually takes
place in the legal system.
3) Obligation: when the speaker/writer feels that something has
to be done. For example: Racial discrimination must come to an
end.
4) Inclination: how the speaker/writer assesses the tendency of
something to occur. For example: I’ll help you move tomorrow.
3.4.1 What happens to the Ideational Metafunction when modality occurs?

One of the most important things to remember about the metafunctions
of language is that they work together to realize meanings. The Ideational
Metafunction realizes the content of our information. The Interpersonal
Metafunction realizes the ways in which we modify the yes/no aspect of
our information in order to express our attitudes and positions.
Modality can be added to simple statements by adding modal auxiliaries
to the main Verb. Look at the bolded words in the clauses below and
consider how they alter the propositions. Are the statements/questions
still propositions? Or have they been changed in some way? How?

• President Bush’s speech: we will win it
• Prime Minister Winston Churchill’s speech: Even though large
tracts of Europe and many old and famous States have fallen or
may fall into the grip of the Gestapo
• Race Relations Survey. Do you think that relations between racial
minorities and whites will always be a problem
• ‘Melanie Speaks’: she ‘should’ do something
As you may have noted, these modal auxiliaries mean that the proposi-
tions are no longer exactly yes or no. Rather, they are somewhere in
between. The modals allow us, as speakers/writers, to express a wide
range of attitudes and stances. When we analyzed President’s Bush’s
speech in Chapter 1, we noted that phrases such as we will win it allowed

the President to make a combined threat and promises.
How does will do this? It does it with the choice of a modal indicating
a high degree of probability so that it almost is a definite event (but
not quite – because it has not happened yet). Churchill makes many
strong shall statements in his speech, which have the same high degree
of probability as will. However, when it comes to discussing whether or
not more land will fall into the hands of the Germans, he uses may – a
modal auxiliary which has a lower degree of probability – in order to
show how unlikely he thinks it is that Germany will win the war despite
this possibility.
When analyzing the Race Relations Survey, we noted how the ques-
tions were based on strong assumptions. Notice that Question 8: Do you
think that relations between racial minorities and whites will always be a
problem? uses will instead of could or might – two modals that indicate
a lower level of probability than will. The use of will ensures that the
assumption remains strong even though the writer is asking readers to
look into the future.
The clause she ‘should’ do something in ‘Melanie Speaks’ does something
quite different. Instead of demonstrating probability, the should demon-
strates obligation or necessity. Without the should, the clause would be:
she does something – a simple fact. What the clause does say is that she
feels the obligation to do something, because of her socialization as a
female, a point that Melanie makes forcefully with the sense of explicit
obligation evident in the choice of ‘should.’
In sum, modal auxiliaries alter simple propositions. As they do so, they

indicate a speaker/writer’s attitude towards the discourse, that is, his/her
position or stance on whether, to varying degrees, something will or
must happen.
Another way to take a stance towards propositions is through adverbs,
because adverbs also express modality. Speakers/writers can use
adverbs to modify a statement, as in Racial discrimination usually
takes place in the legal system. They can also use adverbs to modify a
modal auxiliary and its main verb: Racial discrimination will certainly
come to an end. We have numerous adverbs in English that help us
express modality in this way – for example, usually, often, sometimes,
possibly, probably, definitely.
3.4.2 The Interpersonal Metafunction: summary

In Chapter 2, you learned that the Ideational Metafunction was a general
function of language that allowed speakers/writers to express their ideas
and experiences. One of the founders of SFL, Michael Halliday, calls this
‘the clause as representation.’ The Interpersonal Metafunction is a second
general function of language that Halliday calls ‘the clause as exchange.’
When people exchange information, they introduce attitudes and stances
into their discourse. This includes both attitudes and stances (1) toward
their topic and (2) toward their listeners/readers.
As you have seen, speakers/writers can demonstrate attitudes and posi-
tions/stances is through modality. Through the use of modal auxiliaries
and adverbs, speakers/writers can add elements that modify the propo-
sitions in their discourses, changing these propositions to statements
marked by their opinions, beliefs, and perspectives.
As the exchange occurs, the interactants are also placed into different
speech roles through Mood – whether they are giving information,
asking for information or demanding it.
Interpersonal Metafunction
Demonstrates how people exchange information and the speech roles
that people play when they interact with one another.
Answers the question: What are the speaker’s writer’s attitudes and posi-
tions/stances? through:
1) Mood: whether the speaker/writer is giving information, asking
for information or giving orders.

2) Modality: how the speaker modifies factual statements through
use of modal auxiliaries and adverbs.
As we have noted throughout this chapter, CDA researchers find the
Interpersonal Metafunction, particularly Mood, a rich source of informa-
tion about equality and inequality among people. They have used this
aspect of SFL to research a wide variety of discourse events that involve
people with differing levels of status, including doctors/patients, teach-
ers/students, managers/workers, politicians/the electorate, media/read-
ers, police officers/criminals, social workers/people who need assistance,
and judges/accused persons. The focus of their research is to expose how
inequalities are produced and maintained through discourse.
In the next section of this chapter, you will have an opportunity to analyze
the Interpersonal Metafunction in a discourse in which writer(s) in the
media contributed to a situation involving racial discrimination that
impacted the lives of thousands of people.
3.5 The Pearl Harbor editorial

Editorials in newspapers are written to influence readers – to get them
to share or, at least, be swayed by, the opinions of the editorial writers,
which are most often a reflection of the position of a particular news-
paper. For this reason, editorials can be a very rich source of research
for CDA analysts. They want to find out how people in positions of
power, such as newspaper publishers and editorial writers, view current
issues that arise most of the time through specific agencies in society
– government and business. The purpose of the editorials, then, is not to
provide facts about current events but rather to serve, as CDA linguist
Teun van Dijk says, persuasive, political, social, and cultural functions.
These purposes are particularly evident in the editorial discourse we
will discuss below.
3.5.1 Background to the Pearl Harbor editorial

The Pearl Harbor editorial is an example of a newspaper supporting
government-sanctioned racism. Although this editorial and its events
occurred more than 50 years ago, it demonstrates a clear case of racial
profiling – an issue as important today as it was then. Racial profil-

ing occurs when a person identifies someone as a member of a racial
minority and makes an assumption about that person’s background,
psychology, temperament, and intentions based on what he/she believes
about that minority. Racial profiling is dangerous. If it occurs in law
enforcement, for example, police may use race, religion, ethnicity or
national origin to decide who should be stopped and investigated for
suspicion of breaking the law in situations such as selling illegal arms,
using drugs or any other activity. In other words, racial profiling is
the singling out of groups on the basis of race or ethnicity for some
negative reason.
This editorial that we are about to examine was written in 1942 just
after the Japanese made an unexpected and therefore highly successful
bombing attack on American troops and ships in Pearl Harbour, Hawaii.
One result was that Japanese-American citizens and immigrants became
objects of suspicion in the United States. Some people thought they were
loyal to Japan and they were thus suspected of spying. The U.S. govern-
ment encouraged this belief when the Secretary of the Navy released a
statement saying that the Pearl Harbor attack was the result of sabotage
on the part of Japanese-Americans, even though there was no evidence
to support it. In fact, no American citizen of Japanese descent was ever
found to have committed an act of espionage or sabotage against the
United States. Military influence and inflammatory editorials such as the
one you will analyze, however, provided a rationale for the U.S. actions
taken against its own citizens in 1942.
Many Japanese – approximately 120,000 – were interned in prison camps
for the duration of the war. They lost their homes and businesses; they
often lived in very difficult conditions in the internment camps and
frequently experienced great hardship. It wasn’t until 1988 that the U.S.
government passed the Civil Liberties Act, offering a $20,000 reparation
and letter of apology to each of those imprisoned in the camps still alive
at that time.
3.5.2 Analyzing the Pearl Harbor editorial

Read through the editorial once. Then read it again, noticing, specifically,
the modal verbs (bolded) and adverbs (bolded and italicized).
Japanese leaders in California who are counseling their people, both

aliens and native-born, to co-operate with the Army in carrying out
the evacuation plans are, in effect, offering the best possible way for
all Japanese to demonstrate their loyalty to the United States.
Many aliens and practically all the native-born have been protesting
their allegiance to this Government. Although their removal to inland
districts outside the military zones may inconvenience them some-
what, even work serious hardships upon some, they must certainly
recognize the necessity of clearing the coastal combat areas of all
possible fifth columnists and saboteurs. Inasmuch as the presence
of enemy agents cannot be detected readily when these areas are
thronged by Japanese the only course left is to remove all persons of

that race for the duration of the war.
Real danger would exist for all Japanese if they remained in the
combat area. The least act of sabotage might provoke angry reprisals
that easily could balloon into bloody race riots.
We must avoid any chance of that sort of thing. The most sensible,
the most humane way to insure against it is to move the Japanese out
of harm’s way and make it as easy as possible for them to go and to
remain away until the war is over.
Their Best Way to Show Loyalty, The San Francisco News, 6 March
1942.
3.5.3 Examining modality

When we discussed modality at the beginning of this section, we noted
that there are four types: probability, frequency, obligation, and inclina-
tion. As we discussed different uses of modal auxiliaries, we noted that
that some showed greater certainty than others – described as high,
medium or low.
Practice In the chart below, analyze each modal auxiliary in the discourse by
type and certainty. If there is a modal adverb, write down how you
think the adverb affects the modality. We have done the second one as
an example.
Modal Auxiliary Type Certainty Adverb

1 Although their removal
to inland districts outside
the military zones may
inconvenience them
somewhat,
2 they must certainly obligation high emphasizes the

recognize the necessity certainty
of clearing the coastal
combat areas of all
possible fifth columnists
and saboteurs
3 Inasmuch as the presence

of enemy agents cannot
be detected readily
4 Real danger would exist

for all Japanese
5 The least act of sabotage

might provoke angry
reprisals
6 that easily could balloon

into bloody race riots.
7 We must avoid any chance

of that sort of thing.
Application
A discourse make-over
The Japanese-American Journal is a (hypothetical) weekly newspaper that
served Japanese Americans in the United States in the 1940s.
Re-write the Pearl Harbor editorial as if you were an editorial writer for
the Journal at that time. Cover the topics included in the original, but
write from the perspective of being in a racial minority that is under
threat of internment in prison camps for political reasons.
• After you have written the editorial, note the Moods and
Modality that you chose to get your point across.
• Describe your discourse in terms of the stances evident in your
choices. Compare them with the original and, while doing so,
identify the ways in which the stances in each discourse reflect
power.
• Compare your editorial with that of your classmates and discuss
differences and similarities.
Example of a CDA Read the following example of a critical discourse analysis of Mood.
analysis: the role Jim Martin, whose Ideational analysis we have seen in Chapter 2, looks
of Mood here at the role of the interpersonal in analysis focusing specifically on
Mood. As part of a larger project in which he was involved in the 1990s,

he examines ‘…the ways in which popular music could be deployed to
challenge power’ (2000: 280). He looks at a text by the musical group
U2 called Sunday Bloody Sunday, a song about the troubles in Ireland.
As Martin explains, the song was performed many times but because it
was so controversial it was eventually banned in Northern Ireland by the
then Prime Minister of England, Mrs. Thatcher. Bono, the lead singer,
phased the following rap into the song:
I’m going to tell you something. I’ve had enough of Irish Americans
who haven’t been back to their country in 20 or 30 years, come up to me
and talk about the resistance, the revolution back home, and the glory
of the revolution and the glory of dying for the revolution. Fuck the
revolution! They don’t talk about the glory of killing for the revolution.
What’s the glory in taking a man from his bed and gunning him down
in front of his wife and children. Where’s the glory in that? Where’s the
glory in bombing a Remembrance Day parade of old age pensioners,
their medals taken out and polished up for the day. Where’s the glory in
that? To leave them dying or crippled for life or dead under the rubble of
the revolution that the majority of people in my country don’t want. No
more. Say ‘No more.’ No more-No more. No more.
Martin examines, through the system of Mood, how this kind of text
exerts power, especially over American fans. He says it does so because
of the ways in which it positions its speakers into different roles – stating,
questioning, commanding and explaining. As he says, if one examines
the different choruses one will note how Mood ‘…positions its listeners
to receive information, to provide information, to perform a service or
to empathize with the feeling’ (ibid: 281).
Martin then gives some illustrations from the text of how the song thus
positions its listeners:
The song begins with the declarative mood giving information: ‘I’m
going to tell you something,’ ‘I’ve had enough of Americans who…’
He (Bono) then switches to the imperative, to dismiss the way in

which he feels some Irish Americans glorify the revolution. ‘Fuck
the revolution!’ (imperative) This is followed by the declarative
clause, giving information about the acts of killing the revolutions
has involved: ‘They don’t talk about the glory of killing for the
revolution’.
Then there are more interrogatives and the song ends with what is called
a minor clause, one without a verb: ‘No more’, which is repeated several
times.
Martin’s final analysis of this song clearly illustrates the thrust, the power
of the use of the Mood system:
What seems crucial to the interpersonal enactment of Bono’s power

is not just the number or type of mood selections he makes, but the
manner in which he moves from one selection to the next… His goal is
to align the audience with his position, a significant objective given the
amount of funding for the IRA donated by Irish expatriates in America.
He pursues this by first tabling a proposition about the glory of the
revolution, then dismissing it (Fuck the revolution), then subverting
it (Where’s the glory…), then undermining it (the revolution that the
majority of the people in my country don’t want), then pleading for an
end to the violence (No more), and closes by aligning the audience to
plead with him, chanting in response to the cue.
This then is how Martin illustrates the ‘ways in which interpersonal

meaning (through the Mood system) is used to enact power,’ and
shows how important it is to look at how ‘meanings unfold in a text’
(ibid: 284).
Chapter 3 Glossary Declarative Mood: giving information.

Frequency: when modality indicates ‘likelihood’.
Imperative Mood: demanding information or action.
Inclination: when modality indicates ‘tendency’.
Interrogative Mood: requesting information.
Interpersonal Metafunction: how people express their attitudes and
positions/stances in discourse.
Modal auxiliary: a word that modifies the main verb to express atti-
tudes.
Modality: how speakers/writers demonstrate their attitudes and posi-
tions/stances.
Mood: whether a clause is a statement, question or command.
Obligation: when modality indicates ‘must-ness’.
Probability: when modality indicates ‘possibility’.
Relational process of Identification: a Relational process in which a
Token – an object or a person – is identified by its Value.
Speech role: the identity taken on by speakers/writers and listeners/read-

ers during a discourse.
Token: the object being identified in a Relational process of
Identification.
Value: the information about the Token in a Relational process of
Identification.
wh-interrogative: any question that begins with who, what, where, which,
when, why and how.
SFL readings Chapter 3

Eggins, S. (1994) Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. We have Further readings
encountered Eggins before; her chapter on Interpersonal compo-
nents is very thorough. The most relevant sections of her Chapter
6 are pages 146–164 in which she covers different aspects of Mood.
Later in the same chapter she also discusses modality and modula-
tion. It might be interesting for you to compare her treatment with
Halliday’s, which we describe below. Pages 178–183 are particularly
relevant.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994) Introduction to Functional Grammar. In Chapter
10 Halliday talks about modality and contrasts it with modulation.
In very succinct and clear charts, he illustrates the range of each area
of the grammar. See in particular pages 354–362.

Thompson, G. (1996) Introducing Functional Grammar. For yet another
very clear discussion of modality see Thompson’s Chapter 4, in par-
ticular pages 56–64.
CDA readings
Teo, P. (2000) ‘Racism in the news: a critical discourse analysis of news

reporting in two Australian newspapers’. In this article Teo uses
many SFL tools that we have studied for his analysis of racism in
the Australian press.
van Dijk, T. (1993) Elite Discourse and Racism. This is a book in which
van Dijk summarizes much of his work and study of racism in
Europe and the United States. In it he focuses on the role of the
media in racism and in particular on what he calls elite racism. His
Chapter 7, Media and Racism, is particularly relevant to our work
in this chapter because he looks at racism as conveyed through the
print media.
Chapter 4 contents
4.1 Introduction: discourse in advertising
4.2 Text 1: The Forester advertisement
4.3 The Textual Metafunction: cohesion and coherence
4.4 The Forester ad: cohesion

4.4.1 Achieving cohesion
4.5 The Forester ad: Theme/Rheme

4.5.1 Theme versus theme
4.6 Text 2: The Legacy GT advertisement
4.7 The Legacy GT ad: cohesion

4.7.1 Analyzing cohesion
4.8 The Legacy GT ad: Theme/Rheme
4.9 Text 3: The Centrum ad

Power of Language How Discourse Influences Society - Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power of Language How Discourse Influences Society - Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Power of Language How Discourse Influences Society - Chapter 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

Language and racism

Introduction: definitions of ‘racism’ 3.1

In this chapter, we will be looking at the complex issue of racism, which

start by briefly examining four definitions of racism. Definitions are a

Racism is the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically

Racism is more than personal prejudice; it involves carrying into effect

Relational processes of Identification, which has two participants – the

Token Process: Relational/ Value

To explore commonalities and differences between these definitions, we

… the changing nature of racism and ethnic domination in modern

in discursive strategies that blame the victims for their circumstances

The Ideational Metafunction has allowed us to identify the main features

mood versus Mood

3.2 Mood: an overview

However, we want to emphasize that, in our discussions, we are only

3.2.1 Reviewing the Finite

Finite vs. non-ﬁnite verbs

Finite verb Non-ﬁnite verb

Joe: Going beyond ideology is included in racism.

3.2.2 Arrangement of Subject and Verb

Verb rearrange themselves in the following three examples to create

3.2.3 The three types of Mood

Declarative: the speaker/writer gives information in the form of

The Declarative Mood: making statements

Statements are a way that speakers/writers provide information. Look

ity to give information, can place the speaker in a position of power; in

Interrogatives: asking questions

• The question word: who, what, which, when, why or how

• Example 1: Did the teacher define racism?

Imperative Mood: issuing commands

• The Imperative can be softened by the use of the word please as

CDA researchers are interested in studying situations in which some

To sum up: Mood is realized by Declaratives, Interrogatives, and

The Race Relations Survey 3.3

Questions to consider Discussion

The Race Relations Survey

1. What is your opinion about race relations in the United States/Canada?

• Don't care either way

17. What do you think of minorities chances of being stopped by a police

http://academic.udayton.edu/race/ (Accessed February 2003)

Analyzing the Race Relations Survey: Questions 1–10

Changing the reader’s speech role

3. How serious a problem do you think racial discrimination is where you

• How does it differ from the original Question 3?

In Question 8, there are only two possible answers: Will always be a

Analyzing the Race Relations Survey: Questions 11–18

• Whites mostly responsible

• A better chance than whites

18. What do you think of racial minorities chances of being imprisoned?

3.4 Modality: an overview

presentation of information. But what happens when a speaker/writer

3.4.1 What happens to the Ideational Metafunction when modality occurs?

still propositions? Or have they been changed in some way? How?

speech in Chapter 1, we noted that phrases such as we will win it allowed

In sum, modal auxiliaries alter simple propositions. As they do so, they

3.4.2 The Interpersonal Metafunction: summary

for information or giving orders.

3.5 The Pearl Harbor editorial

3.5.1 Background to the Pearl Harbor editorial