Fairclough’s three-dimensional model:

Fairclough, recognized as one of the most prominent scholars in contributing to the CDA
development, grasps a more social-theoretical opinion towards doing analysis. Consistent with
Fairclough, the model for CDA consists of “three inter-related processes of analysis tied to three
inter-related dimensions of discourse.” (Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.371)
These three dimensions of discourses are: (1) the object of analysis (text, description of formal
prosperities of the text, including verbal, visual or verbal and visual texts) or, (2) the processes by
which the object is shaped and received (writing/ speaking/ designing and reading/ listening/
viewing) by human subjects i.e. interpretation of discursive practice or relationship between text
and interaction), and sociocultural practice (explanation: social determination of the processes of
production and interpretation and their social effects).

According to Fairclough each of these purposes requires a different kind of analysis: (1) text
analysis (description); (2) processing analysis (interpretation); (3) social analysis (explanation).
This approach assists the analyst to focus on the important elements that make up the text, the
specific linguistic choices, their association, and sequencing their design. (Janks, 2001: 27)

Introduction on Fairclough’s three-dimensional analytical work:

According to Fairclough, the first level of the framework is textual-analysis which comprises
“the study of the different processes, or types of verbs, involved in the interaction; study on the
meanings of the social relations established between participants in the interaction; analysis of
the mood (whether a sentence is a statement, question, or declaration) and modality (the degree
of assertiveness in the exchange).”(Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.371).
Fairclough’s second dimension, processing analysis, involves “analysis of the process of
production, interpretation, distribution, and consumption. This aspect is concerned with how
people interpret and reproduce or transform texts.” (Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep,
2005, p.371) The third dimension –social analysis “concerned with issues of power—power
being a construct that is realized through interdiscursivity and hegemony. Analysis of this
dimension includes exploration of the ways in which discourses operate in various domains of
society.” (Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.371) In short, the analysis of the text
involves the study of the language structures produced in a discursive event. An analysis of the
discursive practice involves examining the production, consumption, and reproduction of the
texts. The analysis of sociocultural practice includes an exploration of what is happening in a
particular sociocultural framework.” (Rogers, Berkes, Mosley, Hui, and Josep, 2005, p.37) The
purpose why we have adopted Fairlough's approach to CDA is that it provides multiple points of
analysis entries. It does not matter which kind of analysis one begins with, providing that they
are all encompassed and are shown to be mutually explanatory. It is in the interconnections that
the analyst catches remarkable patterns and disjunctions that need to be described, interpreted
and explained.

Selected Data:

We have selected around some lines from the full text of the speeches of each candidate. The
first set of data is that of Ruhani and the second is Qalibaf’s. It should be mentioned that we
studied the full texts of the two speeches and believe that the selected samples are representative
(i.e., reflect the overall gist) of the full texts.

Description: Text Analysis:

According to Fairclough, CDA has three consistent levels: descriptive, interpretive and
explanatory. In the first level a text is analyzed according to the visual and verbal signs. In order
to disassemble a text at this level, Fairclough splits the descriptive dimension into three sub-parts,
each part with some sub-questions:

Vocabulary:

1. What experiential values do words have?

2. What relational values do words have?
3. Are there euphemistic expressions?
4. Are there markedly formal or informal words?
5. What expressive values do words have?
6. What metaphors are used?

Grammar:

1. What experiential value do grammatical features have?

2. What types of process and participant predominate?
3. Are sentences active or passive?

Are sentences positive or negative?

4. What relational values do grammatical features have?

 5. What modes are used?
6. Are the pronouns we and you used, and if so, how?
7. What expressive values do grammatical features have?
8. How are simple sentences linked together?
9. What logical connectors are used?
10. Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or subordination?

Text Structures:

1. What interactional conventions are used?

2. What large-scale structure does the text have?

These questions are used for text analysis (description level). In disassembling a text it is
important to remember that it is impossible to read meaning directly off the verbal and visual
textual signs. By that we mean the visual and formal characteristics are highly related to the level
of meaning or conceptualization. This is well demonstrated in the speech samples. In the
following parts of the paper we will answer some of these questions in order to clarify the
discussion.

Interpretation: Processing Analysis:

On the basis of interpretation, Fairclough mentions two dimensions of utterance. First, surface
of utterance, which studies the processes by which interpreters convert strings of sounds or marks
on paper into recognizable words, phrases and sentences. Second, meaning of utterance, which
allocates meaning to the component parts of an utterance that may correspond to sentences or to
semantic propositions. The third level of interpretation reflects local coherence of the text, which
creates meaning relations between utterances, therefore, producing coherent interpretations of
pairs and sequences of them. This level in fact emphases on the connective values of formal
features of text. Fairclough states “it has a partially ‘internal’ character compared with the
others, in that it is a matter of the values formal features have in connecting together parts of
text” (2001: 108). Cohesion in text can either include vocabulary connections between
sentences-repetition of words or use of relative words. It can also involve connectors that mark
various temporal, spatial and logical relationships between sentences. It can also include
reference, i.e., words that refer back or forward to an earlier or later sentence. With regard to this
point, Fairclough discusses two other questions:

What logical connectors are used in the texts?

 One main point related to the ways connecting (simple) sentences in these two speeches is that
the vast numbers of sentences are short which are connected to the other short sentences by
current logical connectors. The connector “and”, “but”, “because” in both speeches is frequently
used by the speakers. But in the most parts of the two texts the connection between sentences is
the result of the juxtaposition of different sentences. This feature is obviously clear in both
speeches. In introductory paragraph both speakers connect the simple short sentences by logical
connectors. In the following paragraphs, both utilize simple short sentences individually (and the
connection between them is drawn from juxtaposition or intonational devices such as pause),

Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or subordination?

As we mentioned in the last section, the number of complex sentences in both speeches is low
and instead, simple sentences have the role of conveying information. However, in both texts we
see some complex sentences in which the main clause and subordinate clause are connected by
the help of subordinators—that, what, etc. It appears a natural phenomenon for speaker whose
aim is giving a lecture comprehensible for people from different strata of society to use simple
short sentences instead of long complex sentences to be decoded in their mind with difficulty.
Coherence itself is divided into global and local coherence. By global coherence we mean that
kinds of relations which bind together different parts of the whole text while local coherence
discloses relations within a particular part of a text.

The last level is text structure and point. In this level the interpreter studies how a whole text
hangs together (global coherence). By point, Fairclough means a summary interpretation of the
text which interpreters arrive at. Point is in fact what tends to be stored in long-term memory so
as to be available for recall. Shortly speaking, point of a text is its general topic. From another
viewpoint on interpretation, the interpreter must challenge four other questions related to
situational context and discourse type:

What’s going on in the text?

This subpart investigates the “contents” of the text. This question is subdivided into activity,
topic and purpose. Activity is the most general and identifies a situation in terms of one of a set
of activity types. In this article, the activity of the nominees is a kind of propagandistic activity.
They are both propagandizing themselves and in a broader sense their parties. Scheme which
includes the activity part of the contents of a text is a mental manifestation of the large-scale
textual structure. The texts in our study are the full texts of speech produced by Ruhani and
Qalibaf in the course of running for Iranian 2013 presidential elections. As the topic shows the
texts are about the speaker's perspectives on the reasons or motivations to run for election,
general plans to run the country, foreign policy, problems of Iranian citizens living abroad,
target-oriented subsidies, Iranian nuclear program and inflation. Our case studies are the
representations of a propagandizing activity in which two nominees are revealing their thought.
It is a representation of a particular type of activity in terms of foreseeable elements in an
anticipated sequence (Fairclough 2001: 132).

Topic is what the text is about. Activity types are also associated with particular purpose. Topic,
from another viewpoint represents the frame of a text. Frames represent the objects that exist in
the natural and social world. It is a demonstration of whatever can figure as a topic, or subject
matter or referent within an activity. The purpose of both Ruhani and Qalibaf can be condensed
in one single phrase: “to win the game.” In the world of politics, two politicians are competing
with each other; they criticize each other and also the rival party in order to show a positive
appearance to people with the aim of gaining more votes.

Who is involved in the action?

By this question, we study the “subject.” This question itself relates to some other issues.
Primarily, one of its dimensions originates from the activity type. In this case, we handle a
speech; speeches have one place for the lecturer. Then, the institution allots social identities to
the subjects who function within it. In our examples, in each case, there is a politician, a
nominee, who tries to win the future presidential election in Iran. Additionally, in different
situations there are different speaking and listening positions. In this paper we have speaker and
addressee roles. Here, there is no role changing between them. Our speakers are fixed without
changing their role with the addresses.

What are the relations of the people involved in the action?

Here, we deal with “relations.” When we talk about relations, we should look at subject
positions more vigorously: what relationships of power, social distance and etc. are set up in the
situation? Both Ruhani and Qalibaf have high positions from the view of a social ranking
stratification. They are politically influential and are supported by two major political parties of
the country. About the social distance between them and their addresses, we think there is no
precise answer. Their addresses are from different classes of society. There are people whose
power and social position are lower, equal or even higher than the speakers.

What is the role of language?

“Connections” are studied under this question. Language is being used in an instrumental way
as a part of a wider institutional and bureaucratic objective. It is used to convey information. In
this sense and regarding our examples we deal with the genre of speech and its channel is spoken.
Explanation: Social Analysis

Reproduction associates the stages of interpretation and explanation, because while the former
refers to how members’ resources (MR) are drawn upon in processing discourse, the latter refers
to the social constitution and change of MR, including of course their reproduction in discourse
practice (Fairclough, 2001). The goal of the stage of explanation is to depict a discourse as part of
a social process, as a social practice, showing how it is determined by social structures, and what
reproduction effects discourses can in all have on those structures sustaining them. These social
determinations and effects are ‘mediated’ by MR: that is social structures shape MR, which in
turn form discourses; and discourses sustain or change MR which in turn sustain or change
structures.

Therefore, explanation is a matter of seeing a discourse as part of processes of social struggle,

within a matrix of relations of power. We can think of explanation as having two dimensions,
depending on whether the emphasis is upon process or structure—upon processes of struggle or
upon relations of power. On the one hand, we can see discourses as parts of social struggles, and
contextualize in terms of these broader (non-discursive) struggles on structures. This puts the
stress on the social determination of discourse and on the past (Fairclough, 2001: 136). On the
other hand, we can show what power relationships determine discourses; these relationships are
themselves the outcome of struggles, and are established (and, ideally, naturalized) by those with
power (ibid).

The Iranian society is in a period of change or transformation in its political history. Today,
the atmosphere of politics in Iran is competitive. The two presidential nominees or broadly
speaking, two major political parties of Iran are trying to win the election and gain the political,
social, economic and “universal” power for the following four years. In this level of analysis, we
are often looking at the same features from different perspectives. It should be noticed that the
texts we have studied in this article are official lectures about the topic, which has caused
politicians, and even usual people with different viewpoints to show concern about it.

Their lectures can be seen firstly in specific terms as showing two different positions. These two
positions are underlined through the language they use. Of course, both have the views of a
politicians who are against present foreign policy in Iran and the way to deal with neighbor
countries and negotiating the nuclear program. However, Ruhani tends to show more flexibility
and come to a compromise with the west. While, Qalibaf’s speech words from the perspective of
a politician who believes general foreign policy is not determined only by the president, but by
other parts of the system like the, legislation, judiciary and especially the supreme leader; owing
to the fact that he is one of the candidates that are at the same wing as the leader and one of the
confidant nominees. This fact is illustrated by the vocabulary items utilized by two candidates:
for instance defective premises, unsuccessful beliefs, faulty foreign policy, and defective
management. The expressions “unsuccessful” and “strained”, belong to opposing ideological
framework whereas the existence of words such as connection, cooperation, positive results,
advances, replicate success, indicate a right ideology to the framework. Therefore, the study of
two speeches categorizes two different ideological schemes; these differences illustrate the world
implied in the vocabulary used by them.

Fairclough continues that in terms of effects, a discourse may represent its own social
determinants and the (MR) with almost no change. In this case the producer is in a normative
relation to MR: this relation is associated with situations. But, on the contrary if a discourse
brings about greater or lesser degree of contribution, in this way the producer is in a creative
relation to MR. This is the characteristic of a situation which are problematic. The choice
between these two depends on the nature of the situation. As we mentioned before the situation
and the current atmosphere of the Iranian society is electoral and therefore competitive. The
ideas uttered by each party cause some reaction in the rival party and public thought. Even we
sometimes see that such a kind of states stimulates some rebellious behaviors in different parts of
a country by the supporters of the rival party. This fact exhibits that the nature of situation and
also political relations are challenging; thus both discourses in this article are in a creative
relation to the MR. In this way we can claim that Ruhani and Qalibaf are in a creative relation to
MR.

Discussion:

CDA is not merely the study of the structures of language and text but is the study of people,
institutions and organizations. The main idea in this approach is that the relation between form
and content is not arbitrary; this relation is recognized by cultural, social and political constraints.
Ruhani and Qalibaf, the two nominees of the future presidential election of Iran are from two
different parties. The first is from the left, Reformists Party and the next from the right,
Principlist Party. Each one has been selected as the nominee of his party by support of all the
members within their own party. We know that the present Right wing president, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, adopted a foreign policy that caused a lot of tension between Iran and the west and
has brought about a hostile atmosphere that resulted in an impasse in negotiations and putting
sanctions against Iran. Both Ruhani and Qalibaf are in a competition with the same goal. Each
one wants to win the election and to enter the center of power in the country. The study of their
speeches shows that although both declaring compromising with the west, Qalibaf, unlike
Ruhani, claims more obedience of the law, and maintaining the prestige of the country and
demonstrates less flexibility toward west and resuming relations with the United States. These
two different perspectives can be drawn from line by line of their speeches. Let us have another
look at the texts.
Ruhani begins his speech by mentioning the problems of people and the main cause of these
problems that is defective foreign policy and foreign relations. By referring to national identity
he seeks support from people. He refers to what he really takes as a key to success that is national
unity and alliances between people. He considers the presence of the plenty of geniuses and
human capital dramatic advantages and says that the country has the potential to flourish with
good management, employing effective strategies and effective use of all the resources. The
important point in this paragraph is the insistence on national identity and potentials that have
been misguided by lack of good management and his emphasis on of this concept exactly reveals
his thought. He explicitly imagines President Ahmadinejad, the starter of the crisis, as a person
who failed having good relations with the world and boosting foreign relations. He sees the
inflexibility and tension-making policies as actions which are based on faulty premises and
intelligence.

On the other side, Qalibaf starts his speech by mentioning aspirations and concerns of people in
general and tries to show his understanding of people. In the third paragraph, Qalibaf lists the
successes in his own career as the police chief and the mayor of Tehran. Even he counts these
successes under the title of “positive results.” In the same paragraph of Ruhani’s speech, he is on
the contrary, counts his education, positions and experiences and seeks people’s judgment about
his successful political career. He points to the large number of books written under his
supervision as confirm to his abundant experiences.

In the following paragraphs, Qalibaf again praises the results of and progresses gained by his
actions in the police and Tehran municipality. His goal of mentioning these items is just
illustrating his abilities and effective planning. He also objects to dissatisfactory economic
achievements and believes that ineffective management has caused the recession. Also in the last
paragraphs, Qalibaf considers ineffective administration has made the target-oriented subsidies
plan problematic for the country.

Ruhani in the last two paragraphs roughly objects to the social inequality, unjust distribution of
wealth, and lack of employment. Ruhani’s last paragraphs assert the finishing of the
unsuccessful ideology and political strategy of tension and struggle. He implies his oppositional
position about inflexibility in negotiations; and interestingly talks about changes in the policy.
Regarding the target-oriented subsidies, again he maintains that the plan is in essence a good plan
but ineffective administration has caused a lot of problem for the country. Finally, Ruhani calls
the reality of the present atmosphere a gap between Iran’s experience and the wisdom of the
judgment, a gap between the supporters of national flourish and the reality of the economic
impasse caused by the same policies and maintains that it is possible to overcome these problems
by being rational and reasonable, and selecting experienced individuals who are moderate in their
actions.
All in all, the study of the opinions, viewpoints and rhetoric of these two nominees discloses two
different positions. While Qalibaf can be considered as one of the supporters of maintaining the
distance from the U.S. by saying “the world is not just the U.S”, Ruhani can be called as one of
those who think we cannot avoid the U.S forever. These two different viewpoints or generally
speaking strategies are recognized from the language utilized by the nominees. The literature
used by them shows two different perspectives on the same topic by two rivals of the presidential
election.

But why? What is the reason of existence of these two distinct positions to the same topic? Why
do these two politicians have such different opinions? What do they want to say through the
channel of language? Although, the results of resistance and tension with are clear, what
happened to the economic condition of people and the instability imposed to the society and the
people in the country, are transparent and clear to all. They both consider two diverse positions.
We think that the answer sits in the recent history of the country and the interests of the
nominees. Ruhani has started his election competition by the motto “change” and “government
of strategy”. In his propaganda, he always promises the people to bring “change” to the society.
He believes that “changes” in different aspects of society, economic, political, social and cultural
dimensions will enter the country if he is elected as the president. He promised the Iranian
nation to bring “changes” to the internal and external politics. With no doubt such a kind of
oppositional position is the result of some dissatisfaction with the current politics in the country.

It shows that language is used not only to represent the superficial aspects of thought and the
relation of language to power and ideology but to develop the deep layers of human’s mind and
aims. Their speeches are the reflection of what they are really looking for in the world of politics.

Conclusion:
In this paper, we studied the speeches of two nominees of Iran’s presidential election in the
framework of critical discourse analysis (CDA). Their speeches are about exterior and interior
policies, inflation, problems of Iranians living abroad, sanctions imposed by west, and Iranian
nuclear case. The study of two texts evinced that the producers of the texts are far from each
other in representing and analyzing the same event. The investigation of the speeches clearly
showed that the two candidates are distinct. Although, the topic of their speech is the same, its
reasons and results for both politicians and mass people are the same, Ruhani and Qalibaf reflect
two different viewpoints through the channel of language. This fact reveals that multiple
personal and impersonal motivations such as materialistic and spiritual interests, social position,
power relations and situational position trigger the production of the text. It seems that the
descriptions, interpretation, explanation and analysis of multiple texts with the same topic can be
extremely diverse based on the speaker’s/writer’s thought, point of view, political, social and
ideological stimulus.

In this study, the two rivals of presidential election try to win the election and gain political
power. We all know the tragic consequences of the policies of the previous government.
However, Qalibaf does not show that he is decisive to change the foreign policy of struggle and
tension completely. It seems that these two differing thoughts rooted from two oppositional
ideologies and views: while Ruhani is from the rival party which is against rigidity and making
tension, Qalibaf belongs to the party which is starter of the tension. Therefore, the two nominees
propagandize their parties regardless of the effects of the policies. This fact is done through the
language. On the basis of this fact it can be claimed that language is in the hands of the nobles of
power who utilize it according to their own taste. One of the ways that the men of power and
politics use to represent their mind is language, in this way language is in fact a mannequin
which is used by the leaders of society.