1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 RATIONALE
Much language study has always been devoted to pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary
and, as a result, has examined sentences as the largest unit of communication. However,
we all know that being able to produce correct sentences is not enough to use a language in
communicating suceessfully; we need to grasp a larger unit of communication. Modern
linguistic tendency of research focuses on discourse analysis, which is functional analysis
of discourse involving the analysis of language in use. Discourse analysis, although a
challenge to researchers and learners, has attracted much of their attention.
It can be said that discourse analysis touches so many issues of communicating language
both in spoken and written form. It can be analyzed in the light of critical discourse
analysis where relationship between the power, ideology and language is found, or
analyzed to find out linguistic features. However, this thesis will not present the above
issues but study a very interesting aspect of discourse, that’s say, the structure of the text.
The Declaration of Independence of the United States and that of Vietnam will be chosen
as subject of the study. The reason for this choice is that both share the same genre but are
written by two different people in two different countries. Moreover, the texts are quite
popular with people all over the world.
1.2 AIMS OF THE STUDY
The aim of this paper is:
+) to explore discourse structure of both Declarations (the textual organisation of every
Declaration, relationship among factors proposed by Man and Thompson, 1983)
+) to find distinction between the two Declarations (in terms of discourse structure).
In order to realize these aims, the study purports to answer the following the research
questions:
1/ what is the discourse structure of the Declaration of Independence of the Untied States?
2
2/ What is the discourse structure of the Declaration of Independence of Vietnam?
3/ What are similarities and differences between the Declaration of Independence of the
United States and that of Vietnam?

findings and gives some concluding remarks of the study. The diagrams of typical
structure of Independent Declaration of the U.S.A and that of Vietnam are drawn at the end
of each chapter of analysis for readers to have an overall look on. These two Declarations
are enclosed in the Appendix. It would be good for the readers to read through full original
English and Vietnamese versions of these documents.
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Discourse and Discourse Structure
2.1.1 Discourse
There have been so far many concepts around the two terms TEXT and DISCOURSE.
While some linguists appear to use the terms interchangeably, for instance, Halliday used
“text” to refer to discourse, or “a semantic unit”, others try to make a clear distinction
between them. Being typical of this tendency is David Nunan. He has clarified the two
terms in a very clear definition as follows:
TEXT is “to refer to any written record of communicative event. The event itself may involve oral
language (for example, a sermon, a casual conversation, a shopping transaction) or written
language (for example, a poem, a newspaper advertisement, a wall poster, a shopping list, a
novel)”
DISCOURSE is “to refer to the interpretation of the communicative event in
context”(1993:6)
Accordingly, Brown and Yule argue that text is the representation of discourse and the
verbal record of a communicative act. It seems that Blass, R shares the same view as these
linguists when he says that I intend to use DISCOURSE as a general term to refer to all
acts of verbal communication, and to reserve the term TEXT for the “explicit”, or
“recorded part” of discourse. Thus, text is a purely linguistic, formal object, whereas
discourse has both linguistic and non-linguistic properties (Blass, R, 1990: 10).
For some other linguists, “text” is used for writing and “discourse” for speech.
This distinction apparently leads to the distinction between Discourse Analysis (D.A) and
Text Analysis (T.A). According to Nunan (1993:7), D.A involves the study or analysis of
language in use within context whereas T.A is concerned with an analysis of the structural

centre on the intentions and goals of authors and readers…)
2.1.2.2.1 Rhetorical genre analysis
The issue of discourse structure is closely related to the phenomenon commonly known as
genre. Each genre has a slightly different structure. Basically, genre can be narrative,
descriptive, procedural and argumentative discourse, which are the types most frequently
presented in language arts. In this section, I pay special attention to argumentative
discourse because it fits the text in this work.
Argumentation theory or argumentation exists from way before the 19
th
century, where the
Aristotle’s logical theory is found first. This indicates that argumentation was an important
factor already in society. An argument occurs when the author of the argument attempts to
convince certain his/her audience to do or believe something by an appeal to reasons, or
evidence. The propositions which are used in offering evidence in support of that claim are
the argument’s premises. By contrast, the proposition that an author supports by an appeal
to evidence, on a particular occasion, is the argument’s conclusion. Finally, the goal of
argumentation is to justify one’s standpoint or to refute someone else’s. It is concerned
primarily with reaching conclusions through logical reasoning, that is, claims based on
premises.
2.1.2.2.2 Rhetorical structure theory
Rhetorical Structure Theory (RST) is a theory of text organization described by Mann and
Thompson (1983) which is about how text works and how coherence in text is achieved. It
is one theory of discourse structure, based on identifying relations between segments of the
text.
RST addresses text organization by means of relations that hold between parts of a text. It
explains coherence by postulating hierarchical, connected structure of texts, in which every
part of a text has a role, a function to play, with respect to other parts in the text. According
to RST, relations can be identified on more than one level.
7
RST establishes two different types of units. Nuclei are considered as the most important

Volitional result
Purpose
Motivation
Evidence
Eaboration
Justify
Concession
Background
RST
relations
Subject
matter
8

Figure 1: Model on relations by Man and Thompson (1983)
2.2 Coherence
It can be said that coherence is the core of discourse analysis. Nguyen Thien Giap (2000:
192) states: “The thing that turns a product of language into a discourse or text is merely
coherence”. Coherence is made not only by cohesive devices but structure of the text, or
the way of organizing of a discourse. Thus, discourse structure is also a basic and vital
means of creating text coherence. The structure of discourse seen to include two aspects
that are closely related to each other is the way of organizing and coherence. Do Huu Chau
gives his comments that the arrangement of nuclei in the text is called its layout and is
constructed into a certain order. And the order of construction is an expression of content
relations in that text.
Additionally, Cook, G (1989) says that, the quality of being meaningful and unified is
known as coherence. It is a quality which is clearly necessary for communication and
therefore for foreign language learning. And it is structural unity that contributes to make
the text more and more coherent.
2.3 Thematisation.

Declaration of Independence, by which they established the United States.
By June 7, 1776, events had progressed to a point that Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from
Virginia, made a motion to dissolve all ties to Great Britain and declare independence.
After the motion passed, the Continental Congress appointed a committee comprised of
five men John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and
Roger Sherman, to draft a Declaration of Independence. That committee subsequently
assigned Thomas Jefferson the task of producing a draft document for its consideration.
Some minor changes were suggested by Franklin and Adams, and these were incorporated
10
in the document. Congress also made a few alterations.³ But the finished work was
substantially what Jefferson had presented to the committee. Congress acted quickly once
the Lee resolution came before it again on July 1. The next day it was approved
unanimously by 12 colonies, though the New York delegation abstained. And then — on
the July 4 date which was to be celebrated by posterity — Congress approved the
Declaration of Independence.
3.2 An analysis of the structure of the Declaration of Independence of the United
States.
In the light of rhetorical analysis, the Declaration of Independence is written in the form of
an argument. It begins with a statement of premises and assumptions, and then lists
evidence to support those premises in the series of claims beginning with "He" (in
reference to King George of England). Having asserted its premises and itemized its
evidence, the Declaration then proceeds to draw its conclusion, introduced by that clearest
of conclusion indicators, "therefore."
However, in the process of studying structure of both Declarations, theory of text structure
(RST) will be applied. First and foremost, in terms of layout, the Declaration can be
structured into the following three parts:
The Beginning part is comprised of the first two paragraphs, of which the first is a
preamble, which explains the reasons for the second that states theoretical justification of
revolution and independence.
The Body part is an enumeration of the abuses suffered at the hands of the British,

publicly in explicit terms – the “causes’ impelling America to leave the British Empire.
The Preamble consists of a short paragraph but is made up of just a complex sentence, so it
conveys a lot of information. Not only does it give reasons for writing down a declaration
but to provide a justification for dissolving the ties binding the colonies to Britain.
12
To sum up, the Title and Preamble of the Declaration of the United States provide readers
with such information as
+ the topic, objectives and scope of the Declaration, which can be realized right in its title.
Additionally, the date of issuing the discourse is usually pulled together with its Title
+ the purposes, basis (theoretical, practical and legal basis) and reasons for making the
Declaration
From an analysis above, it can be seen that purpose relation holds between the title and the
preamble. The opening paragraph functions to state the purpose of the Declaration, that’s
say, to declare the “causes” which impel American to the separation. This relationship is
illustrated as follows: (T stands for the title and s1 means the sentence 1 – the preamble)
Purpose

T s1
Figure 2: Relationship between the title and the preamble
3.2.2.2. Statements of beliefs
It comes to our attention that this sub – section plays the role of specifying what the
undersigned believed, the philosophy behind the document. Its outstanding philosophy is
legal basis on man’s and government’s right which are acknowledged and highly respected
by mankind. It sets forth a philosophy of government that justifies revolution of America.
In other words, this part functions to justify what is stated in the preamble and is one of the
essential grounds impelling American to separate the British. It is also possible to interpret
that man’s right and government’s motivate American to declare independence. This
would be both justification and motivation relation. Its relationship to the preamble and the
title is shown as follows: This sub – section is numbered s2 to s6


3.2.3 The Body part
Reason
14
3.2.3.1 The Indictment of King George III and the British
3.2.3.1.1 Grievances of King George III
The indictment of George III is the longest part of the document that makes up almost
exactly two-thirds of the text. It begins with a transitional sentence immediately following
the previous section with the parallel structure “such ”. The next sentence states that
indictment with the force of a legal accusation:
Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which
constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government (s7). The history of the present King
of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the
establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States (s8)
This sentence plays a nucleus part, that’s say, the history of the present King of Great
Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations. Next comes the evidences for
“repeated injuries and usurpations” through 28 sentences from s10 to s37 corresponding
to 28 specific grievances which function as satellite information, and are used as proofs
justifying/documenting the king's indictment. The following model illustrates internal
structure of this section:
s7 – s39
evidence
evidence
s7 – s9 s10 – s21 s22 s23 – s37 s38 – s39
s22 s38
concession
s22 pro1 – pro9 pro1 pro2
Figure 5 : Internal structure of the indictment of the King George III

evidence
evidence

evidence
16
forbidden his governors’; ‘he has refused to pass laws’; ‘he has called together legislative
bodies’; ‘he has refused for a long time.
In term of using language, whereas the first twenty-two grievances describe the king's acts
with such temperate verbs as "refused," "called together," "dissolved," "endeavored,"
"made," "erected," "kept," and "affected," the war grievances use emotionally charged
verbs such as "plundered," "ravaged," "burnt," and "destroyed". These verbs, accompanied
by the repetition of "He has” draws attention to the accumulation of grievances and
contributes to build up images of terror to magnify the wickedness of George III, to arouse
the passions and feelings of readers, and to awaken those Americans who had yet to be
directly touched by the ravages of war.
3.2.3.1.2 Grievances of the British through their desperate rebellion despite the
colonists’ peaceful efforts
The Declaration continues to command an international audience and has created an
indelible popular image of George III as a tyrant. In addition to petitioning Parliament and
George III, the colonies had also appealed to the people of Great Britain but in vain
Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our British brethren (s30). We have warned them from
time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us (s31)
… (s33). They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity (s34). We must,
therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, ……. (s35).
The first sentence, beginning "Nor . . . ," shifts attention quickly and cleanly away from
George III to the colonists' "British brethren." The "have we" of the first sentence is neatly
reversed in the "We have" at the start of the second. Sentences two through four,
containing four successive clauses beginning "We Have . . . ," underline the colonists'
active efforts to reach the British people. The repetition of "We have" here also parallels
the repetition of "He has" in the grievances against George III, which make a sharp
contrast between the previous section and and its following one and which, in turn, unify
the structure of the whole discourse.
17

T – s37

T s1 – s6 s7 - s35 s36 – s37
s2 - s6 s7 – s35 s36 – s37

pro1 – pro4 pro5 s7 – s9 s10 - s29 s30 – s35 pro1 pro2 – pro5
s2 – s6 s8 – s29 s30 – s35 pro1 – pro3 pro4 s8 s10 – s21 s22 s23 – s27 s28 – s29 s30 – s34 s35
s2 – s6 s22 s28 s30 – s34

pro1- pro2 pro3 s22 pro1 – pro9 pro1 pro2 s30 – s33 s34
Figure 7 : RST structure of the Declaration of Independence of the United States
Justification
evidence
result
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n

e
v
i
d
e
n
c
eb
a
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
o
n
c
e
s
s
i
o
n r
e
a
s
o
n s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
h
o
o
d
e
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

19
CHAPTER 4: AN ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF THE
DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE OF VIETNAM
Like studying Declaration of America in chapter III, we would also find out the typical
discourse structure of that of Vietnam by looking throughout its organization.
4.1 Socio-political context leading to the birth of the Declaration of Independence of
Vietnam.
When the Japanese surrendered to the Allies, our whole people rose to regain our national
sovereignty and to found the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. On August, 9, 1945,
Vietnam regained its national sovereignty. On August, 26, 1945, returning from the
revolutionary area of Viet Bac to Ha noi. President Ho Chi Minh drafted the Declaration
of Independence at No 28 Hang Ngang street. On September, 2, 1945, He, on behalf of
members of the Provisional Government of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, read the
Declaration in front of the crowd of Vietnamese people at Ba dinh square.
The Declaration was announced in a special historic context: our people had just won the
victory after a general uprising, established a New Vietnam. However, the colonialists and
imperialists was piloting to violate our country again. They hid behind the Allies to disarm
the Japanese troops: approaching from the North is Chinese Party nationalist troops,
behind it American imperialist; from the South British troops and behind it the French

independence. As a result, the relation holding between the title and the introduction is
justification, which will be illustrated below. The beginning part with direct quotations
both shows the objectivity and explains the reason partly why Vietnam declares its
independence.
T – s6
justification
T s1 – s6
Figure 8 : Relationship between the title and the preamble

21
4.2.3 The Body part
4.2.3.1 The Indictment of the French imperialist
The indictment of the French Imperialist is comprised of 12 paragraphs, taking up almost
a half of the text. This section is divided into different categories, including grievances
against the French on political and economic aspects, grievances on the French Imperialist
selling “our country” twice to the Japanese and their desperate rebellion prior to Viet
Minh’s active effort. These sub-sections are satellite information for the nucleus content
which lies right from the first sentence of the indictment.
(N) “Thế mà hơn tám mươi năm nay, bọn thực dân Pháp lợi dụng lá cờ tự do, bình đẳng, bác ái,
đến cướp đất nước ta, áp bức đồng bào ta. Hành động của chúng trái hẳn với nhân đạo và chính
nghĩa”
The indictment of the French Imperialist begins with a transitional word “Thế mà” making
a sharp contrast with the section immediately preceding it. This transitional sentence
provides the key content, namely “Hành động của chúng trái hẳn với nhân đạo và chính nghĩa”
that requires evidences for it. The paragraphs numbered s8 to s29 have a function to justify
the French ‘s violation and oppression. The bill of particulars are categorised into
grievances of politic and economy, of selling “our country” twice to the Japanese.
Grievances on political and economic aspects are opened with the phrase words “Về chính
trị”; “Về kinh tế”
Although the nucleus “Thế mà hơn tám mươi năm nay….nhân đạo và chính nghĩa” has two

historical circumstance via two satellites: “Mùa thu năm 1940 phát-xít Nhật đến xâm lăng
Đông-dương để mở thêm căn cứ đánh đồng minh, ” and “Ngày 9 tháng 3 năm nay, Nhật
tước khí giới của quân đội Pháp”. The former satellite is, in turn, a nucleus of the sentence

evidence
evidence

evidence

evidence
23
following it, which is connected by a relation of result.
The content of this information is consequences brought from the main event.
(S)“Từ đó dân ta chịu hai tầng xiềng xích: Pháp và Nhật(s22). Từ đó dân ta càng sống cực khổ,
nghèo nàn, kết quả là cuối năm ngoái sang đầu năm nay, từ Quảng Trị đến Bắc Kỳ hơn hai triệu
đồng bào ta bị chết đói (s23)”
The according consequences are that the Vietnamese lived in poverty and misery with
more than two million of the writer’s fellow citizen died from starvation
4.2.3.2 Grievances of the French through their desperate rebellion despite Viet
Minh’s peaceful efforts.
This sub-section continues to indict the merdify of the French imperialist by presenting
their desperate rebellion prior to Viet Minh’s peaceful efforts.
We can recognize two nuclei: “Bọn thực dân Pháp đã không đáp ứng, lại thẳng tay khủng
bố Việt minh hơn nữa (s28)” and “Thậm chí đến khi thua chạy, chúng còn nhẫn tâm giết
nốt số đông tù chính trị ở Yên bái và Cao bằng (s29)”. Both nuclei are related by sequence
relation and have the same satellite in s26 “Trước ngày mồng 9 tháng 3, biết bao lần Việt
minh đã kêu gọi người Pháp liên minh để chống Nhật (s27) (Relation: Concession). The
three sentences, in turn, make a sharp contrast with the two following sentences s30 and
s31 via cohesive device “tuy vậy”. The relation between them is antithesis. While the
three above sentences (from s28 to s29) refer to the French’s rebellion, the two following

s35 seems to be the shortest, functioning as a summary of the process of the country’s
fighting “Pháp chạy. Nhật hàng. Vua Bảo Đại thoái vị”. This sentence serves as a nucleus
25
linked to the two satellites of the two sentences following it by a relation of Result. In other
words, a series of these events has brought independence for the country.
4.2.4 The Conclusion Part – Actual Declaration
The Actual Declaration includes declaration to the French, to the Allied nations and to the
world. Every declaration is made up two paragraphs, of which each declaration is followed
by a pledge, a vow. An distinguishing feature of this Conclusion part is persuasive and
logical arguments with hard and incisive wordings.
At first, discourse marker “Bởi thế cho nên” turns readers and listeners to the conclusion.
Following it contains the very crucial contents in a complex sentence, having three clauses.
“thoát ly hẳn quan hệ thực dân Pháp, xoá bỏ hết những hiệp ước mà Pháp đã ký về nước
Việt nam, xoá bỏ mọi đặc quyền của Pháp trên đất nước Việt nam”.
Only with 34 words, the content conveyed to the audience is so clear and brief, that’s say
“thoát ly” and “xoá bỏ”. These two key verbs indicate the nucleus clause, which has its
own satellite preceding it: “Bởi thế cho nên, chúng tôi, chính phủ lâm thời của nước Việt
Nam mới, đại biểu cho toàn dân Việt Nam, tuyên bố…”
Obviously, this satellite provides background for the nucleus clause with full of
information such as : Who (Chúng tôi, lâm thời chính phủ của nước Việt Nam mới, đại
biểu cho toàn dân Việt Nam – s38; chúng tôi – s40 and chúng tôi, chính phủ nước Việt
Nam Dân chủ Cộng hoà – s41); what do? (tuyên bố - s38; tin rằng – Par s39 and trịnh
trọng tuyên bố - s42). Repeated at least twice in this part only, the words and phrase words
“chúng tôi, chính phủ nước Việt Nam Dân chủ Cộng hoà” seems to be meant to declare
firmly and decisively creation of a new nation, a decromatic and republic Vietnam.
The Conclusion is processed bottom-up. The first two paragraphs is a declaration to the
French. The coming paragraph aims to court Allied nations’approval: “Chúng tôi tin rằng
các nước đồng minh… quyết không thể không công nhận quyền độc lập của dân Việt nam”
serving as satellite as well. In particular, the use of repeated words “một dân tộc…, một
dân tộc. Dân tộc đó…., dân tộc đó” makes the argument more and more convincing, which