T. T. T. Hoa Ideology of the United States Declaration…, tr. 40-47 40

Ideology of the United States Declaration
of IndependenceTran Thi Thanh Hoa
(a)Abstract. Written by Thomas Jefferson in 1776, the United States Declaration
of Independence is a famous discourse. In this paper, an analysis of the United States
Declaration of Independence in the light of Critical Discourse Analysis in terms of
vocabulary and grammar is presented. Based on the findings of the analysis, the
writer's revolutionary ideology which is hidden within the discourse is revealed. In
addition, it is suggested that Critical Discourse Analysis can be used as a necessary
theoretical basic and analytical tool for analyzing and understanding the
intricateness of discourse.

1. Introduction
Many language learners, including
English language ones, usually find
authentic discourse difficult to
comprehend fully. This is because they
fail to understand the author's aims

developed and broadened. Ruth Wodak,
writing in Language, Power and
Ideology [8] defines CDA as an
interdisciplinary approach to language
study with a critical point of view.
According to Fairclough [2], CDA is
critical in the sense that it aims to show
non-obvious ways in which language is
involved in social relations of power and
domination, and in ideology.
2.2. Systemic - Functional
Grammar (SFG) and CDA
Systemic - Functional Grammar
(SFG) is a theory of language centered
around the notion of language function.
SFG was mainly developed by M. A. K.
Halliday in the 1960s.
SFG starts at social context, and
looks at how language both acts upon,
and is constrained by, this social
context. At this point Halliday and
CDA theorists agree with each other on
the assumption that there is a
dialectical relationship between society

NhËn bµi ngµy 21/9/2009. Söa ch÷a xong 09/11/2009.


There have been different ways of
doing CDA since defferent linguists
may approach this field of study
differently. Each individual method
puts emphasis on dissimilar levels of
analysis. Hence, the CDA researchers
should decide on their own focus of
analysis. Norman Fairclough [3]
suggested the analytical framework for
investigating language in relation to
ideology. Therefore, the analysis of the
United States Declaration of
Independence was based on
Fairclough's [3] guided questions on
doing CDA in combination with
Hallidayan’s SFG.
Throughout the analysis, the most
relevant social and historical factors
that contribute to the production and
interpretation of the discourse were
referred to when necessary.
4. Analysis
The United States Declaration of
Independence was analysed in terms of
vocabulary and grammar. The following
prominent linguistic strategies which
include lexical choice, metaphor,
pronoun choice, repetition of key
words and transitivity would be
under consideration.

as “we” (We hold these truths to be self-
evident) so the “ideal hearer” postulated
in the following part and also in most of
T. T. T. Hoa Ideology of the United States Declaration…, tr. 40-47 42

the speech are the American people.
Especially, he addresses King George
III and his people directly and
indirectly: present King of Great
Britain, A Prince, They too have been
deaf , He has refuted / forbidden /
refused /…, etc.
The speaker normally draws on
classification schemes, in terms of
which vocabulary is organised, to
express his experience or his
evaluations.
4.1.1. The classification scheme
with negative and positive vocabulary
In this speech, the classification
scheme with negative vocabulary
includes 24 words and phrases. It is
used to express the speaker’s negative
attitude towards King George III and

etc.
The ideal government is reflected
through the speaker’s political stance so
it might or might not become true.
Behind the image of that ideal is the
speaker’s respect, admiration and
support to new government.
These words appeared here with a
careful selection and a clear intention.
4.2. Metaphor
Powerful, strong and poetic words
found in the text are used in the form of
metaphor. This is a means of
representing one aspect of experience in
terms of another. Different metaphors
have different ideological attachments:
swarms of Officers
new Guards
The first phrase “swarms of
Officers” is used to refer to the
members of the present government.
The word “swarms” usually appears in
the phrases or combinations with bees
or ants, such as “swarms of bees” or
“swarms of ants”. They fly and crawl
here and there, they make everything
confused and they can bite people. In a
word, this phrase has a negative sense,
it implies a bad government.
The second phrase "new Guards"

the pronoun “he” in the text, Thomas
Jefferson concentrates the attention of
a people on a single enemy to prevent
the division of attention of a people.
As soon as the wavering masses
find themselves confronted with too
many enemies, objectivity at once steps
in, and the question is raised whether
actually all the others are wrong and
their own nation or their own
.

movement alone is right. Therefore, a
number of different enemies is regarded
as one - the king. This strengthens the
King’s causes and increases the
American people’s bitterness against
the King.
It is argued that the use of “we” and
“he” is for creating the solidarity in
mind of the people and the speaker's
responsibility.
4.4. Repetition of key words
There are generally formal
connections between sentences in a
text, which are collectively referred to
as cohesion. Among the cohesive
devices, vocabulary links between
sentences that include the repetition of
words can be found in the text. The

American people the “right” to “Life” and
“Liberty”.
The repetition which can be seen as
a listing and makes the hearers have
very strong emotion. Therefore, the
hearers could feel that there is a call for
revolution. Additionally, the hearers
would be given the careful, step by step,
justification for the revolution. It is
clear that the critical analysis could
help us to unpack the ideological
underpinnings of the text.
4.5. Transitivity
The result of transitivity analysis
including Material, Relational, Verbal
and Mental processes of the speech is
illustrated in the following table.
Table: Summary of Transitivity
Analysis Data
Type of
Process
Number
of
citations

Percentage
of total
citations
material 57 66.3%
relational 17 19.7%

Jefferson’s mind, this justifies the
rebellious actions of the American
people. Moreover, their actions are
justified to the point of actual
revolutions, not just rebellious actions.
Relational
The next most commonly used
process type is relational (19.7%), of
which the carriers are only about either
the American people or King George
III. This choice of process type helps to
describe the situation of America under
the rule of King George III:
- The history of the present King of
Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations
- A Prince is unfit to be the ruler of
a free people.
And the American people have the
following reaction:
- while evils are sufferable (by the
American people) than to right
themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed.
- such has been the patient
sufferance of these Colonies
However, the situation gradually
gets worse and worse:
- They (King George III and his
people) too have been deaf to the voice of

and hard before trying to overthrow
any government, however evil it may
be. Taking a look at the context, we
could find the reason why the speaker
describes the King’s actions strongly
and the American people’s actions
slightly.
In the 18
th
century, the most
powerful nations of the world were
monarchies. The ideas of Jefferson
could serve not only to threaten Great
Britain’s colonial empire, but the
colonial empires of other nations in
Europe. Recognizing the importance of
maintaining good diplomatic relations
with European nations to get aid,
Jefferson sought to explain the actions
of the 13 colonies in rational terms.
Anticipating that this document would
influence rebellions elsewhere, Jefferson
clarified that governments should not be
changed for trivial causes. Instead,
Jefferson explained that only “despotic”
or totalitarian governments should be
overthrown.
Mental
The mental process, which is only 3
out of 86, brings remarkable

5. Summary of the main
findings and discussion
Lexical choice including the
classification schemes with negative
and positive vocabulary, metaphor, and
repetition of key words reveal quite
interesting aspects of the speech.
The author has employed all these
three linguistic strategies to create the
opposite images of the two
governments: the present government
and the new government.
T. T. T. Hoa Ideology of the United States Declaration…, tr. 40-47 46

Similarly, the choice of mental
process of the transitivity system has
created the contrasting pictures of the
King and the American people.
The contrast of the two images and
two pictures make the hearers have
very strong emotion. Therefore, they
could feel that there is a call for an
actual revolution to “dissolve” the bad
“government” and to establish a new,

military. When pronoun “he” (but not
they) used, it can make hearers find
themselves not to confront too many
people. This could persuade the
Americans to take up arms in the
revolution for their independence.
Also, in the 18
th
century, the
powerful nations of the world were
monarchies and among them Great
Britain was considered as the most
economically and militarily powerful
nation. The way of saying of “he” (but
not you) could pull the British citizens
towards the Americans’ side.
An important finding from the
study was the absolute percent of
verbal processes in which American
people appeared in the role of sayer. As
the data have shown, up to 39 instances
(or 45.3%) of material having the King
and his people in the role of actor. They
are the causers of all the “repeated
injuries”, and “usurpations” which
American people have to suffer under
the rule of the King. The speaker
describes the King’s action strongly and
the American people’s slightly in order
to maintain the diplomatic relationship


It is clear that, this discourse is
invested with ideologies [1, p. 8].
It is evident that Critical Discourse
Analysis, as a research direction, can be
used as a necessary theoretical basic
and analytical tool for analyzing and
understanding the intricateness of
discourse.

References

[1] N. Fairclough, Discourse and Social Change, London, Polity Press and Blackwell,
1992.
[2] N. Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language,
London, Longman, 1997.
[3] N. Fairclough, Language and Power, (2nd edition), London, Longman, 2001.
[4] N. Fairclough and L. Choulariaki, Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking
Critical Discourse Analysis, Edinburgh University Press, 1999.
[5] M. A. K. Halliday, An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, Arnold,
1994.
[6] G. Kress, B. Hodge, Language as Ideology, London, Routledge, 1979.
[7] Nguyn Hoà, Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method, NXB ĐHQG Hà
nội, 2006.
[8] Ruth Wodak, Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse.
London, Benjamins Publishing Company, 1989.
[9] T. Trew, Language and control, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1979.
[10] T. A. Van Dijk, Critical Discourse Analysis, (1998a), Available:
(20/3/2003).
[11] R. Wodak, and M. Meyer, Methods of Critical Analysis, London, SAGE Publications,