This article was downloaded by: [Université du Québec à Montréal]

On: 16 October 2012, At: 21:04

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Critical Discourse Studies

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcds20

Discursive strategies in Chavez's

political discourse: voicing, distancing,
and shifting
a
Antonio Reyes-Rodríguez
a
Department of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, University of
Illinois, Urbana, USA

Version of record first published: 17 Apr 2008.

To cite this article: Antonio Reyes-Rodríguez (2008): Discursive strategies in Chavez's political
discourse: voicing, distancing, and shifting, Critical Discourse Studies, 5:2, 133-152

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990074

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Critical Discourse Studies
Vol. 5, No. 2, May 2008, 133–152

Discursive strategies in Chavez’s political discourse: voicing,

distancing, and shifting
Antonio Reyes-Rodrı́guez

Department of Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese, University of Illinois, Urbana, USA

I present a new theoretical model to analyze political speeches to account for discursive
strategies. This innovative method systematically traces voices in political discourse and cor-
relates their discursive goals with their linguistic and paralinguistic means of realization. I
demonstrate, following Goffman’s idea of footing, and Bakhtin’s ideas of heteroglossia and
double voicing, that the speaker’s role can be consistently traced during a speech: specifically,
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

I study Chavez’s intervention at the UN in 2005. Each of the three role perspectives – narra-
tor, interlocutor, and character – presents creative indexical moments. I show how pronouns
are used to index distance and help the speaker position himself in relation to specific utter-
ances as goals of the political agenda (us vs. them; socialism vs. imperialism), often showing
meaningful displays of persona. Chavez also indexes his ideology through pronouns and
lexical choices (pueblo, people; lucha, fight).
Keywords: footing; heteroglossia; double voicing; role perspectives; indexing; persona

Introduction
Political discourse is a form of communication that displays specific features. Dedaic (2006,
p. 700) accounts for political speech as representing ‘relatively autonomous discourse produced
orally by a politician in front of an audience, the purpose of which is merely persuasion rather
than information or entertainment’.
It is a form of language somewhere between written and oral language – a genre between a
literary text and a casual conversation. Political speeches are transmitted orally even though
they are normally read aloud from a written text or an outline. However, they do differ
from other oral varieties. ‘They are not the typical form of face-to-face interaction and the
content of the speech is not directly influenced by the audience’s reaction (see Atkinson
1984)’ (Dedaic, 2006, p. 700).
The language orally produced often presents paralinguistic features to help the speaker
deliver the message: ‘[T]his can be vocal (tone of voice, intonation, pause, emphasis) or non-
vocal (gesture, facial expression)’ (Milroy & Milroy, 1985, p. 63). Political speech usually
reflects less frequency and less variation of paralinguistic features than other oral manifestations.
For that reason, it can be considered a formal manifestation of language. Milroy and Milroy
(1985) point out this fact in the following sentence: ‘The general view that writing is a more
“careful” activity than speech is broadly true, except in so far as some non-conversational
speech (“spoken prose”, e.g. lectures, sermons) is similar to written in this respect’ (1985,
p. 64). Taking this view, political speech is a formal variety organized in a manner similar to
written language. Ochs (1979) distinguishes between ‘planned’ and ‘unplanned’ discourse;
political speech is, in her terms, a planned form of discourse and therefore a formal variety of

Email: reyesrod@uiuc.edu

ISSN 1740-5904 print/ISSN 1740-5912 online

# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/17405900801990074
http://www.informaworld.com
 134 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez

speech, which depends heavily on written texts. In the present study I intend to reveal that
political discourse can in fact involve numerous instances of interactional features, and that
this discourse is not uniform as traditionally thought but, on the contrary, can show frequent
shifts and changes of direction.
In the search for discursive strategies in political discourse, many linguistic analyses of
political discourse have been consistently guided by the interdisciplinary framework of critical
discourse analysis (CDA; Billig & MacMillan, 2005; Chilton, 1996, 2003, 2004; Fairclough,
1992, 2003; Van Dijk, 1991, 1993, 2000, 2005; Wodak, 1989, 2002) in the last twenty years.
Another source of guidance for political text analyses has been provided by functional grammar-
ians (e.g., Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Thompson, 2004), as seen in the work of Butt, Lukin,
and Matthiessens (2004). In addition to these approaches, works such as Foucault’s (1971, 1972,
2003), Blommaert’s (2005), Bolinger’s (1980), and Bourdieu’s (1991/2001) among others, are
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

magnificent examples of accurate and sharp analyses of the use of language.1

Examples of analysis in the field of political discourse in Spanish are sparse (Diaz Barrado,
1989; Giraldo, 1991; Martı́n Rojo & van Dijk, 1997; Reyes-Rodrı́guez, 2006b; van Dijk &
Rodrigo Mendizábal, 1999; van Dijk, 2005). Political discourse has not been analyzed using
Bakhtin’s (1981) ideas and Koven’s (2002) three-role perspectives framework to account for
discursive strategies. Using Bakhtinian ideas, among others, I present an innovative approach
to the analysis of discursive strategies in political discourse. The present study builds upon criti-
cal discourse analysis and functional grammar, since it applies linguistic anthropological notions
to provide a holistic understanding of the complex relationships displayed in the delivery of a
political speech.

Theoretical framework
Silverstein (1976/1995, 1992, 1993, 2003, 2004) has argued that reference and denotation are
not enough to account for important functions of language; pragmatic and socially indexical
functions need to be explained.2 The conscious use of specific linguistic choices and expressions
indexes different meanings to previous discourses. This reactivation has a cumulative force
(Silverstein, 1992) so that a specific word does not only gain its meaning from a specific
context in the here and now, but has also accumulated meanings from previous contexts in
which it was used. Therefore, as Silverstein (2004, p. 622) explains: ‘[D]iscursive interaction
brings sociocultural concepts into here-and-now contexts of use—that is . . . interaction indexi-
cally “invokes” sociocultural conceptualizations.’
Other authors have provided specific terms to define similar relationships, such as ‘interdis-
cursivity’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 136). From this perspective, a text is constructed as a conglom-
erate of quotations, since it absorbs and is shaped by other texts. Fairclough proposes a more
systematic approach to intertextuality. He distinguishes between ‘manifest intertextuality’ and
‘constitutive intertextuality’ or ‘interdiscursivity’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 117). Manifest intertex-
tuality splits into the following categories: ‘Discourse representation, presupposition, negation,
metadiscourse and irony’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 119), and they are affected by the text. Interdis-
cursivity is more complex since it construes categories in relation to genres and styles
(Fairclough, 1992, p. 125).
An important divergence between Silverstein and Fairclough is in the question of subject-
centered agency. Fairclough sees the subject in dialectical relation with institutional networks
and structures of domination. In his view, there is little space for agency, although individuals
are capable of collective action (Fairclough, 1992). Fairclough argues that the role of the subject
is not as Foucault sees, a ‘heavily structuralist flavor which excludes active social agency in any
meaningful sense’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 45), but a dialectical transformation where social
 Critical Discourse Studies 135

practices take place in a ‘preconstituted, material reality, with preconstituted “objects” and
preconstituted social subjects’ (Fairclough, 1992, p. 60). This preconstituted subject and
social reality oust the subject from the central position of possible intervention. Silverstein
(2004, p. 623) claims that it is in discursive interactions that agency plays a primordial role
and different positionings can take place:
Any individual event of discursive interaction occurs as a nodal point of a network of such in a field
of potentially conflicting interdiscursivities across macrosocial spaces that may be simultaneously
structured by other (e.g., political and/or economic) principles and dimensionalities as well.
Viewed in such a space, every discourse event manifests, by degrees, authoritative, warranted, or
heretofore uncountenanced or even contested entextualizations licensed from centers of value cre-
ation. Here, human subjectivity and agency come to their potential plenitude. The flow of value
thus comes to be mappable as a felt effect or adjunct of interlocutors’ strategic positionalities—
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

presupposed or entailed—in such complex macrosocial space and of people’s stasis in and/or
movement through its ever-changing configurations.
The semiotic forms indexed in discourse account for the knowledge established in the social
reality. Reconciliation to the debate of agency may well be, then, in answers to the questions
posed by Silverstein (2004, p. 632):
What type of person, with what social characteristics, deploys such knowledge by using the
expressions that normatively and actually index (invoke) it in a particular configuration of cotext?
With what degrees and kinds of authority do interactants use expressions (reflecting knowledgeable
familiarity from the social structural position of the user with respect to ritual centers of authority
that ‘warrant’ their use)? To whom is authoritative knowledge ascribed, and who can achieve at
least a conversationally local state of authority with respect to it, if not a perduring authority stretch-
ing beyond the instance of interaction?
The relationship of power established in any given community can give a certain speaker
the capacity to establish, create, or alternate knowledge. While most individuals display
voices ‘preconstituted’ (Fairclough, 1992) in a specific reality, those in power have the potential
to reconstitute that reality; they will ascribe ‘authoritative knowledge’ (Silverstein, 2004).
This framework allows an analysis of semiotic units that become relevant in the here-
and-now of political speech. The speaker analyzed in this study is Hugo Rafael Chavez Frias,
who has been president of Venezuela since 1999. Chavez’s lexical and paralinguistic choices
index meaningful displays of relationships with his interlocutors’ universe of knowledge.
In addition to the issue of agency, Fairclough seems to account for these semiotic relations
more in a text-bound setting, while Silverstein’s semiotic expressions or forms allow a more
holistic analysis of linguistic and paralinguistic features.
The notion of identity plays an important role in political speeches. Discursive interactions
provide spaces for the discursive construction of the self (Fairclough, 1992). Silverstein (2004)
sees them ‘as ritual figurations of social identity come to life, interactionally activated in the
here-and-now of discourse for the intersubjective work of creating, maintaining, or transforming
social relations’ (pp. 622 –623)
Wortham (2001) affirmed that much contemporary scholarship on people’s use of first
person oral narrative is concerned with the construction of identities, and this must be
approached with tools that take us beyond referential content. I will observe the identities
that Chavez creates/uses in his speech beyond referential content, with interactional achieve-
ments and culturally meaningful performances in his narrative. These mentionings of identities
portray the reconstruction of meanings from previous and present contexts that are culturally
connected.
Evaluation, comprising comments on the narrative action being described, is a fundamental
notion for understanding the events of narratives (Labov & Waletzky, 1967/1997). Evaluation is
shown normally through a series of markers: negatives, comparatives, and modals (Labov,
 136 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez

1997). Furthermore, Silverstein understands segments of discourses as serving both referential

and evaluative functions (Silverstein, 1976/1995). The concept of evaluation needs to be further
developed. For instance, Labov considers reported speech as only one of the devices speakers
use to evaluate a narrative; the theory of voicing (Bakhtin, 1981) needs to be applied to contem-
plate the phenomenon of reported speech as pluralities of identities and alignments of different
personas in the discourse.
In order to conceive the nuances of narratives, it is also crucial to deal with Goffman’s
ideas on footing (1979/1981, p. 128), which relate to a ‘participant’s alignment, or set, or
stance, or posture, or projected self ... a change in footing implies a change in the alignment
we take up to ourselves and the others present.’ Goffman defines the roles of storytellers
and interlocutors, and explains shifts in footing between the two roles in the narrative event.
We can follow the footings performed by different social actors in a narration: in this case, pol-
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

itical speech. Ensink (1997) proves the relevance of the notion of footing in an address by
Queen Beatrix. Footing helps us understanding the representation of speaker and audience
and the way the roles are formulated. In the present study, I will argue for the importance
of footing in revealing the positionings of different actors. Footing is one of the theoretical
notions that allow a better grasp of the intrinsic complexity embedded in discourse processes
and relationships.
The social actors performing simultaneously in a narration can be registered through
Bakhtin’s ventriloquation, or the reenacting of the words of others, heteroglossia, double
voicing, and voices in general (Bakhtin, 1981). Discourse reflects an orchestration of multiple
voices or positions (heteroglossia). The simultaneous alignment of two positions by a speaker
is an example of double voicing. Wortham defines these voices as ‘interactional positionings’
(2001, p. 62). This phenomenon is perceived by Ochs and Capps as a ‘multiplicity of partial
selves’ (1996, p. 22).
Koven (2002, 2004) systematized and integrated the use of ‘evaluation’ (Labov, 1972,
1984), ‘footing’ (Goffman, 1979/1981), and ‘voicing’ (Bakhtin, 1981) to account for a multi-
functional understanding of the storytelling narration type. Koven (2002) developed a tripartite
set of role distinctions: author or narrator, interlocutor, and character. The speaker performs the
role of narrator when s/he tells a story. This story refers to there-and-then and is an ‘unevalu-
ated’ story (Labov, 1972). As an interlocutor the speaker displays features typical of an inter-
action. This role expresses here-and-now, it contains evaluation remarks and references to
current self and hearers, and it works as relationship-building communication. Finally, charac-
terization is understood as the ‘ventriloquation’ of others’ voices (Bakhtin, 1981); it occurs when
the speaker cites or quotes someone else.
In this study, I propose extending Koven’s analytic framework and coding scheme (2002),
which she applied to narratives of personal experiences, and applying it to a more formal setting
to examine how political speech is multifunctional and multivoiced in systematically specifiable
ways. I use Koven’s framework (2002, 2004) because it combines different theories to account
for a multifunctional understanding of discourse (evaluation, footing, and voicing).
This study proves that these tools, used to describe and analyze narratives, can be applied to
a more formal setting, more specifically political speeches, providing an insightful framework
to account for discursive strategies in political discourse. This theoretical framework allows
us to reconsider the nature of political speeches and underline correlations between stylistic
shifts and discursive strategies.
I will decode the linguistic traces left by Chavez’s different personas as he moves from
narrator to interlocutor, and occasionally to character, in which he quotes different voices.
This tripartite model (Koven, 2002) presents speakers continuously displaying dynamism in
these three roles. Similarly, speakers may speak from more than one of these role positions
 Critical Discourse Studies 137

simultaneously, in double-voiced utterances (Bakhtin, 1981). Furthermore, I demonstrate how

Chavez’s use of language relies mostly on indexicality (Silverstein, 1976/1995) and language
forms to identify the different alternations, not only between these three active roles, but also
among the repertoire of personas displayed in the narrative of political speech. One of the depar-
ture points of the analysis is the linguistic sign. I obverse the syntactic structures of sentences and
the semantic denotations of the elements that constitute them – subject or complement, active or
passive agent; these structures allow for the representation of social actors. Pragmatically, I look
at the elements that help to sense the tone of the speech – more or less formal, close or distant.
This framework puts to work different theories and notions (indexicality, evaluation,
identity, footing, and voicing) to create a tool to trace shifts in perspectives – that is, different
strategic positionings of the speakers to achieve specific discursive goals in their interactions.
The approach is interdisciplinary, and ‘integrates theoretical approaches and thereby creates
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

new holistic approaches’ (Weiss & Wodak, 2003, p. 18).

The fragment I will use to illustrate the applicability of this theoretical frame comes from an
audio sample of Chavez at the 60th General Assembly of the UN, held on September 15, 2005.3 I
show the numerous traces followed by Chavez’s different personas to move from a there-
and-then narrator to a here-and-now interlocutor (the tripartite model comprising author, inter-
locutor, and character; Koven, 2002). This speech has been chosen, among other reasons, to
prove that even in one of the most formal setting imaginable for politics (the UN General
Assembly), a politician can still use informal interactional features to address a respectful
audience (of respected world leaders).4
Considered a leader of the Bolivarian revolution, Chavez promotes his agenda of socialism,
Latin American integration, and anti-imperialism in his speeches. The speech analyzed here was
made in the context of global processes that are shaping the world. On the one hand, the US is
spreading its neo-liberal ideas, its system of ideas, and its beliefs overseas. On the other hand,
South America is responding to that hegemonic ideological perspective with noticeable political
resistance. This fragment is a clear voice raised as an alternative, proposing a radical change: a
new economic international order based on egalitarian principles. The importance of this speech
is explained by the context in which it was produced. The UN General Assembly allowed
Chavez to project his positioning in front of world leaders at a crucial moment when the US
administration was asking them to define their positions as allies or enemies.
In order to describe the paralinguistic features presented in Chavez’s speech, I develop a
series of transcript notation symbols, following some characters from Koven (2002), which I
explain below (some other symbols are taken from conversation analysis). These symbols
help us to understand the indexical moments marked in the speech by a conscious speaker
who makes use of extralinguistic elements to transmit his message and achieve his goals strate-
gically through silences, intonation patterns, emphasis, etc. The complete transcription of the
speech analyzed in this work, together with the translation, is presented at the end of this essay.

Transcript notation
(0.2): Interval within and between utterances (here, two-tenths of a second).
(Pause): Pause.
[ ]: Text within square brackets does not exist in the original but English grammar requires it.
" # : Marked rising and falling shifts in intonation.
8: A passage of talk which is quieter than the surrounding talk.
8: End of the quiet passage.
Italics: Change of voice – from narrator to interlocutor, for example. This is Bakhtinian
terminology.
 138 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez

Bold: Different persona manifestations.

Underline: Emphasis.
Capital letter: Higher emphasis.
Colon(s): Prolonged stretch of the speech (e.g., car::teles).
“...”: Quote.
xxx: Applause, with increased intensity marked with capital X (e.g., xxXXxx)
Gaze direction: The gaze of the speaker is marked above an utterance. A line indicates that
the party is gazing toward the audience or a person in the audience. The absence of a line
indicates lack of gaze. Dots mark the transition movement from non-gaze to gaze, and
the point where the gaze reaches the other is marked with an X. We will only reflect on
gaze direction when it becomes relevant for our analysis. For example:
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . X __________________
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

# Your Excellency, to finish my speech.

. . .. X

Analysis
Chavez’s discourse involves numerous ‘parenthetical remarks’ (Koven, 2002) to his audience, to
emphasize the here-and-now (Goffman, 1979/1981).
In (7) we find the first change of voice. The narrator acquires a different position or perspec-
tive in the discourse:5

7 Para establecer un nuevo orden económico To establish a new international economic

internacional basado – (Change of voice: order based on –(Change of voice: from
from narrator to interlocutor) 8óiganme narrator to interlocutor) 8listen to me
bien, os r:::uego8 carefully, I beg yo::::u8

The Venezuelan president is stating one of his major points: the need ‘to establish a new
international economic order.’ The tone of voice is proper for his speech: loud and consistent.
However, this proposal to the UN, ‘the new international order,’ is presented between an extre-
mely high-pitched fragment in (6), which will definitely attract the attention of his audience, and
a quiet fragment at the end of (7), recalling attention directly to the audience.

6 Se expresó la determinación de trabajar It expressed the URGENT (0.3)

con URGENCIA (0.3) determination

The narrator becomes interlocutor in a clear example of double voicing (Bakhtin, 1981). In
the persona of interlocutor, the narrator addresses the audience directly: ‘listen to me I beg you.’
This is a quieter passage in the speech, possibly to create a more intimate atmosphere than the
one expected in a speech to the UN Assembly. In this context-bound setting, which is usually
very formal, a speaker at the UN would not be expected to embed the role of interlocutor,
which is more common in colloquial interactions. However, Chavez uses this as a meta-
pragmatic strategy to achieve a discursive goal: to call the attention of the audience in a more
intimate setting. This is a clear example of how different manifestations of language production
are instances of interaction, more or less explicitly.
The command, ‘performative’ speech (Silverstein, 1976/1995) asking the audience directly to
listen to him is mitigated with a polite form (‘os ruego [I beg you]’). It is interesting also to observe
how the command is expressed in the polite, respectful form ‘ustedes’ (‘oiganme [listen to me]’),
while the next requirement of this interlocutor uses ‘vosotros’ (‘os ruego [I beg you]’) in a possible
attempt to create proximity and solidarity. The speaker from his podium has the power (Bourdieu,
 Critical Discourse Studies 139

1980, 1991/2001) to ask his audience to listen, but can also choose to show solidarity by using an
equal form of address. We observe heteroglossia (Bakhtin, 1981), even within the interlocutor role,
first with the voice of a person with authority – an authority perhaps given by the possession of the
word at that moment (command) – and second, with the voice of a colleague who speaks to the rest
of the audience as equals (informal form of address: ‘os’).
In line (8), Chavez the narrator appears again, changing to interlocutor in (13), this change
marked, as in (7), by paralinguistic features (quieter intonation) and linguistic features (first
person singular subject versus impersonal sentences for the narrator role; ‘se expresó [it
expressed]’ (6) versus ‘cierro [I end quotation]’ (13)). These different positionings denote a
virtual space, indexed among other factors by the ‘inflectional expression of category paradigms
such as English “tense” categories of “present” [¼ “nonpast”] versus “past”’(Silverstein, 2004,
p. 629). Verbs conjugated in the first person singular in such a speech are a clear example of
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

subjectivity (Benveniste, 1971), a more down-to-earth tone. The speaker, as a facilitator

helping the audience understand his message, adopts the role of interlocutor to explain what
he was doing: ‘Estaba leyendo. . . [I was reading. . .].’

8 “en la equidad, la igualdad soberana, “fairness, sovereign equality,

la interdependencia, el interés común interdependence, common interest and
y la cooperación entre todos los equality between all the States (0.2)
Estados (0.2)

13 (change of voice: from narrator to (change of voice: from narrator to

interlocutor marked with quieter tone) interlocutor marked with quieter tone)
.# 8cierro comillas Estaba leyendo .# 8I end quotation I was reading
parte de aquella resolución histórica part of that historic resolution
de 1974-8, of 1974-8,

These changes in verb conjugation and in intonation mark different positionings of the
speaker, who alternates between an un-evaluative narrator who expresses a message loudly,
directly, and with an objective impersonal tone (‘It expressed’ (6)), and an interactional
speaker, who addresses his audience face to face with a lower volume, in a more familiar
setting (verbs conjugated in the first person: ‘I end quotation’ (13)).
Quickly after, there is another shift to narrator again; the politician speaks loudly (14) and
does not stop even if he is interrupted by applause (15). However, after reading the note in (16),
he shifts to Chavez the interlocutor. Once more this role is presented with a paralinguistic quieter
tone and a linguistic morphological sign (first person singular). The language choice in (16)
presents the fact with a mitigating subjective mark (‘Creo [I believe]’). And in (17) he elicits
permission to continue speaking, with verbs conjugated in the first person singular.

16 .8Creo que el Presidente de los
Estados Unidos habló aquı́ durante
unos 20 minutos
17 el dı́a de ayer, según me han
infor::mado,8 yo pido permiso,
(Change the addressee from the
audience to the president)
.8I believe that the President of the United
States spoke yesterday for 20 minutes
Yesterday, according to what they told me.
8I request permission,
(Change the addressee from the audience
to the president)
 140 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez

In (16) and (17), the speaker is interlocutor with the audience; in (18), with a movement
towards his left (paralinguistics), the speaker indicates his change of addressee together with
a vocative ‘Excelencia’ (linguistics).

18 . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . X ____________ . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . X ____________
# Excelencia, para terminar mi #Your Excellency, to finish my speech#,.
alocución#,. . . .. X
. . .. X xxxXXXXxxx
xxxXXXXxxx

In just a few lines – only seconds in the speech – rich alternations of roles and addresses
take place. The speaker directs his message to the audience in (16), to the person who presides
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

over the assembly in (18), and to the audience again in (19). These shifts are, once more, not only
introduced linguisistically (i.e., morphological endings) but also paralinguistically (i.e., change
of tone and direction of his gaze). The interlocutor role expresses pragmatic nuances mitigating
propositions and requests: ‘I believe’ (16) and ‘I request permission’ (17).
The use of pronouns, ‘we’ on this occasion, or conjugate verbs, is of special interest: ‘noso-
tros creemos [we think]’ (23), ‘reclamamos [we ask]’ (24), ‘no permitamos [we cannot allow]’
(27). So far in the discourse, Chavez has moved from a kind of impersonal narrator to interlo-
cutor by using personal interventions in the first person singular. Now the use of inclusive ‘we’
signals a shift (Silverstein, 1976/1995). The pronoun ‘we’ includes Chavez and different groups
of people. In (23), Chavez aligns himself with people from his government or ideology. In (24),
he aligns himself with the people, in particular with the people of Venezuela. In (27), the ‘we’
constitutes Chavez and his audience (different leaders from the world). These pronouns often
show power and at other times show solidarity (Brown & Gilman, 1960).
He presents his claims as plural claims, claims on behalf of different groups to make them
stronger, collective claims. His positionings in those groups make his claims valid and more
powerful. It is not Hugo Chavez who asks for something but the people of Venezuela (24). In
(27), he goes on to include the rest of the world except for a ‘handful of countries.’ That is,
millions upon millions of people in the world are asking for the same thing. The same person
is positioning himself in three different realities. Bakhtin’s heteroglossia (1981) is present in
Chavez’s discourse: Chavez as a socialist (23), Chavez as a Venezuelan (part of the people)
(24), and Chavez as a world leader on the non-capitalist side (27).

23 Y nosotros creemos que ese era, y ese
sigue siendo el camino.
24 Hoy reclamamos desde los pueblos,
8en este caso el pueblo de Venezuela8
27 8no permitamos que un puñado de
paı́ses intente reinterpretar8
impunemente los principios del
derecho internacional para
We think that that was and continues to be
the right way.
Today we ask from the people,
8in particular the people from Venezuela8
8we cannot allow a handful of countries8
to unconstrained reinterpret the principles
of international law

The shift to the first person plural also indexes a system of values and a cultural description
(Silverstein, 1976/1995), a voice from the socialist doctrine (Bakhtin, 1981), a communist ‘we.’
The nuances of this ‘we’ cannot be understood only by denotation or references in the text but
must also be considered in terms of the indexical cultural meanings embedded in it. Chavez is
indexing his ideology with that ‘we’ (Kroskrity, 2004; Woolard, 1998). And the word ‘pueblo
 Critical Discourse Studies 141

[people]’ indexes Marxist ideas; it is related to a leftist discourse in Spanish (Giraldo, 1991). It is
in harmony with this system of values. These words are relevant concepts and constitute cultural
concepts: ‘[I]nteractionally relevant concepts indexed (cued) by words and expressions in text
are cultural concepts that have a special status among the several components of meaningfulness
of language’ (Silverstein, 2004, p. 631).
If there is a ‘we’ there is also a ‘they,’ and that ‘they’ becomes explicit in (29), although
Chavez does not specify the subject to avoid a direct accusation that they ‘threaten us with preven-
tive war!’ How does the audience know who ‘they’ are if ‘they’ have not been identified before in
the discourse? The answer is obviously in connection with Chavez’s other speeches and the
relationship between the US and Venezuela. The association/relationship between ‘we-
Venezuela’ and ‘they-US’ is a sociocultural conceptualization conveyed or invoked indexically.
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

29 " ¡vaya que nos amenazan con la " And do they ever threaten us with
guerra preventiva! " , y la llamada preventive war! " , now call it the
ahora “res::ponsabilidad de proteger” “respon:::sibility to protect”

In (31), ‘they’ are described by indirect association. In another change of voice, from nar-
rator to interlocutor, Chavez states his personal opinion – that the US needs protection.
31 (Change of voice, from narrator to (Change of voice, from narrator to
interlocutor: personal opinion) 8Yo character: personal opinion) 8I believe
creo que uno de los pueblos que that the people that needs protection is the
requiere protección es el pueblo de people from the United States8
Estados Unidos8
Positionings, shifts, and identities are often displayed, as mentioned above, through the use
of pronouns (Silverstein, 1976/1995). As shown in the next section, pronouns are relevant in the
process of distancing and creating otherness.

Pronouns and distancing

Figure 1 shows the social actors, identities, and ideas developed in opposition to each other.
These groupings reiterate Silverstein’s words (2004, p. 633):
The use of certain words and expressions . . . in discursive real time . . . marks (indexes) the user as a
member of a certain group or category relative to the groups or categories of persons, things, etc.,
already in play through contextual and cotextual indexicalities up to that point.. . . It thereby
indexes—points to—an in-group including that user within which one can presume a sharedness
of specific conceptual schemata such as taxonomies, partonomies, paradigms, seriations, etc., that
begin and end in occasions of talk and their intertextual, interdiscursive qualities in a whole
economy of verbal usage in social life.
In (34), however, there is another ‘we’ that is different from the ‘we’ in (27).

34 (Change of voice, from narrator to (Change of voice, from narrator to

interlocutor: personal opinion) 8si es interlocutor: personal opinion) 8as long as
que vamos a hablar de protegernos los we are talking about protecting each
unos a los otros8; estos son conceptos other8. These concepts are " very
" muy peligrosos " (0.1) dangerous " (0.1)

While in (27) ‘we’ includes political leaders on the Venezuelan side and excludes those
countries that propose ‘preventive war’ (the US and its allies), in (34) ‘we’ includes those
countries (the US and its allies). Excerpt (34) includes all the countries represented at the UN.
 142 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

Figure 1. Pronouns and distancing.

In (40), there is a change of voice. Chavez addresses the audience and goes from narrator to
interlocutor, with the typical elements that characterize this change: quieter tone and first person
conjugation. This interlocutor will take some time (abundant pauses that could be considered
solemn silences) and some lines (40 –43) to introduce another change of voice, in this case
from narrator to character.

40 (Change of voice, from narrator to (Change of voice, from narrator to

interlocutor: address to the audience)
8Permı́tame, una vez más (0.1) para ir
concluyendo (0.2), citar a Simón
Bolı́var (0.2), (solemn) nuestro
Libertador (0.2) (solemn silence),8
41 cuando habla de la integración del
mundo, del " par::lamento mundial, de
un congre:::so de parlamentarios " .
42 " Hace falta retomar muchas
propuestas como la bolivariana " .
43 Decı́a Bolı́var en Jamaica en 1815, 8ya
lo citaba, leo una frase de su Carta de
Jamaica,8 (Change of voice: from
interlocutor to character)
44 “Qué bello serı́a (0.1) que el istmo de
Panamá (0.2) fuese para nosotros lo
que el de Corinto para los griegos.
Ojalá que algún dı́a tengamos la
fortuna de instalar allı́ un augusto
congreso de los representantes de la
República de los reinos.
interlocutor: address to the audience)
8Permit me, (0.1) in conclusion, (0.2) to
mention how (solemn) our liberator, (0.2)
Simon Bolivar (solemn silence),8
spoke of world integration, of a " world-
wide par:::liament, a con::gress of
parliamentarians " .
" It is necessary to again take up proposals
like the Bolivarian one " .
8As I mentioned earlier, in Jamaica in
1815 Bolivar said, and I quote88 , (Change
of voice: from interlocutor to character)
“How beautiful it would be (0.1) for us that
the isthmus of Panama (0.2) were to
become what Corinth was for the Greeks.
Hopefully someday we will have a noble
congress of representatives of the Republic
of the Kingdoms.
 Critical Discourse Studies 143

Since the role of character appears with the citation of Simon Bolivar, and due to the
importance of this historical character for Chavez and the Venezuelan government, the preamble
is longer and attempts to create expectations. Quoting Bolivar has historic indexicals that are
connected to a whole philosophy and ideology. Chavez has related Bolivar to the revolution
in Venezuela in (40) and (50), to the national character (Woolard, 1998). In (40), Chavez
refers to Bolivar as ‘our liberator.’ From references like those, we know how important
Bolivar is for Chavez. The word choice ‘liberador [liberator]’ evokes a voice (Bakhtin, 1981)
of a past when Latin America achieved independence from Spain and Portugal. Of course
Bolivar and his quotation are not mentioned haphazardly. Chavez has a purpose: to propose
the economic liberation of Latin America so that it does not depend on the US any more.
The role of character is then introduced, often through silences, and the citation is read with
emphasis and loudness. These are the features presented with a change of role from narrator to
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

character when the persona evoked is admired and/or respected by the speaker.

Roles and discursive goals

Table 1 shows the three main voices in Chavez’s political speeches and their characteristics. The
table outlines correlations among voices or roles undertaken by the speaker, the linguistic and
paralinguistic means of realization, and the discursive goals achieved by these shifts. These cor-
relations are important; they show a systematic way to trace three active and differentiated roles
and/or voices in discourse. These voices introduced by specific linguistic and paralinguistic
features are utilized by the speaker to achieve goals: to manipulate his audience. I have found
in the data that these paralinguistic characteristics appear systematically to introduce and rep-
resent these voices. The paralinguistic features correlate with the different voices. A more exten-
sive set of data will be necessary to observe new possible features to construct these voices.
It must be noted that (38), (50), and (58) are not changes of voice, but a rhetorical device
used to remember the addressee (vocative). For example, in (58) ‘Mr. President’ is a vocative
used to call attention and emphasize a fact to his audience. Chavez’s role does not change
here. He is still narrating, but he highlights a part of his audience.
From (50) to (58), Chavez talks about the achievements in Venezuela and of Venezuelans.
He excludes himself from the group of Venezuelans, this time perhaps in an attempt at modesty,
and does not claim merit for those achievements. He adopts the narrator’s role to suggest objec-
tive results (Benveniste, 1971) through narration.

Table 1. Roles, features, and discursive goals.

Characteristics

Voices Linguistics Paralinguistics Discursive goals

Narrator Impersonal Emphasis on the more relevant Presents political facts in an

conjugations of ideas of the message but a objective way to gain
verbs more or less homogeneously credibility
loud speech
Interlocutor First person verb Lower or quieter tone Direct the attention of the
conjugations audience in a more intimate
setting through the use of
direct addressing forms;
solidarity
Character (when it Long, complex This interlocutor will take some Evoke solemnity and veracity
is a valuable sentences. time (abundant pauses that from the person quoted;
quotation) could be considered solemn presented as an outstanding
silences) idea
 144 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez

In (51), he becomes an interlocutor again; now ‘we’ indicates that he is part of that group of
Venezuelans. He shifts to interlocutor to clarify a fact that he presented as narrator. Now as
Chavez the interlocutor, the explanation establishes a closer nexus with the audience.

51 1.406.000 venezolanos aprendieron a 1,406,000 Venezuelans learned to read and

leer y escribir en año y medio,
(Change of voice, from narrator to
interlocutor: address to the president)
8nosotros somos 25 millones8
aproximadamente.
to write in one and a half years, and
(Change of voice, from narrator to
interlocutor: address to the president) 8we
are only 25 million people,8
approximately.

However in (55) he is no longer a ‘Venezuelan.’ The conjugation of the subject ‘todos los
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

venezolanos [all Venezuelans]’ with the third person plural ‘tendrán [will have]’ excludes the
speaker from the group he was part of in previous sentences.

55 Y en unos poco años, todos los And in a few years, all Venezuelans will
venezolanos tendrán ac::ceso gratuito have ac::cess to excellent medical attention.
a una atención médica por excelencia.

Then in (65), he is again a ‘Venezuelan’ who ‘will fight.’ The Spanish word ‘luchar’ evokes
Bakhtinian nuances of a ‘socialist’ discourse. This word invokes sociocultural
conceptualizations.

65 8Pues bien, nosotros lucharemos8 por 8Well, we will fight8 for " Venezuela " , for
" Venezuela " , por la integración Latin American integration and the world.
latinoamericana y por el mundo.

Later on, there is an extension of the ‘we’ who will fight for Venezuela. In (65) it is extended
to the ‘we’ who will fight to save humanity.
68 " No demos nosotros (0.2) descanso a " We also will not rest (0.2) our arms (0.2)
nuestros brazos (0.1) ni reposo a or give repose to our souls " (0.2) 8until we
nuestras almas " (0.2) 8hasta salvar a have contributed to saving humanity8.
la humanidad8.

There are two issues with this extension. First, Chavez is comparing the Venezuelan fight to
something international, to everyone’s fight to save humanity. Who would not fight to save
humanity? Who would not fight to save Venezuela? Second, we have a big but unreal claim
typical of political discourse (Galasinski, 2000, p. 42). That hyperbolic manifestation ‘until
we have contributed to saving humanity’ relates to an ideology expressed by Bush: ‘We
wage a war to save civilization itself’ (Bush, 2001). These are hyperbolic manifestations that
distort reality and make a ‘big claim’ that collaborates with a language of deception and manipu-
lation. Indexical nuances (Silverstein, 1976/1995) lead us from one text to another, from one
leader to another, in interconnectivity, to what Silverstein named ‘corporatized language’
(Silverstein, 2003).

The different personas evoked by Chavez

The discourse shows the three roles proposed: narrator, character, and interlocutor. In addition,
Bakhtin’s heteroglossia (1981) can be traced through the speech by the different personas
 Critical Discourse Studies 145

acquired by Chavez: Chavez as a socialist (23); Chavez as a Venezuelan (one of the people) (24);
Chavez as a world leader on the non-capitalist side (27); Chavez as a world leader (34); Chavez
as Bolivar (44 – 46); Chavez as a Venezuelan citizen (one of the overall population) (51); Chavez
as chief of state (62); Chavez as victim of a conspiracy (64); Chavez as fighter for Venezuela
(65); and Chavez as possible saver of humanity (68).
The multiple personas manifested by Chavez throughout his intervention emphasize dyna-
mism in discourse and the nuances embedded in meaningful displays of positioning. Different
dimensions play important roles: lexical items evoke a specific range of voices with creative
indexicality; speakers place those lexical choices in particular voices. Chavez evokes voices
out of his diverse repertoire, a repertoire provided and shaped by and through social agents.
The flexibility of the speaker in presenting arguments from different angles (personas) not
only helps him to deliver the message favorably, it also brings dynamism to the speech. Dyna-
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

mism, based in creative indexical moments and the evoking of different identities, displays the
theatrical effect of characters performing on stage.

Conclusions
This work takes an innovative and efficient approach to analyzing political discourse. Looking at
the different roles allows us to decode discursive strategies and the goals they pursue in a sys-
tematic way, proving correlations between roles, means of realizations, (linguistic and paralin-
guistic) and discursive goals.
The analysis shows that each semiotic form indexed throughout the interactional discourse
plays a role in the speaker’s intervention. It is not merely a linguistic form within a sentence or a
denotation with a specific meaning. As has been shown in this paper, each semiotic form ‘fits
into an emerging multidimensional array of repetition, comparison, and contrast, an organization
of denotational information that is interactionally effective because it comes to entextualized
formedness in a particular way in the course of conversation’ (Silverstein, 2004, p. 628).
The analysis has suggested the feasibility of applying the approaches and tools used for nar-
ratives of personal experience (Koven, 2002, 2004) in the field of political speech, to reconsider
the nature of political speeches and the correlations between stylistic shifts and discursive
strategies.
This paper has shown how political speech displays socio-pragmatic features that create and
shape social meaning through language use. The linguistic choices also reflect socio-pragmatic
nuances evoking voices; the word ‘pueblo [people]’ and ‘fight [lucha]’ activate a series of index-
ical connections latent in the discourse and reproduced in each context. These items reactivate
socio-historical settings of meanings simply by being mentioned.
The speaker uses pronouns or conjugate verbs to position different social agents in the bat-
tlefield exactly at the specific distance he wants them to be. Changes of role are marked in the
discourse with linguistic and paralinguistic features, and each role – character, narrator, and
interlocutor – has specific proper features that allow us to study them systematically. For
example, the interlocutor role is normally introduced by a quieter tone of voice (paralinguistics)
and a use of first person verb conjugation (linguistics).
Finally, in addition to the three main roles, Chavez adopts different personas to present his
arguments and facts from different perspectives, using a range of tonalities from subjective to
objective, from first-hand witness to person-who-heard, from chief of state to citizen, etc.
Chavez evokes these personas from his diverse repertoire, a repertoire provided and shaped
by and through social agents.
Further studies are necessary to investigate whether the frequency of shifts between roles,
and the nature of these shifts, correlate with ideological trends (right or left).
 146 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez

Notes
1. Some other studies on political discourse analysis are Bhatia (2006), Billig and MacMillan (2005),
Blackledge (2005), Chilton (1996, 2003, 2004), Chilton and Schäffner (2002), Chouliaraki (2005),
Dunmire (2005), Edwards (2004), Fairclough (2003), Galasinski (2000), Geis (1987), Lakoff (2003),
Lazar and Lazar (2004), Martı́n Rojo (1995), Martı́n Rojo and van Dijk (1997), Reisigl and Wodak
(2001), Reyes-Rodrı́guez (2006a), van Dijk (1991, 1993, 2000), Wodak (1989, 2002), and Wodak,
de Cillia, Reisigl, and Liebhart (1999).
2. Silverstein (1992, p. 55) states:
[I]ndexicality is by definition what I call a radial or polar-coordinate concept of semiotic relation-
ship: indexical sign-vehicles point from an origin that is established in, by and at their occurring
as the here-and-now ‘center’ or tail, as it were, of a semiotic arrow. At the terminus of the radial,
or arrowpoint, is their indexical object, no matter what the perceptual and conceptual dimensions
or properties of things indexed. Strictly, by virtue of indexical semiosis, the ‘space’ that surrounds
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

the indexical sign-vehicle in unboundedly large (or small), characterisable in unboundedly many
different ways, and its indexical establishment (as having-been-brought into being) almost limit-
lessly defeasible.
3. The speech can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v¼-gc0g7enhna&feature¼playlist&p¼
c439ad52aa2f05ef&index¼2 and the English translation can be found at http://www.venezuelanalysis.
com/articles.php?artno¼1555. The video lasts 8 : 04 minutes. The entire transcription of the fragment
and its translation can be found at the end of this paper.
4. In an ongoing research project, I am proving the feasibility of this framework for analyze different
speeches and politicians in different settings and languages.
5. The specific word or punctuation referred to in the analysis will appear in bold in the transcription. The
whole transcription appears at the end of the bibliography.

Notes on contributor
Antonio Reyes-Rodriguez is originally from Cadiz, Spain. He is currently a PhD candidate at the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he teaches courses on linguistics, identity,
and globalization in different departments. He is the author of several papers on sociolinguistics
and discourse analyses, in which he presents an interdisciplinary, cross-cultural, cross-language
study of political speeches of Latin American and North American leaders. He aims to
decode discursive strategies, stylistic shifts, and ideological representations through the linguis-
tic sign.

References
Atkinson, M. (1984). Our masters’ voices: The language and body language of politics. London: Methuen.
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Benveniste, É. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse and Society, 17,
173– 203.
Billig, M., & MacMillan, K. (2005). Metaphor, idiom and ideology: The search for ‘no smoking guns’
across time. Discourse and Society, 16, 459– 480.
Blackledge, A. (2005). Discourse and power in a multilingual world. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, D. (1980). Language—the loaded weapon: The use and abuse of language today. London:
Longman.
Bourdieu, P. (1980). The production of belief: Contribution to an economy of symbolic goods. Media,
Culture and Society, 2, 261– 293.
Bourdieu, P. (2001). Language and symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1991)
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In P. Giglioli (Ed.), Language and
social context (pp. 252– 283). New York: Penguin.
 Critical Discourse Studies 147

Bush, G.W. (2001) Address to the Nation, World Congress Center, Atlanta, Georgia, November 8.
Retrieved March 25, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011108-
13.html
Butt, D.G., Lukin, A., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). Grammar: The first covert operation of war.
Discourse and Society, 15, 267– 290.
Chilton, P. (1996). Security metaphors: Cold War discourse from containment to common house.
New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Chilton, P. (2003). Deixis and distance: President Clinton’s justification of intervention in Kosovo. In
D. Nelson & M. Dedaic (Eds.), At war with words (pp. 95 – 126). Berlin: de Gruyter.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
Chilton, P., & Schäffner, C. (Eds.). (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political dis-
course. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chouliaraki, L. (2005). The soft power of war: Legitimacy and community in Iraq war discourses. Journal
of Language and Politics, 4, 1 – 10.
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

Dedaic, M.N. (2006). Political speech and persuasive argumentation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
languages and linguistics (Vol. 9, pp. 700– 706). New York: Elsevier.
Diaz Barrado, M.P. (1989). Análisis del discurso polı́tico: Una aplicación metodológica [Analysis of
the Political Discourse: a methodological application]. Merida, Spain: Editorial Regional de
Extremadura.
Dunmire, P.L. (2005). Preempting the future: Rhetoric and ideology of the future in political discourse.
Discourse and Society, 16, 481– 513.
Edwards, J. (2004). After the fall. Discourse and Society, 15, 155–184.
Ensink, T. (1997). The footing of a royal address: An analysis of representativeness in political
speech, exemplified in Queen Beatrix’ address to the Knesset on March 28, 1995. In C. Schäffner
(Ed.), Analysing political speeches (pp. 5– 32). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analyzing discourse. London: Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1971). L’ordre du discours. Paris: Gallimard.
Foucault, M. (1972). The archeology of knowledge (S. Smith, Trans.). London: Tavistock.
Foucault, M. (2003). Society must be defended: Lectures at the College de France 1975– 1976. New York:
Picador.
Galasinski, D. (2000). The language of deception: A discourse analytical study. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Geis, M.L. (1987). The language of politics. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Giraldo, F. (1991). El discurso polı́tico de la Izquierda: La paz y la violencia. Años ochenta [The political
discourse of the left: Peace and violence. The eighties]. Medellı́n, Colombia: Litoimpresos.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. (Original work pub-
lished 1979)
Halliday, M.A.K., & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.).
London: Arnold.
Koven, M. (2002). An analysis of speaker role inhabitance in narratives of personal experience. Journal of
Pragmatics, 34, 167– 217.
Koven, M. (2004). Getting ‘emotional’ in two languages: Bilinguals’ verbal performance of affect in nar-
ratives of personal experience. Text, 24, 471– 515.
Kroskrity, P. (2004). Language ideologies. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to lingusitic anthropology
(pp. 496– 517). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Labov, W. (1972). The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In W. Labov (Ed.), Language in
the inner city (pp. 354– 396). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In D. Schiffrin (Ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context (pp. 43– 70).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Labov, W. (1997). Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7, 395–415.
Labov, W., & Waletzky, J. (1997). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. Journal of
Narrative and Life History, 7, 3 – 38. (Original work published 1967)
Lakoff, G. (2003). Metaphor and war again. Alternet. Retrieved March 18, 2003, from http://www.alter
net.org/story/15414/
Lazar, A., & Lazar, M.M. (2004). The discourse of the new world order: ‘Out-casting’ the double face of
threat. Discourse and Society, 15, 223– 242.
 148 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez

Martı́n Rojo, L. (1995). Division and rejection: From the personification of the Gulf conflict to the demo-
nization of Saddam Hussein. Discourse and Society, 6, 49 –80.
Martı́n Rojo, L., & van Dijk, T. (1997). There was a problem, and we solved it!: Legitimating
the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse and Society, 8,
523– 566.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1985). Authority in language. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ochs, E. (1979). Planned and unplanned discourse. In T. Givón (Ed.), Syntax and semantics 12: Discourse
and syntax (pp. 51 – 80). New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, E., & Capps, L. (1996). Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 19 – 43.
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2001). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism.
London: Routledge.
Reyes-Rodrı́guez, A. (2006a). Speeches and declarations: A war of words. Revista Alicantina de Estudios
Ingleses, 19, 365– 386.
Reyes-Rodrı́guez, A. (2006b). ‘Global enemies’ and their linguistic representation in the political agenda.
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012

In J. Harris (Ed.), Alternative globalizations (pp. 416– 434). Chicago: ChangeMaker.

Silverstein, M. (1992). The indeterminacy of contextualization: When is enough enough? In P. Auer &
A. Di Luzio (Eds.), The contextualization of language (pp. 55 – 76). Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. Lucy (Ed.), Reflexive
language: Reported speech and metapragmatics (pp. 33 – 58). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Silverstein, M. (1995). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In B. Blount (Ed.),
Language, culture, and society: A book of readings (pp. 187– 221). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
(Original work published 1976)
Silverstein, M. (2003). Talking politics: The substance of style from Abe to “W”. Chicago: Prickly
Paradigm Press.
Silverstein, M. (2004). ‘Cultural’ concepts and the language – culture nexus. Current Anthropology, 45,
621– 652.
Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing formal grammar (2nd ed.). London: Arnold.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1991). Racism and the press. London: Routledge.
Van Dijk, T.A. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2000). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In M. Reisigl & R. Wodak
(Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches in critical discourse analysis (pp. 65 – 84). Vienna:
Passagen Verlag.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2005). War rhetoric of a little ally: Political implicatures and Aznar’s legitimatization of
the war in Iraq. Journal of Language and Politics, 4, 65 – 92.
Van Dijk, T.A., & Rodrigo Mendizábal, I. (1999). Análisis del discurso social y polı́tico. Quito, Ecuador:
Pluriminor Abya-yala.
Weiss, G., & Wodak, R. (2003). Introduction: Theory, interdisciplinarity and critical discourse analysis. In
G. Weiss & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical discourse analysis: Theory and interdisciplinarity (pp. 3 – 50).
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R. (1989). Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse. London: Benjamins.
Wodak, R. (2002). Discourse and politics: The rhetoric of exclusion. In R. Wodak & A. Pelinka (Eds.), The
Haider phenomenon in Austria (pp. 33 – 60). London: Transaction.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, & Liebhart. (1999). Discursive construction of national identity.
Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press.
Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard, &
P. Kroskrity (Eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory (pp.). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Wortham, S. (2001). Narratives in action. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
 Critical Discourse Studies
Appendix: Transcription
Spanish
1 . . . confirma el derecho de los Estados (0.2)
2 de nacionalizar las propiedades (0.2)
3 y los recursos naturales (0.2) que se encontraban en
manos de inversores extranjeros, (0.2)
4 proponiendo igualmente la creación:: de car::teles de
produc::tores de materias primas.
5 En su resolución 3201 (0.2) de mayo de 1974. (0.2)
6 Se expresó la determinación de trabajar con
URGENCIA (0.3)
7 para establecer un nuevo orden económico
internacional basado –(Change of voice: from
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012
narrator to interlocutor) 8óiganme bien, os
r:::uego8 –
8 “en la equidad, la igualdad soberana, la
interdependencia, el interés común y la
cooperación entre todos los Estados (0.2)
9 cualesquiera que sean sus sistemas económicos y
sociales” (0.2), que “corrija las desigualdades y
repare las injusticias (0.2)
10 entre los paı́ses desarrollados y los paı́ses en
desarrollo, y asegure a las generaciones presentes
y futuras,
11 la paz, la justicia y un desarrollo económico y social
12 que se acelere a ritmo sostenido.”
13 (Change of voice: from narrator to interlocutor
marked with quieter tone) . # 8cierro comillas
Estaba leyendo parte de aquella resolución
histórica de 1974-8 ,
14 " El objetivo del nuevo orden económico
internacional era modificar el viejo " orden
económico (0.2)
15 Xxx concebido en Bretton Woods. (0.2)xxXXxx
[Applause y murmurs]. ((Pause)) (He is looking at
the note)
16 .8Creo que el Presidente de los Estados Unidos
habló aquı́ durante unos 20 minutos
17 el dı́a de ayer, según me han infor::mado, 8yo pido
permiso, (Change the addressee from the
audience to the president)
18 . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . X ____________
# Excelencia, para terminar mi alocución # , .
. . ..X
xxxXXXXxxx
19 " El objetivo (0.1) del nuevo orden económico
internacional (0.1) era modificar " (0.2)
20 el viejo orden económico concebido en Bretton
Woods en 819448,
21 y que tendrı́a una vigencia (0.1) hasta 1971, 8con el
derrumbamiento del sistema monetario
internacional8:
22 " só::lo buenas intenciones, ningu::na voluntad para
avanzar por ese camino " (0.1).
149
English
. . .which confirms the State’s right (0.2)
to nationalize natural properties (0.2)
and resources (0.2) that had fallen into the hands of
foreign investors. (0.2)
[The proposition also] proposed the creation of
car::tels for the produ::cers of raw materials.
In May, the 1974 (0.2) Resolution 3201. (0.2)
It expressed the URGENT (0.3) determination
to establish a new international economic order
based on –(Change of voice: from narrator to
interlocutor) 8listen to me carefully, I beg
yo::::u8 –
“fairness, sovereign equality, interdependence,
common interest and equality between all the
States (0.2)
without reference to their economic and social
systems (0.2), [a new order] to correct the
inequalities and repair the injustices (0.2)
between the developed countries and the developing
countries, and assure to the present and future
generations,
peace, justice and economic and social
growth in crescendo.”
(Change of voice: from narrator to interlocutor
marked with quieter tone) . # 8I end quotation I
was reading part of that historic resolution of
1974-8 ,
" The objective of the new international economic
order was to modify the old " one (0.2)
Xxx conceived in Bretton Woods. (0.2)xxXXxx
[Applause and murmurs]. ((Pause)) (He is looking
at the note)
> 8 I believe that the President of the United States
spoke for 20 minutes
yesterday according to what they told me. 8I request
permission, (Change the addressee from the
audience to the president)
. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . X ____________
# Your Excellency, to finish my speech # , .
. . ..X
xxxXXXXxxx
" The objective (0.1) of the new international
economic order (0.1) was to modify " (0.2)
the old one that was conceived in Bretton Woods in
819448.
[This order still was] in use (0.1) in 1971 8during the
collapse of the international monetary system8:
" The motivations to change were on::ly good
intentions; there was no:: will to advance along
that road. " (0.1)
(Appendix continued)
 150 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez
Appendix: Continued
Spanish
23 Y nosotros creemos que ese era, y ese sigue siendo
el camino.
24 Hoy reclamamos desde los pueblos, 8en este caso el
pueblo de Venezuela8,
25 un nuevo orden económico internacional,
26 " pero también resulta imprescindible un nuevo
orden polı́::tico internacional " ,
27 8no permitamos que un puñado de paı́ses intente
reinterpretar8 impunemente los principios del
derecho internacional para,
28 dar cabida a doctrinas como la “guerra preventiva“.
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012
29 " ¡Vaya que nos amenazan con la guerra
preventiva! " , y la llamada ahora
“res::ponsabilidad de proteger”,
30 pero hay que preguntarse QUIÉN nos va a proteger?
CÓMO nos van a proteger?
31 (Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
personal opinion) 8Yo creo que uno de los
pueblos que requiere protección es el pueblo de
Estados Unidos8,
32 demostrado ahora dolorosamente con la tragedia de
Katrina.
33 No tiene gobier::no que lo " proteja de los desastres
anunciados de la naturaleza " ,
34 (Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
personal opinion) 8si es que vamos a hablar de
protegernos los unos a los otros8; estos son
conceptos " muy peligrosos " (0.1).
35 Que van delineando el imperialismo, van delineando
el intervencionismo y tratan de legalizar::
36 (0.3) el irrespeto a la soberanı́a de los pueblos;
37 8el respeto pleno de8 los principios del derecho
internacional y a la Carta de las Naciones Unidas
deben constituir,
38 Señor Presidente, la piedra " angular de las
relaciones internacionales en el mundo de hoy " ,
39 y la base del nuevo orden que propug::namos.
40 (Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
address to the audience) 8Permı́tame, una vez
más (0.1) para ir concluyendo (0.2), citar a Simón
Bolı́var (0.2), (solemn) nuestro Libertador (0.2).
(solemn silence) 8
41 Cuando habla de la integración del mundo, del
" par::lamento mundial, de un congre:::so de
parlamentarios " .
42 " Hace falta retomar muchas propuestas como la
bolivariana " .
43 Decı́a Bolı́var en Jamaica en 1815, 8ya lo citaba, leo
una frase de su Carta de Jamaica8, (Change of
voice: from interlocutor to character)
44 “Qué bello serı́a (0.1) que el istmo de Panamá (0.2)
fuese para nosotros lo que el de Corinto para los
griegos. Ojalá que algún dı́a tengamos la fortuna
de instalar allı́ un augusto congreso de los
representantes de la República de los reinos.
English
We think that that was and continues to be the right
way.
Today we ask from the people, 8in particular the
people from Venezuela8,
[we demand] a new international economic order,
" but also essential is a new international poli::tical
order " ,
8we cannot allow a handful of countries8 to
unconstrained reinterpret the principles of
international law,
giving legitimacy to doctrines like preventive war.
" And do they ever threaten us with preventive
war! " , now call it the “respon:::sibility to
protect”,
but we have to ask WHO will be doing this
protecting? HOW they are going to protect us?
(Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
personal opinion) 8I believe that the people that
need protection are the people from the United
States8,
as has been so painfully demonstrated now by the
tragedy of Katrina.
[This country] does not have go:::vernment to
" protect it from predictable natural disasters " ,
(Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
personal opinion) 8as long as we are talking about
protecting each other8. These are " very
dangerous " (0.1)
concepts that imperialism is drawing up. They mark
out interventionism and are trying to legalize:::
(0.3) lack of respect for people’s sovereignty.
8[They ignore] respect for8 the principles of
international law and the Letter of the United
Nations. This should constitute,
Mr. President, the " keystone of international
relations in today’s world " ,
and the basis of the new order that we advoca:::te.
(Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
address to the audience) 8Permit me (0.1), in
conclusion (0.2), to mention how (solemn) our
liberator (0.2), Simon Bolivar (solemn silence) 8
spoke of world integration, of a " world-wide
par:::liament, a con::gress of parliamentarians " .
" It is necessary to again take up proposals like the
Bolivarian one " .
8As I mentioned earlier, in Jamaica in 1815 Bolivar
said, and I quote8, (Change of voice: from
interlocutor to character)
“How beautiful it would be (0.1) for us that the
isthmus of Panama (0.2) were to become what
Corinth was for the Greeks. Hopefully someday
we will have a noble congress of representatives
of the Republic of the Kingdoms.
(Appendix continued)
 Critical Discourse Studies
Appendix: Continued
Spanish
45 A tratar y discutir sobre los " altos intereses de la
paz y de la guerra " con las naciones de las otras
tres partes del mundo.”
46 Esta especie de corporación unitaria podrá tener
lugar en alguna época dichosa de nuestra
regeneración. " Urge enfrentar de manera eficaz
ciertamente el terrorismo internacional " ,
47 " pero no usándolo como pretexto para desatar
agresiones militares injustificadas " y violatorias
del Derecho Internacional
48 que se han entronizado como doctrina 8después del
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012
11 de septiembre8. Sólo una estre::cha y
verdadera cooperación,
49 y el fin de los dobles raseros que algunos paı́ses del
Norte aplican al tema del terrorismo (0.2) podrán
acabar con éste horrible flagelo.
50 Señor presidente: en " apenas siete años (0.2) la
Revolución Bolivariana, el pueblo venezolano " ,
pueden exhibir importantes conquistas sociales y
económicas.
51 1.406.000 venezolanos aprendieron a leer y escribir
en año y medio, (Change of voice, from narrator
to interlocutor: address to the president)
8nosotros somos 25 millones 8aproximadamente.
52 " Y en escasas semanas, el paı́s podrá " , 8dentro de
pocos dı́as8, declararse territorio " libre de
analfabetismo " ,
53 y 3 millones de venezolanos antes excluidos (0.2)
por causa de la pobreza (0.2) fueron incorporados
a la educación primaria, secun-(0.1) secundaria y
universitaria.
54 17.000.000 de venezolanos y venezolanas, casi el
70% de la población, reciben por primera vez en
la historia (0.1) " asistencia médica gratuita " ,
incluida los medicamentos.
55 Y en unos poco años, todos los venezolanos tendrán
ac::ceso gratuito a una atención médica por
excelencia.
56 Se suministran HOY más de 1700.000 toneladas de
alimentos a precios módicos a 12.000.000 de
personas, casi la mitad de los venezolanos.
1.000.000 millón de ellos lo recibe gratuitamente
de manera transitoria.
57 8Estas medidas han generado un alto nivel de
seguridad alimentaria a los más necesitados8.
58 Señor presidente se han creado más de 700.000
puestos de trabajo, reduciéndose el desempleo 8en
9 puntos porcentuales8.
59 " Todo esto en medio de agresiones internas (0.2) y
externas que incluyeron un golpe militar " ,
60 " facturado en Washington, y un golpe petrolero,
FACTURADO también en Washington " .
151
English
There we could deal with and discuss the " high
interests of peace and war " among nations that
belong to the other three parts of the world.”
This kind of unitary corporation may happen, in
some of our happy renaissance periods. " It is
certainly urgent to find an effective way of dealing
with international terrorism " ,
" but this danger should not become a pretext to let
loose unjustified and violent military "
antagonism
posing as doctrine 8after the 11th of September8.
Only close::: and real cooperation,
and the end of double discourse on the subject of
terrorism (0.2), used by some countries of the
North, will be able to end this horrible calamity.
Mr. President: in " only seven years (0.2) " the
Bolivarian Revolution, the Venezuelan people " ,
can show important social and economic
conquests.
1,406,000 Venezuelans learned to read and to write
in one and a half years, and (Change of voice,
from narrator to interlocutor: address to the
president) 8we are only 25 million people,
8approximately.
" In a few weeks, the country will be able to " , 8in
a few days8, declare itself to be a territory " free
of illiteracy " .
Three million Venezuelans have been incorporated
to the primary, second-(0.1)dary and university
education that (0.2) before were excluded because
of poverty.
17,000,000 Venezuelans, almost 70% of the
population, receive for the first time in history
(0.1) " free medical attention " , including
medicines.
And in a few years, all Venezuelans will have
ac::cess to excellent medical attention.
TODAY, more than 1,700,000 tons of food were
distributed at reasonable prices to 12,000,000
people, almost half of the Venezuelans. 1,000,000
million of them are temporarily receiving this
food for free.
8These measures have generated a high level of
nutritional security for the most needy8.
Mr. President, 700,000 jobs have been created,
reducing unemployment 8by 9 percentage points8.
" All this has occurred in the middle of internal and
external aggression (0.2) that included a military
coup " ,
" supported by Washington, and an oil strike, also
SUPPORTED by Washington " .
(Appendix continued)
 152 A. Reyes-Rodrı́guez
Appendix: Continued
Spanish
61 Pese a las conspiraciones, a las calumnias del poder
mediático y las permanentes amenazas del
Imperio y sus aliados, que hasta " estimula el
magnicidio " .
62 (Change narrator to interlocuto) 8El único paı́s
donde una persona se puede dar el lujo de pedir el
magnicidio de otr- de un jefe de Estado es los
Estados Unidos8. (1.0)
63 8Como ocurrió hace poco con un (0.5) reverendo
llamado8 Pat Robertson, muy amigo de la Casa
Blanca,
Downloaded by [Université du Québec à Montréal] at 21:04 16 October 2012
64 pidió públicamente ante el mundo mi asesinato, y
anda libre. Eso es un delito internacional,
" TERRORISMO " (0.5) internacional.
65 8Pues bien, nosotros lucharemos8 por
" Venezuela " , por la integración
latinoamericana y por el mundo.
66 Reafirmamos aquı́ en este salón nuestra infinita fe
en el hombre, hoy sediento de paz y de justicia
para sobrevivir como especie.
67 Simón Bolı́var, " padre de nuestra patria y guı́a de
nuestra revolución, juró no dar descanso a su
brazo ni reposo a su alma hasta ver a la América
libre " .
68 " No demos nosotros (0.2) descanso a nuestros
brazos (0.1) ni reposo a nuestras almas " (0.2)
8hasta salvar a la humanidad8.
69 (Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
address to the audience)
Señores, 8muchı́simas gracias8.
XxxXxxxx [Applause]
English
In spite of these conspiracies, and the lies in the
media and the permanent threats of the Empire
and its allies. These threats have included the
" incitation to assassination. "
(Change narrator to interlocutor) The only country
where a person has the luxury to request the
assassination of a Chief of State is the United
States. (1.0)
8This just happened when (0.5) the Reverend8 Pat
Robertson, a very good friend of the White House,
publicly requested my assassination, and then
walked free. This is an international crime,
international " TERRORISM " . (0.5)
8Well, we will fight8 for " Venezuela " , for Latin
American integration and the world.
We reaffirm here in this hall our infinite faith in
man, who today thirsts for peace and justice, and
to survive as a species.
Simón Bolivar, " father of our country and our
revolutionary guide, swore not to give his arm any
rest, or repose to his soul, until America was
free " .
" We also will not rest (0.2) our arms (0.1) or give
repose to our souls " (0.2) 8until we have
contributed to saving humanity8.
(Change of voice, from narrator to interlocutor:
address to the audience)
Gentlemen, 8thank you very much8.
xxxXxxxx [Applause]