INTRODUCTION

All leaders of political systems govern, interact with people under their responsibility by the use of language in a real situation of communication. Politicians commonly use language as a powerful tool constructing speech world in which they impose ideologies and identities of interactants. The persuasive force of political talk depends on the ability of the speaker to create an existentially coherent image of him, the representation of his behavior and attitude to people, values, facts and ideas as consistent and continuous and to guide the audience towards an intended interpretation of his speech which serves best the speakers communicative intentions with regard to the situational, socio-cultural and pragmatic context in which the interaction takes place. Our thesis is the use of modals in political speeches : the case of Obama, Thatcher and Mandela. The key elements are modals and political speeches . So, we will define these terms for a better understanding of our thesis. Political speech is a conversation, a formal treatment of a subject in speech or writing of the state, government or public administration, gives particularly by a person or authority like president, mayor,who aims to convince or inform people. Political speech is specially from someone who is a politician. About modals, they are special used to show for example possibility, ability, permission, obligation, probability, In addition, modals are not verbs, they are linguistic tools. They express the psychological disposition of the speaker. Modals are: can, could, may, might, must, ought to, shall, should, will and would. After these explanations, we can support that discourse is the base of the work. The context dependent interpretative perception of the semantic unity

and purposefulness of speech (coherence) is the result of an interplay of ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning encoded in texts. Thus speech coherence may be seen as a multifaceted speech property encompassing propositional coherence on the ideational plan, interactional coherence and evaluative coherence on the modal plan, and cohesion on the textual plan. Our research paper aims to showing which of the modals the speaker who is the political leader uses to dominate, to submit their people and the influence of modals on co-speakers or people and to paid explanation for this choice. Since in political speech, the expression of personal judgment, attitude and assessment of the topic under discussion and the establishment of a relationship with the listeners are key components of the persuasive strategies adopted by the speaker, this study focuses on language means contributing to the perception of evaluative and interactional coherence in political speeches. Within the study of interpersonal meanings in political speech, modality expressed by various lexical and grammatical forms has received considerable attention; specificity of the different language means conveying modal meanings has not been explored in detail. Since the English language has developed a distinct and complex system of modal verbs for the expression of modal meanings, the present investigation scrutinizes the semantic and pragmatic functions of the modals must, can and will in the discourse of political speeches delivered by Barack OBAMA, Magareth THATCHER and Nelson MANDELA. Then, the objective is to analyze the power, the strength of modals in political speeches. The thesis we deal with is threefold:
3

The first level is discourse analysis; The second level is corpus identification; And third level is Analysis and Discussion. All the work will be based on one of the mayor theory which is enunciation.

PART ONE:

DISCOURSE

ANALYSIS

Concerning discourse, well list the different kind which may permit us to give a best definition of it. We can refer to Dominique MAINGUENEAU (1991:10) , who said that there are seven types of Discourse. We agree with him because they are clearly summarized as follow: The first discourse is langue and parole. Both are verbal occurrence. The second discourse is a text. The thirth Discourse is a discourse focused on the dynamic aspect of the enunciation and on the relation established between the speaker and cospeaker in a given context. The fourth discourse is the conversation and oral interaction considered as the fundamental type of enunciation. The fifth discourse is an opposition between Langue and discourse. The sixth discourse is a special discourse to characterize a certain social or ideological position. The seventh discourse is an opposition between enunciation and Discourse. For that the statement is many utterances link together with meaning relation one to another in a situation of communication. Discourse is the spoken or written statement. Then a text well structured, written with coherence and cohesion is a statement. A study of all the linguistics conditions of production of this text will permit to characterize it as discourse.

According to L.GUESPIN (1971:10)1, the statement is many meaningful utterances of communication and discourse is the statement considered as a discursive mechanism. Then, as the structure of the text, it can be qualified as a statement; a linguistic study of the condition of production of this text. All this will turn it in a discourse. (My translation) Through what is said above, discourse can be defined as all human oral, written or gestual communication oriented toward a co-speaker in a specific or general context. Most of the time, people in general consider two types of discourses which are the written and the oral one. But, linguists must go more further to considering gestual communication as discourse, called gestual discourse because everyday we use this discourse without great consideration. Then some characteristics like the speaker, the enunciative dynamic and a social context must be in relation so that to have Discourse. So these characteristics put discourse at the top of human communication. And, to analyse something is to observe deeply with imagination by referring to our background. Then discourse Analysis is to perceive or to focus on the enunciations device which links a textual organization to a social place. It is all the studies of language in any context.

L. Guespin, Problmatique des travaux sur le discours politique, in languages N 23, 1971, P.10

Lnonc, cest la suite de phrases emises entre deux blancs smantiques, deux arrts de la communication ; le discours, cest lnonc consider du point de vue du mcanisme discursif qui l e conditionne. Ainsi un regard jet sur un texte du point de vue de sa structuration en langue en fait un nonc ; une tude linguistique des conditions de production de ce texte en fera un discours

In addition, we talk about discourse analysis when the discourse which is linked to a kind or a sort of discursive institution, is not understandable by everybody, and when it has a hidden meaning. Moreover, Discourse Analysis must often be based on a corpus which is defined as being the material (utterance, paragraph, text, speech) on which linguists learn to lead their analysis. Then we have many types of corpus as follow: -The maximal corpus is made by differents statement according to the ideologies (political, social,). The maximal corpus is not limited and its various depend on the psychological position of the speaker. -The delimited corpus is limited and based on the maximal corpus. The analyst chose a group of statement according to his reaserch objective. -The developed corpus : The reasercher, with the hypothesis of work built and define an analysis program. His corpus is derive from the delimited corpus. As developed corpus, we have some narrative episodes, some syntaxic structures of statement, At least, the following elements are the best to do a better discourse analysis: -The kind of discourse (a sermon, asking for information to a policeman in the street chemistry book, ). -The social place (Hospital,) -The social function (religious, administration,) -The positionnement In a field (the liberal discourse in a political field of a country in a given period, the generative grammar in a linguistic field,)
8

We may say that Discourse is the semantic relation, the language beyond sentences. So Discourse Analysis is the operation that allows linguists to go deeply in the meaning of what is heard and written. All the details are taking into account when Analyzing discourse, the background of linguists, the social level of the speaker and the context of the discourse are always interacting.

I-BIRTH OF ENUNCIATION For the definition of Enunciation, we can quote BENVENISTE (1970:12), enunciation is switching on the language by an individual act of use.2 (My translation) In addition, ASCOMBRE and O.DUCROT (1976:18) argued that enunciation is for us the language activity exerted by the speaker when he listens but also, for whoever hears when he listens. 3 (My translation)

From these definitions, we can say that enunciation is all the phenomena observable when a person, two persons or more are interacting during a conversation. This included all the mechanisms of speech and writing.

BENVENISTE (1970 :12):

<<Lnonciation est cette mise en fonctionnement de la langue par un acte individual dutilisation. >>
3

ANSCOMBRE et DUCROT (1976 :18) :

<<Lnonciation sera pour nous lactivit langagire exerce par celui qui parle au moment o il parle. [Mais aussi, par celui qui coute au moment o il coute].>>

All this put the speaker at the center of enunciation. So, to enunciate means to pronounce (words) clearly, to state precisely or formally. But, for Ferdinand DE SAUSSURE, linguistics must only be based on the study of langue and he defined langue as a system of signs and rules , a common convention in peoples mind, a unique and homogeneous code for communication. By this, Ferdinand DE SAUSSURE and his followers have ignored the role played by speaker . This leads to the limit and the fail of their theories on the road of enunciation even if structural linguistics is rich and has permitted to get an important step in linguistics development. The structuralists didnt take care of the essential characteristics of language which is creativity. This means that, with a finite number of category and rules at his disposal, the speaker can produce and interpret any sentence of his langue. The notion of level and operation are part of generative grammar even if we find them in some enunciative theories and Generative grammar rely on three trends as follow: -Statique conception of language and dynamic conception. -Apprehension of language on the only level of morpheme. -A structural description of a given corpus. Chomsky and his Generative Grammar also show their limits on the way of enunciation even if some points would be part of the theory of enunciation.

10

II- ENUNCIATION II.1-The problem of enunciation The truth conditions of an utterance are as follow: -a speaker - a co-speaker -a time -a place where the speech take place. -The possibility or probability of realization of what is said. Hence, for the truth conditions of an utterance, it is difficult to separate the descriptive value to the enunciative value. II.2-The textual cohesion and coherence 2.1- Textual cohesion The concept of cohesion is a semantic one; it refers to relation of meaning that exist within the text, and that define it as a text. According to M.A.K. Halliday and Ruqaiya Hassan (1976:4), cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse is dependent on that another. The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively decoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated into a text.

11

I agree with them because textual cohesion means sticking utterances together as to form a paragraph or a text. So what we may retain is that cohesion is out of the text. Be careful! We can stick together the following words: pen+cloth+ball+spoon. There is no logical relation among them. But in a text, all utterances have normally a common ground which is the syntax. 2.2- Coherence It is something which is logical and consistent. Capable of intelligible speech. When there is no verbal context, the utterance must be adapted to the situation. So coherence is of pragmatics. To sum up, textual cohesion is based on isotopia, anaphora, a presuppositionnel community which are in the text. At the contrary, coherence makes in competition or in play some situations like intentions, knowledge of the universe, some fashions different from linguistics. It is of pragmatics. II.3- The aspects of enunciative linguistics 3.1-The Dexis (Je, tu, ici, maintenant) Any enunciation means that there is a speaker, a co-speaker, the time during which the speech takes, and the space where the speaker speaks. The most deictics are: Deictics have a conventional meaning (they are found in dictionaries,).
12

Deictics have their full meanings when they are used in utterances or in a speech interaction. The deixis also deals with the time of enunciation (temporal deixis and verbal system): it is the moment when the act of speech occurs. Example: Im working today. Verbal system= am working. Temporal deixis= Today. One theory of Emile BENVENISTE is that, there are two types of enunciation which are: -History characterized by the use of preterit, plus-perfect. Times and person have function in language. -Discourse which is the core element of our thesis.

3.2- Modalities A modality can be seen as the point of view of the speaker on what he has said. This is a general point of view. About this definition of modality, the speaker is normally linked to subjectivity. Verbs like can, will, must, shall, are modals because they are the most characteristics of the speaker in his discourse or speech.

13

a-Notion of expressivity Expressivity is all the kinds or ways a speaker uses to express his opinions or ideas. And the expression is what is said by the speaker. Adding the expression and expressivity, we have an integral act of language. Example: I can go to school. I must go to school. I will go to school. First, the expressivity is the three utterances and the expression is the meaning of these utterances. Second, throughout this example, the relation between expressivity and modality seems very important. So we may go more to say that modality is in expressivity.

3.3- Language Effects One of the basis of enunciation is language effects. Our study will always refer to J.L. Austins book (1970) titled How to do things with words It means that, when the speaker speaks, he does what he says. A speech must be dynamic and alive. There must be a real confusion between the speaker and his speech. This analyse leads us directly to language effects which will be developed in further research in master two.

14

III-DIMENSION OF MODALITY III.1-Domaine of modality Despite the variation in the classifications of modal meaning and in the set of criteria proposed for its definition. It is now generally agreed that modality is the semantic domain pertaining to the addition of supplement or overlay of meaning to the most neutral semantic value of the proposition of an utterance, which expresses the speakers opinion or attitude towards the proposition; that the sentence expresses or the situation that the proposition describes and covers the domain of essentially subjective and nonfactual meanings. Benveniste reduce the expression of modality to modal verbs like must and can For him, the modality is <<An additional statement on the statement of a relationship.>>4. (My translation) Then, modality is defined as :<< Expression of the speaker's attitude in relation to the propositional content of his statement.>>5. (My translation) For Charles BALLY, modality is composed of dictum and modus. These two notions constitute the basis of the theory of modality. Knowing that dictum is what is said and modus how it is said.

NICOLE LE QUERLER, 1996 :50 Typologie des modalits, Presse universitaire de Caen, France.

Une assertion complmentaire portant sur l' nonc d' une relation.

Idem p.51

Expression de l' attitude du locuteur par rapport au contenu propositionnel de son nonc.

15

For BRUNOT, modality is defined as: the soul of the utterance.6. (My translation) Moreover, we have many types of modalities. They have been share into two groups which are the modalities of group I and the modalities of group II. The group I are called epistemic modalities and they concern directly the whole speech or discourse. Explicitly they are: -Assertive modality : The speaker expresses the truth or wrong statement of his speech (affirmatively or negatively). Example: I am writing the paper I am not writing the paper. It is a certainty.

-Interrogative modality : The speaker asked a question to the co-speaker. We have two possibilities of assertion which are affirmative or negative. The speaker doesnt make a choice. Example: Is the boy writing the newspaper?

Ibidem, p.61

La modalit est l' me de la phrase. 16

-Hypothetic modality : The speaker suppose something. Example : If she was writing the paper

-Injonctive or imperative modality : The speakers statement will relate to an extra -linguistics phenomenon. Example : Write the paper at once!

-Emphatic modality : The speaker can chose to insist on the reality or non-reality between the event of his statement and the extra-linguistic world. The speaker focuses on a unit, a group of unit or a whole proposition. Example : John is writing the paper. It relates to the tone also.

-Appreciative modality : The speaker through his speech makes appear all the marks of subjectivity. It is based on the judgment of the speaker by putting in relation his speech and the extra-linguistic world. Example : Its strange that they should have gone so soon this morning. Appreciative modality makes appear the opinion and the point of view of the speaker.
17

-Causative modality : The speaker has an influence on the co-speaker. Example : She made me finish the work.

The group II are called radical modalities. They are only concer ned with modals (can, will, may, must, shall,) Well be focus on this last part in the trend of our thesis because by the auxiliaries modal verbs, the speaker expresses his statement with chances of up-dating (actualization) of his speech. It should be stressed that modality (a semantic category) is regarded here as distinct from mood (a grammatical category); thus mood can be seen as a grammaticalised sub-category of the broader concept of modality, which can be realized in language by different grammatical, lexical and phonological means. The categorization of modal meanings in terms of the speakers commitment to propositional content which differentiates epistemic, deontic and dynamic types of modality. Epistemic modality expresses the speakers attit ude to the status of the proposition in terms of judgment of truth-value. Deontic and dynamic modality express the potentiality of the events; deontic meanings (associated with the social functions of permission and obligation) have directive force related to the expression of wants and desires and the imposition of ones value system and will on others, while dynamic meanings (associated with ability and volition) yield control over events and circumstances to the subject of the sentence.
18

III.2-Pragmaticity of modality Pragmatic define on a large broad, is the study of conditions and productions of statements. Precisely, the object of pragmatics are the relations which are establish by the statements among (a)The speaker (b)The co-speaker (c)The (situation) context of statement production. Pragmatics is concerns with the external world7

External world

Statement or Enonciation

Speaker

Co-speaker

Pragmatics studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social interaction and the effects of our choice on others. In theory, we can say anything we like. In practice, we follow a large number of social rules (most of them unconsciously) that constrain the way we speak. Moreover, Pragmatics and semantics both take into account such notions as the intentions of the speakers, the effects of an utterance on listeners, the
7

Paul Larreya, Jean-Philippe Watbled , 1994 :67,Linguistique gnrale et langue Anglaise, dition Nathan.

19

implications that follow from expressing something in a certain way, and the knowledge, beliefs, and presuppositions about the world upon which speakers and listeners rely when they interact. From a pragmatics point of view, then distinction between deontic and epistemic modality is of particular relevance, as the same modal verbs can be used in English to express both type of meaning and, thought there are some clear formal distinctions between the two uses of the modal auxiliaries (e.g. related to negation), it is the context which is crucial for an adequate speech interpretation. Since the modal under investigation must, can, will, are typically associated with a modality cline of strong to medium deontic meanings, the present investigation explores primarily the deontic uses of these modals. Moreover, as the analysis of the material will evidence, the three auxiliaries under investigation are used by speakers to indicate exclusively deontic meanings. Pragmatic defined on a large broad, is the study of conditions and productions of statement.

III.3-Pronouns and Modality Here, we are concerned with two pronouns which are I and we. They are sometimes differents and sometimes the same because referring to the same person. In discours analysis, they show the occurrence of the explicity of the speakers engagement and his responsibility sometimes in his speech. Then, first, <<We is a person shifter and Emile Benveniste has demonstrated that
20

we is not necessary a plural but I amplify as (I+ others) . >>8. This leads to say: -We is the representation of many speakers get together as one subject to perform something: Example: Ali is dancing. Baba is dancing. When somebody asked a question to Ali about what he is doing. We are attempting for two answers. (1) Im dancing. (2) We are dancing. (1) I is referring to Ali as a single subject. (2) We is referring to two I (I+I), specially to both Ali and Baba. In this context We is a mark of plural. Even if there had been many persons dancing, its We=I+I+I++I (last person) or We=In with n= number of persons. -We can also be seen as a combination of I+you but here you can b e seen as singular or plural. To be more clear, lets quote this paragraph of Dominique Maingueneau. According to him, the we which including other subjects of the utterer, is in fact a kind of discursive coup, since it raises the word as a common word, without the agreement of the integrated subjects. This we has a

Dominique Maingueneau, 1991 :109-112, LAnalyse du Discours, HACHETTE Suprieur.

21

performative value in the sense that it does what the word expresses: assert a common word9. (My translation) -We can be used when the speaker is alone or singular to demonstrate a kind of distance between him and the others (co-speakers) or to show a certain consideration for himself (speaker). This is like the <<vous de politesse>> in French. This We can be called the we of superiority. KERBRAT said that personal pronouns are the most known of deictics and specially <<I>> and <<you>> are pure deictics. In our context of enunciation, the plural pronouns well be concerned with are we and you but in the case of explicitness, only we is necessa ry. That is why KERBRAT split <<we>> as follow: I+you( singular or plural); inclusive we We : I+non-I+he (they) ; exclusive we I+You+He (or they) The inclusive <<we>> is purely deictic. Normally, we can say that: I+X= we (plural or singular)

Arman Colin & Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni,1980 :40-44 ,L nonciation.

Ce <<nous>> qui inclut d' autres sujets de l' nonciateur constitue en fait une sorte de coup de force discursif, puisqu' il pose la parole comme parole commune sans videmment vrifier si les sujets intgrs sont d' accord; il << possde une valeur performatrice en ce sens qu' il accomplit ce que la parole exprime : affirmer une parole commune>>.

22

We Singular Plural I+O I+YOU+HE+WE+THEY

According to BENVENISTE (1966:236) we have the following tree: Rfrent une

Personne

Non personne IL

Subjective Je

Non subjective Tu

For BENVENISTE, the<<I>> constitute the <<you>> (singular) because we know or have this <<you>> thinks to <<I>>. He is a non-person because it needs a precise contextual determination before being characterize. <<I refers uniquely to a discourse reality. >>10 It is appropriate to consider an additional dimension of the subjectiveobjective variable which reflects the presence or absence of explicit speakerpresence.
10

Armand Colin & Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni, 1980:40-44 ,L nonciation.

23

Explicit speaker-presence is associated with the personal intrusion of the speaker into the text (indicated typically by the use of first-person pronouns) and a high degree of commitment to the attitude expressed. Its role in political speech may be to disambiguate the nature of authority claimed by the speaker, i.e. it is dependent on whether it is based primarily on objective knowledge or on the power of the speaker. However the use of sentences with third-person subject can also be strategically exploited to present the authority as depersonalized, impersonal, and therefore difficult to challenge. III.4- Distinction between subjective and objective modality a-Subjective Modality a.1. What is subjectivity For BENVENISTE, the Subjectivity in language is the capacity of the speaker as subject, is ego that says ego. Here we find the foundation of subjectivity which is determined by the linguistic status of the person.11. (My translation)

11

Emile Benveniste,1966 :259-260, Problmes de Linguistique gnrale, Gallimard.

<< est <<go>> qui dit <<go>>.Nous trouvons l le fondement de la << subjectivit>> qui se dtermine par le statut linguistique de la personne>>.

24

a.2. Subjective Modality We agree with Nicole LE QUERLER (1996 : 55) about this definition of subjective modality, who said that the subjective modalities indicate the psychologic attitudes of the speaker: -The will (boulic modalities) Ex: I want pupils arrive at time. -Appreciation (appreciative or evaluative modalities): Ex: Its good, bad that, Im sorry, I hope that Epistemic modalities are sometimes classify with subjective modalities. (I know that.) b- Objective Modality For Nicole LE QUERLER (1996:64) objective modalities dont depend neither on the will nor on the judgment of the speaker. Ex: To grow, you must eat. Objective modality depends on the reality on the reality of the objective world. Deontic and epistemic modality are speaker related and therefore essentially subjective (and thus are contrasted with the objective character of dynamic modality); they clearly encode the position of the speaker with respect to the propositional content of the clause, either in terms of epistemic commitment to possibility or probability, or in terms of deontic commitment to obligation or permission.

25

Deontic modality allows for some cases of objective use which pertain to the stating of the existence of obligations independently of the will of the speaker (e.g. the case of the rules and regulations).

III.5- Deontic Modality and Political speeches a-Deontic Modality Deontic modalities are of permission and obligation. Ex: You can go to movies tonight.(permission) Deontic modality is a linguistic modality that indicates how the world ought to be, according to certain norms, expectations, speaker desire, etc. In other words, a deontic expression indicates that the state of the world (where world is loosely defined here in terms of surrounding circumstances) does not meet some standard or ideal, whether that standard be social (such as laws), personal (desires), etc. The utterance containing the deontic modal generally indicates some action that would change the world so that it becomes closer to the standard or ideal. This category includes the following subcategories: -Commissive modality (The speakers commitment to do something like a promise or threat): Ex: I shall help you. -Directive modality (Commands, requests, etc.): Ex: come!
26

Lets go! You have got to taste this curry!

-Volitive modality (Wishes, desires, etc.): Ex: If only I were rich! A related type of modality is dynamic modality, which indicates a subjects internal capabilities or willingness as opposed to external factors such as permission or orders given.

b-Deontic modality in political speech The study aimed at investigating in which way linguistic expressions of the deontic modality act in a sense of making the audiences participation possible in standpoints defended in political speeches. Known that the modality relates to the axis of the obligation, the deontic modality is, in the present research, as a whole, analyzed under the manifestation of syntactic, semantic and pragmatic-discourse aspects. There is a social pressure or the politicians, and the usage frequency of deontic modalizator expressions. Concerning the linguistic means of the deontic modality expression, one can perceive a high production of the modal verbs, standing out the modal must, in the consolidation of obligations.

27

The politicians preference for presenting themselves to the public as the ones who took the responsibilities in a task execution, for making the audience believe that this responsibility belongs to somebody else. Deontic Modality is connected with the necessity or desirability of acts performed by morally responsible agents. It reflects the effort of the speaker to impose a state of affairs on individuals by restricting possible states of affairs to a single choice or with the modality as dexis, the imposition of a convergence of the expressed world and the reference world. Within political speech, the morality and legality of this state is inevitably related to a culture-dependent ideological point of view which correlates with institutional beliefs and norms of conduct and a biased representation of a constructed speech in terms of right and wrong. However, in agreement, it can be argued that an ideology is not a single consistent but biased representation of reality, it normally comes complete with it own negation, in a deeply contradictory set of versions of reality whose contradictions are intrinsic to their function. Our source is (Olga dontcheva- NAVRATILOVA (2009:16)). I agree with her because such a set, called an ideological complex includes two components: The first is the representation of solidarity ( Solidarity function) and the other is the representation of conflict and imposition of power (Power function). Then, a useful framework for the analysis of ideological complexes. For this approach, we can based our analysis of some point of view of Olga Dontcheva-NAVRATILOVA (2009:17)
28

Within this approach, the ideologically-biased speech world of the speaker is seen as constructed along three dimensions of deixis-space, time and modality. Which position the speaker as the deictic Centre, associated with not only the origin of here and now but also epistemic time and deontic right? ; the intrusion of the wrong-physical or in the form of an ideological clash in the deictic Centre shared by the speaker and addressee is considered an immediate threat which legitimizes intervention (moral, legal and physical, if necessary to restore the integrity of the right values and social norms. It can therefore be argued that deontic modality is associated with exhorting behavior and views conform to the culture-specific moral norms and value system and condemn as morally or legally wrong those views and acts which oppose these norms and this value system. This is supported by the conceptualization of social and political relations in terms of space metaphor. Insiders close to the speaker are presented as sharing the ideological values of the group he represents, while outsiders are suspected of doing the opposite and are distanced from speaker. We cant deal with modals without referring to Henri ADAMCZEWSKI (1990:153), we have this: -Marry and I will leave tomorrow morning. -Both of us will fly to new York next week. In these two utterances, the speaker talk about something which has been already plan, the ideas have been preconstruced so the use of will. Also the following utterance shows another dimension of will: -Will you stay here for a moment, please? In this utterance, the will is great or we can say that is of great importance so as to show the semantic meaning of this utterance.
29

In reality, the speaker who has attributed to you a predicate during the speech, ask if you agree. Then, the necessity of studying modals is link to their functions and The function of modals is to establish a kind of cohesion and compatibility between the subject and the predicate in the syntaxic function. This kind of operation is important in the functioning of natural langage in general. The speaker is in this case the master of the verbal use. Through the modals, the speaker interact on his co-speakers according to his own will. He chooses the modals he wants depending on his objective.

30

CHAPTER TWO:

CORPUS IDENTIFICATION

31

1-Background The corpus under investigation is made of three speeches delivered by three politicians from different cultural backgrounds. The first is BARACK Obama who is American and he is the actual t president of United States of America. He is the first black American to govern the United States of America. Throughout his biography, he is an example not only for the Americans but also for the Africans because he has always succeed in his works. His speech shows him as a peaceful man because of his fight against terrorists through the world. The second is Margareth Thatcher, the late British lady. She has grown in a period in which women were not interested in politics, and it was very strange and inacceptable to see women in the political area. For that, she was obliged to force a special character which could lead people to respect her and allowed her to achieve her ambitions in a difficult political world. So, she was the image of United Kingdom. And the third politician is Nelson Mandela who is from South Africa. He is a great model for Africans for he has put end to Apartheid in South Africa. For South Africaners, Mandela remains a grand father or a god. He is the light for them. He is a peaceful man thats the reason his discourse on Nobel lecture has been chosen for investigation. a-Barack OBAMA Obamas educational life has been forged by his grandparents. So he got rigorous character which has permited him to succeed at school and begun working at twenty-two years old and director at 24. His character has influenced his speech by his will an determination to defeat the terrorists.
32

Obama has focus his speech on will than can and must because that modal traduce most of the time a great determination of the speaker to carry out his political ideas. Without pressure, he has convinced his co-speakers with the force of the modal Will. In conclusion, Obamas speech gives no choice to terrorists. They must fight only for a peaceful world in which everybody will be winners.

b- Magareth THATCHER Thatchers speech is based on the modal can than must and will. It means that the modal can is predominant. That is to show the capacity of her co-speakers who are South Africans. Capacity to enforce and carry out the Great Bretains political will. In addition, the capacity of her country to sustain South Africa and the whole continent politically and financially. She is not really engaged but she presents many plans of Great Bretain which could help the African continent. She seems also ridiculous by telling to Africans what they have at their disposal as wealth. At least, she has a critical objective on the African agriculture and economies. c- Nelson MANDELA Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela was born in Transkei, South Africa on July 18, 1918. Mandela was educated at University college of Fort Hare and the University of Witwatersrand and qualified in law in 1942.

33

He joined the African National Congress (ANC) in the 1944 and was engaged in resistance against the ruling National Partys apartheid policies after 1948. He went on trial for treason in 1956-1961 and was acquitted in 1961. After the banning of the ANC in 1960, Nelson Mandela argued for the setting up of a military wing within the ANC. In June 1961, the ANC executive considered his proposal on the use of violent tactics and agreed that those members who wished to involve themselves in Mandelas campaign would not be stopped from doing so by the ANC. This led to the formation of umkhontowe sizwe. Mandela was arrested in 1962 and sentenced to five years imprisonment with hard labor. In 1963, when many fellow leaders of the ANC and the Umkhontowe sizwe were arrested, Mandela was brought to stand trial with them for plotting to overthrow the government by violence. His statement from the dock received considerable international publicity. On June 12, 1964 eight of the accused, including Mandela, were sentenced to life imprisonment. From 1964 to 1982, he was incarcerated at Robben Island Prison, off Cape Town; thereafter, he was at Pollsmoor Prison, nearby on the mainland. During his years in prison, Nelson Mandelas reputation grew steadily. He was widely accepted as the most significant black leader in South Africa and became a potent symbol of resistance as the anti-apartheid movement gathered strength. He consistently refused to compromise his political position to obtain his freedom. Nelson Mandela was released on February 11, 1990. After his release, he plunged himself whole heartedly into his lifes work, striving to attain the goals he and others had set out almost four decades earlier.
34

In 1991, at the first national conference of the ANC held inside South Africa after the organization had been banned in 1960, Mandela was elected President of the ANC while his lifelong friend and colleague, Olivier Tamba, became the organizations national chairperson. Mandelas speech is predominant by the modal which is will and his great engagement as black human rights defender and as the master of antiapartheid movements. Being the Nobel Price Winner, Mandela objectively shows the necessity of his struggle against apartheid and peace conqueror. These informations about Nelson Mandela have been taken from Wikipedia. All these ideas will be demonstrate in the following chapters.

2-Material All the speeches included in the corpus were made during their governing time, specially when they were president for the two men and prime minister for the only lady. It means that the speakers have become experienced politicians of the world and their country, with established political views and well-formed speaking style; furthermore, they are not under the pressure of a re-election campaign. Since this study undertakes to examine differences in the pragmatic functions of the modals under investigation as used by the three speakers, the corpus is subdivided into three sub-corpora, each including one speech given by the politicians, which are OBAMA, THATCHER and MANDELA. Our source remain the three speeches in which we have:

35

OBAMA-approximately 1901 words THATCHER-approximately 1920 words MANDELA-approximately 1960 words The total size of the corpus is approximately 5781 Words. Although the three politicians are native speakers of English. The speeches included in the corpus are considered to have native speaker fluency. It should also be noted that although some preparatory work on the speeches might have been done by teams of advisers, the politicians are considered the authors, in terms of both content and rhetorical style. The selection of speeches dealing with similar topics, e.g. science, education, politics and culture, and with a similar place of delivery is intended to allow a comparison of the use of modals by the three speakers.

36

3-Method Drawing on the view that quantification should be treated as a starting point of investigation. This investigation combines quantitative approaches. Quantitative analysis has been used to highlight general tendencies in the occurrence of the modals under investigation and motivate the selection of representative sections of speeches for qualitative analysis. However, since the interpretation of modals may differ according to a number of variables, a careful qualitative analysis taking into consideration contextual factors is necessary to reveal pragmatic functions and strategic uses. Our source is the work of Olga Dontcheva-NAVRATILOVA (2009:18) So, quantitative approaches will be focus on the number or quantity of the use of modals verbs like can, must and will. Necessary the quantitative approach of a given modal will give a certain feature to a discourse. This feature may vary according to the modal. About the qualitative approaches, it is to use the right modals at the right place and moment in the utterance. This must be done in coherence with the ideas of the speaker and to avoid misconception and misunderstanding. The qualitative analysis of the modals may help us in discourse analysis in general and in political speeches in particular. So, in the context of enunciation, quantitative and qualitative analysis are closely link.

37

CHAPTER THREE:

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

38

I-ANALYSIS 1-Tables of distribution Modals CAN MUST WILL Total % Classification Obama 08 07 11 26 29,88 3 Thatcher 13 05 09 27 31,03 2 Mandela 05 10 19 34 39,09 1 Total 26 22 39 87 100 % 29,88 25,30 44,82 100 Classification 2 3 1

Table 1: Distribution of the modals (can, must, will) in the material or in the whole speeches.

Modals CAN MUST WILL Total % Classification

Obama 08 10 11 29 34,52 2

Thatcher 10 03 08 21 25 3

Mandela 05 10 19 34 40,48 1

Total 23 23 38 84 100

% 27,38 27,38 45,24 100

Classification 2 2 1

Table 2: Distribution of the modals on the five first pages of each Speech.
39

Modals CAN MUST WILL Total % Classification

Obama Thatcher Mandela Total 03 04 03 10 52,63 1 01 00 00 01 5,26 3 02 02 04 08 42,11 2 06 06 07 19 100

% 31,58 31,58 36,84 100

Classification 2 2 1

Table 3: Distribution of explicit speaker presence N.B: Explicit= use of I and we.

Modals CAN MUST WILL Total % Classification

Obama 05 06 08 19 29,23 3

Thatcher 09 03 08 20 30,77 2

Mandela 03 08 15 26 40 1

Total 17 17 31 65 100

% 26,15 26,15 47,70 100

Classification 2 2 1

Table 4: Distribution of implicit speaker presence

40

a- Table1: Can is used 26 times, which represent 29,88 percent of modals. Must is used 22 times, which represent 25,30 percent of modals. Will is used 39 times, which represent 44,82 percent of modals. OBAMA has used 26 as total amount of modals. THATCHER has used 27 as total amount of modals. MANDELA has used 34 as total amount of modals. b- Table 2 -Can and Must are used 23 times each, which represent 27,38 percent. -Can is used 23 times, which represent 27,38 percent. -Must is also used 23 times, which represent 27,38 percent of the total amount of modals. -Will is used 38 times, which represent 45,24 percent of the total amount of modals. About Speakers -THATCHER has used 21 modals as total. -OBAMA has used 29 modals as total. -MANDELA has used 34 modals as total.

41

c- Table 3 -Explicitness -Can is used 06 times explicitly, which represent 31,58 percent. -Must is used 06 times explicitly, which represent 31,58 percent. -Will is used 07 times explicitly, which represent 36,84 percent.

About Speakers -Obama is the first speaker with 10 explicit use of modals, which represent 52,63 percent explicitness. -Mandela is the second speaker with 08 explicit use of modals, which represent 42,11 percent explicitness. -Thatcher is the third speaker with 01 explicit use of modals, which represent 5,26 percent explicitness.

d-Table 4 : -Implicitness -Can is used 17 times implicitly, which represent 26, 15 -Must is used 17 times implicitly, which represent 26,15 -Will is used 31 times implicitly, which represent 47,70

42

About Speakers -Mandela is the first speaker with 26 implicit use of modals, which represent 40 percent implicitness. -Thatcher is the second speaker with 20 implicit use of modals, which represent 30,77 percent implicitness. -Obama is the third speaker with 19 implicit use of modals, which represent 29,28 percent implicitness.

N.B: The use of will and Must together. See page 2 and 3 in the speech of Mandela, he uses the two modals link by and, four times. This need to be explained and well understood.

II-DISCUSSION We cant discuss about modals without being inspired by our course of master degree concerning discourse analysis. Then, discussion of modals through the difference speeches means not only the study of modals use in the different utterances which constitute speeches but also the aims of discourse analysis. Hence, discourse is defined as language beyond the sentences, it is meaningful combination of language unit which serve various communicative purposes and which act in various context.
43

The basic unit of a discourse is a structured text. And texts are meaningful language unit which primarily derive their meaning in context. The structure is the forces that keep the sentence or the text together. Syntax is the trees, the grammatical structure. Hence, discourse is the semantic relation. And Political discourse or Political speeches may be seen as, given the role of political discourse in the enactment reproduction and legitimation of power and domination. Before a real analyze of the three speeches under our investigation lets have an overview on the use of the three modals which are: Can, Must and Will. CAN <<Can presuppose the relation exist between the subject and the predicate. The speaker suppose that the relation is possible.>>12. We have the following examples in the case of assertion can in a context of enunciation. a) She can be generous, but she doesnt like being asked. b) Listen! Was that not the bell? Who can it be? c) She cant be more than eighteen. About can, according to the context, the modal can expresses the ability, possibility, probability, inability,

12

Henri Adamczewski & Jean- Pierre Gabilan,1992 :51-52, LES CLES DE LA GRAMMAIRE ANGLAISE, Armand Colin, Paris.

44

MUST We can state that: Must is may not-not V Can not-not V Must is obtained by the use of the double negation of the double negation of the modal may or can. Example: You must tell the truth. Or you may not not tell the truth. (you are obliged to tell the truth). For Henri ADAMCZEWSKI & Jean-Pierre GABILAN, must bears/ carry on the relation subject and predicate. This is a reality according to the following examples: a) She must be tired. Must is a result according to the situation. b) There must be a woman in it. c) It must be cold this morning. Must as a modal expresses the necessity, obligation, probability, prohibition, Must is a mark of pressure. In the case of obligation of must, the speaker imposes a constraint to the cospeaker. However with must the relation is not oriented toward the predication.

45

Must have a per formative nature, the reason why one cannot imagine must with a past value. Must will give place to have to that only indicate that the subject was bound to by a predicate. (have to is not a modal).

WILL Will as modal expresses suggestion, invitation, interdiction, instant decision, offer, promise, With will, the relation between the predicate and the subject is natural. So there is a concordance between the subject and the predicate. So will signals that the predication is inherent. Examples: a) When the cat is away, the mice will play. b) You will be thirsty after such a long walk a long walk. (It is normal, it is previsible) Will indicates that the relation between the subject and the predicate is obvious inherent congruent (preconstructed). When an event is inevitable, we use will. With Will, there is a congruence (the speaker announces the realization of the predicate).

In conclusion, we use modals verbs to show if we believe something is certain, probable or possible (or not). We also use modals to do things like talking about ability, asking permission, making requests and offers, and so on.
46

Modals are concern the way the contents are oriented. So there are many kind of modalities corresponding to the psychological disposition of the speaker. Modals (can, must, will,) are invariant value. Invariant value doesnt change, it is not a semantic value, as semantic means meaning. At least the speech effects (Necessity, obligation, prohibition, ) is a semantic interpretation of the use of the unit in a context So lets come back to our discussion in the three speeches with the modals must, can and will. Strong deontic modality expressed by: -Will (45,24%): consensus, inherent congruent (pre-constructed) to the political ideology and implication of a sufficient consensus to support it. -Must (27,38%): indicating a commitment to the political ideology and a power to impose it. The deontic source. -Can (27, 38): congruence, possibility, probability and capacity. Indicating a commitment to the political ideology and a congruence to realize it.

2.1- The use of can The modal can is generally used to express something which is possible or for possibility, and sometimes for capacity. 2.1.1- THATCHERs speech Thatcher used the highest number of can in her speech than Obama and Mandela (see table 1).

47

It means that through her speech, she shows the ability, the possibility, the capacity and the permission to the Africans in general and the south-Africans in particular have at their disposal to solve their problems on all the plans like agriculture, economy, the way of governing in order to have a new beginning or a new dawn. Lets quote some utterances or paragraphs to sustain our viewpoint. On page two: But no-one can doubt that it is bad for both donor and recipient countries if aid ever comes to be seen as a substitute for tackling real and evident causes of continued underdevelopment.

For the majority of Africans, only flourishing agriculture can assure their future.

We can read the following lines on page four of Thatchers discourse : Of course, where the new Government was Marxist, that was always the intention. Many other Governments, disliking opposition, moved to the One Party State. Some of these OneParty systems are, of course, less oppressive than others. But, by definition, they are all more repressive than any genuine Multi-Party system can be.

48

The essence of democracy is free criticism and opposition which can form an alternative Government that the electors can freely choose

Thatchers speech is dominated by the modal can, which means that there is a congruence between the speaker (Thatcher) and the co-speakers (The Africans or the South-Africans).

2.1.2-OBAMAs speech Obama used eight can. He used less than Thatcher. (See table 2). It means that all the Muslims of the world and in particular those of Egypt have the possibility to join with him to track down the terrorists everywhere they hide. The Muslims have the capacity to give help and it is possible for the two peoples (Americans and Arabians) to trust in each others. When Obama said that on page two: So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. I do recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know theres been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the

49

time that I have this afternoon all the complex question that brought us to this point. He also argued that on page three: It was innovation in Muslim communities -(applause) -- it was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. We have on page four: Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people.

2.1.3-MANDELAs speech Mandela used only five can in total. This reveals that Mandelas speech doesnt need the possibility, the capacity and the probability of the audience or co-speakers. It is not very important for the speaker who is Mandela but some time he require these abilities.

Because of their courage and persistence for many years, we can, today, even set the dates when all humanity will join together to celebrate one of the outstanding human victories of our century. This reward will not be measured in money. Nor can it be
50

reckoned in the collective price of the rare metals and precious stones that rest in the bowels of the African soil we tread in the footsteps of our ancestors.

Moved by that appeal and inspired by the eminence you have thrust upon us, we undertake that we too will do what we can to contribute to the renewal of our world so that none should, in future, be described as the "wretched of the earth.

2.2-The use of Must The modal must is generally used to express obligation and necessity. 2.2.1-OBAMAs speech Obama used the highest number of must as Mandela. Knowing that Must is or indicates a mark of pressure, Obama want to oblige Arabians and Muslims everywhere they are to cooperate, to help him track down the terrorists everywhere they hide. This idea is express clearly in his speech. For him, when there is an attack against America by the Islamists terrorists, it is all people living in America who are on threat, because America is not only a melting pot but also a country which has all the religions.

51

So nobody is in security. More than a necessity, it is an obligation for Muslims to join the struggle, for the battle. We must sustain these ideas by Obamas following paragraphs. Obama argued that on page two: But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, "Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.

He continues on page three: So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn't. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear. When we move to page five:

So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Our problems must be dealt with

52

through

partnership;

our

progress

must

be

shared. (Applause.) Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together. Through the paragraph above, Obama demonstrated that Muslims are morally and physically obliged to fight not only for their own security but also for the security of the humanity.

2.2.2- MANDELAs speech Mandela used the same number of must as Obama. He used ten must out of twenty-three in total. In this context of receiving the Nobel peace prize, Mandela as a speaker is face to South-Africa, face to African continent and face to all the humanity. He used Must to show the greatest important of peace through the world. He used Must many times in order to oblige morally all humanity to give up any kind of violence and adopt an attitude of real peace. Mandela is symbolizing the peace to himself and each of a human individual must be a Mandela. Mandela on page two wrote that: It will and must be measured by the happiness and welfare of the children, at once the most
53

vulnerable citizens in any society and the greatest of our treasures. The children must, at last, play in the open veld, no longer tortured by the pangs of hunger or ravaged by disease or threatened with the scourge of ignorance, molestation and abuse, and no longer required to engage in deeds whose gravity exceeds the demands of their tender years.

He continue on page three: The reward of which we have spoken will and must also be measured by the happiness and welfare of the mothers and fathers of these children, who must walk the earth without fear of being robbed, killed for political or material profit, or spat upon because they are beggars. They too must be relieved of the heavy burden of despair which they carry in their hearts, born of hunger, homelessness and unemployment. The value of that gift to all who have suffered will and must be measured by the happiness and welfare of all the people of our country, who will have torn down the inhuman walls that divide them. On the same page three: The value of our shared reward will and must be measured by the joyful peace which will triumph, because the common humanity that bonds both black and white into
54

one human race, will have said to each one of us that we shall all live like the children of paradise.

On page four he argued that: He had the foresight to understand and accept that all the people of South Africa must through negotiations and as equal participants in the process, together determine what they want to make of their future. On the same page four we have: We are happy that many representatives of these formations, including people who have served or are serving in the "homeland" structures, came with us to Oslo. They too must share the accolade which the Nobel Peace Prize confers.

2.2.3-THATCHERs speech Thatcher used only three must out of twenty-three in total. It means that she doesnt need pressure on her audience or co -speakers, because she is in a political ideology of sensibilization. Thatcher uses the modal must just to show the necessity of her political ideology. She argued that on page five: This is to achieve a full and free democratic political system while keeping the benefits which flow from a free economic
55

system and sound finance. South Africans Themselves must work out their own constitutional future by negotiation.

On page five again we have: First, free enterprise must clearly prevail. No amount of talk of a mixed economy or a positive role for government must be allowed to obscure this fundamental distinction. Also on page six: We must show all South Africans that free enterprise works to the benefit of all.

2.3-The use of will The modal will is generally used to express probability. 2.3.1- Mandelas speech Mandela used the highest number of will means that the audience under his speech must agree with him. With will there is a congruence. Mandela receiving the Nobel peace prize is a symbol so by using the modal will, he suggests them, he invites them to do as he did. Lets have a critical use of will. Mandela focuses on will on page one:

56

It will not be presumptuous of us if we also add, among our predecessors, the name of another outstanding Nobel Peace Prize winner, the late Rev Martin Luther King Jr. Here, will traduce a suggestion.

Because of their courage and persistence for many years, we can, today, even set the dates when all humanity will join together to celebrate one of the outstanding human victories of our century. It is an invitation. That triumph will finally bring to a close a history of five hundred years of African colonisation that began with the establishment of the Portuguese empire. Thus, it will mark a great step forward in history and also serve as a common pledge of the peoples of the world to fight racism, wherever it occurs and whatever guise it assumes.

At the southern tip of the continent of Africa, a rich reward in the making, an invaluable gift is in the preparation for those who suffered in the name of all humanity when they sacrified everything - for liberty, peace, human dignity and human fulfillment. This reward will not be measured in money. Nor can it be reckoned in the collective price of the rare metals and

57

precious stones that rest in the bowels of the African soil we tread in the footsteps of our ancestors.

Through these three will the speaker shows his congruence with the co speaker or the audience because what he said must be approve by the audience because and they already share these realities. The speaker expresses here a probability and a certain expectation. On page three of his discourse:

Thus shall we live, because we will have created a society which recognises that all people are born equal, with each entitled in equal measure to life, liberty, prosperity, human rights and good governance. We also have: We pray that those who have the power to do so will, without further delay, permit that she uses her talents and energies for the greater good of the people of her country and humanity as a whole.

The first will is used to traduce a suggestion and the second will is used by the speaker in the context of invitation.

58

2.3.2- OBAMAs speech Obama used eleven times will on the total amount of thirty-eight. He is the second after Mandela. Obamas speech is at a great importance because it deals with the security of Americans. Hence, the use of the modal will determine his great desire, wish or his willingness to fight against terrorism. He argued that on page two: So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end. Here the speaker is very determined so that he is ready to join with the cospeakers for the fight. Will used is so strong that we can replace it by must. Lets move to page four:

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand That the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.
59

The two will are used for suggestion, an invitation to make his ideology become true. So the Arabian people or the audiency are face to their destiny. He wrote that on page five: In Ankara, I made clear that America is not -- and never will be -- at war with Islam. (Applause.) We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people. The first will shows the negative position of the speaker, the interdiction by Obama to permit the will of the terrorisms who claim to be Muslims. The second will shows that the speaker and his co-speakers have no choice, they have to take a great decision to confront violent extremists.

2.3.3- THATCHERs speech Thatcher who used a less number of the modal will (8/38). The general context of her speech is a political ideology of sensibilization of Africans. Then the use of will by the context of suggestion, invitation offer, decision and promise is a great justification.

60

On the page two: The response to these disasters will always be generous. And rightly so. But no-one can doubt that it is bad for both donor and recipient countries if aid ever comes to be seen as a substitute for tackling real and evident causes of continued under-development. Here, the use of will by the speaker traduce a kind of suggestion. On the page three of his discourse: It will be by free-enterprise capitalism within a framework of law that South Africa's divisions can be healed and her difficulties overcome.

Will traduce a supposition, Thatcher suppose that free-entreprise capitalism will be within a frameword of law. Lets move to page four: Without a real determination to alter their political and economic systems most Africans will remain poor and indeed grow poorer.

Thatcher uses will to show Africans what is inevitable without their real determination.

61

Also on page five: South Africa will benefit, like other African countries, from the great international changes we have seenin particular the reduction of external threats to her security.

Here, it is a will of promise. Third, remember that bureaucrats, vested interests and some companies will ask for controls and argue for subsidies.

Its a political invitation by using will as the appropriate modal. Protectionism leads to inefficient industries which will damage the consumer and lose exports. Will is used to show an instance of decision. Fifth, there will be strident calls to redistribute wealth as a means of eradicating poverty. Thatcher used will to show them the promise they can get by being her followers. 2.4- The use of will and must Through the three speeches of our politicians, only The two modals (will and must) are used together rarely to express something which is more or strong than necessity and obligation because the sense of must make disappear the wills sense. Only Mandela used the two modals together in his speech.

62

It is his speech particularity. By the two modals, Mandela aims that, if there is a real consensus, a real political desire, we have the power, the obligation to achieve it easily. By this, Mandela want mankind to know that nothing is impossible . We can and must have a real peace world . He wrote on page two: It will and must be measured by the happiness and welfare of the children, at once the most vulnerable citizens in any society and the greatest of our treasures. He wrote on page three: The reward of which we have spoken will and must also be measured by the happiness and welfare of the mothers and fathers of these children, who must walk the earth without fear of being robbed, killed for political or material profit, or spat upon because they are beggars. The value of our shared reward will and must be measured by the joyful peace which will triumph, because the common humanity that bonds both black and white into one human race, will have said to each one of us that we shall all live like the children of paradise. 2.5- Explicitness Speaker explicit presence in a speech is the use of the first-pronoun person (I) and, or the use of the plural first-person (we). According to ADAMCZEWSKI (1990:153):
63

I and We are signs of a take of decision, which means that relation between the predicat and the subject is rhematic but this rhematicity is due to I and We. This also point out the explicitness of the speaker presence through his speeches. -I will stay here with you. -Go away or I will call the police one moment. Someones coming. I will wash. You slip into a closet musnt we be seen together. These two pronouns turn the speaker at a co-speaker so breaking down the nonotony in the discourse and made the co-speakers conscious.

2.5.1- OBAMAs speech Obama used the singular first personal pronoun (I) with the two modals can and will. He also used the plural first personal pronoun (we) with the two modals which are must and will.

a-I can Obama wrote that on page two:

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. I know there's been a lot of publicity about this speech, but no single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I
64

answer in the time that I have this afternoon all the complex questions that brought us to this point.

That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Also on page five:

Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

Through this paragraph, Obama shows his personal degree of commitment and capacity due to his political level as president of United States of America. b-I will On page two, we have: That is what I will try to do today -- to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.
65

Obama used the singular first personal pronoun (I) as subject to show his own implication, his own involvement and his own determination to lead his countrys political ideology.

This overall of explicitness reflects his continuous effort to build up an image of togetherness and promote not only the external policy of his country but also its internal policy.

c-We will He focuses on we will on page two:

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, those who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. And this cycle of suspicion and discord must end. Also on page five: We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security -- because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The first we means speech participants, the second we means the Government.
66

The use of we with the modal will means that they have together to take the great decision which is to confront relentlessly violent extremists.

d-We must On page two, he wrote: But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors.

On page five, he wrote:

So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners to it. Now, that does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: We must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and as plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

Here speaker presence indicated by the speaker-inclusive plural first person-pronoun (we), which most frequently co-occurs with the strong modal must to indicate speaker authority. For Obama, more than a duty, it is an obligation, an extreme necessity to join together to achieve his political will which is to track down all the terrorists.

67

This togetherness is traduced by the use of we as follow: The first we means speech participants. The second refers to speech participants. The third refers to the government. The fourth we refers both to Government and speech participants. Our source is the text of Obama.

2.5.2- MANDELAs speech Mandela used the plural first personal pronoun (we) with only the two modals which are can and will. Mandela behaves so because of the force of the two modals (can, will). For him, will traduce etymologically a very strong desire. A desire which nothing can stop its achievement. Will used, has a morally effect on his co-speakers, to show them there are no alternatives to escape the fight. In addition, the use of can means more than a permission, they have the capacity to achieve their will. Physically, they need nothing to fight. They are ready. So what retain them? Nothing. To sum up, he used the plural first pronoun(we) with can and will to demonstrate his belonging to the fight. He, more than a president, he is their charismatics leader. He will stand on the front line of the succeed road and there is no place for fear nor fail.
68

So they have the same destiny and the incoming generation will continue the undertaken fight. a- We can On page two, Obama focuses on:

Because of their courage and persistence for many years, we can, today, even set the dates when all humanity will join together to celebrate one of the outstanding human victories of our century. Also on page five: Moved by that appeal and inspired by the eminence you have thrust upon us, we undertake that we too will do what we can to contribute to the renewal of our world so that none should, in future, be described as the wretched of the earth. In both cases, Mandela used the plural first-pronoun (we) to show their common possibilities and capacities to overcome a peaceful world which would be defined as the human victories, and they can all together be the builders of that new world of peace which is the dream of Mandela. Both we used refer to the speech participants and all the countries which constitute the world. b-We will Mandela used we will and we too will in his speech. He used we will not we must, not we shall not we can because will is a strong modal by its definition. We will is more engaged and more

69

determined than the others. Here there is no place for a joke. Any way they will overcome to everything they begin, overcome to their enemies. On page three, we have: Thus shall we live, because we will have created a society which recognises that all people are born equal, with each entitled in equal measure to life, liberty, prosperity, human rights and good governance. Such a society should never allow again that there should be prisoners of conscience nor that any person's human right should be violated. In this paragraph, Mandela used the plural first pronoun we with will to demonstrate his inclusive and their common decision for creating a peaceful, lovely and successful society for all people. Furthermore, the relation between the inclusive subject (we) and the predicate is obvious inherent, congruent so preconstructed. The incluse plural first-pronoun represente all the countries in general including their governments (the end of the utterance by good governance).

Also on page five:

Moved by that appeal and inspired by the eminence you have thrust upon us, we undertake that we too will do what we can to contribute to the renewal of our world so that none should, in future, be described as the wretched of the earth.

70

Through this paragraph, Mandela used the plural first-pronoun (we) plus (too) plus (will), to show not only his inclusive action but also to demonstrate a kind of comparison (by the use of too). The inclusive action consist in building a new peaceful world. We draw this definition from Collins paperback English dictionary. 2.6- Implicitness 2.6.1-Definition Something implicit is something expressed indirectly. Example: an implicit agreement. It also means absolute and unquestioning. Example: implicit trust. At least it means contained in, although not stated openly. Example: This view of the mind was implicit in all his work.Implicit means something which is hide, which is not clearly stated or which has its roots in explicit.Implicit can also be seen as an implicature of the explicit. Example: You are not tall. You are short. (Explicit (Implicit Implicit) Explicit)

The speakers choose implicit subjectivity, since they lack the power to impose some measures, some political ideologies. The implicit subjectivity reflects the high level of political authority of the three politicians within the context of their countries political

ideologies.Implicit subjectivity is also used when obligations are imposed on the parties.Our three politicians have used implicit subjectivity according to their different political ideologies.
71

2.6.2-The different types of implicit contents H.Paul Grice (1978:115) presents the following tree:

Contenus

Explicites(<<said>>)

Implicit(<<implicated>>) =<<implicatures>>

Conventionnelles

non conventionnelles

Conversationnelles

non conversationnelles

Gnrales(ou <<gnralises>>)

particulire

The axe number three has been criticized as follow by SADOCK (1978: 282-283): Nonconventional implicatures come in two varieties: first the important class of conversational implicatures that involve the principale cooperation and its maxims, and then a poorly described class of nonconventional,

nonconventional implicatures that are calculated in context on the basis of the conventional meaning, knowledge of the context of utterance, and background knowledge, but which depend crucially for their existence on
72

nonconversational maxims that are aesthetic, social, or moral in character. Grice gives as an example Be polite. I have some trouble understanding exactly why it is that such maxims differ from those that fall under the principale cooperation. This analysis seems not to be very clear and understandable that is why we will cut the tree and only take into account the two first lines as follow: Contenus

Explicites

Implicates=infrences

Prsupposes

Sous-entendu

2.6.3- Explicit contents versus implicit contents To speak explicitly is to tell something. To speak implicitely is to get someone to think something. Example: -Pierre has stop smoking. (explicite) -Pierre was smoking. (implicite) Implicit, when the speaker didnt want to talk about it (that Pierre had alwa ys smoking).

73

2.6.4-Presupposed The presupposed utterance doesnt contained the core or the essential element of the ideas or message, but they are in the speech or in the statement. In other terms, CATHERINE K.O (1998:21) said that The presupposes, we want <<to say them>> without <<saying them>> 13 This seems not to be true or generalized because presupposed are always indirectly appears in discourse. It is not the will of the speaker but a linguistics phenomenon. Example: a) African people must transformed their raw materials. b) African people have raw materials. c) African continent has raw materials.

For this example, a) Presupposed b and c So b and c are implicit.

13

Catherine Kerbrat- Orecchioni, (1998 :21), Limplicite, Armand Colin/ Paris,1986,1998.

Les presupposes, on les <<veut dire>> sans les <<vouloir dire>>.

74

2.6.5- Insinuation (Sous-entendu) Insinuations contains all the informations which can be provided from the enunciation (speech, discourse) according to the context.

Examples: a) S il fait beau, j irai me promener. S il ne fait pas beau, je resterai chez moi. b) <<Some>> , <<often>>, ou <<possibly>> se contenteraient de sousentendre/ pas tous/, /pas toujours/, ou /pas ncessairement/ c) Yes we can. We implies I and you (singular) or many people including the peaker himself. We have to stop here this chapter about implicitness because it will be more developed in our next thesis. But what is important to know is that, implicit contents are always omnipresent in discourse. Despite the maxim of modality, the speaker has the right to use implicit enunciation because implicit is very important in discourse analysis. Implicit makes interpretation suitable for the co-speaker and call for his background.

75

III- RESULTS Modals are of great importance because of their place in the linguistics field. In discourse analysis, modals help the linguists to have a very critical analysis and allow the speaker to make his speech explicit or implicit by the use of personal pronouns in a relation with modal auxiliary verbs. Used in political speeches, modals give to the speaker and co-speaker the tone of the discourse. This tone may be obligatory (the use of must,), politely(the use of may), Modals are also the basis of enunciation theory thinks to their definitions and they put the speaker in the central of his speech. They constitute the key elements of a best understanding of the discourse in general and political discourse in particular. Different ideologies or political orientations are expressed by the politicians with a special choice of a kind of modal auxiliaries (can, must, will) according not only to their will but also as their psychological dispositions. Sometimes including themselves by using explicit speaker-presence to show the force of actions and creating a sense of togetherness. All these are the results of the preceding work and have been inspired of topics in linguistics.

76

CONCLUSION

77

Through the thesis we investigate, the view that in political speech deontic modality has a key role in the construction of an ideological speech world in terms of wright and wrong and that the meaning of modals is subjected to pragmatic interpretation. The analysis has shown that the modal verbs must, can, will in the speech of the three politicians express exclusively deontic subjectivity; the deontic source in political ideology which promotes the representation of solidarity and the imposition of obligations to comply with the socially established values and norms of behavior, while condemning views and actions contradicting and threatening these values and norms. All the three politicians used in different context the three modals; differences in the use of modals by the three speakers can be explained by the specificity of the political context and their policy during their terms of governing, as well as by the individual choices of the speakers. The thesis research has also proved that the use of modals to construct a consistent ideological viewpoint indicating a continuous high level of commitment on the part of the speakers, towards the thesis under discussion and to impose behavior and views, help the speaker enhance his existential coherence at the interpersonal plane of speech. The perception of discourse coherence is furthered of discourse coherence is furthered by lexical and pronominal choices co-occurring with the modals. To conclude, it should be noted that since the scope of the present investigation is limited to the semantic and pragmatic functions of the modal auxiliaries can, will and must. Further research exploring in detail the functions of other lexical and grammatical forms expressing modality in international governmental
78

organisations is necessary to explain their pragmatic force and their role in the construction of speech coherence. In addition, the main result consist in showing the power, the necessity of modals in language. But people can interprete differently the semantic meanings of modals in speeches if there is a lack of coherence. So the interest of studying modals is to have a best understanding of political speeches in particular and language in general because modals are considered as the most key element of a best conversation, conveying messages, of domination and probably changing ones mind. The limits of our study is that when using modal in political speech, it is difficult to know if the speaker instead of using can use will or another modal which has no semantic relation with the previous. One of the limits of our study is also that, we cant know the reaction of the co-speakers related to the modals. Another limits are the tones and the gestures the speaker used during his discourse with modals. These are kind of limits because a very complet speech or discourse must take into account these elements. But, here we only have the written discourse or the discursive aspect. Moreover, in the context of enunciation the use of personal pronouns with modal seems to be a limit in the sense of full meaning if they are used without tones and gestures. The discourse at that time is dead but the speech or discourse must be alive. We are limited because we cant draw the difference between the discourse of a lady and a certain quantity and quality of modals or preference for a given modal.
79

The path for the future is to use the modals in their really context of communication and try to individualize each modal in a specific context of meaning because the use and the study of modals remain difficult and confused. Then the orientation for our further studies in connection to this memoire may be multifaceted because we have many things to say and write about modals in discourse. -The syntactic strategies of modals in written political discourse: Can, must and will. This further studies aims to investigate the theory of enunciation and show the syntactic function of must, can and will, their application in political discourse and their force of persuasion. Moreover we will add the semantic function of our three modal verbs which are can, must and will, because syntactic function and semantic function are closely related in the context of political discourse or speeches.

80

BIBLIOGRAPHY

81

ADAMCZEWSKI, Henri, Grammaire Linguistique de l anglais, Imprimerie Moderne de l Est-25110 Baume-Les-Dames, Novembre 1990. ADAMCZEWSKI, Henri & GABILAN, Jean-Pierre, Les cls de la Grammaire anglaise Paris, 1992, Armand Colin BAILLY, Sery, English Departement Round Table, CRES UNCI Abidjan, Cote dIvoire, Juin 1995. BENVENISTE, Emile, Problmes de linguistique generale1, Gallimard, 1995. BOUSCAREN, Janine, Cahiers de recherche T.5 Grammaire Anglaise 10,rue de Nesle, 75006 Paris (France),OPHRYS 1991 BYRNE, Donn, English Teaching Perspectives, England , Groupe Ltd.1980 CERVONI Jean, L nonciation, 8, Boulevard Saint Germain, 75006 Paris, Presse University de France, Juillet 1992 CULIOLI, Antoine, Pour une linguistique de lEnonciation Oprations et reprsentation Tome 1 10, rue de Nesle, 75006 Paris, ditions OPHRYS,1990, 2000 CULIOLI, Antoine, Pour une linguistique de lEnonciation Formalisation et oprations de rprage Tome 2 10,rue de Nesle, 75006 Paris, ditions OPHRYS,1999
82

HALLYDAY, M.A.K. & HASAN Ruqaiya, cohesion in English, England Longman group Ltd, 1976 HUDSON, R.A, Sociolinguistics,United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1996 JAKOBSON, Roman, Essais de linguistique Gnrale, 7,rue Bernard-Palissy-75006 Paris, Edition de minuit, 1963 KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, Catherine, L nonciation de la subjectivit Dans le langage, Armand Colin/PARIS 1980, 1997 KERBRAT-ORECCHIONI, Catherine, L implicite, Armand Colin/PARIS, 1986,1998 KOUADIO, Yao, Le pouvoir du discours et discours du pouvoir in The English Department round table N1, Abidjan (Cte dIvoire), 1995, PP. 67- 75. LARREYA, Paul & WATBLED Jean-Philippe, Linguistique Gnrale Et Langue Anglaise, Nathan,1994 Armand Colin,2004 LE QUERLER, Nicole, Typologie des modalits, Presse universitaire de Caen 14032 Caen cedex-France. LYONS, John, Language and Linguistics, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press, 1981
83

MAINGUENEAU,Dominique, Lanalyse du discours,43 quai de grenelle 75905 Paris Cedex 15, 1991. MANDELA,R. Nelson, Nobel lecture, 1993 MAQUET, Jacques, Power and Society in Africa, Italy, world university Library by LIBREX, 1971 MOUNIN, Georges, Clefs pour la linguistique, Paris 1968 Seghers, 1971. OBAMA, Barack, Remarks by the president on a new beginning , Cairo (Egypt), 2009. OLGA, Dontcheva-Navratilova, Words must be our force, Masaryk University, Czech Republic, December 2009. PALMER, F.R., the English verbs, London, Longman, 1987. POTTER, Simeon, Our language, Penguin books,1950 THATCHER, Margaret, Speech in Johannesburg, WISHON, E., George & PURKS, M. , Lets write English C, Philippines Litton educational Publishing, Inc. , 1968

84