Rationale
Language in use is considered as a kind of social activity which is associated with other social activities It is also known as ―Discourse‖ in which the first function is to serve human beings‘ needs and communication purpose in all fields of life It can be understood that discourse is meta-function as it takes control over other functions in mankind‘s activities With this function, Discourse always plays an important role in creating interaction and affecting communication (Hoang, 2014)
Through mass media discourse such as TV, newspaper, magazine and radio, people have known about terrorism and anti-terrorism concepts Terrorism and anti- terrorism have received a lot of debate in the last decades Hardly does a week go by without an act of terrorism taking place somewhere in the world and indiscriminately affecting innocent people Because of this reason, politicians create interaction with their citizens and people in other nations by using discourse to gain the public support for anti- terrorism and military engagements Terrorism is one of the greatest threats to the country‘s national security and that the war against terrorism should be a major focus of national policy Countering this scourge is in the interest of all nations and the issue has been on the agenda of the United Nations for decades Each nation has its own way against terrorism Many countries usually take advantages of using the power of discourse to convey their propaganda against terrorism and the U.S is not an exception Speeches on terrorism have been part of American politics for a long time Of these speeches seem to be most popular with the first African-American president, Barack Hussein Obama As D‘Souza (2006) once stated that the U.S sees itself as the freest and most powerful society and has a policy of ―no-negotiation-with-terrorists‖; thus it takes advantage of such speeches to criticize, warn and invoke fear in the so-called terrorists
As a student of English Linguistics major at Post-graduate Department at University of Languages and International Studies and the one who is interested in Discourse Analysis (DA), I realize that DA is a useful tool for not only studying linguistics but also broadening knowledge in socio-culture I am also aware that anti- terrorism is a matter of great urgency Everybody in the world should join hands towards a peaceful world with no wars Because of that, I decided to examine Obama‘s persuasive strategies and find out his covert ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism through his three speeches
The approach that I apply to this study is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as it makes CDA different from other forms of discourse analysis is the element ‗critical‘
According to Fairclough (1992:9), ―‗Critical‘ implies showing connections and causes which are hidden; it also implies intervention, for example providing resources for those who may be disadvantaged through change‖ Since hidden things are not evident so that it is necessary to expose them Out of theoreticians of discourse linguistics, Norman Fairclough is a famous name This analysis is grounded in Norman Fairclough‘s framework of CDA.
Scope of the study
Although there are many speeches by Barack Obama on terrorism and anti-terrorism, the author just focuses on three ones addressed in 2009 and 2011: (1) Protecting our security and our values in 2009, (2) New strategy on Afghanistan in 2009 and (3) A moment of opportunity in 2011 Besides, the author just analyzes the transcript of speeches, not the spoken ones so that paralinguistics and extralinguistics, though important, are not in consideration As mentioned above, Norman Fairclough‘s framework of CDA is chosen as a main analytical tool, who considers social context as one of the elements of discourse analysis Therefore, some information of the U.S context at the time the speeches given is summarized.
Aims of the study
By analyzing Obama‘s speeches from CDA viewpoint, the study is aimed at deciphering ideological traits in Barack Obama‘s speeches from linguistic features, uncovering how Obama persuades people through his language and what has made his speeches impressive and influential and helping language users understand more about CDA as well as promoting their critical thinking – a useful method to approach political discourse
Research questions
In order to fulfill the aims of the study, the following research questions are posed:
1 How are Obama’s covert ideologies on terrorism and anti-terrorism expressed in
2 What can the readers interpret from the discourse in terms of situational context and intertextual context?
The study is divided into three main parts:
- Part 1- Introduction (rationale, scope, aims, research questions, and methodology)
Chapter 2- Methodology (Research context, methods of study, data collection and data analysis)
Chapter 3 - An analysis of three speeches based on Fairclough‘s analytical framework
- Part 3- Conclusion: (Major findings, conclusions and suggestions for further research)
Chapter 1 Theoretical background and Literature Review THEORY
1.1 Discourse Analysis (DA) and approaches to DA 1.1.1 What is DA?
Undoubtedly, the past few decades has seen a significant growth of interest in discourse analysis Many linguists have focused on the term ‗discourse‘ as the main topic for their articles and researches Up to now, this term has been defined variously by different linguists Potter (1987) says that the term ‗discourse‘ itself has been used in many varying ways Some researchers take ‗discourse‘ to mean all forms of talk and writing (Gilbert and Mulkay, 1984), other take the term to apply only to the way talk is meshed together (Sinclair and Coulhard, 1975) It should be noted that discourse is all forms of spoken interaction, formal and informal, and written texts of all kinds whereby discourse is a process or a practice and text (or talk) is the product of that process
Furthermore, discourse plays a fundamental role in our daily expression and communication because it can maintain interaction and build social relationships It appears to be the main label of the study of language use, talk, text, verbal action, and communication Thus, the name for the field is later considered as ‗Discourse Analysis‘
(Tannan, 1989a as cited in Schriffin, 1994:38)
From the above definitions, Discourse Analysis can be understood by the analysis of any these forms of discourse or of language in use (Brown and Yule, 1983) Schriffin (1994:42) sees DA using a combined structural and functional view that actual analysis of discourse reveals interdependence between structure and function His view leads DA to be seen as the study of text and context in which structure focuses on text and function on context Consequently, DA cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms, but
DA has focused very much upon the social nature of communication, stressing contextual aspects of meaning which are interactive and negotiated, determined by the social relations and identities of the participants in communication (Cook, 1994) It can be inferred that discourse analysis studies and analyzes what actually reveals in a text or texts
Schriffin (1994:363) sees the term ‗text‘ to differentiate linguistic material from the environment in which the saying occurs (context) In terms of utterances, ‗text‘ is regarded to be the linguistic content including semantic meanings of words, expressions, and sentences The foundation of text linguistics was laid down by Halliday and Hasan‘s
―Cohesion in English‖ in 1976 Cohesion is defined as the set of linguistic means we have available for creating texture (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:2), i.e, the property of a text of being an interpretable whole (rather than unconnected sentences) Cohesion occurs
―where the interpretation of some element in the text is dependent on that of another ― (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:4) Halliday and Hasan view cohesion as a semantic relation based on the central notion of presupposition – one element presupposes another which is located somewhere in the text (anaphora or cataphora) or in the context of situation (exophora) and which is essential for text interpretation Presupposition is realized at three levels: the semantic level (as in the case of reference), the lexicogrammatical level ( as in the case of substitution and ellipsis) and the grammatical level as in the case of conjunctions Text is a discoursal unit; therefore textual analysis is considered to be one of approaches to DA In order to analyze a text, it should analyze the seven following criteria
1 Cohesion concerns the way in which the components of the surface text, i.e the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence The surface components depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and conventions
2 Coherence concerns the ways in which the components of the textual world, i.e the configuration of concepts and relations which underlie the surface text are mutually accessible and relevant Cohesion and coherence are text-centered notions The other criteria of textuality are user-centered
3 Intentionality concerns the text producer‘s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in fulfilling the producer‘s intentions, e.g to distribute knowledge or to attain a goal specified in a plan
4 Acceptability concerns the text receiver‘s attitude that the set of occurrences should constitute a cohesive and coherent text having some use or relevance for the receiver, e.g to acquire knowledge of provide co-operation in a plan
5 Informativity concerns the extent to which the occurrences of the presented text are expected vs unexpected or known vs unknown/certain
6 Situationality concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a situation of occurrences
7 Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered text
The 1970s witnessed the emergence of Critical Linguistis (CL ) which is a form of discourse and text analysis However, when time went by, CL gradually got out of textual analysis and focused more on the stage of interpretation and explanation This form considers the role of language in expressing power relations in society Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context With such dissident research, critical discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately resist social inequality (van Dijk 1993)
Fairclough (1995: 135) in his definition perceives CDA as ―discourse analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and determination between (a) discursive practice, events and texts, and (b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.‖
Having the same perspective, Hyland (2005) said the CDA approach is the method that one must employ to study ideas, values, and status behind the language used which are not always overtly stated Through employing CDA we can understand what and how
Gee (2004) stated that CDA examined the relationship of form-function and the interaction of contextual language related to social practices regarding the out-of-text things such as positions, unity, power, and social goods In Huckin‘s (1997) statement, he said that CDA is a ―highly context-sensitive, democratic approach that takes an ethical stance on social issues with the aim of transforming society – an approach or attitude rather than a step by step method‖
1.2 CDA approach of Norman Fairclough ( Systemic Functional Grammar)
Theoretical Background and Literature Review
CDA approach of Norman Fairclough
This study is attached to Fairclough‘s framework because it has been one of the most comprehensive frameworks of CDA This framework founded on SFL by Michael Halliday whose approach to language is concerned primarily with semantics, phonology and lexicogrammar Therefore, Fairclough stated that ―the version of CDA which we work with ourselves has used SFL as its main resource for textual analysis.‖ (Fairclough and
Chouliaraki, 1999:139) Fairclough‘s analytical framework covers in detail three stages:
Description, Interpretation and Explanation 1.2.1 Description
In the first stage, ten main questions and a number of sub-questions are introduced to analyse a text in terms of formal linguistic features
1 What experiential values do words have?
What classification schemes are drawn upon?
Are there words which are ideologically contested?
Is there rewording or overwording?
What ideologically significant meaning relations (synonymy, hyponymy, antonymy) are there between words?
2 What relational values do words have?
Are there markedly formal or informal words?
3 What expressive values do words have?
5 What experiential values do grammatical features have?
What types of process and participants predominate?
Are processes what they seem?
Are sentences active or passive?
Are sentences positive or negative?
6 What relational values do grammatical features have?
What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?
Are there important features of relational modality?
Are the pronouns we and you used and if so, how?
7 What expressive values do grammatical features have?
Are there important features of expressive modality?
8 How are (simple) sentences linked together?
What logical connectors are used?
Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or/ subordination?
What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?
9 What interactional conventions are used?
10 What larger scale structures does the text have?
It is important to understand three terms: experiential, relational and expressive
Experiential values in CDA attempt to show the way in which ‗the text producer‘s experience of the natural or social world‘ is represented Relational values deal with social relationship between the producer of the text and its recipient Expressive value is ‗the producer‘s evaluation (in the widest sense) of the bit of the reality it relates to.‘
(Fairclough, 2001: 93) Furthermore, he stresses connective value to connect together parts of a text
According to Fairclough (2001:117), experiential, relational and expressive values of formal features of texts are connected with three aspects of social practice which may be constrained by power (contents, relations and subjects) and their associated structural effects (on knowledge and beliefs, social relationships, and social identities).However, one cannot directly infer from the formal features of a text to structural effects upon the constitution of a society Values of textual features only become real when being put in social interaction In other words, texts are produced and interpreted against the background of common-sense assumptions (part of members‘ resources - MR) These discourse processes and their dependence on background assumption are the concern of this stage - interpretation
It is the third stage in CDA According to Fairclough (2001:135), the objective of this stage is to portray a discourse as part of a social process, as a social practice It tries to show how discourses are determined by social structures, and what reproductive effects discourses can have on those structures, sustaining them or changing them These social determinations and effects are mediated by MR: that is social structures shape MR while
MR in turn shape discourses; and discourses sustain or change MR, which in turn sustain or change structures
The approach mainly bases itself on Halliday‘s Systemic Functional Linguistis (SFL), which views language in use as simultaneously performing three functions: ideational, interpersonal and textual function in which the ideational function refers to the experience of the speakers of the world and its phenomena, the interpersonal function reveals the speakers‘ attitudes and evaluations about the phenomena in question and establishing a relationship between speakers and listeners, and the textual function helps to create the cohesion and coherence for the text
Obviously, the methods of analyzing CDA are quite various However, over the last decades, Fairclough‘s approach has been considered to be central to CDA His approach seems to be comprehensible to everybody He wrote this framework at an introductory level for those who do not have extensive backgrounds in language study Moreover, the set of textual features is ‗highly selective, containing only those which tend to be most significant for critical analysis’ (Fairclough, 2001:92) Because of that, I decided to choose Fairclough‘s approach as the method of my thesis.
Methodology
Method of the study
The method of this study is descriptive and qualitative since it intends to describe words, phrases, or sentences in analyzing Obama‘s speeches Because linguistic studies are observable and regarded as social science, qualitative which is viewed as a general approach to explore problems has been preferred by most linguists as the linguistic research methodology ( Denzin and Lincoln, 1994) Qualitative method will be used to examine and access the effects of linguistics aspects such as vocabulary, grammatical properties (pronouns, modality and so on) and textual features.
Data Collection
The data form of this research focuses on the words, phrases, expressions and sentences in Obama‘s speeches which show his ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism
The data sources are three text transcripts of Barack Obama‘s speech in 2009 and 2011:
(1) Protecting our security and our values (delivered on May 21, 2009) from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-national-security-5-21-09
(2) New strategy on Afghanistan (delivered on December 2, 2009) from http://cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/obama.afghanistan.speech.transcript/index.html?ir ef$hours
(3) A moment of opportunity (delivered on May 19, 2011) from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east- and-north-africa%20
The next step is that I did intensive readings to get deep understandings on the data After that, I selected and underlined words, phrases, utterances, or sentences related to Obama‘s ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism After finishing these data collection steps, the data were analyzed based on Norman Fairclough‘s CDA framework.
A CDA of the three speeches
An Analysis of textual description
As mentioned, experiential, relational and expressive values can give us the speaker‘s view of the world In analyzing these values, Fairclough (2002) suggests classification schemes i.e system in terms of which vocabulary is organized In terms of classification scheme, by the different use of negative and positive vocabularies, Obama successfully painted two contrasted pictures: the darker one is actions by those who are in favor of terrorism including al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the brighter is actions by those who are in favor of anti-terrorism including the US and its affiliates
Table 1: Two ideological contrastive classification schemes
Actions by Those who are in favor of
Actions by Those who are in favor of
Anti-Terrorism hijacked four airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people (OBM1 – line7) struck at our military and economic nerve centers (OBM1 – line 7) take up arms against the West (OBM2 – line8 ) took the lives of innocent men, women and children (OBM1 – line 9) is actively planning to attack us again (OBM1-line11,12) offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction (OBM1 - line 43,44) do with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability (OBM1- line
89) banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques (OBM1- line63) opposed the war in Iraq (OBM2 – line71) signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American… (OBM2 – line78) authorized the use of force against al Qaeda (OBM2-line 16) reverse the Taliban's momentum and deny it the ability to overthrow the government (OBM2 – line98) line 46) al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons… (OBM2-line 93)
…the epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda… (OBM2 – line84 ) pose a danger to our country (OBM1 – line164)
… rejected democracy and individual rights for Muslims in favor of violent extremism; his agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build
(OBM3 – line 9 ) provide assistance to civil society…
(OBM3 – line149) look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy… (OBM3- Line 158) robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security (OBM3 – line254)
Regarding terrorism, the speaker listed the actions performed by terrorists In the example of ―pose a danger‖, contextually, ‗danger‘ was used to depict terrorism and portray it as something that could jeopardize the existence of humanity In each speech, before going to the actions he will do to fight against terrorists, the speaker always recalled the 11/9 event as a tragedy Without having heard the event in the past, the audience could imagine how the sad memories occurred Coming from a credible and authoritative source as claimed by Obama, the audience can be manipulated in their minds to believe and accept the acts of terrorism as nefarious and have a negative outlook towards such acts The act of taking the life of people by the terrorists was described by the speaker This act could somewhat be defined as treacherous, especially when Obama went on to say ‗innocent lives‘
In the three speeches, the terrorist was also referred to as an enemy – those who acts and speaks against somebody By using the word ‗enemy‘, the speaker created a bad impression on the audience‘s mind that these terrorists were against American‘s interests and therefore must not be tolerated The mention of ‗enemy‘ was most likely to arouse anger aside fear Because of that, it is needed to plan strategies to protect American
Regarding anti-terrorism, the speaker made a careful selection of his words to create a picture that although Americans were being attacked, they were careful in their defense since they were a people who believed in freedom unlike the terrorists who sought not only to kill but to disrupt life From the above examples, it can be concluded that the enemies did not abide by any law of war but they (Americans), though were also in the war, did so legally The President emphasized the measures and strategies America took concerning the defeat were lawful, legitimate and justifiable as they were backed by law
These statements tried to nullify any sense of doubt or uncertainty in the minds of those who thought the war, detainees and justices being carried out against the terrorists were wrong
Besides, the speaker listed names of legal bodies authorized by the US government to carry out actions in order to ensure safety (Military Commissions, Justice Department, troop…) The speaker mentioned these people to his audience know that the actions they implemented were legal Such words will let the audience know that the war could only be won through the use of security agents, and will put the minds of the audience at ease because they denote legitimacy, power and dominance over the acts of terrorism, which is a way of manipulating the audience into accepting the measures carried out against terrorists
3.1.2 Grammatical features 3.1.2.1 The use of personal pronouns
It is realized in these speeches that the plural personal pronoun ―we‖ and singular personal one ―I‖ are predominantly used The frequency of using the two pronouns is nearly the same The speeches of OBM1, OBM2 and OBM3 include 6,023 words, 4,642 words and 5,304 words respectively
―We‖ is recorded to appear 120 times in OBM1, 108 times in OBM2 and 92 times in OBM3 The frequency with which Obama uses pronoun ―we‖ in his speeches serve different purposes of the speaker How he uses them and to whom he is referring should be analyzed Fairclough (2001:106) describes two relational values for pronouns:
‗linguistically inclusive‘ we, which includes the speaker and audience, and the
‗linguistically exclusive‘, we, which includes the speaker and others but not the audience
In these speeches, mostly, he uses the ‗inclusive‘ we to mean the government rather than the whole population
OBM1: “We are fighting two wars We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear And we have begun to make progress.‖ (line 2-4)
OBM2: “Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011 That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform.” (line 32-34)
OBM3: “…we have removed 100,000 American troops and ended our combat mission there In Afghanistan, we have broken the Taliban’s momentum, and this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead.” (line 3-5)
Out of the speeches, the texts witness once the shift from the ‗inclusive‘ we to the
‗exclusive‘ one to make his audience involved and to gain the support from his audience
OBM1: “I can tell you that the wrong answer is to pretend like this problem will go away if we maintain an unsustainable status quo.‖(line 102 -103)
Obviously, by the predominant use of the inclusive ―we‖, Obama successfully transmitted his ideology The inclusive ―we‖ plays a crucial role in creating a sense of unity of the speaker with the audience They are also considered as the most often used words of the speech Therefore, the speaker does not distance himself from the American people; instead everything the president proclaims further seems to be issued by us - the people of America The president speaks on the behalf of the American people to show his citizens‘ negative attitude towards terrorists and to announce the ways his country against terrorism
Furthermore, when sharing his personal experience or expressing his own ideas, Obama uses the pronoun ―I‖ to make the speech more convincing:
OBM1: “I banned … I know some ….” (line 63-64)
OBM2: ― I approved a long-standing request …, I then announced a strategy….” (line 46-
OBM3: “I gradually realized that …” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza “I have the right to feel angry,” (line 273-
Interpretation
Chouliaraki, L and Fairclough, N (1999:67) state, ―Despite the fact that ideology resides in the text, we cannot ―read off‖ ideologies from text because what we want to get from the text is based on the interpretation and the interpretation is also diverse depending on the position of the interpreter‖ That is why this part will help readers to uncover the ideology of the speaker when delivering the speech
As stated by Fairclough (2001), the interpretation of situational context is based partly on external cues such as features of the physical situation, properties of participant, what has previously said, but also partly based on the basis of aspects of their MR in terms of which they interpret these cues In terms of situational context, the following questions are taken into consideration: ―What‘s going on?‖, ―Who‘s involved?‖, ―What relationships are at issue?‖ and ―What‘s the role of language in what‘s going on?‖
The question is sub-classified into activity, topic and purpose The activity here is delivering a speech The central topic is plans and strategies against re-attacks by terrorists, especially by Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime The speech is aimed at calling for supports to struggle for American security, for a better world, which needs joint efforts of Americans and people of all ages around the world
It is important to note that subject positions are multi-dimensional Firstly, one dimension derives from the activity type In this case, they are speeches and the subject positions are the speaker and the audience Secondly, the institution ascribes social identities to the subjects who function within it From this dimension, Obama is one subject position who is the American President – the leader of a country and a politician as well; the other subject position belongs to those at the meeting They may be Christian or not, they may be American citizens or not, but they may share the same concern about anti-terrorism Also in this part, we look at the speaking and listening positions associated with the situation The fact is that in this discourse type, there is no interaction between the speaker and listeners during the course As the result, the speaker indirectly imposes his ideology on the audience He has sole producing rights and can therefore determine what is included and excluded, how events are represented This is the point where Obama‘s hidden power is revealed
―In what relation?‖ is closely connected with ―who‘s involved?‖ In order to answer this question, it should be looked back at the subject positions of the speech
Obama is the main speaker of these speeches and he tries to convey these speeches to American people of all identities Therefore it is impossible to know whether the audience interprets the speech It can be seen that audience with different ideologies, different societal and institutional social orders may carry out different interpretative procedures to get different interpretations As Obama is the subject position so that he seems to be the more powerful participant
What’s the role of language?
Obama used language as an instrumental way to give information, to persuade people and to call for support Most of sentences are presented in active voice, providing the audience with informative, directive and expressive information Furthermore, by using carefully selected vocabulary, Obama seems to control people‘s mind to reproduce dominance and hegemony Language is seen as connected with ideological means, although language in itself may not be ideological (Wodak, 2006) Fairclough (1989) recognizes that power is not just a matter of language, it is ideology in itself Therefore, power and ideology influence one‘s linguistic choices and vice versa From the analysis, it was realized that the linguistic choices by Obama were influenced by his ideology This was done for the promotion of freedom as illustrated in the examples below:
OBM2: “we are still heirs to a noble struggle for freedom.‖ (line 225)
OBM3: ―We support a set of universal rights Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion…‖ (line 85)
Obviously, the two examples reiterate American people‘s ideology of freedom
Thus, the fight against terrorism is to protect and maintain America‘s ideology Barack Obama then calls for action from the audience both at the conference and all over the world to be on the same boat with him ―We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as protect American rights and ask for joint efforts from his citizens and other nations to create a bright world without terrorists American President also grasped this opportunity to warn terrorists that there is no tolerance to them if they intend to attack America
According to Fairclough (2001), discourses and the text which occur within them have histories, they belong to historical series, and the interpretation of intertextual context is a matter of deciding which series a text belongs to, and therefore what can be taken as common ground for participants, or presupposed
Determining presuppositions also means finding a way to impose the speakers‘ ideology on the audience Thus, Obama‘s presuppositions in the speeches can be said manipulative and ideological Because each speech is quite long with multiple presuppositions, I would like to choose some in which ideology is clearly embedded
In terms of intertextuality, three speeches are presented in chronological order
Derived from the 9/11 events, the U.S President Barack Obama in three speeches identified al-Qaeda and its extremist allies as the most dangerous terrorists Obama argued that terrorism was a common enemy to all civilized nations This claim was intended to raise support from all the Western countries and to launch a global crusade against all terrorist movements linked to al Qaeda In these speeches, Obama‘s attitude towards the target terrorists is the same He believed that they must be completely defeated to rebuild a peaceful world In the three speeches, he stated the following events which are in bold
OBM1: “the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan”
OBM2: “the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011” ( line 112-113)
OBM3: “On December 17, a young vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi was devastated…” (line 15-16)
Obviously, he cannot create these events by himself All of the events were on TV, radio and news for many times Therefore, when he mentioned them in his speeches, the listeners could be easily recall what occurred
OBM2: ―…"Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs." ”(line 173- 174)
OBM3: “…“It’s like I can finally breathe fresh air for the first time.” In Sanaa, we heard the students who chanted, “The night must come to an end.” In Benghazi, we heard the engineer who said, “Our words are free now It’s a feeling you can’t explain.” In Damascus, we heard the young man who said, “After the first yelling, the first shout, you feel dignity.” …”
“…“In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant “Muslims, Christians, we are one.”…” (line 162)
“I gradually realized that the only hope for progress was to recognize the face of the conflict.” And we see it in the actions of a Palestinian who lost three daughters to Israeli shells in Gaza “I have the right to feel angry,” he said “So many people were expecting me to hate My answer to them is I shall not hate…Let us hope,” he said, “for tomorrow” (line 272 – 275)
In the above presuppositions, it can be seen that what Obama said was clear and trustable He quoted directly who said and what those said All he did was to improve that he used real evidence to persuade the listener
OBM2: ―it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S troops to
The word ―additional‖ implies that before the time of this speech Obama has sent troops to Afghanistan Upon inauguration, President Obama proposed a new military strategy He sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, which was counterbalanced by the combat troop drawdown in Iraq The troops were to focus on countering the resurgent Taliban and securing the border with Pakistan In December – the time this speech addressed, another 30,000 American troops were sent to Afghanistan This increase in troops reflects a willingness to end a period of losses and stalemate, and to gradually shift the responsibility for the security of the country to the Afghan military
Explanation
As Fairclough stated in Language and Power (2001:135): “The objective of the stage of explanation is to portray a discourse as part of social process, as a social practice, showing how it is determined by social structures, and what reproductive effects discourses can cumulatively have on those structures, sustaining them or changing them
These social determinations and effects are ‗mediated‘ by MR, which in turn shape discourse; and discourses sustain or change MR, which in turn sustain or change structures”
Regarding social structure, it is power relations Obama in the highest position – American President took advantage of his position and role in the institution and in the society to decide what he speaks is to express his ideology Obama‘s discourse can be seen as place of ideology struggle
At the institutional level, his speeches can be seen as part of process of political struggle Those who support Obama are urging him to have an effective strategy to protect American and its allies‘ peace and security against al Qaeda and the Taliban regime
However, as for those who against Obama criticized that he and his administration are torture and what he did to protect his country just leads to the will of enemies to fight America and decrease the will of others to work with this country In an interview with ABC reporter, John Miller in 1998, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden asserted that
―America has no shame…the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans‖ Consequently, there are three kinds of ideology: one for Obama, one against Obama and against terrorists and one against Obama The President is in his position to answer all the critiques His discourses illustrate his ideology on strategies for fighting against terrorism Obama said that ―We believe we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but we can effectively obtain the intelligence we need‖ His speeches are really a place of ideological struggle, also demonstrating the power struggle Through these speeches, Obama raised his voice to affirm that he thought a lot before issuing a strategy against terrorists He and his country really want to tolerance but they cannot It is because the more America tolerant, the more chance America can be reattacked by dangerous terrorists Hence, during the course of the speech, power struggle is shown clearly as Obama manipulates his MR to criticize the terrorists, especially al Qaeda At this point, discourse is ideologically determined through power relations and power struggle In turn, if the audience basing on their relevant part of MR arrives at what the speaker says, the discourse further contributes to institutional struggles Also in the first speech, Obama showed that “I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework.” (OBM1, line 143-144) Obama did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush Administration because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework He believes that what Bush did just increase the will of enemies to fight America, while decreasing the will of others to work with this country Thus, in order to prevent terrorists from attacking America, Obama said that his Administration must have new strategies to protect America
At the societal level, we look the relationship between discourse and social structures This is not one-way relationship As well as being determined by social structures, discourse has effects on social structures and contributes to the achievement of social continuity or social change The social relationship in this discourse is between Obama – a leader of America and a politician – and the public The speaker has the higher position, and the status of power-holder Most of the time he turned him into one member of the public to appeal to the public and extract their consent He used the pronoun ―we‖ many times The frequency with which Obama used pronoun ―we‖ in his speeches serve different purposes of the speaker How he uses them and to whom he is referring was analyzed above Out of these ―we‖ pronoun, most of them are ‗linguistically inclusive‘ we, which includes the speaker and audience, and the ‗linguistically exclusive‘, we, which includes the speaker and others but not the audience In these speeches, mostly, he uses the ‗inclusive‘ we to mean the government rather than the whole population Sometimes, responsibility, determination and power by using the pronoun ―I‖ This relationship definitely decides his discourses and the way language of discourses is used
As there is no interaction between the speaker and listeners during the course, the speaker indirectly imposes his ideology on the audience Therefore we lack information from one side of participants, it is hard to predict how the social relationship determined the discourse and whether the discourse sustain or change that social relationship But in terms of the speech maker, social relationship affects him in the way that he remains formality of a movement leader as he is supposed to do as well as creates the credibility for a call
At situational level, the choice between the relations of participants (the President and the audience) depends on the nature of the situation The first speech is about the closing of Guantanamo President Barack Obama surprised many by calling for the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to be closed in 2009 Up to now, the emphasis on closing Guantanamo which came from the White House has been five years Although everybody is aware that it costs much money for the operation of this prison, the closing of Guantanamo is still being taken into consideration For this problem, there are two kinds of ideas in Obama administration Some believe that the closing of Guantanamo is an urgency; however many have opposite idea The challenge in closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay is not actually the detention facility itself The problem is the 166 detainees, each of whom has to be moved somewhere else Each detainee can leave that limbo through one of four different routes: a civilian trial, a military tribunal, a foreign country's prison system or freedom The first two routes – civilian trial or military tribunal – were blocked by Congress, which passed legislation barring the federal government from funding trials for Guantanamo detainees or buying a prison in the U.S to house them The third route, to send the detainees to a foreign country's prison system, is only legal if the U.S can be sure that the detainees will not be tortured there Given some of the countries from which the detainees originate, this is not always an easy guarantee to make And there have been doubts about foreign governments' ability to appropriately safeguard the detainees The fourth route, freedom, actually already applies to 86 of the 166 detainees The U.S government believes they can be safely released back into the world, but it has nowhere to send them For many of these individuals, their home country will not take them or might torture them, meaning the U.S has to find an entirely place of keeping these detainees His speech has an implication that Yemen is a suitable place to accept former detainees as most of detainees are Yemeni Obama could also work with Congress to loosen the politically unpalatable process for releasing detainees, or he could go ahead and release them anyway, although that would require finding countries to accept them It is important to remember that the president has the authority to dramatically reduce the Guantanamo population without congressional approval While there are specific challenges to overcome in order to close the prison, it is clear that a great deal of progress can be made with just a few steps In turn, the task of closing Guantanamo then becomes much more manageable
For the second speech on ―New strategy in Afghanistan‖, the main aim was to announce the increase in troops in Afghanistan To protect American and its ally – Afghanistan‘s values, that Obama sent more troops reflects a willingness to end a period of losses and stalemate, and to gradually shift the responsibility for the security of the country to the Afghan military
The last speech ―A moment of opportunity‖, President Obama announced that the targeted killing of Osama bin Laden is powerful evidence that terrorist threats, both real and hypothetical, can be more effectively suppressed by special forces operations than by deploying hundreds of thousands of American soldiers on the ground Obama laid out his vision for a new chapter in American diplomacy to call for reform and democracy spread across the Middle East and North Africa He made clear that the United States will support people who call for democracy and will oppose violence in cracking down on protests and efforts to limit the rights of minorities, and continue to work for peace between Israelis and Palestinians
This analysis is based on Norman Fairclough‘s theoretical framework through which the relationship between power, ideology and language has been proven Obama uses language to embed his ideologies However, it should be noted that his power and ideology is realized in a persuasive way rather than coercive way in order to influence the audience Being the highest political leader and delivering these speeches in such important occasions, he had to mind every word and to seek every move to gain the listeners‘ support and consent while presenting and claiming his power Based on the analysis, the first question has been answered Obama‘s covert ideologies on terrorism and anti-terrorism are expressed in terms of discoursal linguistic features as follows:
In terms of vocabulary, the discourse has a clear classification scheme The speaker favors the actions performed by ‗his side‘ and show unfavorable attitudes towards
‗the enemy side‘ The speaker opts for more formal choices of words and phrases
Besides, his intention in delivering these speeches is to convince people of his strategies against terrorism and for a peaceful America
In terms of grammatical features, the use of personal pronouns shows a strategic move of asserting power, and authority and at the same time projects his self-image as a responsible and determined man in the public‘s eyes The results of the keyword analysis have shown an overall dominance of the personal pronoun ―We‖ and ―I‖ which are evidences of Obama‘s inclusive perception of the American society and a need for unity, understood as necessary in the time of national peril Furthermore, voice and mode also help the speaker exert his power over the audience in an indirect way
The macrostructure of the discourse which is organized in the pattern of problem- solutions helps Barack Obama perform his purpose to gain support from the audience for his plan and strategies
Furthermore, based on the analysis, the second question has been answered The readers can interpret the discourse in terms of situational context and intertextual context
The interpretation of the discourse makes it clear that the central topic is the strategies against terrorists The author pointed out the context where each speech came out to help the readers understand clearly situational context The relationship between the speaker the power relation between the speaker and the listeners is revealed, in which the speaker shows his superiority by making direct requests to the hearers
The explanation of the discourse shows that this discourse is part of the social process It is determined by the social process and shaped by the social relations of power
It also contributes to the changes in listeners‘ attitude and hence changes the social structure
Conclusion
In brief, the speech is a useful instrument for Obama to express his power and ideology The speeches exhibit the speaker‘s ideologies which are realized through various structures and word use with overall strategy of positive self-presentation and negative other-presentation The study applies CDA methodology, aiming to make clear relationship between power, ideology and language The findings of the study serve as the answer to the research questions Ideologically, Obama‘s worries about reattacks by terrorists as well as his belief in his administration‘s ability of solving the problem have been clearly expressed by means of linguistic features Through the study, it can be claimed that language is an effective and useful weapon to disseminate or assert power, and because of that people take advantage of language to control other‘s minds However, one thing should be kept in mind that power and ideologies do not lay bare in the surface
In order to explore them, people have to use appropriate methods to dig them up.
Implications
So far the teaching of language has been paying attention to learners‘ communicative competence which refers to a language user's grammatical knowledge of syntax, morphology, phonology and as well as social knowledge about how and when to use utterances appropriately However, through this analysis, it should be acknowledged that there is a relationship between language, power and ideology
Therefore, in the practice of teaching and learning language, especially foreign languages, teachers should provide their students with linguistic resources to understand the underlying values within the text and to discover speakers‘/ writers‘ attitude and to reveal how they express their power over the listeners For example, the use of pronouns in political speeches is one way to provide the speaker‘s suggestions of intentions and strategies Through the analysis, it can be seen that Obama does change his usage of these are to show more or less personal involvement When putting the focus on what American citizens have to do, Obama use predominantly the pronoun ―we‖ The inclusive ―we‖ plays a crucial role in creating a sense of unity of the speaker with the audience The speaker does not distance himself from the American people He appears as the spokesman for the American people and calls for the American people‘s participation to reach a particular goal
In brief, in the teaching and learning language, teachers should explain explicitly values of linguistic features to learners and instruct them to make use of them in combination with background and social knowledge for a full interpretation of discourse
It is hoped that this critical analysis will, in its own modest way, contribute to the field of CDA and stimulate further research in political issues Due to limited time and the size of a minor thesis, this paper just deals with the relation of power and speaker‘s ideology expressed through the speeches in terms of linguistic features During the process of analyzing this discourse, I realized that Obama always mention the 9/11 event as the reason for his counter-terrorism policy Therefore, I believe that the effect of the 9/11 event on American counter-terrorism policy would be an interesting topic to study
Aning, K (2010), Security, war on terror and ODA, Critical Studies on Terrorism, 3(2),
Brown, G & Yule, G.(1983), Discourse Analysis, Cambridge University Press,
Beard, A (2000) The language of politics Routledge
Beaugrande, R & Dressler, W (1981) An Introduction to Text Linguistics London:
Longman Cook, G (1994), Discourse and Literature: The Interplay of Form and Mind, Oxford
Denzin, Norman K & Lincoln, Yvonna S (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research
California: SAGE Publication D‘Souze, D (2006) What’s so great about America? Retrieved from http://www.wisdomword.info/dinesh_dsouze Ellison, E (2013) A Critical Discourse Analysis of President Barack Obama’s War on
Terror (Doctoral Dissertation) Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/4838009/Critical_Discourse_Analysis_of_Barack_Obama_
Fairclough, N and Chouliaraki, L (1999) Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis Within Discourse Analysis In A Jaworski & N Coupland (eds.), The Discourse Reader
London, UK: Routledge Fairclough, N (1992) Discourse and Social Change London: Polity Fairclough, N (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language
London Fairclough, N (2001) Language and Power (second edition) Harlow: Longman Fairclough, N (2002) Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for social research
London: Routledge Gee, J P (2004) Discourse analysis: What makes it critical? In R Rogers (Ed.), An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education Mahwah, NJ: Laurence
Gilbert, G N., & Mulkay, M (1984) Opening pandora’s box: A sociological analysis of
Haley, S (2012) United States’ Strategy in Afghanistan from 2001 to today Pepperdine
Policy Review: Vol.5, Article 3 Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/ppr.vol5/iss1/3 Halliday, M.A.K and Hasan, R (1976) Cohesion in English London: Longman
Huckin, T N (1997) Critical discourse analysis In T Miller (Ed.), Functional approaches to written text: Classroom applications Washington, DC: United States Information Agency, pp 78-92
Hyland, K (2005b) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing London:
Jufri, M (2009) Genre Analysis on Hillary Clinton’s Interview Unpublished thesis
Malang: The State Islamic University Maulana Malik Ibrahim Malang Long, K (2013) Terrorism in the Age of Obama: The Rhetorical Evolution of President
Obama’s Discourse on the “War on Terror” Undergraduate Review, 9, 87-93
Potter, J & Wetherell, M (1987) Discourse and Social Psychology: Beyond Attitudes and Behaviours London: Saga Publications
Schiffrin, D (1994) Approaches to Discourse Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd Sinclair, J & Coulthard, R.M (1975) Toward an Analysis of Discourse Oxford: Oxford
Wodak, Ruth (2006) The discourse-historical approach In Ruth Wodak & Michael
Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp.63-95) London: Sage
Valentina, T (2010) U.S Response to Terrorism: A Strategic Analysis of the Afghanistan Campain Journal of Strategic Security, 3, 27-38
Van Dijk, T.A (1993) Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis Discourse & Society,
Wiberg, E (2003) ―Interactional context in L2 dialogues‖ in Journal of Pragmatics 35, pp 389-407 Department of Romance Languages, University of Lund, Sweden
Hoàng, Ngô Hữu (2014) ―Phân Tích Diễn Ngôn Bài Bình Luận Về Biển Đông ―China‘s False Memory Syndrome‖ Của Bill Hayton Trên Tạp Chí Prospect‖ Từ điển học và bách khoa toàn thư Việt hàn lâm khoa học xã hội Việt Nam: 5, 74-78
Speech 1: Protecting our security and our values
Delivered at the National Archives Museum, Washington, DC on May 21, 2009 Line
These are extraordinary times for our country We are confronting an historic economic crisis
We are fighting two wars We face a range of challenges that will define the way that Americans will live in the 21st century There is no shortage of work to be done, or responsibilities to bear
And we have begun to make progress Just this week, we have taken steps to protect American consumers and homeowners, and to reform our system of government contracting so that we better protect our people while spending our money more wisely The engines of our economy are slowly beginning to turn, and we are working toward historic reform of health care and energy I welcome the hard work that has been done by the Congress on these and other issues
In the midst of all these challenges, however, my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American people safe That is the first thing that I think about when I wake up in the morning It is the last thing that I think about when I go to sleep at night
This responsibility is only magnified in an era when an extremist ideology threatens our people, and technology gives a handful of terrorists the potential to do us great harm We are less than eight years removed from the deadliest attack on American soil in our history We know that al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again We know that this threat will be with us for a long time, and that we must use all elements of our power to defeat it
Already, we have taken several steps to achieve that goal For the first time since 2002, we are providing the necessary resources and strategic direction to take the fight to the extremists who attacked us on 9/11 in Afghanistan and Pakistan We are investing in the 21st century military and intelligence capabilities that will allow us to stay one step ahead of a nimble enemy We have re-energized a global non-proliferation regime to deny the world's most dangerous people access to the world's deadliest weapons, and launched an effort to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years We are better protecting our border, and increasing our preparedness for any future attack or natural disaster We are building new partnerships around the world to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates And we have renewed American diplomacy so that we once again have the strength and standing to truly lead the world
These steps are all critical to keeping America secure But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights -are not simply words written into aging parchment They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality and dignity in the world
I stand here today as someone whose own life was made possible by these documents My father came to our shores in search of the promise that they offered My mother made me rise before dawn to learn of their truth when I lived as a child in a foreign land My own American journey was paved by generations of citizens who gave meaning to those simple words - "to form a more perfect union." I have studied the Constitution as a student; I have taught it as a teacher; I have been bound by it as a lawyer and legislator I took an oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief, and as a citizen, I know that we must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake
I make this claim not simply as a matter of idealism We uphold our most cherished values not only because doing so is right, but because it strengthens our country and keeps us safe Time and again, our values have been our best national security asset - in war and peace; in times of ease and in eras of upheaval
Fidelity to our values is the reason why the United States of America grew from a small string of
36 colonies under the writ of an empire to the strongest nation in the world
It is the reason why enemy soldiers have surrendered to us in battle, knowing they'd receive better treatment from America's armed forces than from their own government It is the reason why America has benefited from strong alliances that amplified our power, and drawn a sharp and moral contrast with our adversaries It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism, outlast the iron curtain of communism, and enlist free nations and free people everywhere in common cause and common effort
From Europe to the Pacific, we have been a nation that has shut down torture chambers and replaced tyranny with the rule of law That is who we are And where terrorists offer only the injustice of disorder and destruction, America must demonstrate that our values and institutions are more resilient than a hateful ideology