Rationale
Language serves as a vital social activity intertwined with various aspects of life, commonly referred to as "Discourse." Its primary function is to fulfill human needs and facilitate communication across diverse fields Discourse acts as a meta-function, guiding and influencing other human activities By fostering interaction, Discourse significantly impacts the way we communicate and connect with one another (Hoang, 2014).
Mass media, including TV, newspapers, magazines, and radio, plays a crucial role in shaping public understanding of terrorism and anti-terrorism efforts The frequency of terrorist acts globally has sparked ongoing debates about national security and the need for robust anti-terrorism policies Politicians leverage discourse to engage citizens and garner support for military actions against terrorism, emphasizing its significance on national and international agendas, including that of the United Nations Each country adopts its unique approach to combat terrorism, with the U.S utilizing powerful rhetoric in political speeches, particularly during Barack Obama’s presidency, to assert its stance as a leading force against terrorism This includes a firm policy of "no negotiation with terrorists," aimed at instilling fear and criticism towards terrorist groups.
As a graduate student majoring in English Linguistics at the University of Languages and International Studies, I have developed a keen interest in Discourse Analysis (DA) as a valuable tool for exploring both linguistic structures and socio-cultural contexts Recognizing the urgent global issue of anti-terrorism, I believe that collective efforts are essential for achieving a peaceful world devoid of conflict Consequently, I have chosen to analyze President Obama's persuasive strategies and uncover his underlying ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism through an examination of three of his speeches.
This study employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), distinguished by its emphasis on the term 'critical.' As Fairclough (1992:9) notes, 'critical' involves revealing hidden connections and causes, as well as facilitating intervention to support those disadvantaged by change Given that these concealed elements are not immediately apparent, it is essential to bring them to light Among the prominent theorists in discourse linguistics, Norman Fairclough stands out, and this analysis is firmly rooted in his CDA framework.
Scope of the study
This article examines three significant speeches by Barack Obama on terrorism and anti-terrorism delivered in 2009 and 2011: "Protecting Our Security and Our Values," "New Strategy on Afghanistan," and "A Moment of Opportunity." The analysis focuses exclusively on the transcripts of these speeches, intentionally excluding paralinguistic and extralinguistic elements Utilizing Norman Fairclough's framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the author emphasizes the importance of social context in discourse analysis, providing a summary of the U.S context during the time these speeches were made.
Aims of the study
This study analyzes Barack Obama's speeches through the lens of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to uncover the ideological traits embedded in his linguistic features It aims to reveal how Obama effectively persuades his audience through language, contributing to the impressive and influential nature of his speeches Additionally, the research seeks to enhance language users' understanding of CDA while promoting critical thinking as a valuable approach to 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?
In recent decades, interest in discourse analysis has significantly increased, with many linguists focusing on the term 'discourse' in their research This term has been defined in various ways; for instance, Potter (1987) notes its diverse applications Some researchers, like Gilbert and Mulkay (1984), view 'discourse' as encompassing all forms of talk and writing, while others, such as Sinclair and Coulhard (1975), focus on the structure of spoken interaction Discourse includes all forms of spoken and written communication, serving as both a process and a product It plays a crucial role in daily expression and interaction, facilitating social relationships and communication Consequently, the field studying these aspects is referred to as 'Discourse Analysis' (Tannan, 1989a as cited in Schriffin, 1994:38).
Discourse Analysis (DA) involves examining various forms of discourse and language in use, as defined by Brown and Yule (1983) Schriffin (1994) emphasizes that DA should be approached from both structural and functional perspectives, highlighting the interdependence between text structure and contextual function This dual focus means that DA extends beyond merely describing linguistic forms; it encompasses the study of both text and context, making it a comprehensive analysis of communication.
Discourse analysis emphasizes the social dimensions of communication, highlighting how meaning is shaped by context and the interactive relationships between participants (Cook, 1994) This approach involves studying and analyzing the deeper implications revealed within texts.
Schriffin (1994:363) defines 'text' as the linguistic material that distinguishes itself from its surrounding context In this view, 'text' encompasses the semantic meanings of words, expressions, and sentences The principles of text linguistics were established by Halliday and Hasan, highlighting the importance of understanding language within its context.
Cohesion in English, as defined by Halliday and Hasan in 1976, refers to the linguistic tools that enable the creation of texture in a text, ensuring it functions as an interpretable whole rather than a series of disjointed sentences This property of cohesion is essential for effective communication and understanding in written discourse.
Cohesion, as defined by Halliday and Hasan (1976), refers to the semantic relationship between elements within a text, where one element presupposes another, either within the text itself (anaphora or cataphora) or in the situational context (exophora), which is crucial for understanding the text This presupposition manifests at three levels: the semantic level (reference), the lexicogrammatical level (substitution and ellipsis), and the grammatical level (conjunctions) Since text functions as a discoursal unit, textual analysis is a key approach in discourse analysis (DA) To effectively analyze a text, it is essential to evaluate it based on seven specific criteria.
Cohesion refers to the interconnectedness of the components in a text, specifically how the actual words we read or hear relate to one another within a sequence These surface elements are interdependent, relying on grammatical structures and conventions to create meaning.
Coherence refers to how the elements within a text, including concepts and their relationships, are interconnected and relevant to each other While cohesion focuses on the text itself, coherence emphasizes the overall meaning and accessibility of the content In contrast, other aspects of textuality are centered around the user's experience and interpretation.
Intentionality refers to the text producer's mindset, emphasizing that the arrangement of events should form a cohesive and coherent text aimed at achieving the producer's objectives, such as sharing knowledge or accomplishing a specific goal outlined in a plan.
Acceptability refers to the recipient's perception that a series of events should form a cohesive and coherent text that holds significance or relevance for them, such as gaining knowledge or facilitating collaboration in a project.
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 marked the rise of Critical Linguistics (CL), a method of discourse and text analysis that evolved to emphasize interpretation and explanation over mere textual examination This approach highlights the role of language in reflecting and shaping power dynamics within society Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) specifically investigates how social power is abused, dominance is established, and inequality is perpetuated or challenged through language in social and political contexts By adopting a critical stance, discourse analysts aim to understand, reveal, and ultimately combat social inequalities (van Dijk, 1993).
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), as defined by Fairclough (1995), systematically examines the complex relationships between discursive practices, events, texts, and broader social and cultural structures It investigates how these elements are influenced by power dynamics and ideological shaping, revealing the struggles over power that inform their emergence Additionally, CDA explores how the obscurity of these relationships between discourse and society contributes to the maintenance of power and hegemony.
Hyland (2005) emphasizes that the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach is essential for examining the underlying ideas, values, and status reflected in language, even when they are not explicitly expressed By utilizing CDA, we gain insight into the nuances of communication and the implications behind the words used.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) explores the interplay between language form and function, emphasizing the influence of social practices and contextual factors such as power dynamics and social equity (Gee, 2004) According to Huckin (1997), CDA is characterized as a context-sensitive and democratic approach that adopts an ethical perspective on social issues, aiming to foster societal transformation rather than following a rigid methodology.
1.2 CDA approach of Norman Fairclough ( Systemic Functional Grammar)
This study utilizes Fairclough's framework, recognized as one of the most comprehensive approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) by Michael Halliday, this framework focuses on semantics, phonology, and lexicogrammar Fairclough emphasizes that their version of CDA primarily relies on SFL for textual analysis.
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
Theoretical Background and Literature Review
CDA approach of Norman Fairclough
This study utilizes Fairclough's framework, recognized as one of the most comprehensive approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) Grounded in Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) by Michael Halliday, this framework emphasizes semantics, phonology, and lexicogrammar Fairclough asserts that their version of CDA relies heavily on SFL as a primary resource for textual analysis.
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 Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) illustrate how a text producer's experiences of the natural or social world are represented Relational values focus on the social relationship between the text producer and the recipient, while expressive value reflects the producer's evaluation of the reality being described Additionally, connective value is emphasized as a means to link different parts of the text together, enhancing coherence and flow.
Fairclough (2001:117) highlights that the experiential, relational, and expressive values of textual features are linked to three aspects of social practice—contents, relations, and subjects—that may be influenced by power dynamics While formal text features do not directly indicate their structural effects on society, their values manifest in social interactions Essentially, texts are created and understood within the context of shared assumptions, which are integral to members' resources (MR) This stage of interpretation focuses on the discourse processes and their reliance on these background assumptions.
The third stage in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focuses on understanding discourse as a component of social processes and practices, as outlined by Fairclough (2001:135) This stage examines how social structures influence discourses and the ways in which these discourses can either reinforce or transform those structures The interplay between social structures and discourses is mediated by social relations, highlighting the reciprocal relationship between them.
MR in turn shape discourses; and discourses sustain or change MR, which in turn sustain or change structures
The article explores Halliday's Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), which posits that language serves three interconnected functions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual The ideational function reflects the speakers' experiences and perceptions of the world, while the interpersonal function conveys their attitudes and establishes relationships with listeners Lastly, the textual function ensures cohesion and coherence within the text.
Fairclough's approach to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) has become a central method over the past few decades due to its accessibility for individuals without extensive language study backgrounds His framework is designed at an introductory level, making it comprehensible to a wide audience Furthermore, Fairclough emphasizes a selective set of textual features that are particularly significant for critical analysis (Fairclough, 2001:92) For these reasons, I have chosen Fairclough's approach as the foundation for my thesis.
Methodology
Method of the study
This study employs a descriptive and qualitative methodology to analyze the language used in Obama’s speeches, focusing on words, phrases, and sentences As linguistic studies fall under the realm of social sciences, the qualitative approach is favored by linguists for exploring complex issues (Denzin and Lincoln, 1994) This method will specifically assess the impact of various linguistic elements, including vocabulary, grammatical features such as pronouns and modality, and overall textual characteristics.
Data Collection
This research analyzes the language used in Barack Obama's speeches to uncover his ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism The study is based on three text transcripts from his speeches delivered in 2009 and 2011, highlighting key words, phrases, and expressions that reflect his stance on these critical issues.
(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
To gain a comprehensive understanding of the data, I conducted extensive readings I then identified and highlighted key words, phrases, and sentences that reflect Obama's ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism Following the data collection process, I analyzed the information using Norman Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) framework.
A CDA of the three speeches
An Analysis of textual description
Experiential, relational, and expressive values provide insight into a speaker's worldview Fairclough (2002) proposes classification schemes that organize vocabulary, highlighting the impact of positive and negative language Through this approach, Obama effectively contrasts two narratives: one depicting the darker actions of terrorist groups like al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and the other showcasing the brighter efforts of anti-terrorism advocates, including the US and its allies.
Table 1: Two ideological contrastive classification schemes
Actions by Those who are in favor of
Actions by Those who are in favor of
The tragic events of September 11, when four airplanes were hijacked, resulted in the loss of nearly 3,000 innocent lives and struck at the military and economic nerve centers of the West This act of terrorism represents a broader threat, as there are ongoing plans for further attacks against us The perpetrators offer nothing but disorder and destruction, undermining the values of justice and accountability In response, we must uphold our commitment to the rule of law and due process, ensuring that our actions reflect our principles and maintain the integrity of our democratic systems.
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
The OBM3 initiative aims to support civil society and promote genuine, inclusive democracy It emphasizes the importance of establishing robust measures to prevent the resurgence of terrorism, curb the infiltration of weapons, and ensure effective border security The initiative looks forward to collaborating with all stakeholders committed to these goals.
The speaker highlighted the actions of terrorists, framing terrorism as a significant threat to humanity By referencing the tragic events of 9/11, he evoked powerful emotions that allowed the audience to grasp the gravity of such memories, even if they had not experienced them firsthand Citing a credible source like Obama, the speaker effectively shaped public perception, casting terrorism in a nefarious light and fostering a negative view of these acts The speaker described the terrorists' actions as treacherous, particularly emphasizing the loss of "innocent lives," which underscored the moral implications of such violence.
In three speeches, the speaker labeled terrorists as "enemies," suggesting they oppose American interests and should not be tolerated This terminology aimed to instill a sense of anger and fear in the audience, emphasizing the need for strategic measures to safeguard America.
In his address on anti-terrorism, the speaker highlighted the contrast between Americans, who value freedom and act within the bounds of law, and terrorists, who aim to kill and disrupt society He underscored that while America was engaged in conflict, its actions were lawful, legitimate, and justifiable, reinforcing the idea that the measures taken to defeat terrorism were grounded in legal principles This message aimed to dispel any doubts about the righteousness of the war, the treatment of detainees, and the justice system applied to terrorists.
The speaker emphasized the legitimacy of actions taken by US government-authorized legal bodies, such as Military Commissions and the Justice Department, to ensure safety By highlighting these entities, the speaker aimed to reassure the audience that the measures implemented were lawful, suggesting that victory in the war against terrorism relies on the use of security agents This approach not only conveys a sense of power and dominance over terrorism but also serves to manipulate the audience into accepting the counter-terrorism measures as necessary and justified.
3.1.2 Grammatical features 3.1.2.1 The use of personal pronouns
In the analyzed speeches, the use of the plural personal pronoun "we" and the singular personal pronoun "I" is notably prevalent, with their frequencies being almost equal Specifically, the speeches from OBM1, OBM2, and OBM3 comprise 6,023 words, 4,642 words, and 5,304 words, respectively.
In OBM1, the pronoun "we" appears 120 times, followed by 108 times in OBM2 and 92 times in OBM3, indicating its significant role in Obama's speeches The frequency of "we" reflects various speaker purposes, necessitating an analysis of its usage and intended audience Fairclough (2001:106) identifies two relational values associated with pronouns, highlighting their importance in understanding the speaker's intent and connection with the audience.
‗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
The United States is currently engaged in two significant conflicts, confronting a multitude of challenges that will shape American life in the 21st century Despite the extensive responsibilities ahead, we are starting to see progress in addressing these issues.
In a significant announcement, OBM2 stated, "Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end," emphasizing the planned withdrawal of combat brigades by next summer and the complete removal of troops by the end of 2011 This decision reflects the commendable character of the men and women in uniform.
The United States has successfully withdrawn 100,000 troops and concluded its combat operations, effectively halting the Taliban's advance This July marks the beginning of the troop withdrawal process, signaling a shift towards an Afghan-led transition.
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)
Through the predominant use of the inclusive "we," Obama effectively conveyed his ideology, fostering a sense of unity between himself and the audience This choice of language not only emphasizes his connection with the American people but also positions his statements as reflections of their collective voice By speaking on behalf of the citizens, the president articulates their shared negative sentiment towards terrorism and outlines the country's strategies for combating this threat.
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-
The term "I" appears 135 times across the three OBM texts, with 63 instances in OBM1, 46 in OBM2, and 26 in OBM3 This frequent usage serves as a strategic assertion of power, authority, and position Publicly, he presents himself as a responsible and determined Black man, demonstrating his worthiness to be the President of the United States and the Commander-in-Chief.
As suggested by Fairclough (2001, p.104), there are three kinds of modes – declarative, imperative and grammatical question In grammatical questions, there are two types: wh-questions and yes/no-questions
Interpretation
Chouliaraki and Fairclough (1999) emphasize that while ideology is embedded within a text, it cannot be simply extracted, as interpretation varies based on the reader's perspective This section aims to assist readers in revealing the speaker's underlying ideology during their speech delivery.
According to Fairclough (2001), understanding situational context relies on external cues, including physical features, participant characteristics, and prior dialogue, as well as individual interpretative frameworks Key questions guiding this interpretation include: "What’s happening?", "Who is involved?", "What relationships are at play?", and "What is the role of language in the situation?"
The speech focuses on plans and strategies to combat potential re-attacks by terrorists, particularly targeting Al Qaeda and the Taliban regime Its primary objective is to rally support for American security and promote a collaborative effort among Americans and individuals of all ages globally, emphasizing the need for united action to create a safer world.
Subject positions in discourse are multi-dimensional, influenced by activity types such as speeches, where roles are defined for both the speaker and the audience For instance, President Obama embodies a subject position as a national leader and politician, while the audience may vary in identity, sharing common concerns like anti-terrorism Importantly, this discourse type lacks direct interaction; the speaker conveys ideology unilaterally, controlling the narrative and representation of events This dynamic highlights Obama's hidden power in shaping the audience's perceptions.
The relationship between "in what relation?" and "who's involved?" highlights the significance of the speaker's subject position in communication In his speeches, Obama serves as the primary speaker, aiming to reach a diverse American audience However, the interpretation of his messages can vary widely among listeners due to differing ideologies and social contexts This variation in understanding underscores the complexity of audience interpretation, where individuals may derive distinct meanings based on their unique perspectives As the main speaker, Obama occupies a position of power, influencing the discourse while acknowledging that audience interpretations may diverge significantly.
What’s the role of language?
Barack Obama effectively utilized language to inform, persuade, and garner support, primarily employing active voice to deliver clear and directive messages His carefully chosen vocabulary allowed him to exert influence, reinforcing notions of dominance and hegemony While language itself may not inherently carry ideology, it is closely linked to ideological constructs (Wodak, 2006) Fairclough (1989) posits that power transcends mere language, embodying ideology itself Consequently, the interplay between power, ideology, and linguistic choices is significant The analysis reveals that Obama's linguistic decisions were shaped by his ideological stance, particularly in promoting freedom.
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)
The examples presented highlight the American ideology of freedom, emphasizing that the fight against terrorism is essential for preserving this principle Barack Obama urges a collective effort, stating that national security should unite rather than divide Americans He calls on citizens and nations to collaborate in creating a safer world free from terrorism, while firmly warning that any attacks against America will not be tolerated.
Fairclough (2001) emphasizes that discourses and their corresponding texts have historical backgrounds and belong to specific historical series Understanding the intertextual context involves determining the series to which a text belongs, which in turn establishes a common ground for participants and what is presupposed in their interpretation.
Analyzing presuppositions allows us to uncover how speakers impose their ideologies on audiences In this context, Obama’s speeches can be viewed as both manipulative and ideological, as they contain numerous presuppositions that reflect his beliefs This article will focus on select examples where these ideologies are prominently embedded within his rhetoric.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, President Barack Obama delivered three speeches that emphasized al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates as the primary threats to global security He posited that terrorism represents a shared adversary for all civilized nations, aiming to galvanize support from Western countries for a unified response against terrorist factions associated with al-Qaeda Consistently throughout these addresses, Obama maintained that the complete defeat of these terrorists was essential for the restoration of a peaceful world.
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)
He cannot independently create these events, as they have been widely covered on television, radio, and in the news Consequently, when he references them in his speeches, listeners can easily recall the occurrences.
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)
In Sanaa, students expressed their newfound freedom with chants proclaiming, “The night must come to an end,” while in Benghazi, an engineer reflected on the liberation of speech, stating, “Our words are free now It’s a feeling you can’t explain.” Meanwhile, a young man in Damascus described the profound sense of dignity that follows the initial cries for change, saying, “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)
Recognizing the face of conflict is essential for progress, as illustrated by a Palestinian father who lost three daughters to Israeli shelling in Gaza Despite the immense pain and anger he feels, he chooses not to succumb to hatred, stating, “I shall not hate… Let us hope for tomorrow.” This powerful perspective highlights the importance of hope and resilience in the face of tragedy.
Obama's statements were clear and credible, as he directly quoted sources to support his claims By utilizing real evidence, he effectively persuaded his audience.
OBM2: ―it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S troops to
President Obama, upon taking office, implemented a new military strategy that involved sending an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan, offset by a drawdown of combat forces in Iraq This deployment aimed to counter the resurgent Taliban and secure the Pakistan border By December, he announced the deployment of another 30,000 American troops, signaling a commitment to overcoming previous losses and stalemates while gradually transferring security responsibilities to the Afghan military.
Explanation
Fairclough (2001) emphasizes that the purpose of the explanation stage is to illustrate how discourse functions within social processes and practices It highlights the influence of social structures on discourse and examines the cumulative effects that discourses can have, either reinforcing or transforming those structures.
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”
The social structure is defined by power relations, with Obama leveraging his role as American President to articulate his ideology His discourse serves as a battleground for ideological conflict, reflecting the complexities of power dynamics within society.
At the institutional level, Obama's speeches reflect a significant political struggle, with supporters urging him to implement effective strategies for safeguarding American and allied peace against al Qaeda and the Taliban Conversely, critics argue that his administration's actions amount to torture, claiming that these measures only strengthen enemy resolve and undermine cooperation with the United States In a notable 1998 interview with ABC's John Miller, al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden highlighted these tensions.
America faces criticism for its actions, with some labeling it as home to the worst thieves and terrorists President Obama navigates a complex ideological landscape, addressing critiques through his speeches on counter-terrorism strategies He asserts the importance of adhering to ethical standards, stating, "We believe we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but we can effectively obtain the intelligence we need." His rhetoric reveals a power struggle, as he emphasizes the need for tolerance while acknowledging that increased tolerance may invite further attacks Obama critiques previous legislation from the Bush Administration, arguing that it lacked a legitimate legal framework and ultimately fueled enemy hostility To safeguard America, he advocates for new strategies that balance security with ethical considerations.
The relationship between discourse and social structures is reciprocal, influencing both social continuity and change In this context, Barack Obama, as a powerful leader and politician, engages with the public by often adopting an inclusive stance through the frequent use of the pronoun "we." This inclusive "we" typically refers to the government, fostering a sense of unity and collective responsibility, while the exclusive "we" delineates the speaker from the audience Additionally, Obama occasionally employs the pronoun "I" to assert personal responsibility and authority This dynamic interplay between language and social relationships shapes the nature of his discourses and their impact on society.
In a one-sided discourse, the speaker's ideology is imposed on the audience without interaction, limiting the understanding of how social relationships influence the conversation This lack of engagement makes it challenging to assess whether the discourse reinforces or alters existing social dynamics However, for the speaker, maintaining the formality of a movement leader is crucial, as it not only upholds their credibility but also strengthens their persuasive appeal to the audience.
The decision regarding the relationship between the President and the audience is influenced by the context of the situation, particularly in President Barack Obama's 2009 speech advocating for the closure of Guantanamo Bay prison Despite five years of emphasis on this issue and the significant operational costs of the facility, opinions within the Obama administration are divided; some view the closure as urgent, while others disagree The primary challenge lies not in the prison itself but in relocating the 166 detainees, who can be released through civilian trials, military tribunals, foreign prisons, or freedom However, Congress has restricted funding for trials and domestic housing, complicating the process Transferring detainees to foreign prisons raises concerns about potential torture, and many detainees cannot return to their home countries due to safety risks While 86 detainees have been deemed safe for release, finding acceptable host countries remains a challenge Obama suggested Yemen as a potential location for former detainees, highlighting the need for collaboration with Congress to ease the release process Importantly, the President has the power to reduce the Guantanamo population without congressional approval, indicating that with strategic actions, closing the prison could become a feasible goal.
In his second speech on the "New Strategy in Afghanistan," President Obama announced an increase in troop levels to safeguard American and Afghan values This decision demonstrates a commitment to overcoming previous losses and stalemates, while gradually transferring security responsibilities to the Afghan military.
In his final speech, "A Moment of Opportunity," President Obama emphasized that the successful targeted killing of Osama bin Laden demonstrates the effectiveness of special forces operations in countering terrorist threats, as opposed to large-scale military deployments He articulated a vision for a new era in American diplomacy, advocating for reform and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East and North Africa Obama affirmed the United States' commitment to supporting democratic movements while opposing violent crackdowns on protests and the suppression of minority rights, and he reiterated the importance of pursuing peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
This analysis utilizes Norman Fairclough's theoretical framework to explore the intricate relationship between power, ideology, and language, particularly in the context of Obama's speeches It highlights how Obama employs language strategically to convey his ideologies persuasively rather than coercively, aiming to influence his audience effectively As a prominent political leader delivering speeches on significant occasions, he meticulously chooses his words and actions to secure the support and consent of listeners while asserting his authority The findings reveal that Obama's underlying ideologies regarding terrorism and anti-terrorism are articulated through specific discoursal linguistic features.
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 speaker employs formal language to effectively communicate his strategies against terrorism, aiming to persuade the audience of his vision for a peaceful America.
The strategic use of personal pronouns, particularly "We" and "I," in Obama's speech underscores his assertion of power and authority while shaping his self-image as a responsible leader This choice reflects his inclusive view of American society and emphasizes the need for unity during times of national crisis Additionally, the speaker's voice and mode contribute to exerting influence over the audience in a subtle yet effective manner.
The discourse's macrostructure, organized in a problem-solution format, effectively enables Barack Obama to garner audience support for his plans and strategies.
The analysis effectively addresses the second question, allowing readers to interpret the discourse through situational and intertextual contexts It becomes evident that the central theme revolves around strategies against terrorism The author clarifies the context of each speech, enhancing readers' understanding of the situational background Additionally, the power dynamics between the speaker and the audience are highlighted, showcasing the speaker's authority through direct requests to the listeners.
The discourse is intrinsically linked to the social process, influenced and shaped by the prevailing social power relations.
It also contributes to the changes in listeners‘ attitude and hence changes the social structure
Conclusion
Barack Obama's speeches serve as a powerful tool for conveying his ideologies and asserting his authority, utilizing various linguistic structures and strategies that emphasize positive self-presentation while casting others in a negative light This study employs Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to explore the intricate relationship between power, ideology, and language, revealing how Obama's concerns about potential terrorist attacks and confidence in his administration's problem-solving capabilities are articulated through specific linguistic choices The findings underscore that language functions as a potent instrument for wielding power, enabling individuals to influence and control perceptions However, it is essential to recognize that the dynamics of power and ideology often remain obscured beneath the surface of discourse.
In order to explore them, people have to use appropriate methods to dig them up.
Implications
The teaching of language should prioritize learners' communicative competence, encompassing grammatical knowledge and social understanding of appropriate language use It is essential to recognize the connection between language, power, and ideology in language education Teachers must equip students with the linguistic tools to analyze underlying values in texts and discern the attitudes of speakers or writers, revealing how they exert power over their audience For instance, in political speeches, the use of pronouns can indicate a speaker's intentions and strategies Analyzing Obama's speeches, it becomes evident that he adjusts his pronoun usage to reflect personal involvement; notably, he employs the inclusive "we" to foster a sense of unity with American citizens, positioning himself as their representative and encouraging collective action towards shared goals.
In language teaching, it is essential for educators to clearly articulate the significance of linguistic features to students, guiding them to integrate these elements with their background knowledge and social context for a comprehensive understanding of discourse.
This critical analysis aims to contribute to the field of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and inspire further research on political issues Given the constraints of time and the scope of a minor thesis, this paper focuses on the relationship between power and the speaker's ideology as expressed through linguistic features in political speeches Notably, the analysis reveals that Obama frequently references the 9/11 event as a justification for his counter-terrorism policy, suggesting that the impact of 9/11 on American counter-terrorism strategies presents an intriguing area for further 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_ War_on_Terror_
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
In "Terrorism in the Age of Obama," K Long (2013) analyzes the evolution of President Obama's rhetoric regarding the "War on Terror," highlighting how his discourse reflects changing perceptions of terrorism The article, published in the Undergraduate Review, provides insights into the implications of Obama's communication strategies on public understanding of terrorism Long's work emphasizes the significance of rhetorical shifts in shaping policy and public opinion during Obama's presidency.
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
Bài viết của Ngô Hữu Hoàng (2014) phân tích diễn ngôn trong bài bình luận "China's False Memory Syndrome" của Bill Hayton, đăng trên tạp chí Prospect Tác giả chỉ ra cách mà Hayton trình bày các quan điểm về Biển Đông, nhấn mạnh những yếu tố lịch sử và chính trị ảnh hưởng đến nhận thức của Trung Quốc Nghiên cứu này đóng góp vào việc hiểu rõ hơn về các tranh chấp lãnh thổ trong khu vực và cách mà thông tin được xây dựng và truyền tải trong bối cảnh quốc tế.
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 engaged in two significant battles that will shape American life in the 21st century, facing numerous challenges that demand our attention and action Progress is underway, as recent measures have been implemented to safeguard American consumers and homeowners while reforming government contracting to ensure better protection and wiser spending The economy is gradually recovering, and we are advancing toward historic reforms in healthcare and energy I commend Congress for their diligent efforts on these critical issues.
As President, my primary duty is to ensure the safety of the American people, a responsibility that occupies my thoughts from the moment I wake up until I go to sleep each night.
In a time when extremist ideologies pose significant threats to our safety, the responsibility to protect our people has intensified With technology empowering a small number of terrorists to inflict considerable harm, we must remain vigilant Nearly eight years after the deadliest attack on American soil, we recognize that al-Qaeda is actively plotting further assaults This persistent threat demands a comprehensive response, utilizing all available resources to ensure our security.
Since 2002, we have taken significant steps to combat extremists who attacked us on 9/11, focusing our resources and strategic direction in Afghanistan and Pakistan By investing in advanced military and intelligence capabilities, we aim to stay ahead of agile threats We have revitalized a global non-proliferation regime to prevent dangerous individuals from accessing lethal weapons and initiated efforts to secure all loose nuclear materials within four years Additionally, we are enhancing border security and preparedness for potential attacks or natural disasters Our commitment to building international partnerships aims to disrupt and dismantle al Qaeda and its affiliates, while renewed American diplomacy strengthens our global leadership.
To ensure America's long-term security, we must embrace our fundamental values as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights These documents are not merely historical artifacts; they represent the bedrock of liberty and justice, serving as a beacon for those who strive for freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity globally.
Today, I reflect on how my life has been shaped by the ideals enshrined in our foundational documents My father sought the opportunities they promised, while my mother instilled in me the importance of understanding their significance from an early age My American journey has been influenced by generations dedicated to the vision of "a more perfect union." I have engaged with the Constitution as a student, taught it as an educator, and upheld it as a lawyer and legislator As Commander-in-Chief, I pledged to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, and as a citizen, I believe we must always uphold its fundamental principles, regardless of convenience.
Upholding our cherished values is essential not only for moral reasons but also for the strength and safety of our nation Throughout history, these values have proven to be our greatest asset for national security, providing resilience in both times of conflict and peace, as well as during periods of stability and turmoil.
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
Enemy soldiers have surrendered to American forces, recognizing they would receive better treatment than from their own governments This commitment to humane treatment has strengthened America's alliances, enhancing our global influence and creating a stark moral contrast with adversaries It has empowered us to defeat fascism, endure the challenges of communism, and unite free nations and people in a shared mission.
From Europe to the Pacific, America has a legacy of dismantling torture chambers and replacing tyranny with the rule of law This commitment to justice defines our identity In contrast to the chaos and destruction propagated by terrorists, America must showcase that our values and institutions are stronger and more resilient than any hateful ideology.
Following the events of 9/11, it became clear that we had entered a new era marked by adversaries who disregard traditional laws of warfare, presenting unique challenges to legal frameworks This shift necessitated the development of new governmental tools aimed at safeguarding the American public, focusing on prevention of attacks rather than solely prosecuting perpetrators.