In this summary, the document analyzes a 2005 speech by former U.S. President George W. Bush given at Fort Bragg, NC to justify continuing the war in Iraq. The analysis finds that Bush's language employs linguistic mechanisms of coercion, dissimulation, and legitimization/delegitimization. Specifically, Bush uses vague terms like "freedom" and "radicalism" to portray the war as necessary for security. He also frequently distinguishes between "we" as the moral American people and "they" as the dehumanized, irrational enemy in order to garner patriotic support for the war and delegitimize resistance. The analysis concludes the speech reflects the American cultural context and effectively appeals to patriotic
Binary Discourse in U.S. Presidential Speeches from FDR to Bush IIIOSR Journals
The contemporary study of American Presidential rhetoric is of great significance. Politics is very largely the use of language. Presidential speech and action increasingly reflect the opinion that speaking is governing. In fact, the power of the presidency depends on its ability to persuade. The application of power is often legitimized through rhetorical persuasion; and, in the case of American Presidents, such power, and its associated rhetoric, becomes the fulcrum upon which many global issues turn
The Enemy Within: United States news framing of the Boston bombingsAlice C Woodward
A research project studying US news coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings on 15th April 2013. The study compares coverage following the initial attacks to coverage following the release of the identity of the perpetrators, exploring racial profiling in the US press and how America's patriotism is conveyed in articles.
A Review on Hinnebusch's Article "American Invasion of Iraq: causes and Conse...Atam Motufoua
This review highlights some of the main arguments in the journal article "American invasion of Iraq: Causes and consequences". It also include personal comments.
These slides elucidates two aspects: one that which explains the reasons of US involvement in Afghanistan, with historical insight; while the other one portrays the major stakes of US in Afghanistan with respect to the emerging power politics of the world and the logic behind its pro-long presence since Post-Cold War.
The costs and consequences of drone warfare MICHAEL J. BOYLE*MYO AUNG Myanmar
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12002/epdf
file:///C:/Users/aung/Downloads/BOYLE-2013-International_Affairs.pdf
On 21 June 2010, Pakistani American Faisal Shahzad told a judge in a Manhattan
federal court that he placed a bomb at a busy intersection in Times Square as
payback for the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and for its worldwide use
of drone strikes. When the judge asked how Shahzad could be comfortable killing
innocent people, including women and children, he responded: ‘Well, the drone
hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They
kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war and in war, they kill people.
They’re killing all Muslims.’1
In a videotape released after his arrest, Shahzad
revealed that among his motives for the attack on New York City was revenge
for the death of Baitullah Mehsud, a Pakistani Taliban leader killed in a drone
strike in August 2009.2
While his comments were reported in the American press,
the Obama administration never acknowledged that it was revulsion over drone
strikes—which Shahzad was rumoured to have seen at first hand when training
with militant groups in Pakistan—that prompted his attack.3
In his official statement
on the attack, President Obama fell back on language reminiscent of his
predecessor to describe Shahzad as just another of those ‘who would attack our
citizens and who would slaughter innocent men, women and children in pursuit
of their murderous agenda’ and ‘will stop at nothing to kill and disrupt our way of
life’.4
That the Times Square attack was blowback from the growing use of drone
strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere was never admitted.
Binary Discourse in U.S. Presidential Speeches from FDR to Bush IIIOSR Journals
The contemporary study of American Presidential rhetoric is of great significance. Politics is very largely the use of language. Presidential speech and action increasingly reflect the opinion that speaking is governing. In fact, the power of the presidency depends on its ability to persuade. The application of power is often legitimized through rhetorical persuasion; and, in the case of American Presidents, such power, and its associated rhetoric, becomes the fulcrum upon which many global issues turn
The Enemy Within: United States news framing of the Boston bombingsAlice C Woodward
A research project studying US news coverage of the Boston Marathon bombings on 15th April 2013. The study compares coverage following the initial attacks to coverage following the release of the identity of the perpetrators, exploring racial profiling in the US press and how America's patriotism is conveyed in articles.
A Review on Hinnebusch's Article "American Invasion of Iraq: causes and Conse...Atam Motufoua
This review highlights some of the main arguments in the journal article "American invasion of Iraq: Causes and consequences". It also include personal comments.
These slides elucidates two aspects: one that which explains the reasons of US involvement in Afghanistan, with historical insight; while the other one portrays the major stakes of US in Afghanistan with respect to the emerging power politics of the world and the logic behind its pro-long presence since Post-Cold War.
The costs and consequences of drone warfare MICHAEL J. BOYLE*MYO AUNG Myanmar
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1468-2346.12002/epdf
file:///C:/Users/aung/Downloads/BOYLE-2013-International_Affairs.pdf
On 21 June 2010, Pakistani American Faisal Shahzad told a judge in a Manhattan
federal court that he placed a bomb at a busy intersection in Times Square as
payback for the US occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq and for its worldwide use
of drone strikes. When the judge asked how Shahzad could be comfortable killing
innocent people, including women and children, he responded: ‘Well, the drone
hits in Afghanistan and Iraq, they don’t see children, they don’t see anybody. They
kill women, children, they kill everybody. It’s a war and in war, they kill people.
They’re killing all Muslims.’1
In a videotape released after his arrest, Shahzad
revealed that among his motives for the attack on New York City was revenge
for the death of Baitullah Mehsud, a Pakistani Taliban leader killed in a drone
strike in August 2009.2
While his comments were reported in the American press,
the Obama administration never acknowledged that it was revulsion over drone
strikes—which Shahzad was rumoured to have seen at first hand when training
with militant groups in Pakistan—that prompted his attack.3
In his official statement
on the attack, President Obama fell back on language reminiscent of his
predecessor to describe Shahzad as just another of those ‘who would attack our
citizens and who would slaughter innocent men, women and children in pursuit
of their murderous agenda’ and ‘will stop at nothing to kill and disrupt our way of
life’.4
That the Times Square attack was blowback from the growing use of drone
strikes in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere was never admitted.
Democratic Great Power Support for Contested Autocracy: Understanding the U.S...Jason Fasano
Undergraduate honors thesis investigating the role homophily (ideological similarity) and expected utility play in US foreign policy formation, utilizing empirical evidence from the 2011 Arab Uprisings in Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, and Libya.
Democratic Great Power Support for Contested Autocracy: Understanding the U.S...Jason Fasano
Undergraduate honors thesis investigating the role homophily (ideological similarity) and expected utility play in US foreign policy formation, utilizing empirical evidence from the 2011 Arab Uprisings in Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, and Libya.
Discourse and Genre (the relationship between discourse and genre) Aticka Dewi
We provide some questions to make the discussion clearer
1. What is discourse?
Discourse is the use of language in text and context
2. What is genre?
Genre in linguistics refers to the type and structure of language typically used for a particular purpose in a particular context.
3. What is relationship between discourse and genre?
Discourse analysis is genre analysis. When we analyze discourses, of course we will specify them into more specific types from the characteristics of each discourse. For exampleThe specific type of discourses is called as genre.
4. Why should we use genre to analyze discourse?
Discourse is language in use. It is huge and almost unlimited. So, when we want to analyze discourses, we need a limitation to limit the unlimited things. Here, we use an analogy for this statement. (slide 11,12)
Genre provides limit in discourse.
That is why genre is used to help us divining and analyzing the discourses.
5. How do we analyze discourse through genre?
Example: text “Forklift fatty Improving”.
----------
The text is taken from the newspaper report. As we see in the language features and structures, we can divine it into recount text. It is non fiction, because it is based on real event. And it is written. So, we can say that this discourse has written non-fiction recount genre.
But, we cannot make sure that a type of discourse always has the same characteristics, because discourse is neither absolutely homogenous nor absolutely heterogeneous. Discourse is sometimes heterogeneous. Here, we provide two videos which have the same genre, but quite different in terms of language features and structures.
---------VIDEO
From the videos, we can feel that the first and the second videos are quite different. The structure in the first video is introduction (addressing, personal value), content (some important issues, e.g: financial issues, goals of America, ), closing (hope for American future, blessing). The language features used in the first video is more formal, present tense. The atmosphere created is formal.
From the second video, the structure is introduction (personal value without addressing), content (some goals), closing (. The language features used in the video is mixing, unclear and needs more understanding. The atmosphere created is a bit humorous.
Although they have different characteristics, they have the same genre in term of purpose, that is political genre.
From those videos, we can conclude that we cannot stick to an idea that a genre of discourse always has the same characteristics. AGAIN, discourse is neither absolutely homogenous nor absolutely heterogeneous.
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach to the study of discourse that views language as a form of social practice. Scholars working in the tradition of CDA generally assume that (non-linguistic) social practice and linguistic practice constitute one another and focus on investigating how societal power relations are established and reinforced through language use
Running Head US PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES .docxtoltonkendal
Running Head: US PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES 1
US PRESIDENTIAL POLICIES 6
Institution
Subject
Name
Date
Policies During the reign of George W. Bush
The retired US President George Bush may have relinquished active politics but he has left a mark in the hearts of many people in the USA and even other countries. During his reign, US was hit by various challenges ranging from economic to security problems and much more. But what stands out on is the 9/11 incident which led to the death of many people and stimulated the US engagement in series of military battles in the Arabian Peninsula.
Situation that required the US diplomatic efforts
In the history of the United States, there are many events that can be remembered. These events have varying degrees of sadness and happiness that they bring to the memories of the people. But what comes on top of the adverse events is the 2001 terrorist activity where the two towers or the World Trade Center was reduced to ashes in a span of time fewer than 10 minutes. Also known as the 9/11 attack; the incident led to the alterations that were destined to change the US diplomatic relations. In the September 11, 2001 attack, thousands of people died from what has been explained as an explosion that resulted from planted explosive in the building. Terrorists were also said to have hijacked a plane which they blew on the second tower to accomplish their destruction. Later on, the Islamic terrorist group Al-Qaeda were believed to have taken part in the destruction of property coupled with the killing, and maiming of innocent people. This made Osama Bin Laden who was then the militant group leader to be the most sought criminal on the planet.
The terrorist activity stimulated or spearheaded the implementation of the interventionist policy that had been existing in the US policies and history. In this doctrinal approach, the US is using the pre-emptive force and the preventive war against the states that have been adjudged to be using autocratic powers in enforcing their authority. This event led to the Bush’s massive mobilization of the US citizens to endorse the war in Iraq that ensued in the later years shortly (Dolan, 2004). The terrorist attack founded the US invasion of Iraq 2002, and this still falls within the realms of diplomatic intervention due to endorsements that it received from the people and US allies.
Presidential Doctrine followed about 9/11
According to Pfiffner (2003), Bush had some impatience in the approval of his actions especially when he reacted to the terrorist attack. Because he was rapid regarding actions, at times he would develop a view that the military was not doing enough. But the nature of the army intervention is that there have to be some elements of conservatism and even conventionalism. As he tried to implement the strategic interventi ...
IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP) e-ISSN 2278-48.docxchristiandean12115
IOSR Journal of Applied Physics (IOSR-JAP)
e-ISSN: 2278-4861. Volume 5, Issue 2 (Nov. - Dec. 2013), PP 25-36
www.iosrjournals.org
www.iosrjournals.org 25 | Page
Binary Discourse in U.S. Presidential Speeches from FDR to Bush
II
Dr. Wassim Daghrir,
The University of Sousse, Tunisia
I. Introduction
The contemporary study of American Presidential rhetoric is of great significance. Politics is very largely the
use of language. Presidential speech and action increasingly reflect the opinion that speaking is governing. In
fact, the power of the presidency depends on its ability to persuade. The application of power is often
legitimized through rhetorical persuasion; and, in the case of American Presidents, such power, and its
associated rhetoric, becomes the fulcrum upon which many global issues turn.
Manichaeism: a Definition
The term Manichean refers in its most literal sense to a religion founded in the third century by the
Persian prophet Manes. The movement attracted large numbers of followers, who were drawn to its simplicity
and moral clarity. Its central guideline was that the entire world could be plainly divided into two opposing
spheres –God and Satan in the world of the eternal, and a corresponding dualistic battle of Good and Evil
playing out on Earth. World events were all driven by, were all the product of, an ongoing, endless conflict
between the forces of Good and the forces of Evil. One‘s moral duty was to maintain adherence to God‘s will by
siding with Good and battling against the forces of Evil.
II. Rhetorical Devices and Manipulations
At the heart of the American presidential discourse exists a coherent worldview, one several presidents
have applied with remarkable consistency and uncompromising conviction. This view holds that the global
arena can be understood as a conflict between the forces of Good and Evil, and that America is ―called upon‖ to
defend the former from the latter. By definition, this premise requires the identification of Evil, which is the
enemy –an enemy that is pure in its Evil and that, by its very nature, cannot be engaged, offered compromises,
negotiated with, understood, managed, contained, or ignored. It can only be hated, attacked, and destroyed. One
way of achieving this is by using ‗legitimizing language‘ -language that will positively represent the favored
worldview or the approved approach to global phenomenon as well as those who support this view or approach.
The use of legitimizing language is usually accompanied by the use of its counterpart, ‗delegitimizing language‘
-language which negatively depicts the opposing worldview or approach as well as those who hold these
different opinions and values. Therefore, binary conceptualizations frequently take on the form of a polarization
between a legitimized insider group (‗us‘) and a delegitimized outsider group (‗them.
this is a slide about the analysis of a political speech from the perspective of rhetorical devices: pronoun, metaphor, simile, rule of three, parallelism and euphemism.
1. The Language of Politics and Political Discourse Words as weapons in the battle for hearts and minds Jim Wylie
2. An analysis of the language of political speechusing - an excerpt from an address to the nation by former United States President George W. Bush delivered at Ft. Bragg, NC, home of the U.S. airborne and special operations forces on 28 June 2005. Sourced from: http://uspolitics.about.com/od/ speeches/a/speech_28jun05.htm
3. The aim of this analysis: To identify and examine the functions and purposes of the linguistic mechanisms employed in this speech excerpt in the light of topics discussed in Unit Seven of the Study Guide for Language Discourse and Power (Massey University 2009).
4. The Speech – an overview In this nationally televised speech the acting U.S. President George W. Bush, whose own approval rating was then at an all-time low, was seeking to shore up flagging support for the war in Iraq. The short excerpt chosen for analysis came near the end of the President’s speech during which he had already outlined most of his intended military and political objectives in the Middle East and was attempting to justify those measures. This excerpt was chosen because it succinctly sums up some of his main arguments in defence of continuing the war and contains many prime examples of the mechanisms typically employed in political speeches.
5.
6. Since the original reason given for the invasion (WMDs) had been found to be baseless Mr. Bush was now trying to justify the continuing U.S. military presence in Iraq as necessary for self-defence and freedom. He did not explain how remaining in Iraq would achieve these goals.
7.
8. What was ‘vital’ about the region is open to interpretation but the word conveys a sense of urgency and coercive force.
9.
10. What the President said (part 4) “They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras.” One again the tool of dissimulation is being employed as a means to legitimise the continuation of the American military presence. The message is that ‘they’ are not like ‘us’. ‘They’ (unlike us) do not respect (our) laws of warfare or even (our) ‘laws’ of morality. ‘They’ have no respect for human life because ‘they’ (allegedly) deliberately kill innocent people just to try and manipulate the media in ways that will help their cause. ‘They’, in other words, are inhuman. If we accept Mr. Bush’s claims then that would seem to legitimise the imposition of control by the supposedly morally superior American nation.
11. What the President said (part 5) “They are trying to shake our will in Iraq, just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. They will fail.” Once again the ‘we’ group was portrayed as being threatened by the ‘them’ group. The fact that the ‘them’ group that the American troops were fighting in Iraq were almost certainly not in any way connected with the ‘them’ group who carried out the September 11 attacks was conveniently ignored. By conflating the Iraqi resistance and the 9/11 bombers into the one ‘them’ group the President was invoking a very powerful emotional symbol of national outrage and using it to delegitimise the Iraqis’ cause in order to legitimise his own. By saying ‘they’ will fail he meant that the ‘we’ group (the American nation) would triumph and he was thereby appealing to patriotic sympathy, another powerful coercive force.
12.
13.
14. References Study Guide. (2009). Study Guide for Language, Discourse and Power. Massey University, School of Language Studies. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Opinions and ideologies in the press. In A. Bell & P. Garrett (Eds.) Approaches to Media Discourse, (pp. 21-63). Oxford: Blackwell. Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.) Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage. Chilton P., & Shaffner, C. (1997). Discourse and Politics. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.) Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage.