Terrorism and anti-terrorism in the three speeches by American President Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 and 2011: A critical discourse analysis

ĐỖ THU TRANG Terrorism and anti-terrorism in the three speeches by American President Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 and2011: A Critical Discourse Analysis PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

………. ………

ĐỖ THU TRANG

Terrorism and anti-terrorism in the three speeches by American President Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 and2011:

A Critical Discourse Analysis

(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ CHỦ NGHĨA KHỦNG BỐ VÀ

CHỦ NGHĨA CHỐNG KHỦNG BỐ TRONG BA BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA TỔNG THỐNG MỸ BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA VÀO NĂM 2009 VÀ 2011)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

HANOI – 2014

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST- GRADUATE STUDIES

………. ………

ĐỖ THU TRANG

Terrorism and anti-terrorism in the three speeches by American President Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 and2011:

A Critical Discourse Analysis

(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ CHỦ NGHĨA KHỦNG BỐ VÀ

CHỦ NGHĨA CHỐNG KHỦNG BỐ TRONG BA BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA TỔNG THỐNG MỸ BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA VÀO NĂM 2009 VÀ 2011)

M.A MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics Code: 60220201

Supervisor: Dr Ngô Hữu Hoàng

HANOI – 2014

i

DECLARATION

To the best of my knowledge and belief, this minor thesis contains no material which has previously been submitted and accepted for any other degree in any university The thesis is my own work and based on my own research It involves no material previously published or written by any other person, except where due reference is made in the paper

Hanoi, 2014

Đỗ Thu Trang

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

On the completion of the course work, I wish, first of all, to express my deepest gratitude and indebtedness to my supervisor Dr Ngô Hữu Hoàng for his hearty guidance and his valuable criticism, which helps me so much in accomplishing my research

I also would like to thank my classmates for their advice and assistance in keeping my progress on schedule

My great thankfulness is also given to the teachers of Faculty of Postgraduate Studies for their ideas to my paper and many thanks to all my friends who have encouraged and helped me during the time of collecting necessary data, information for the study

Eventually, the study has been completed to the best of my knowledge; however, mistakes and shortcomings are unavoidable Therefore, I am looking forward

to receiving comments and suggestions from any readers for the perfection of the course work

iii

ABSTRACT

Over the past few years, Barack Obama, the first African-American president in American history, has captured the world‘s attention when he applied his rich language expressions, impassioned speeches and wholehearted attitude to try to gain the public‘s support Out of Obama‘s speeches, Terrorism and Anti-terrorism are the frequently-occurring concepts; therefore, in order to explore Obama‘s military ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism, the author uses his three speeches as the data and applies a qualitative analytical approach based on Fairclough‘s Critical Discourse Analysis model Through the study, the readers can have a better understanding about the political purpose of the selected speeches Furthermore, the study has implications for Critical Discourse Analysis theory and for further studies on terrorism

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration i

Acknowledgement ii

Abstract iii

Figures and Tables iv

Abbreviations v

PART A: INTRODUCTION 1

1 Rationale 1

2 Scope of the study 2

3 Aims of the study 2

4 Research questions 2

5 Design of the study 3

PART B: DEVELOPMENT 4

Chapter 1: Theoretical Background and Literature Review 4

1.1 DA and Approach to DA 4

1.1.1 What is DA? 5

1.1.2.Approach to Discourse Analysis: 5

1.1.2.1 Textual Analysis: 5

1.1.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis: 6

1.2 CDA approach of Norman Fairclough 7

1.2.1 Description 7

1.2.2 Interpretation: 9

1.2.3 Explanation: 10

1.3 Review of previous studies 11

Chapter 2: Methodology 14

2.1 Context where the three speeches by Obama came out 14

2.2 Method of the study 14

2.3 Data Collection 15

2.4 Data Analysis 15

Chapter 3: A CDA of the three speeches 16

3.1 An Analysis of textual description 16

vii

3.1.1 Vocabulary used 16

3.1.2 Grammatical features 18

3.1.2.1 The use of personal pronoun 18

3.1.2.2 Modes of the sentences 20

3.1.2.3 Modality 21

3.1.2.4 Connective values of the text 22

3.1.3 Macro-structure of the text 25

3.2 Interpretation 27

3.2.1 Interpretation of situational context 27

3.2.2 Intertextual context and presupposition 29

3.2.3 Speech acts 31

3.2.4 Frames, Scripts and Schemata 32

3.2.5 Topic and point 33

3.3 Explanation 33

PART C: CONCLUSION 37

1 Summary of Findings 37

2 Conclusion 38

3 Implications 38

4 Suggestions for further study 39

REFERENCES 40 APPENDIX: ………I

I Protecting our security and values

II New Strategy in Afghanistan

III A Moment of Opportunity

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

2

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

2 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

3 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

4 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 terms of discoursal linguistic features?

3

2 What can the readers interpret from the discourse in terms of situational context and intertextual context?

3 Design of the study

The study is divided into three main parts:

- Part 1- Introduction (rationale, scope, aims, research questions, and methodology)

- Part 2- Development:

 Chapter 1- Literature Review:

 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)

4

PART B: DEVELOPMENT

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

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 related to the context and its or their functions

―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

6

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

(Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981)

1.1.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis

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 discourse can highly impact an audience and communicators when it is purposely utilized

7

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)

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

A Vocabulary

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 euphemistic expressions?

Are there markedly formal or informal words?

8

3 What expressive values do words have?

4 What metaphors are used?

B Grammar

5 What experiential values do grammatical features have?

What types of process and participants predominate?

Is agency unclear?

Are processes what they seem?

Are normalizations used?

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?

C Textual structures

9 What interactional conventions are used?

Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?

9

10 What larger scale structures does the text have?

Fairclough (2001: 92-93)

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

1.2.2 Interpretation

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

MR in turn shape discourses; and discourses sustain or change MR, which in turn sustain

or change structures

Figure 2: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001:136)

11

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

LITERATURE REVIEW

1.3 Review of previous studies

Aning‘s (2010) ‗War on Terror‘ used the method of Critical Discourse Analysis to examine the connections between development aid, security and the War on Terror The author found that aid programs under Obama administration had become highly securitized and politicized as a weapon for the realization of the goals of war on terror after 9/11

Valentina Taddeo (2010) conducted a strategic analysis to examine the U.S response to global terrorism and its campaign in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2010 This article is to understand the fallacies, missteps, and misunderstanding of the U.S approach

in Afghanistan It is also to evaluate the lessons learnt and some possible strategies for achieving long-term stability and security in Afghanistan

Ellison (2013) analyzes Obama‘s two speeches on national defense called the War

on Terror (one in May 2009 and another in May 2013) by using the method of critical discourse analysis The analysis uses the theory of Michel Foucault that power can be used to influence knowledge and morality On the one hand, the President uses his discourse to create metanarrative which appears compassionate, emotive, pragmatic, legal and inevitable On the other hand, his speeches were perceived as encouraging criticism

of two parties (Democratic and Republican), merging the Republican morality complex with the Democratic judicial perspective

Obviously, the issue has received considerable attention from scholars and different approaches have been used in such studies Therefore, I would also like to focus

on the subject of terrorism and decided to employ Critical Discourse Analysis as the method of this study However, what makes this study differ from other studies on terrorism is that it focuses on the linguistic portrayal of terrorism in the three speeches of American President Barack Hussein Obama

13

Chapter 2:

Methodology 2.1 A context where the three speeches came out by Obama on terrorism and anti- terrorism

Wooffitt (2002, as cited in Jufri, 2009:28) argues that context deals with the assumption on when and where the speaking occurs by considering the topic, setting, participants and the culture involved Language is normally is used as an instrument of communication in a particular context by a speaker or writer, not only to express meaning, but also to achieve intentions As a crucial factor in communication, context should be regarded as a social construction (Akman, 2000, as cited in Wiberg, 2003) Understanding context of communication will lead the communication to be well understood and avoid the misunderstandings between the speaker and the hearer

The first speech ―protecting our values and our security” was delivered at the

National Archives Museum, Washington, DC on May 21, 2009 Before the time this speech given, on his second day in office in January 2009, President Barack Obama signed executive orders to suspend military tribunals of terror suspects, close all secret prisons and detention camps run by the CIA—including the infamous Guantanamo Bay prison—and ban coercive interrogation methods Obama's orders also said that the C.I.A can only use the 19 interrogation methods mentioned in the Army Field Manual The move ended Bush's policy of allowing the CIA to use methods that were not permitted by the military "We believe we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but we can effectively obtain the intelligence we need," Obama said According to him, the reason for the close of Guantanamo is that this facility makes a bad impression on American politics This place is famous for brutal interrogation techniques for detainees, which risks the lives

of American troops and increase the will of enemies to fight this nation instead of keep the American safe

objective of the U.S intervention is al-Qaida who is protected by Taliban regime However, after eight years of confrontation and seven years after the collapse of the Taliban regime, al-Qaida is far from being defeated The Taliban still have a strong influence and Afghanistan is neither stable nor secure Under the Obama Presidency, the

14

U.S strategy in Afghanistan has undergone another change 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 (Haley, 2012) 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

Osama bin Laden during an address to the nation from the White House in Washington

Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight with U.S forces in Pakistan

just as he begins campaigning for re-election in 2012 Bin Laden‘s death created an image

of strength During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to bring U.S troops home from Iraq while boosting the war effort in Afghanistan and U.S efforts to pursue bin Laden With bin Laden's body in U.S custody, the president can say he has fulfilled another pledge, giving him credibility as he tries to hold on to the White House In the wake of Osama bin Laden's death, Obama appealed to people in the Middle East to reject

Al Qaeda's ideology In this speech at the State Department, President 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

2.2 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

(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=24hours

(3) A moment of opportunity (delivered on May 19, 2011) from

and-north-africa%20

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-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

2.4 Data Analysis

After the data were gathered, I did some steps as follows The first step was the

analysis of linguistic features This step was done to answer the first research problem

“How are Obama’s power and covert ideologies on terrorism and anti-terrorism expressed in terms of linguistic features?” The second step was the analysis of the

relationship between text and social interaction This step was aimed to answer the second problem of this research Thirdly, an analysis of the impacts of the speeches on society in terms of the fight against terrorism was conducted The forth step was discussion I discussed the findings of the study based on the result of the data analysis Lastly, conclusions were formulated in accordance to the findings of the study

Table 1: Two ideological contrastive classification schemes Actions by Those who are in favor of

Terrorism

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)

did not abide by any law of war

(OBM1-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)

17

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

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

46-48)

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

273-274)

The term ―I‖ is used 135 times in which 63 times are in OBM1, 46 times in OBM2 and 26 times in OBM3 It is viewed as a strategic move of asserting his power, authority and his position Before the public eyes, he is a responsible and determined black man

who is worthy of being the US‘s President and being the commander-in-Chief

3.1.2.2 Modes of the sentences

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

In these three speeches, most of the sentences are declaratives No questions are found in the discourse It meant that the thoughts he wants to convey may be clear, and he is in the position of power to inform others of his plan against terrorists There is no tolerance for those who broke the peace in the US

Besides, only two inclusive imperatives were found:

- Let us remember that the first peaceful protests were in the streets of Tehran …

(line122)

- Let us hope … (line 274)

21

Normally, Let us is used to confirm that both the audience and the speaker are on the same

boat and the duty to do something is assigned to all people Yet, these imperatives are not functioning as commands; they sound more like suggestions or appeals to hearers for the courage, generosity, and readiness to sacrifice

3.1.2.3 Modality

The term of modality, as defined by Fairclough (1989) is ―a lexico-grammatical category featuring the speaker‘s relationship with their utterance and the relationship between proposition and objective reality‖

Modality refers to an intermediate range between extreme positive and negative; as

it may objectively express speaker‘s judgment toward the topic, showing the social role relationship, scale of formality and power relationship From the viewpoint of a critical discourse analyzer, there are two dimensions to modality, depending on what direction authority is oriented They are relational modality and expressive modality By relational modality, we mean it is a matter of authority of one participant in relations to others By expressive modality, we mean it is the matter of the speaker or writer‘s authority with respect to the truth or probability of a representation of reality

The modal verb “must” used most frequently in Obama‘s speech In his speeches,

the modality becomes prominent through a range of modal auxiliary verbs In terms of relational modality, the modal auxiliary verb of MUST is used with 15 times Basing

on the statistics, it is easy to see the prevalence of MUST in the relation modality dimension MUST signals obligation MUST is used mostly with the pronoun WE It is still an obligation but the speaker‘s authority is not very strong Obama only urges listeners to act together with him It is Obama‘s personal feeling that, what WE MUST

do is extremely necessary What Obama is seeking here is not forcing others to do what

he wants He simply lets people see the urgency of the issue and then seeks the

approval, support and cooperation in his succeeding actions

OBM1: “we must use all elements of our power to defeat it.” (line 12-13)

“we must recognize that We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those

who fall in this category…” (line 170-172)

OBM2: “…we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the

long-term consequences of our actions.” (line 72-73)

22

―We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability

and capacity of our partners in the region.” (line 89)

OBM3: ―Yet we must acknowledge that…: (line 64)

“we must proceed with a sense of humility…” (line 80)

In expressive modality, the speaker/writer‘s authority is concerned with respect

to the truth or probability of a representation of reality, i.e the modality of the speaker/writer‘s evaluation of truth Regarding this dimension of the speech, we have CAN (51 instances), CANNOT (24 instances), MAY (8 instances), and NEED (14 instance) Apart from listed modals to show the probability, the modality marker WILL

is also worth being paid attention WILL is found in 176 places in the speech WILL has some trait in its meaning to show the possibility but it is different from modal auxiliary verbs To modals, the possibility comes from the speaker‘s evaluation while the possibility of WILL arises from the reality The speaker considers the event of WILL comes as a matter of fact

OBM1: ―I will work with Congress and legal authorities across the political spectrum on

legislation to ensure that these Commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.‖ (line150)

OBM2: ―We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq…” (line 32)

OBM3: “there will be good days, and bad days… (line 54 )

Obama use WILL to draw a bright future of beautiful days and no terrorists for his country and for those who are in favor of peace He persuades everybody that as long as

he was the leader of America, he will bring his citizens peaceful and happy life

3.1.2.4 Connective values of the text

According to Fairclough (2001:108), connective values are the values formal features have when connecting together parts of texts Cohesion can involve vocabulary links between sentences – repetition of words, or the use of related words and connectors which mark various temporal, spatial and logical relationships between sentences

 Repetition

The repetition of words in the speech contributes to the expression of the speaker‘s ideology, which helps us recognize some important points that the speaker wants to convey:

―It is the reason why enemy soldiers ….”

23

“It is the reason why America has benefited ….”

“It is the reason why we've been able to overpower the iron fist of fascism…”

(line 38 – 42)

The speaker wants to emphasize and persuade the audience that all the things that

he is planning to fight against the terrorists today are a must He and his citizens cannot tolerate the enemies any more They have to impose the strictest punishment to the dangerous men

 Connectors

According to Fairclough (2001), logical connectors need to be focused although not all connectors can cue ideological assumption It is impossible for me to list all logical connectors in Obma‘s speeches Here I just list one of them which may show the underlying ideology to the audience

OBM1: “I did not do this because I disagreed with …, or because I reject their legal

rationale I released the memos because the existence of that approach to interrogation

was already widely known.”

OBM2: ―I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe…”

OBM3: “…the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they

speak to a longing for freedom…”

The effect of using ―because‖ is persuasion Persuasion is a kind of demonstration When we see a thing having fully been demonstrated, we become persuaded Aristotle (as cited in Beard, 2000) refers to persuasive devices as persuasion through personality and stance, persuasion through the arousal of emotion and persuasion through reasoning All these categories are used by the speaker The real purpose is to manipulate the audience into agreeing with policies which really serve only the desire of the politician to gain or keep power In these speeches, Obama used emotion to persuade the audience (because I believe…), he wants to build close relationship between people and himself He wants to make his audience agree with him and his government and shows himself as a sincere person

3.1.3 Macro-structure of the text

24

In the previous parts, the speaker‘s ideology hidden behind words from the microstructure perspective was uncovered by breaking the speech into small units (vocabulary, grammar, cohesive devices and grammatical features) This part will look at macro-structure of the text to understand communicative purpose of the speaker

Three speeches have the same pattern as follows:

1 Identify the purpose of the speech

OBM1: ―my single most important responsibility as President is to keep the American

people safe‖ (line 7)

OBM2: “I want to speak to you tonight about our effort in Afghanistan the nature of

our commitment there, the scope of our interests, and the strategy that my administration will pursue to bring this war to a successful conclusion.” (line2- 5)

OBM3: “Today, I would like to talk about this change – the forces that are driving it, and

how we can respond in a way that advances our values and strengthens our security… this July we will begin to bring our troops home and continue transition to Afghan lead” ( line2)

For the beginning of each speech, Obama stated that his common purpose through the speeches was to protect American security and to strengthen its values

2 Recall tremendous events by terrorists

OBM1: “We did not ask for this fight On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four

airplanes and used them to murder nearly 3,000 people… they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more” (line 7-

9)

OBM2: “To address these issues, it is important to recall why America and our allies

were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place… they could have also struck at one of the great symbols of our democracy in Washington, and killed many more.‖ (line 10 -11)

OBM3: ―Bin Laden was no martyr He was a mass murderer who offered a message of

hate – an insistence that Muslims had to take up arms against the West,…” (line7)

25

When being reminded about what the terrorists did, 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

3 State the ongoing problems

OBM1: “al Qaeda is actively planning to attack us again…we must use all elements of our power to defeat it ” (line 11-12)

“…enemies who did not abide by any law of war would present new challenges to our application of the law” (line 46-47)

“the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security”(line 87 – 90)

In this speech, the problem that Obama wanted to emphasize is whether the government should close the Guantanamo Bay where the so-called terrorists are being kept The President believed that instead of keeping American safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security It is ―a rallying cry for our enemies‖

OBM2: “Taliban has begun to take control over swaths of Afghanistan….”(line41)

“The people and governments of both Afghanistan and Pakistan are endangered…we know that al Qaeda and other extremists seek nuclear weapons.”(92-95)

Afghanistan is an American ally Here in this speech, the President revealed that the security of Afghanistan and Pakistan was endangered They can be attacked again by the Taliban

OBM3: “in Libya, we saw the prospect of imminent massacre….” (line 104)

“in Egypt and Tunisia, where the stakes are high –as Tunisia was at the vanguard of this democratic wave…”(line 95)

The problem that Obama stated in this speech is that American allies were at stack

4 Solutions

OBM1: “banned the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques”(line63-64)

“…reviewing each of the detainee cases at Guantanamo”(line 122)

26

“…reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law”

Contrary to President Bush who used torture as a great propaganda tool for those who fought against Americans, Obama banned torture He believes that such interrogation techniques just serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of enemies

to fight America, while decreasing the will of others to work with this country Furthermore, preventing al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates from attacking America again, Obama said that his Administration must have clear, defensible and lawful standards to apply to those who are intending to attack America

OBM2: ―we will pursue a military strategy …over the next 18 months”(line 144)

Second, we will work … take advantage of improved security.(line 117)

Third, we will act … of an interconnected world acting alone”.(line 132)

Afghanistan is a longstanding American partner 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

OBM3: ―First, it will be the policy of the United States to promote reform across the

region, and to support transitions to democracy.‖ (line 93)

“We must also build on our efforts to broaden our engagement beyond elites, so that we reach the people who will shape the future – particularly young people.”(line 143-145)

“We will continue to make good on the commitments that I made in Cairo – to build networks of entrepreneurs, and expand exchanges in education; to foster cooperation in science and technology, and combat disease”.(line 147)

The ultimate goal of Obama‘s engagement was to end terrorism Regarding Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Lybia and other American allies, the U.S wanted to be sure that these countries would never be used to launch terrorist attacks against the U.S or its allies

27

3.2 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

3.2.1 Interpretation of situational context

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?‖

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

Who’s involved?

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