A dicourse analysis of president g w bushs speech on the importance of freedom in the middle east = phân tích diễn ngôn bài phát biểu của tổng thống g w bush về tầm quan trọng của tự do ở trung đông

Nunan 1995 claims that a text, or a discourse, is a stretch of language that may be longer than one sentence while Crystal1992, p.72 states that: a text may be spoken or written, prose o

VINH UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT

**********

đặng thị hải chung

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENT G.W.BUSH’S SPEECH

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM IN THE MIDDLE EAST

(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGễN BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA TỔNG THỐNG G.W.BUSH VỀ TẦM QUAN TRỌNG CỦA TỰ DO Ở TRUNG ĐễNG)

GRADUATION THESIS FIELD: Discourse Analysis

VINH 2008

VINH UNIVERSITY FOREIGN LANGUAGE DEPARTMENT

**********

A DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF PRESIDENT G.W.BUSH’S SPEECH

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FREEDOM IN THE MIDDLE EAST

(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA TỔNG THỐNG G.W.BUSH VỀ TẦM QUAN TRỌNG CỦA TỰ DO Ở TRUNG ĐÔNG)

GRADUATION THESIS FIELD: Discourse Analysis

Student : Đặng Thị Hải Chung, 45A1 Supervisor: Phan Thị Hương, M A

VINH 2008

Acknowledgement

First of all, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my

supervisor, M.A Phan Thị Hương, for her whole-hearted assistance,

excellent advice, valuable materials and detailed comments, without which

I would not have completed my thesis

Second, I wish to thank to Mr Trần Bá Tiến, M.A for his useful

suggestions and materials.I am also grateful to all my teachers in the Faculty of Foreign Language for their great help

Finally, my sincere thanks are due to my beloved family and my close friends whose love and care have encouraged me to finish my thesis completely

Table of content

Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

Table of content ii

Part A: Introduction 1

1 Rationale of the study 1

2 Aims of the study 1

3 Scope of the study 2

4 Methods of the study 2

5 Design of the study 2

Part B: Development 4

Chapter 1: Theoretical back ground 4

1.1 Discourse and Discourse Analysis 4

1.1.1 Discourse 4

1.1.2 Discourse versus Text 4

1.1.3 Types of Discourse 5

1.1.4 Discourse Analysis 6

1.2 Spoken language versus written language 7

1.3 Context 8

1.3.1 What is context? 8

1.3.2 Context versus co-text 9

1.4 Cohesion and coherence 10

1.5 Modality 11

Chapter 2: Data analysis and Discussion 13

2.1 Background of the speech 13

2.2 Data Analysis 13

2.2.1 Pronoun choice 13

2.2.1.1 First person pronouns 15

2.2.1.2 Second person pronoun 18

2.2.1.3 Third person pronouns 20

2.2.2 Lexicalization 21

2.2.2.1 Lexical repetition 21

2.2.2.2 Negative lexicalization 25

2.2.3 Naming referents 26

2.2.4 Modality 28

2.2.4.1 Modal verbs 28

2.2.4.2 Other verbs and adverbs 29

2.3 Interpretation and discussion 30

2.3.1 Pronoun choice 30

2.3.2 Lexicalization 31

2.3.3 Naming 32

2.3.4 Modality 32

Chapter 3: Application for learning and teaching 33

3.1 The importance of authentic material 33

3.2 Application 33

Part C: Conclusion 37

1 Review of major findings 37

2 Suggestions for further works 37

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

In addition, analyzing political discourse is of my interest Among those speeches, G.W.Bush's one on the importance of freedom in the Middle East released on January 13, 2008 strongly catches my attention I can apply related theories of discourse analysis in examining this discourse

to see how Mr Bush uses linguistic means to achieve his communicative purposes

More importantly, the speech is made by a native speaker and discusses the burning issues that the world concerns Thus, it is an authentic material which can be used for language learning and teaching It

is helpful for language learners in terms of learning language and getting to know about the world

For all the above-mentioned reasons, the author decides to conduct a discourse analysis of President G.W.Bush's speech on the importance of freedom in the Middle East

2 Aims of the study

The aims of the study are:

- To investigate how the President's ideology are manifested through linguistic means

- To define the effect of the socio-political context on the representation of the President Bush's ideology

- To suggest some practical implications in teaching and learning authentic

materials

3 Scope of the study

First, within the scope of this thesis, we wish to touch upon some prominent features of a political speech to explore what linguistic strategies

Mr Bush employs as well as how his ideologies are realized in the speech

Second, during President G.W.Bush's tour of the Middle East from 8

to 16 January 2008, Mr Bush visited 6 countries and made a number of speeches However, we only focus on the linguistic features of the speech made by the President G.W.Bush on January 13, 2008 in the United Arab Emirates

Finally, we adopt the framework to analyze a political speech including personal pronouns and lexicalization provided by Hilary Hillier (2004) and two additional features: modality, naming referents in the study

4 Methods of the study

- Reviewing related theories

- Quantifying and classifying materials

- Analyzing the selected data

- Reaching some conclusions on the subject-matter under investigation and accordingly giving necessary comments

5 Design of the study

There are three main parts in this paper:

Part A: Introduction

This part presents the rationale, aims, scope, methods and design of the thesis

Part B: Development

This part demonstrates three chapters:

Chapter1: Theoretical back ground

Chapter 2: Data analysis and Discussion

Chapter 3: Application for learning and teaching

Part C: Conclusion

The part summaries the major findings and provides some practical applications as well as some suggestions for further researches This part is accompanied by a list of reference

Part B: Development

Chapter 1: Theoretical background

1.1 Discourse and Discourse Analysis

1.1.1 Discourse

The term "discourse" has been defined in different ways According

to David Nunan (1995), a discourse "is stretch of language that may be longer than one sentence" Barbara Johnstone (2002, p.2) asserts that

"discourse usually means actual instances of communication in the medium

of language" Moreover, Brown and Yule (1983, p.1) state very clearly" Discourse …is language in use "

In 1989, Guy Cook claims that there is one kind of language " which has been used to communicate something and is felt to be coherent".This kind of language - language in use, for communication is called "discourse

" Cook (1995, p.198) sees discourse as ''stretches of language perceived to

be meaningful, unified and purposive'' which seems to be widely acceptable In this thesis, the notion seems to be the best to adopt

1.1.2 Discourse versus Text

The distinction between two terms text and discourse are rather confusing There is disagreement about the meaning of two terms

For some writers, the terms seem to be used almost interchangeably Nunan (1995) claims that a text, or a discourse, is a stretch of language that may be longer than one sentence while Crystal(1992, p.72) states that: a text may be spoken or written, prose or verse, dialogue or monologue It may be any thing from a single proverb to a whole play from a momentary cry for help to all day discussion in a committee

Whereas, some other linguists see the two terms in different ways: Brow and Yule (1983, p.6) who "use text as a technical term to refer to the

verbal record of a communicative act'' Moreover, Crystal (1992, p.25) defines discourse as " a continuous stretch of (especially spoken) language larger that a sentence, often constituting a coherent unit, such as a sermon, argument, joke or narrative " and text as "a piece of naturally occurring spoken, written or signed discourse identified for purposes of analysis It is often a language unit with a definable function, such as a conversation, a poster."

From the above points of view, discourse can be perceived as a whole communicative process, whereas text should be understood as the verbal record or the linguistic product of that communicative process

In brief, discourse and text are different but interrelated We advocate the claim of Widdowson (1984, p.100) suggesting that "Discourse

is a communicative process by means of interaction Its situational outcome

is a change in a state of affairs: information is conveyed, intentions made clear, its linguistic product is Text "

The first of these is transactional language It is no doubt that language is used to convey information from person to person It is also used to get business done

For example, when a doctor tells a patient how to take medicine, transactional language is used Other cases would include a teacher

lecturing his students on a subject, or a neighbor telling how he lost his car,

or someone giving direction "you should go straight a few blocks and turn right, you can not miss it"

The second type is interpersonal Obviously, humans use language not only to transmit information but also to establish rapport, personal relations or simply to maintain relations That means language is used for the purpose of establishing roles and relationships, consolidating relationships, expressing solidarity A simple example is someone at a bus-stop says to another person standing by: It's nice, isn't it? That would make

no sense to think that he actually gives the information that "it is nice" Rather it is primarily to indicate his wish to start a talk with the other person

This distinction between language which is used to get goods and services, and language which is used to fulfill a social purpose is a common one in the literature (see, for example, Brown and Yule, 1983) This does not mean that a text will only exhibit one or other of these functions Many interactions that are essentially transactional will also exhibit social functions, while essentially social interactions can contain transactional elements Both transactional and interpersonal functions of language are taken into account in this study

1.1.4 Discourse Analysis

Michael McCarthy (1991) states that discourse analysis is concerned with the study of the relationship between language and the contexts in which it is used It means that it involves the study of language in use: written texts of all kinds, and spoken data, from conversations to highly institutionalized forms of talk It deals with language in use, used to communicate something and felt to be coherent In other words, discourse analysis investigates the way sentences are put to serve communicative use

Therefore, discourse analysis can be considered to be the study of how and for what purpose language is used in a certain context of situation, and the linguistic means to implement these purposes

1.2 Spoken language versus written language

Spoken language and written language are seen to have common features as well as different ones Some linguists see common points between these two forms of language David Nunan (1995) claims that they both perform an equivalent range of broad functions It means that they both are employed to get things done, to provide information and to entertain Approvingly, Michael McCarthy (1991, p.150) claims that "both spoken and written discourses are dependent on their immediate contexts to

a greater or lesser degree", and "implicitness and explicitness [of the language being used] will depend on what is being communicated to whom, rather than merely on whether the discourse is spoken or written"

On the other hand, it has been widely agreed by linguists that there are differences between written and spoken language In 1985, Halliday states that writing emerged in society as a result of cultural changes which met new communicative needs that could not be satisfied by the spoken language Brown and Yule (1983) additionally propose the differences between written and spoken language are considered in terms of forms

In short, although spoken and written language are two different forms of language, there are common things between them and the differences are not absolute Moreover, the features that we tend to associate with written language can sometimes occur in spoken language and vice versa This means that some spoken texts will be more like written texts than others, when some written texts will be more like spoken texts than others Since the speech under investigation is written to be spoken and features of both written and spoken language can be found in the data

1.3 Context

1.3.1 What is context?

The concept of context of situation (or context in short) has been

well defined by many linguists It has been widely agreed that context plays

an important part in interpreting a discourse

According to Halliday and Hasan (1976), when responding to a passage or speech of writing, the listener or reader uses both linguistic clues and situational ones: linguistically, he responds to specific features which bind the passage together, the pattern of connection, structures that

we are referring to as cohesion Situationally, he takes into account all he knows of the environment: what is going on, what part the language is playing, who is involved

Approvingly, David Nunan (1995) suggests a concept and a classification of context as follows:

Context refers to the situation giving rise to the discourse, and within which the discourse is embedded There are two different types of context The first of these is the linguistic context - the language that surrounds or accompanies the piece of discourse under analysis The second is non-linguistic or experiential context within which the discourse takes place Non- linguistic contexts include: the type of communicative event (for example, joke, story, lecture, greeting, conversation); the topic; the purpose

of event, the setting including location, time of day, season of year and physical aspects of the situation (for example, size of the room, arrangement of furniture); the participants and the relationships between them; and the background knowledge and assumptions underlying the communicative event

And the importance of context towards discourse interpretation is apparently undeniable, as Cook (1989) asserts:

There are good arguments for limiting the field of study to make it manageable, but it is also true to say that the answer to the question of what gives discourse its unity may be impossible to give without considering the

world at large: the context

Cook, in the same study of language in and out of context, adds that when we receive a linguistic message, we pay attention to many other factors apart from the language itself, which he terms "paralinguistic features" In receiving messages, we are also influenced by the situation we are in, "by our cultural and social relationships with the participants, by what we know and what we assume the sender knows

For all the facts above, both linguistic and non-linguistic contexts are taken into account in this study It is because of the fact that the speech, as

an actual use of language, is obviously concerned with linguistic factors but the interpretation of that use greatly relies on non- linguistic features of discourse as well

1.3.2 Context versus co-text

Both context and co-text are important in discourse interpretation but obviously they are different from one another Context is concerned with non- linguistic (external) elements whereas co-text with linguistic (internal) ones

David Nunan (1995) holds that co-text is considered the linguistic element and context the non-linguistic one In specific, Brown and Yule (1983) state that "any sentence other than the first in a fragment of discourse will have the whole of its interpretation forcibly constrained by the proceeding text" and "the words occur in discourse are constrained by their co-text." Halliday, additionally, proposes that co-text is the stretch of language that occurs before or after the utterance which needs to be interpreted

1.4 Cohesion

1.4.1 Cohesion and coherence

analysis They are tightly related to each other However, their relations to discourse analysis are clearly different

The important thing is that cohesion and coherence are interrelated Halliday and Hasan prove that cohesion is a semantic relation, and that cohesion occurs where the interpretation of some elements in the discourse

is dependent on that of another The one presupposes the other, in the sense that it can not be effectively decoded except by recourse to it Therefore, cohesion is of great significance to the interpretation of discourse or coherence

Cohesion is seen as one of the ways of creating coherence but it is a mistake to identify it with coherence, and to assume that there is one-to-one correspondence between them Coherence sometimes can be realized without any recourse to cohesion Let us have a look at the simple following example:

A: My car's broken down B: There's a garage down the road

The mini- exchange shows that although cohesion is missing here, the utterances of A and B still tick and the text has overall coherence

"There's a garage down the road" is connected with the fact that a garage is where people have their broken cars fixed

Furthermore, many linguists widely approve of Nunan's separation (1993) between cohesion and coherence He states "coherence is the extent

to which discourse is perceived to hang together rather than a set of unrelated sentences or utterances" and cohesion is "formal links showing the relationships among clauses and among sentences in discourse" It is

therefore safe to state that cohesion is of linguistic means while coherence

is perceived by language interpreters

Additionally, Halliday and Hasan [7; 23], a text is a passage of discourse which is coherent in two regards It is coherent with respect to the context of situation, and therefore consistent in register Moreover, a text is coherent with regard to itself and therefore cohesive Hence, cohesion is only a guide to coherence and coherence is something created

by the reader in the act of reading a text

- Is in the text

- Grammatical / lexical links

- Clues / signals / guide to coherence

- Is in the reader / listener 's mind -The feeling that the text makes sense

- The reader has to create coherence

Table 1.1 Cohesion and coherence

In short, Cohesion plays a greatly important part in creating

coherence but does not guarantee coherence, which is best considered as the feeling that the discourse hangs together and that it makes sense

1.5 Modality

* Concept of modality

in the creation of discourse Palmer (1986) suggests a concept of modality

as follows: "Modality in language is concerned with utterances of factual kinds and with subjective characteristics of an utterance and that subjectivity is of the greatest importance for the understanding of modality"

non-The view point of Palmer is much similar to that of Downing and Locke (1985) who claim that modality is defined as the semantic category

by which the speakers express their attitude towards the event contained in the proposition as possibility, probability, and necessity

* Modal meanings

As Holmes (1983) and Hermeren (1978) assert, modal meanings are degrees of certainty, possibility, probability, volition, permission, and obligation

Michael McCarthy (1991) additionally claims that important information about the stance and the attitude of the sender to the message can be carried by all the words They are concerned with interpersonal meaning, assertion, tentativeness, commitment, etc

* Ways of marking modality

According to Michael McCarthy (1991), modality is often thought of

as the province of the closed class of modal verbs(must, may, can, will, etc.) and treated as part of grammar of English, but a large number of

"lexical" words (nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs) carry the same or similar meanings to the modal verbs

of modality includes verbs such as appear, assume, doubt, guess, look as

if, suggest, think, adverbs such as actually, certainly, inevitably, obviously

and related nouns and adjectives It is noticeable that verbs and adverbs are more frequently used to convey modality than nouns and adjectives

In short, the all-pervasiveness of modality in spoken and written language is undeniable Hence, it is necessary to take account of modality when interpreting the speech

Chapter 2: Data analysis and Discussion

2.1 Background of the speech

Generally speaking, context plays an important part in analysing and interpreting a discourse It is consequently necessary to give some brief information about the context of the speech

Mr Bush is considered to be the most powerful leader of America which is one of the most powerful nations in the world He went to the Middle East when he had exactly a year left in office A lot of unfinished work needs to be done before the moment of time

It is noticing that the Middle East has been known to be place that has suffered so much from stagnancy It is believed that the cause of this situation is the lack of freedom as the President Bush (2003) claims" this freedom deficit undermines human development and is one of the most painful manifestations of lagging political development"

During the trip, Mr Bush has been to six countries to solve sensitive issues: the fight against violent extremists, freedom and justice in the Middle East, Iran's ambition and Reconciliation in the Holy land And on January 13, 2008 in the United Arab Emirates, he made this speech This is his usual speech about "Freedom and Democracy" but this time he has seemed more nuanced in his statements on this trip than he perhaps had in the past He also seemed to have a firm grip of the issues as he saw them

2.2 Data analysis

2.2.1 Pronoun choice

According to Fairclough (2000), identified use of personal pronouns

is considered to be significant in discourse analysis Therefore, a detailed examination of all personal pronoun choices is likely to be a fruitful area of enquiry, in assessing how personal reference (including speaker and

relationship between speaker and audience is perceived In this part, we will take account of how Mr President uses personal pronouns, especially

first person pronouns "I", "we", and second person pronoun "you"

Moreover, how it tells us about his ideologies will also be under consideration

It is necessary to note that the analysis includes the designation

"personal pronouns" all of the pronouns which Crystal (1996, p.148) and Quirk (1985, p346) categorize as the "central pronouns", that is the personal, possessive and reflexive pronouns And they have distinctions of persons: the first person refers to the speaker (I), or to the speaker and one

or more others (we); the second person refers to the person (s) addressed (you); the third person refers to the one or more other persons or things (he/she/it, they) Interpretation of possible meanings in each case would be considered at the stage of analysis

The personal pronouns are set out in Table 2.1 below

Person Personal Possessive Reflexive

First I, me we, us my,

mine

Second you you your,

yours

your, yours

his, her, hers, its

their, theirs

him-/

/itself

her-themselves

Table 2.1 Personal pronouns

In specific, we wish to present our findings about the different pronouns that Bush chooses Results have been calculated according to

Bush's choice in each case and as a proportion of total pronouns used overall

The choices for all persons are therefore examined in some detail in the following subsections

Table 2.2 Personal Pronouns (including possessive and reflexive):

in proportions to total pronouns used

This table shows that Mr President selects a great number of different pronouns However, the noticeable thing is that his choices for second person and third person pronouns make up a great proportion

2.2.1.1 First person pronouns

The table 2.3 shows the number of first person pronouns used, further differentiating between singular and plural pronouns It illustrates that total first person pronouns make up 25.4 % of total pronouns It is notable that Bush uses a far higher proportion of first person plural pronoun than first person singular one His use of "we" and its variants is more than six times as often as "I": 22.1 % of all first person plural pronouns compared with only 3.3 % of singular ones The different choices and their meanings are examined below

First person plural

Table 2.3 First person pronouns - singular and plural:

numbers and proportions of total pronouns used

* The use of first person singular pronoun

of the world's most powerful leaders Additionally, this is an inter-nation speech in which the speaker is the guest and the audience is the hosts Thus, diplomatic strategies are used to make a rapport with the audience

At the beginning of the speech, Mr .Bush utilizes the pronoun "I" to

refer to him as an individual He constructs an impression that he brings with him a spirit of understanding, appreciation and hope

Doctor Aida, thank you very much for the kind introduction (1) Ministers, members of the diplomatic corps, and distinguished guests: I am honored by the opportunity to stand on Arab soil and speak to the people of this nation and this region (2)… I'm proud to stand in a nation where the people have an opportunity to build a better future for themselves and their families (18)

In addition, he uses "I" to reinforce the image of his own competency It may result in a feeling that Mr Bush is exerting his personal authority and control on other people or nations His stance is personal and unique:

So today I would like to speak directly to the people of the Middle

East (142)

* The use of first person plural pronoun

As mentioned above, "we" represents the speaker together with some other person(s), among the addressee(s) may or may not included And

"addressee " is used in preference to hearer or listener in order to suggest the meaning" person designed by the speaker as recipient of the communication" Hence, the first person plural pronoun ''we'' (with its variants) is, of course, ambiguous in terms of potential meaning, because it can mean either inclusion or exclusion of addressee/s

It would seem that there are two potential referents for ''we'': an inclusive ''we'' - the speaker and audience and possibly other people contrasting with an exclusive ''we'', excluding the audience

In the first case, ''we'' is inclusive of addressee It is important to see that the relevant addressee can be extended to include the people of Arab in general

As Suleiman and O'Connell (2007, p.77) claims, "The use of pronouns and address terms reveals the speaker's perspective by forging closeness or distance with other groups" Thus, we can see obviously that the use of inclusive "we/ our" takes an important role in representing the common ground between the speaker and the addressee in the speech

Talking about the fight against extremism, Bush uses lots of

inclusive" we" as follows:

The fight against the forces of extremism is the great ideological

struggle of our time (52) And in this fight, our nations have a weapon

more powerful than bombs or bullets (53) It is the desire for freedom and

justice written into our hearts by Almighty God and no terrorist or tyrant can take that away (54) And together we'll defeat our common enemies

(158)

The repetition of inclusive "we" implies the fact that these nations have the same ideologies and fight against extremism It consequently makes the audience believe that "we" is different from "them" and the fight against extremists requires cooperation among nations Thus, they must have a real stake in the common fight for the common desire This strategy

is helpful in the solidarity enhancement between the speaker and the audience

In the second instance, the ''we'' is exclusive of addressee: that is,

"we" refers to the Americans (including the speaker) It is considered to

bear some close relevance to the addressees known as the Arab people (called "you")

In his usual speeches about international issues, President Bush imposes power on the other countries He is assumed to have the right to speak to the entire nations by using exclusive "we" In this speech, he additionally shows the support of the Americans (called "we") to the Arab people in the fight against terrorists or extremists and then in the process of reconciliation for the region The repetition of "we" helps bring about a feeling that the United States of America is consequently said to be the best friend of the Arabs

The United States joins you in your commitment to the freedom and security of this region and we will not abandon you to terrorists or extremists (51)… And we will support you as you work to ensure the security of your people and bring peace and reconciliation to the Holy

Land (151)

2.2.1.2 Second person pronoun

The table 2.4 indicates the number of second person pronouns that

Mr Bush employs in proportion to his total pronoun usage Second person pronouns represent a rather large proportion of total pronoun used- 90 uses holding 33.2 % Mr Bush, therefore, makes frequent explicit reference to

an addressee or group of addressees who are separate from the speaker

Total pronouns Total second

Table 2.4 Second person pronouns: numbers and proportions

of total pronoun used

By using second person pronoun, Mr Bush portrays the audience

repetitions of "you/your", the positive image of the audience is directly addressed and accentuated Through the appreciation of economics' achievements, holding election, and freedom for women, Mr Bush implies that he understands the people here

Beginning with the revered father of this country Sheikh Zayed

you have succeeded in building a prosperous society out of the desert (13) You have opened your doors to the world economy (14) You have

encouraged women to contribute to the development of your nation and they have occupied some of your highest ministerial posts (15) You have held historic elections for the Federal National Council (16) You have

shown the world a model of a Muslim state that is tolerant toward people

of other faiths (17)

Added to that, Fortanet (2005) states that "you" are frequently used

to express an exhortation to the audience And in this speech, Mr Bush strengthens the rapport with particular audience by making frequent reference to group of addressees It can be found in these paragraphs below:

To the people of Israel: You know that peace and reconciliation with your neighbors is the best path to long-term security (148)… To the

people of Iraq: You have made your choice for democracy, and you have

stood firm in face of terrible acts of murder (152)… To the people of Iran:

You are rich in culture and talent (158)…

However, it is noteworthy that the use of "you" in some certain cases allows a degree of ambiguity when "you" is employed to refer to Arab people in general, as a claim of solidarity with them

And finally, to the people of the Middle East: We hear your cries for justice (170) We share your desire for a free and prosperous future (171) And as you struggle to find your voice and make your way in this world, the United States will stand with you (172)

2.2.1.3 Third person pronouns

Table 2.5 compares the use of third person pronouns, differentiating between the singular and plural pronouns It shows that over two-fifth of Bush's pronouns is in the third person, seizing 41.4 % It is obvious that he prefers the plural form to the singular one

Third person plural

Table 2.5 Third person pronouns - singular and plural:

numbers and proportions of total pronouns used

The most distinctive feature of his using third person pronouns is drawing a negative portrayal for "them" By repeating "they "and its variants twelve times, he straightly addresses and underscores their passive

image This may result in the reader's mind a dark picture of violent

extremists

to impose their totalitarian ideology on millions (28) They hate freedom and they hate democracy because it fosters religious tolerance and allows people to chart their own future (29) They hate your government because it does not share their dark vision (30) They hate the United States because they know we stand with you in opposition to their brutal ambitions (31) And everywhere they go, they use murder and fear to foment instability to advance their aims (32)…

Moreover, the use of the singular form of the third person pronoun seem to be remarkable, especially when it is employed to describe" the

Iran is today the world's leading state sponsor of terror (34) It sends hundreds of millions of dollars to extremists around the world while its

own people face repression and economic hardship at home (35)…

against dangerous forces known as extremists and terrorist President

enhances the negative properties of extremists by reporting their gruesome acts as being accomplished by active, responsible agents that is by referring

to "they" in first, topical positions of clauses and sentences By doing so,

Mr Bush highlights their responsibilities for their negative activities which they have done

2.2.2 Lexicalization

2.2.2.1 Lexical repetition

The attention to lexical choices, specifically the extent of repetition involved in this case was paid It is believed that investigation of degrees of lexical repetition might show the speaker's attitude and ideology to specific topics and hence his assumptions about his particular audience's concerns

In this part, we are going to answer the question how his ideology is represented by his repeating vocabulary, including their derivates

a Orders of frequency

All lexical repetitions identified in the speech were totaled for each item The individual items chosen for repetition together with their frequency of occurrence were listed in the Table 2.6 The table indicates

that the words used most frequently are freedom, peace, nation, democracy,

United States Among them, freedom ranks first with 20 times of

occurrences, (plus 10 times of the adjective free) in the text

Lexical repetition Number of

As the result of the investigation implies, President Bush takes his

great interest in freedom(30 times) or its related terms such as