construction of false identities through the manipulation of information -a cda analysis aimed at...

7/27/2019 Construction of False Identities Through the Manipulation of Information -A CDA Analysis Aimed at Unmasking Real Intentions Behind Linguistic Choices

1/27

Derman 1

Licenciatura en Lengua y Literatura Inglesas - UCEL

Written Assignment n 3

Natalia Soledad Derman

PhD. Emilse Hidalgo

Lengua

5 November, 2010

Construction of false identities through the manipulation of information: a CDA analysis

aimed at unmasking real intentions behind linguistic choices

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to analyze a series of linguistic features present in an excerpt

from Bushs speech addressed to the nation on January 29, 2002 that will serve as examples

to sustain the hypothesis that through his State of the Union Address, former President

George W. Bush Jr. manipulated the presentation of facts in order to build both national

identity as civilized as opposed to Iraqis dehumanized identity , and therefore to justify

American military action on Iraqi territory.

In order to accomplish this goal, the analysis will be based on different tools from CDA:

the four macro- structures outlined by Ruth Wodak in The Discourse Historical Approach

as part of Methods of Discourse Analysis, namely the preservative, justificatory,

transformative and destructive strate gies (Wodak, 2002 : 71); linguistic choices will

also be scrutinized following Halliday and Hasans notions of texture, more specifically ,

cohesive ties and cohesive chains as presented in Language, Context, and Text: Aspects

of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective (1989). Teun Van Dijks explanation of

ideology both in Ideology: a Multidisciplinary Approach (1998) and Discourse, Ideology


2/27

Derman 2

and Contex t (2001) , and Gorgon Mathews notions on identity present in On the

Meaning of Culture (2000) will also contribute to the analysis of the fragment selected.

Finally, to reinforce the interpretation of the speech, Noam Chomskys reflections on

terrorism in his book 9-11 (2002) and the articles Who are the Global Terrorists? (2002)

and Dominance and Its Dilemmas (2003), as well as Michael Moores documentary

Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) will also be resorted to, and Naomi Kleins journalistic account

Bagdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia (2004).

Theoretical Framework

September 11, 2001 was the first time after the 1812 war that the United Stated were

attacked by foreign forces and it was as well a turning point in the history of the country

and its foreign relations. On January 29, 2002 the forty-third President of the United States,

George W. Bush Jr., addressed the nation through the annual State of the Union Address in

the US Capitol. In this speech, Bush announced the gove rnments scheme on domestic and

foreign policy and publicly declared the war on terror targeting those countries that

formed part of the Axis of Evil , namely Iraq and North Korea, and accusing them of

being terrorist allies that constitute d a grave and growing danger for the whole world

because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction (Bush, 2002).

A much controversial speech that motivated the reaction of many left-leaning critics,

Bushs State of the Union Address was nonetheless celebrated and supported by many

Congressmen and citizens and would represent one of the various speeches used to cover

the real intentions behind the so called war on terror.


3/27

Derman 3

Noam Chomsky, a linguist, political activist and critic of US policy, not only reacted

towards this speech but to Bush s plans altogether in the same way he openly criticized the

Reagan administration (1981-1989), the first one in the US to announce that a war on

terrorism would be the core of US foreign policy and which allowed for barbaric

atrocities and vast destruction (Chomsky, 200 2 : 123).

In his 9-11 , Chomsky takes the definition of terrorism as found in US Army manuals

and analyses both the attacks to the World Trade Centre and the American attacks on Iraqi

lands. While a prestigious military historian supported any operation un der the auspices of

the United Nations against a criminal conspiracy whose members should be haunted down

and brought before an international court, where they would receive a fail trial, and if found

guilty, be awarded an appropriate sentence (Howard in Chomsky, 2002 : 123), Noam

Chomsky state s that in any case that proposal should be applied un iversally (Chomsky,

2002 : 123). What he means, clearly, is that if one is to follow the American definition of

terrorism, the term terrorist applies to the United States too.

When considering terrorism as the use of coercive means aimed at civilian populations

in an effort to achieve political, religious or other aims, Chomsky argues that it is simply

part of state action, official doctrine (Chomsky, 2002 : 57 ) like the one Bush announced

in his State of the Union Address. The importance of Chomskys critical view on the

concept and practices of terrorism will consequently serve as reinforcement for the current

analysis.

Naomi Klein, a Canadian journalist with a left-leaning activist history, has for years taken

a critical view on government policies and corporate interests. In her article for Harpers

Magazine (2004), Klein heavily criticizes the Bush Administration and accuses them of


4/27

Derman 4

having economic intentions behind the invasion of Iraq, not only because of its vast

amounts of oil but because it would allow a myriad investment opportunities . Right from

the title of her article, she lets the reader know what her experience in Bagdad had revealed:

that Bush aimed at pillaging Iraq in pursuit of a neocon utopia (Klein, 2004). But in order

for this dream to take place, it was necessary first to find a country in ruins, collapsed and

then introduce what she calls the shock doctrine (www.wikipedia.com).

Not only Americas official doctrine but also Bushs accession to the Presidential Seat

and military action on Iraq are harshly criticized and constantly put under an aura of

suspicion in Michael Moore s documentary Fahrenheit 9-11 (2004). With the aim of

unmasking hidden truths about American domestic and foreign policy-making,

manipulation of press releases and individual and corporate economic interests, Moore

succeeded in achieving what Bill Nichols describes as one of the main goals of

documentaries. For it is true that Fahrenheit 9-11 not only activates our aesthetic

awareness [], it also activates our social consciousness (Nichols, 2001 : 69). This

consideration is also taken by critic Johan Berger, writer of the foreword for Michael

Moores The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader (2004) in which he praised Moores work

as The Work of a Patriot . Berger considers that Fahrenheit 9/11 from start to finish

invite s a political and social argument (Berger in Moore, 2004 : ix) and it does not silence

anything, but urges viewers to watch and consider critically what is presented.

One of the main arguments Moore poses in his documentary is that of the economic

interests behind the invasion of Iraq, more specifically, the building of a natural gas

pipeline across Afghanistan and his own personal connection with American companies

that would supposedly rebuild the country in ruins.


5/27

Derman 5

Berger also mentions in referen ce to Moores work that it demonstrates that, despite all

the manipulative power of communication experts, it is still possible to break through the

conspiracy of silence, the manufactured atmosphere of fear and the solitude of feeling

politically impot ent (Berger in Moore, 2004 : x -xi).

Critical Discourse Analysis also opens this possibility in the sense that it aims at

discovering inconsistencies, (self-)contradictions, paradoxes and dilemmas in the text

internal or discourse-internal structures (Wodak, 2002 :65). In The Discourse Historical

Approach (2002) Ruth Wodak identifies four types of discursive macro-strategies that lead

to the construction of national identity. These strategies have been used to analyse how

discourse can be used to build a desired image, either positive or negative, and how it can

be manipulated with the purpose of shaping public opinion.

The four macro-strategies as outlined by Wodak are: a) constructive, which aims at

constructing national identity; b) preservative or justificatory, which aims at the

conservation and reproduction of national identities and discourses; c) transformative,

which aims at the change of national identities; and finally d) destructive, which aims at

dismantling national identities (Wodak, 2002 :71).

Apart from this classification of macro-strategies, which are not mutually exclusive but

rather co-exist, Wodak proposed a set of discourse-analytical strategies which have

different objectives and are manifested by means of different features:

- referential or nominalization strategy aims at the constructions of in-groups and

out-groups and it accounts for how the participants are referred to;

- predication strategy aims at the positive or negative labeling of social actors and it

accounts for what traits, characteristics qualities and features they attributed;


6/27

Derman 6

- argumentation strategy has the purpose of justifying positive and or negative

attributes by means of arguments that legitimize such characterizations;

- perspectivation , framing or discourse representation strategy shows level of

involvement and point of view and it is perceived in the position from which

arguments are expressed; and finally

- intensification or mitigation strategy aims precisely at intensifying or mitigating the

illocutionary force of an utterance (Wodak, 2002 : 72-73) .

This paper will therefore integrate the study of these strategies in the excerpt from Bushs

speech (Appendix 1) and will determine how Bushs linguistic choices may account for the

manipulation in the presentation of facts with the aim of creating a positive self-image and

dehumanizing the opponent. It is evident that in his speech, Bush explicitly polarizes the

American nation against the Axis of Evil.

Antagonizing positions are also considered by Teun Van Dijk. As he pointed out,

ideologies affect production or interpretation of discourse directly because they are

involved in the sociocognitive process that links context and knowledge (Van Dijk, 2001 :

11-12). Members of different groups not only share a system beliefs but also mental

representations of specific situations. Group ideology is indeed a form of self - and other

representation and is one of the basic forms of social cognition that at the same time

define the identity of a group and hence the subjective feelings of belonging of its

members (Van Dijk, 2000). Polarization appears in the very process of sel f- and other-

representation, in terms of membership, activities, aims, norms, relations and resources.

Very often, groups have to defend or legitimize their position and discourse is the natural

way to do so, i.e., discourse is one very important way of reproducing and developing


7/27

Derman 7

ideologies, especially when it comes to account for polarization between ingroups, i.e.,

us and outgroups, or them (Van Dijk, 1998 : 161). As it will be analyzed later on, this

legitimization of a specific ingroup through discourse can be clearly traced in Bushs State

of the Union Address.

In On the Meanings of Culture (2000) , where Gordon Mathews examines the

different definitions and views of culture, he dedicates a section to the anthropological

concept of culture. A view worth mentioning for this paper is that coming from 19 th century

anthropologist Lewis Henry Morgan, who consi dered that all human beings [], however

primitive, had the potential to become civilized (Mathews, 2000 : 2). According to

Morgan, societies progressed from savage to barbaric to civilized. The point of interest in

this view is that what he considered civilized was, of course, his own culture, i.e.

American, just in the same way George W. Bush Jr. managed to create this same identity

two centuries later.

Later on, on his examination of Culture, State and Market Mathews asserts that apart

from the apparent personal choice of culture from the cultural supermarket, there exist

mass media manipulation but this manipulation is as powerful as bizarre as manipulation

by the state (Mathews, 2000 : 9) . Both these forms of manipulation are worth mentioning

in the current paper, the former because it may be associated with Michael Moores ideas

shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 as described above, and the latter because of the manipulative

mode of discourse employed by former president Bush.

Wodak points ou t that CDA as a specific form and practice of discourse analysis

obviously always needs to account for at least some of the detailed structures, strategies and


8/27

Derman 8

functions of text and talk, including grammatical, pragmatic, interactional, stylistic,

rhetorical, semiotic, narrative or similar forms of verbal and paraverbal organization of

communicative events (Wodak, 2002 : 97). Taking this into consideration, selected

lexico-grammatical choices will be used to account for the strategies described above and

also scrutinized following Halliday and Hasans notions of texture of a text (Halliday

Hasan, 1989).

A text has no specified length, but rather, what determines the nature of a text is the

kind of relations that contribute to the unity of meaning. The source of this unity is called

texture and it is constituted by means of certain kinds of relations. In other words, texture

deals with the total unity of a text, which is provided by means of relations between its

components. The meaning relation between the elements is referred to as cohesive tie and

it implies the presence of at least two elements. The linguistic, lexico-grammatical

realization of such tie is referred to as cohesive chain, made up by cohesive devices

(Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 71).

There exist three types of cohesive ties. Co-referen tiality is connected to situational

identity. Co- classification refers to those elements that belong to an identical class. And

co-extension refers to the relationship between elements of the same semantic field that

bear a general resemblance. The kind cohesive tie at work will be shown through these

different lexico-grammatical choices.

Co-referentialiaty is realised by means of noun phrases, pronominals, the definite article

and demonstratives (Halliday-Hasan, 1989 : 74). Co-extension is realised by means of

sense relations of three kinds: synonymy, when the experiential meaning of the two lexical

items is identical, antonymy , described as oppositness of experiential meaning, and

hyponymy, when a general super-ordinate term relates to a series of co-hyponyms. Hasan


9/27

Derman 9

adds meronymy and repetition to co-extension chains; meronymy because it refers to a

part- whole relation and thus creates a sense relation, and repetition because the lexical unit

creates a similar experiential meaning (Halliday -Hasan, 1989 : 80-81). Finally, co-

classification ties are realised by means of relations of substitution and ellipsis. All of these

cohesive devices are the explicit realization of implicit meaning relations that underlie a

text and hence are constitutive of texture (Halliday -Hasan, 1989 : 75).

As stated before, one of the main points of this paper will be to account for the way in

which linguistic choices and their interrelation serve as examples to sustain that the aim of

Bush s piece is to create false national identity. By considering the different cohesive ties

and their linguistic realization into cohesive devices, it will also be possible to trace a

consistent construction of antagonising identities with the purpose of justifying military

action on the so called threatening territory.

Analysis

The current analysis will focus on the four macro-strategies outlined by Ruth Wodak

(2002) and their linguistic realization into cohesive ties and cohesive devices that

provide texture of the text (Halliday -Hasan, 1989). Linguistic choices will also be

scrutinised under different probes that account for linguistic strategies delineated by Wodak

(2002) and it will be then possible to account for the construction of civilized American

identity as opposed to dehumanised Iraqi identity used to justify military atrocities.

One of the most evident macro-strategies is the constructive one. In his speech, Bush

intends to create national American identity as friendly, comforting and humanitarian, as a


10/27

Derman 10

victimised though strong and determined nation that would free other countries from

dictatorships and suffering, and as the ultimate -if not unique- form of civilization.

In considering the following quotations, the underlined segments highlight the notions

above mentioned:

Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress,distinguished guests, fellow citizens: As we gather tonight, our nation is at war, oureconomy is in recession, and the civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. Yet thestate of our Union has never been stronger. (Applause.) paragraph 1

What Bush does in this first section is to present the problems that the country is facing

both in domestic and foreign affairs, and also to state that even though the country has been

suffering ever since the attacks on September 11, 2001 the nation has been proudly

strengthened. Judging from the piece, what Bush also presents is the dichotomy us a s

civilized victims as opposite to the implied barbaric them.

We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation hascomforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a greatcoalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyed

Afghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed acountry from brutal oppression. (Applause.) paragraph 2

The notion of suffering and victimization is repeated in this section, and is reinforced by

the different kinds of action with which the government responded to the attacks: one is the

comforting, friendly and humanitarian image, and the other is that of the defender and

justice-seeking nation.

Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundredsof terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still atlarge. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue themwherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nationsharbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not,allow it. (Applause.) paragraph 13


11/27

Derman 11

Once again the notion of law and justice is stated in this section, as well as a sense of

determination specifically stressed by the use of modals must and will . The notion of

friendliness is also considered in this section, but this time with the idea of partnership

derived from allies . This is strategic since it urges supporting countries to carry out the

policies that the American government has in mind.

While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere.We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces togo after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Oursoldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting to

bomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. paragraph 16

Again, the idea of fellowship and support to other nations is stressed here, and also the

notion of security and America as savior and world police, an idea that dates back to the

Second World War just like the expression axis of evil.

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening Americaor our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimeshave been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature.North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, whilestarving its citizens. - paragraph 19

The prevailing idea in this paragraph is that of the United States as a friendly savior of

the world, and at the same time as a fierce opponent of dictatorial regimes.

It is possible to notice that the highlighted expressions point at the formation of a

positive view of Americans. In these sections and the passage throughout there is constant

polarization between the created positive image of us and a negative dehumanized image


12/27

Derman 12

of the m. This is achieved through the use of specific lexical choices that constitute a co-

extension chain based on synonymy characterizes us through the choices fellow,

citizens, civilized world, heroes, people. Another co -extension chain based on

synonymy characterizes them through the choices terrorists, parasites, dangerous

killers, enemies.

These chains also account for the referential or nominalization strategy outlined by

Wodak (2002, 72-73). It can be perceived that the US and those countries that supported

their policies are referred to as human, those consid ered enemies are persistently referred

to as devoid of humanity. This is reinforced by the predication strategy , by which the

participants are characterized. On the one hand, the US and allies are described by means of

human attributes through a semantic connection: friends, saviors, mission, heroes,

strength, shelter, order, rationality. On the other hand, the enemy is degraded by

treating them as inhuman rid is typically used for unwanted objects or animals, they are

depicted as corrupted by nature, as if they could never become civilized (Mathews, 2000 :

2) and it is generalized that no-one likes them.

Other macro-strategy consistently used by Bush in his speech is the preservative or

justificatory strategy with the aim of conserving national identities and at justifying military

atrocities on enemy lands. As stated previously, macro-strategies are not mutually

exclusive, and thats why several are the examples from Bushs speech in which the

justificatory strategy is backed up by the constructive one.



13/27

Derman 13

Two disconnected issues are brought together in this example: war is justified because of

the countr ys current economic situation and because some dangerous, inhuman external

agent represents a threat for the whole of the civilized world. If economy is in recession

it is then justified that corporations seek to recover their loss on enemy lands. As Naomi

Klein pointed out, corporations considered that Iraq wa s so contaminated that it needed to

be rubbed out and remade from scratch to later on introduce a set of laws unprecedented

in their generosity to multinational companies (Klein, 2004).

But in order for this to take place, and because the enemy was a source of u nprecedented

dangers extreme action on that country was necessary to eliminate any trait of them

through massive bombing with total disregard of the targets, killing thousands of civilians.

This fact was declared by one of the soldiers shown in Fahrenheit 9/11 when he said We

called in with some artillery and some napalm and things like that; some innocent women

and children got hit. We met them on the road and they had little girls with their noses

blown off andand, uh, husbands carrying their dead wives and things like that (Soldier

in Moore, 2004 : 75).

We last met in an hour of shock and suffering. In four short months, our nation hascomforted the victims, begun to rebuild New York and the Pentagon, rallied a greatcoalition, captured, arrested, and rid the world of thousands of terrorists, destroyedAfghanistan's terrorist training camps, saved a people from starvation, and freed acountry from brutal oppression. (Applause.) paragraph 2

In this case, justified military ac tion lies on the fact that the enemy has caused shock

and suffering to American citizens, leaving thousands of victims. So anyone capable of

such an action should be punished. These evil enemies are not only considered responsible


14/27

Derman 14

for terrorist attacks, but also for violating human rights, which makes counterattacks seem

fair following the constructed identity of saviours of the world (see above constructive

strategy).

Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed ourworst fears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depthof our enemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. Andthe depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. Wehave found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities,detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of Americancities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world. paragraph 11

What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our waragainst terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes onSeptember the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world liketicking time bombs, set to go off without warning. paragraph 12

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror statesunchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has calledAmerica and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege tofight freedom's fight. (Applause.) paragraph 24

These three paragraphs are the core of Bushs justification of war. Because Bush

considered himself a War President who made decision s with war on [his] mind (Bush

in Moore, 2004 : 50), he knew perfectly well what he was doing, and he had known even

before his accession to Presidency. Richard Clarke, head of Bushs Counter -Terrorism

Security Group but critical towards the presidents decision of going into war with Iraq,

declared that President Bush and administration offic ials had been planning to do

something about Iraq from before the time they came into office (Clarke in Moore, 2004 :

44).

Iraq was assumed to be responsible for the terrorist attacks of September 11 when there

was absolutely no evidence to link this country to this event. Iraq was the target of


15/27

Derman 15

American military response because it was said to house the most dangerous terrorists who

were capable of producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction, and of carrying out

immoral actions towards their own people. As a consequence, such enemy should be

stopped to save not only American homeland but the whole world, and the massive

bombing ordered by President Bush was therefore accept ed to be just.

In Dominance and Its Dilemmas , however, Chomsky reacts towards these ideas of

justified terror by the US: But then it is not terror; rather, counterterror, or low intensity

warfare, or self -defense; and if successful, rational and pragmatic, and an occasion to

be united in joy (Chomsky, 2002 : 134). Chomsky sustains that Americans should also

regard themselves as terrorists because of the way in which they acted on Iraqi territory,

killing thousands of civilians for socio-economic reasons.

While many critics like Chomsky regarded American attacks as manslaughter, Rumsfeld

insisted on the care that goes into it, the humanity that goes into it (Rumsfeld in Moore,

2004 : 76), which means that according to him there is humanity behind the bombing,

The use of inclusive we is strat egic in the sense that Bush intends to bring people closer

to him, meaning that all agree with his policies and that every citizen has contributed with

American action, and trying to convince them that whatever action taken against the enemy

is never enough and that measures against the axis of evil are prompt and imperative. This

is the task of the American army and their allies, which together constitute the axis of

good, not only because they have suffered from enemy attacks, but because they are the

chosen ones to make every citizen in the world supposedly free.

Interestingly enough, what Bush affirms to have found that constitute a grave threat to his

country and to all humanity was never reported. In Dominance and its Dilemmas


16/27

Derman 16

Chomsky clearly s tates that w hen the occupying army failed to discover [weapons of mass

destruction] , the administrations stance shifted from absolute certainty that Iraq

possessed WMD to the position that the accusations were justified by the discovery of

equipment t hat potentially could be used to produce weapons (Chomsky, 2003), but the

administration neither accepted their mistake nor stopped the bombing. Instead, Bush

stressed the potential existence of such weapons, the possibility (could) that the enemy

had the means to attack.

From the linguistic point of view, there is once again a clear distinction between us and

them and the co -extension chains that relate the concepts. While us is at first

victimized (shock, suffering, victims) and later on shown in a superior position

(our cause, our war, History has called America, responsibility, privilege),

them is identified, once again, as a dangerous threat (terrorists, dangerous killers,

outlaw regimes) through lexical choices loaded with negative meaning (training

camps, madness, hatred, terror, chemical weapons).

Wodaks argumentation strategy is evident when analyzing the justificatory macro-

strategy. By identifying the different topoi (2002) used to justify military action and

negative other-representation. In this case, these topoi are danger and threat (explicitly

stated when referring to the enemy), humanitarianism (United states as world police and

savior of the world ), justice (mentioning of legal action that fell upon terrorists, such as

captured and arrested ) , responsibility (because the United Stated have been chosen to

carry out the task of freeing the world from dangerous groups), finances (the terrorist


17/27

Derman 17

attacks and the consequent action led the country into recession) and abuse (seen in the

abuse of power exercised by the enemy on their own people, as seen in the word regime ).

The perspectivation strategy is reflected in History has called America and our allies to

action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight (Bush,

2002 : paragraph 24). Consistent with one of the points stated in the constructive strategy,

Bush presents the USA as the saviour of the world, hence, they have been appointed to do

so. This brings biblical allusions to the fact that the USA is the chosen one , the gate

keeper , in this case, to protect the world from dangerous hands.

The third macro-strategy to be analyzed is the transformative, which aims at the change of

national identities. Through the use of this macro-strategy, it is probably intended to

emphasize national pride, both for the actions taken and the scheme ahead.


In this section, the focus is placed upon the governments efficiency after the terrorist

attacks to the World Trade Center, not only from the material point of view, but also from

the humanitarian and the military perspectives.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsorsthe materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of massdestruction. We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect Americaand our allies from sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: Americawill do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangersgather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of


18/27

Derman 18

America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with theworld's most destructive weapons. (Applause.) - paragraph 22

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will bereflected in the budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals forAmerica: We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our

economy.

- paragraph 25

There is a clear objective from the government and it is expressed with determination.

The scheme consists primarily note the fronted position in the enumeration in paragraph

25- in arming the country and annihilate the enemy, invest in national security in case of

counterattacks and once the enemy has been defeated, revive national economy. Naomi

Klein (2004) mentioned in her article that the Bush Administration did not lack a plan, and

this is clear evidence. According to her , Bushs plans were based upon a v iolent

ideology, an idea which is not far from Chom skys notions of terrorism.

But it is important to remember that President Bush is a wise War President and

through this speech he intends to show that American citizens should trust him, because he

has taken the matter into his hands. In his speech he changes from an inclusive we to I

in order to show his determination, which is accompanied by the modal will.

In all these excerpts there is emphasis placed on action, more specifically material

processes or processes of doing which involve a doer and a done -to and imply action,

change and creation (Halliday, 1994 : 110). These material processes are reflected in

comforted, rebuild, rallied, captured, arrested, rid, saved, freed, work,

develop, deploy and protect.


19/27


20/27

Derman 20

far from what Chomsky regarded as Washingtons call for support in its war of revenge

for 11 Sept. (Chomsky, 2002 : 133).

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening Americaor our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimeshave been pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature.North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, whilestarving its citizens. - paragraph 18

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected fewrepress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. - paragraph 19

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqiregime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over adecade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of itsown citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This isa regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors.This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. - paragraph 20

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming tothreaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, theseregimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists,giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attemptto blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference wouldbe catastrophic. - paragraph 21

This succession of paragraphs is the most evident example of the use of the destructive

strategy. By analyzing the over- insistence on the words regime, terror and terrorist it

is possible to perceive the mnemonic effect behind discourse, to remind addressees of the

kind of enemy the US is dealing with. It is dangerous because it is barbaric, not civilized as

the American people and their allies, and it represents an imminent threat to those who live

in democracy.

The same mnemonic effect was achieved through the manipulation of the media. The

words terror, threat, risk and nuclear weapons were repeated over and over again

to plant in peoples minds the seed of fear and hatred towards the enemy. This is precisely

what Mathews (2000) stated as regards manipulation by the state and the media and what


21/27

Derman 21

Moore shows in his documentary (2004): the insistence on the dangers that the enemy can

cause but silence as regards what the United States are capable of.

Surprisingly enough, William Arkin, a military analyst, stated after the Pentagon had

informed in 2002 about the scheme to be carried out in Iraq that no target on the planet or

in space would be immune to American attack. The U.S. could strike without warning

whenever and wherever a threat was perceived, and it would be protected by missile

defenses (Chomsky, 2002). This means that the United Stated owned weapons as powerful

as the ones they claimed to fear.

Considering the linguistic choices, there is an explicit co-extension synonym chain to

refer to the enemy, once again, as opposed to the American civilized world. The enemy,

or axis of evil , is relexicalised into terrorist underworld, terrorist parasites, terroris t

allies, regimes and grave and growing danger. At the same time there is also another

co-extension chain based on meronymy which refers to the actions taken by those countries

belonging to the axis of evil: threaten, sponsor terror, arming, starving,

aggressively pursues weapons of mass destruction, exports terror, repress, support

terror, could provide arms and have terror camps. This meronymy chain is used to

account for the predication strategy described by Wodak (2002) to refer to the enemy as an

evil entity capable of such actions.

It is also perceived that intensification strategy is used repeatedly through the use of

vocabulary overloaded with negative meaning, namely the chains to refer to the enemy and

their actions. There is a counterpart for this, which is the mitigation strategy . The lexical

choices for this strategy are those appealing to fe elings, such as comfort, hope,


22/27


23/27

Derman 23

Appendix 1



The American flag flies again over our embassy in Kabul. Terrorists who once occupiedAfghanistan now occupy cells at Guantanamo Bay. (Applause.) And terrorist leaderswho urged followers to sacrifice their lives are running for their own. (Applause.) paragraph 3

America and Afghanistan are now allies against terror. We'll be partners in rebuildingthat country. And this evening we welcome the distinguished interim leader of aliberated Afghanistan: Chairman Hamid Karzai. (Applause.) paragraph 4

The last time we met in this chamber, the mothers and daughters of Afghanistan werecaptives in their own homes, forbidden from working or going to school. Today womenare free, and are part of Afghanistan's new government. And we welcome the newMinister of Women's Affairs, Doctor Sima Samar. (Applause.) paragraph 5

Our progress is a tribute to the spirit of the Afghan people, to the resolve of ourcoalition, and to the might of the United States military. (Applause.) When I called our

troops into action, I did so with complete confidence in their courage and skill. Andtonight, thanks to them, we are winning the war on terror. (Applause.) The man andwomen of our Armed Forces have delivered a message now clear to every enemy of the United States: Even 7,000 miles away, across oceans and continents, onmountaintops and in caves -- you will not escape the justice of this nation. (Applause.) paragraph 6

For many Americans, these four months have brought sorrow, and pain that will nevercompletely go away. Every day a retired firefighter returns to Ground Zero, to feelcloser to his two sons who died there. At a memorial in New York, a little boy left hisfootball with a note for his lost father: Dear Daddy, please take this to heaven. I don'twant to play football until I can play with you again some day. paragraph 7

Last month, at the grave of her husband, Michael, a CIA officer and Marine who died inMazur-e-Sharif, Shannon Spann said these words of farewell: "Semper Fi, my love."Shannon is with us tonight. (Applause.) paragraph 8

Shannon, I assure you and all who have lost a loved one that our cause is just, andour country will never forget the debt we owe Michael and all who gave their lives forfreedom. paragraph 9


24/27

Derman 24

Our cause is just, and it continues. Our discoveries in Afghanistan confirmed our worstfears, and showed us the true scope of the task ahead. We have seen the depth of ourenemies' hatred in videos, where they laugh about the loss of innocent life. And thedepth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the destruction they design. Wehave found diagrams of American nuclear power plants and public water facilities,detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American

cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in America and throughout the world.

paragraph 10

What we have found in Afghanistan confirms that, far from ending there, our waragainst terror is only beginning. Most of the 19 men who hijacked planes onSeptember the 11th were trained in Afghanistan's camps, and so were tens of thousands of others. Thousands of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world liketicking time bombs, set to go off without warning. paragraph 11

Thanks to the work of our law enforcement officials and coalition partners, hundreds of terrorists have been arrested. Yet, tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still atlarge. These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we must pursue themwherever they are. (Applause.) So long as training camps operate, so long as nationsharbor terrorists, freedom is at risk. And America and our allies must not, and will not,allow it. (Applause.) paragraph 12

Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of twogreat objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, andbring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimeswho seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United Statesand the world. (Applause.) paragraph 13

Our military has put the terror training camps of Afghanistan out of business, yetcamps still exist in at least a dozen countries. A terrorist underworld -- includinggroups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jaish-i-Mohammed -- operates in remote

jungles and deserts, and hides in the centers of large cities. paragraph 14

While the most visible military action is in Afghanistan, America is acting elsewhere.We now have troops in the Philippines, helping to train that country's armed forces togo after terrorist cells that have executed an American, and still hold hostages. Oursoldiers, working with the Bosnian government, seized terrorists who were plotting tobomb our embassy. Our Navy is patrolling the coast of Africa to block the shipment of weapons and the establishment of terrorist camps in Somalia. paragraph 15

My hope is that all nations will heed our call, and eliminate the terrorist parasites whothreaten their countries and our own. Many nations are acting forcefully. Pakistan is

now cracking down on terror, and I admire the strong leadership of PresidentMusharraf. (Applause.) paragraph 16

But some governments will be timid in the face of terror. And make no mistake aboutit: If they do not act, America will. (Applause.) paragraph 17

Our second goal is to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America orour friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction. Some of these regimes havebeen pretty quiet since September the 11th. But we know their true nature. North


25/27

Derman 25

Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, whilestarving its citizens. paragraph 18

Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected fewrepress the Iranian people's hope for freedom. paragraph 19

Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqiregime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over adecade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of itsown citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This isa regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors.This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world. paragraph 20

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threatenthe peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose agrave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving themthe means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmailthe United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be

catastrophic.

paragraph 21

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors thematerials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction.We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our alliesfrom sudden attack. (Applause.) And all nations should know: America will do what isnecessary to ensure our nation's security.We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. I will not wait on events, while dangersgather. I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with theworld's most destructive weapons. (Applause.) paragraph 22

Our war on terror is well begun, but i t is only begun. This campaign may not befinished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch. paragraph23

We can't stop short. If we stop now -- leaving terror camps intact and terror statesunchecked -- our sense of security would be false and temporary. History has calledAmerica and our allies to action, and it is both our responsibility and our privilege tofight freedom's fight. (Applause.) paragraph 24

Our first priority must always be the security of our nation, and that will be reflected inthe budget I send to Congress. My budget supports three great goals for America: Wewill win this war; we'll protect our homeland; and we will revive our economy. paragraph 25


26/27

Derman 26

Bibliography

Chomsky, N. 9-11 . New York, Seven Stories Press, 2002 at ww.books.google.com

accessed on September 18, 2010.

Who are the Global Terrorists? , Worlds in Collision: Terror and the

Future of Global Order , Ken Booth & Tim Dunne (eds.), Palgrave Macmillan, May,

2002 at ww.books.google.com accessed on September 18, 2010.

Dominance and Its Dilemmas: The Bush Administrations Imperial

Grand Strategy, Boston Review , October/November 2003 at www.bostonreview.net

accessed on September 18, 2010. Halliday, M. and Hasan, R. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a

Social-Semiotic Perspective . Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989.

Halliday, M. An Introduction to Functional Grammar . New York, Oxford

University Press Inc., 1994.

Klein, N. Baghdad Year Zero: Pillaging Iraq in Pursuit of a Neocon Utopia .

Harpers Magazine . September 2004.

Mathews, G. On the Meaning of Culture, Global Culture/Individual Identity:

Searching for Home in the Cultural Supermarket . London, Routledge, 2000.

Moore, M. The Official Fahrenheit 9/11 Reader . New York, Simon & Schuster,

2004.

Van Dijk, T. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach . London, Sage Publications,

1998.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0333998057/famouspeoplewithhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0333998057/famouspeoplewithhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0333998057/famouspeoplewithhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0333998057/famouspeoplewithhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0333998057/famouspeoplewithhttp://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0333998057/famouspeoplewith


27/27

Derman 27

Van Dijk, T. Ideology and Discourse . An Internet Course. In Internet

www.hum.uva.nl/teun, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), 2000, accessed in

2007.

Wodak, R. Mothods of Critical Discourse Analysis (Eds. Ruth Wodak and Michael

Mayer), London, Sage Publications, 2002.

www.wikipedia.org for information about Naomi Klein, accessed on October 22,

2010.

construction of false identities through the manipulation of information -a cda analysis aimed at...

Documents