polarization in war rhetoric: a linguistic analysis of

Sander Goderis Master Nederlands-Engels Academiejaar 2007-2008

Polarization in war rhetoric: A linguistic analysis of ‘scaling’ in speeches by George W. H. Bush

and George W. Bush.

Vakgroep Engelse Taalkunde Scriptie Master Taal- en- letterkunde

Promotor: Prof. Dr. A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen

1

Polarization in war rhetoric: table of contents

0. Introduction ......................................................................................................... p 2

1. The speeches and their historical background ............................................... p 4

1.1. George H.W. Bush and the First Gulf War .............................................. p 5

1.2. George W. Bush and the War in Afghanistan ......................................... p 6

1.3. George W. Bush and the Iraq War ......................................................... p 7

1.4. George W. Bush and the weapons of mass destruction ......................... p 9

2. Theoretical framework ..................................................................................... p 12

2.1. Appraisal and Systemic Functional Linguistics ..................................... p 12

2.2. Graduation: force and focus .................................................................. p 13

2.3. Force: formal distinctions ...................................................................... p 14

2.4. Force: semantic distinctions .................................................................. p 15

2.5. Judgement ............................................................................................ p 18

2.6. Manipulation, polarization and graduation ............................................. p 19

3. Analysis ............................................................................................................. p 21

3.1. Analysis of intensification ...................................................................... p 21

3.1.1. Overview of semantic domains ............................................... p 21

3.1.2. Scaling „importance‟ ................................................................ p 23

3.1.2.1. Emphasizing one‟s own virtue .................................... p 23

3.1.2.2. Emphasizing solidarity ............................................... p 26 3.1.2.3. Emphasizing importance of interest and benefit

3.1.2.3. Emphasizing importance of interest and benefit ........ p 29

3.1.2.4. Contrast with ungraduated instances of „importance‟ . p 31

3.1.3. Scaling „bad‟ ............................................................................ p 32

3.1.3.1. References to terrorism .............................................. p 32

3.1.3.2. References to dictatorship and the enemy in general p 34

3.1.3.3. References to the enemy‟s bad values ...................... p 38

3.1.4. Scaling „good‟ .......................................................................... p 40

3.1.4.1. Complimenting the U.S. military or its performance ... p 41

3.1.4.2. Positive description of U.S. actions in Iraq ................. p 45

3.1.4.3. Positive U.S. characterization .................................... p 46

3.1.4.4. Complimenting the audience ...................................... p 48

3.2. Analysis of quantification ....................................................................... p 50

3.2.1. Quantified instances of nation ................................................. p 50

3.2.2. Quantified references to „victim‟ and „religion‟ in Bush Jr1 ....... p 53

3.2.3. Quantified references to the enemy ......................................... p 55

3.2.4. Quantified „us‟ .......................................................................... p 57

3.2.5. Quantified references to the audience ..................................... p 60

3.2.6. Quantified references to „Americans‟ ....................................... p 62

3.2.7. Other instances of quantification in Bush Jr3 ........................... p 65

3.2.8. Other instances of quantification in Bush Sr1 ......................... p 66

3.2.9. Quantified references to „people everywhere‟ in Bush Sr2 ...... p 68

4. Summary and conclusions .............................................................................. p 70

References ........................................................................................................ p 73 Appendices ....................................................................................................... p 77

2

0. Introduction.

This paper aims to explore to what extent language can be used as a manipulative

device in public speeches. I will focus on one aspect of language, namely force,

which is concerned with up-scaling and down-scaling of often already evaluative

language use (see chapter two for more on force). This evaluative language is a key

element in the polarization of discourse. To polarize means to divide into two sharply

contrastive or opposite beliefs. This can be achieved by various linguistic devices,

such as modality, metaphor, pronominal usage and graduation. Polarization is a

wide-spread phenomenon among politicians, who always attempt to persuade the

voter of their right and the others‟ wrong. In war rhetoric however, the extent to which

the language is polarized is much greater. The speaker often tries to demonize the

other, emotionalize the audience and create a distorted black-and-white image of the

world (van Dijk 2006:378).

The starting hypothesis of this paper is that polarization, and more specifically

force, is a device used in war rhetoric to manipulate people into accepting the war in

question. I will verify this hypothesis by making a detailed grammatical analysis of

speeches given by U.S. presidents W.H. Bush and W. Bush in times of war. A

second aim is to determine whether audience and historical context have an

influence on the process of speech writing, and more specifically on the use of force.

A third purpose of this dissertation is to look at the differences in the use of force

between the two presidents.

In this paper I will strive for a tactical reading of the speeches, based on the

analysis of prevalent grammatical features. However, analyses of subjective

meanings evoked by rather than inscribed in the text and which necessarily

complement the examination of explicit meanings are to some extent based on

interpretation, and that is in turn dependent on the analyst‟s position towards a text

and its ideology. Taking into account that this topic intrigues me greatly, I want to

acknowledge the fact that my interpretations may occasionally strike readers as

subjective. I hope, however, that my own readings are sufficiently grounded in

linguistic analysis to stimulate further thought and work on such texts.

The first section elaborates on the analysed speeches and situates them in a

broader historical perspective. Section two deals with the theoretical framework and

3

the methods used in the analysis. Section three contains the analysis of the data and

section four summarizes the results of the analysis and contains the conclusions.

4

1. The speeches and their historical background.

The data used in the analysis consist of three speeches by former U.S. president

George H.W. Bush (henceforth Bush Sr) and three speeches by present U.S.

president George W. Bush (henceforth Bush Jr)1. All speeches were given in a

context of war, and can thus be potential instances of war rhetoric. The speeches by

Bush Sr are on the first Gulf War, which started on August 2, 1990. His first two

speeches are situated at the beginning of the Gulf war, September 11 and October 1

respectively. His third speech was given at the end of the war, little more than a week

after the official ceasefire.

Bush Jr‟s speeches can be situated in the „War on Terror‟ and the Second Gulf

War, also known as „Operation Iraqi Freedom‟. His first speech was given a month

after the attacks on the World Trade Center and a few days after the beginning of the

war in Afghanistan. The second speech was delivered a month after the beginning of

the Second Gulf War. The third speech was given at the end of 2005, at a time when

hope for a quick withdrawal of U.S. troops was dashed because of an increase of

hostilities. These speeches will henceforth be referred to as Bush Sr1,Bush Sr2,

Bush Sr3, Bush Jr1, Bush Jr2 and Bush Jr3.

The audience may also be an important distinguishing factor in the analysis of

the speeches. Bush Sr1 and 3 are delivered to a primarily American public; both

speeches are addresses before a joint session of congress. Bush Sr2 is an address

to the United Nations, and is thus aimed especially at an international audience.

Bush Jr1 is an address to the U.N. and is therefore chiefly aimed at an international

audience. Bush Jr2 is held at an American F-18 factory, and thus the audience is

primarily American. Bush Jr3 is also targeted mainly at an American audience, since

it is an Address to the nation.

The historical context might also be an important explanation for some

recurrent patterns. I will therefore elaborate on the historical context of the speeches

by giving a brief summary of the war in Afghanistan and the two Gulf Wars.

1 The transcripts of the six speeches can be found in appendices 1-6.

5

1.1. George H.W. Bush and the First Gulf War.

The origins of the first Gulf War are to be found in the Iranian Revolution and the

subsequent Iran-Iraq War. However, U.S. interest in the Middle East was already

present long before the eighties:

In the late 1960's, [the U.S.] sponsored a coup in Iraq to bring the Baath Party to power. Using lists provided by the CIA, the Baathists eliminated hundreds of leftist professionals, including doctors, lawyers, teachers, and political activists. (Eland 2004: 87, as cited by St Pete for peace).

The Iranian Revolution resulted in Iran becoming an Islam state under Ayatollah

Ruhollah Khomeini. Saddam Hussein wanted to enlarge Iraq‟s oil reserves and make

Iraq the dominant power in the Persian Gulf by invading Iran. In turn, Ayatollah

Khomeini wanted the Iraqi Muslims to rise up against Saddam. In June 1980,

diplomatic ties between Iraq and Iran were cut and three months later Saddam began

the Iran-Iraq war by attacking Iran. The UN Secretary General report from December

9 1991 explicitly states that Iraq‟s aggression started the war and breached

international security and peace (Wikipedia: Iran-Iraq war).

The United States began aiding Iraq because they feared a spread of the

Islamic Revolution to other Middle Eastern countries. Just before the Iraq-Iran war,

the U.S. had clashed with Iran in the Iran Hostage Crisis. Ayatollah Khomeini then

called the U.S. „the Great Satan‟ and he further accused the U.S. of having an

Imperialistic policy and of sponsoring corruption all over the world (Wikipedia: Great

Satan). Iraq was then seen as „the lesser of two evils‟ and therefore received aid from

the U.S. An investigation of House Banking Committee Chairman Henry B. Gonzalez

revealed that the Reagan and Bush administrations had approved at least 80 direct

exports to the Iraqi military (Wikipedia: U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran- Iraq war).

In 1988, the Iran-Iraq war ended inconclusively, leaving Saddam with massive war

debts (Norton et al. 2007). The financing of Iraq continued till Saddam‟s Invasion of

Kuwait in August 1990. In 1994, the Riegle report stated that some of the biological

and chemical weapons used against American troops contained bacteriological

agents which originated from within the United States:

What is absolutely crystal clear is this: That if Saddam Hussein today has a large arsenal of biological weapons, partly it was the United States that provided the very live viruses that he needed to create those weapons. (Riegle, as cited by Drury: 2003).

6

An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 stated that the U.S

government was cognisant of Iraq using chemical weapons almost on a daily basis.

Reagan‟s administration did not change its policy even after receiving reports

affirming the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians (Wikipedia: Iran-Iraq war).

After the Iran-Iraq war, the Congress wanted to isolate Iraq diplomatically and

economically for having violated human rights. For this purpose, the senate passed a

bill in 1988, a bill which was never adopted by the House (Wikipedia: Iraq gate).

A turning point in the attitude of the U.S. government towards Iraq was Iraq‟s

invasion of Kuwait. After the Iran-Iraq war, Iraq was virtually bankrupt, a situation

which deteriorated rapidly when Kuwait, in open defiance of OPEC quotas, increased

its oil production by 40 percent. This caused a collapse in oil prices, which was a

deathblow to the already much weakened Iraqi economy (Wikipedia: Gulf war).

Immediately after the invasion of Kuwait, economic sanctions against Iraq

were taken and a United Nations coalition led by the U.S. drove the Iraqi forces out of

Kuwait. Measures were taken to prevent Iraq from attacking Saudi-Arabia, an

operation called Desert Shield. The Gulf War was ended with a peace conference

held on Iraqi Territory, resulting in the restoration of the Emir of Kuwait. Saddam

remained in power in Iraq, though the U.S. government expected him to be toppled

by an internal coup. This coup however was deflected by the Iraqi government

(Wikipedia: Iraq war).

1.2. George W. Bush and the War in Afghanistan.

The first speech by Bush Jr was given one month after the beginning of the war in

Afghanistan, a war which began on October 7, 2001 as a retaliation for the attacks on

the World Trade Center two months earlier. The aim of the war was to capture

Osama bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban government which had

supported al-Qaeda. The war in Afghanistan marked the beginning of Bush‟s War on

Terror.

President W. Bush delivered an ultimatum to the Taliban primarily demanding

the extradition of all terrorists and their leaders, the release of all foreign prisoners

and the shutdown of terrorist training camps. The Taliban rejected the ultimatum,

though some moderate Taliban members allegedly met with U.S. embassy officials in

7

Pakistan to negotiate the extradition of Bin Laden. President Bush however rejected

these offers as insincere. A later offer to try Bin Laden in an Islamic Afghanistan court

was rejected by the U.S (The Guardian 2001).

The aerial campaign against Afghanistan was led by the United States and the

United Kingdom, both of which also supplied infantry later on. The ground forces

initially consisted of troops supplied by the Afghan Northern Alliance, an alliance

uniting several groups originally fighting each other to fight the Taliban instead. In

January 2006, NATO troops joined the coalition against terror as well (Wikipedia:

War in Afghanistan).

The War in Afghanistan successfully unseated the Taliban government but did

not manage to disable Al-Qaeda or ameliorate the situation in Afghanistan. Taliban

insurgency has increased once more and illegal drug production is flourishing (U.N.

news centre 2006). The years after the outset of the war are marked by an increase

in suicide attacks, direct fire attacks and improvised explosive devices. The number

of terrorist sanctuaries within Afghanistan is also reported to have increased

significantly (Wikipedia: War in Afghanistan).

There has been some debate on whether or not the war in Afghanistan was an act of

collective self-defence or an act of aggression. Nonetheless, the war has been

legitimated by the UN Security Council.

1.3. George W. Bush and the Iraq War.

The Iraq War, also known as Operation Iraqi Freedom, began on March 20, 2003

with an assault led by the United States. At the time of writing this dissertation, the

war still has not come to an end. The chief argument was Iraq‟s assumed possession

and development of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government claimed that

Iraq posed an imminent threat to their country. This claim has been widely criticized

and U.N. weapons inspectors later found no evidence of weapons of mass

destruction (CNN 2004). Other arguments given by U.S. officials for the invasion of

Iraq were Iraq‟s financial support for families of Palestinian suicide bombers, Iraqi

government human rights abuses, spreading democracy and Iraq‟s oil reserves. The

latter however is generally denied by the U.S. Administration (Wikipedia: Iraq War).

8

The invasion encountered little resistance and the Iraqi army was quickly

overrun. On April 9, less than a month after the beginning of the war, Baghdad was

captured and the reign of Saddam was ended. The swift fall of Baghdad resulted in

massive civil disorder and a distinct increase in crime (Wikipedia: Iraq War).

With the capture of Saddam in December 2003 came a decline in the number

of insurgent attacks. The U.S. petitioned for more U.N. help as it became clear that

they alone could not bring about a stable government in Iraq. An interim government

and constitution was agreed upon. However, as the date of the take-over of the Iraqi

interim came closer, the crime rate and number of terrorist attacks did not abate

(Mideastweb.org). These attacks were largely attributed to foreign groups such as Al-

Qaeda and Iraqi dissidents, including former followers of Saddam. In 2004, Iraqi

insurgency increased, especially in the city of Fallujah, which was reportedly ruled by

armed gangs of religious fanatics (Mideastweb.org). The recently recruited Iraqi

police and military were ineffective against these insurgents, often deserting or

joining the enemy forces. By June 2004, the interim government was endorsed by the

U.N. Security council. The installation of the new government however did not

diminish the insurgent attacks (Mideastweb.org).

November 2004 saw the bloodiest battle in of the Iraq war, known as the

Second Battle of Fallujah. The U.S. troops used white phosphorus as an incendiary.

While the Chemical Weapon Convention does not label this as a Chemical weapon,

many unofficial groups consider it to be one (Wikipedia, White phosphorus). Civilian

casualties were low, as they had been evacuated. The death toll at Fallujah

amounted to 95 U.S. soldiers and approximately 1350 insurgents (Wikipedia, Iraq

War).

2004 was also the year when the first reports of abuse in Abu Ghraib showed

up (Wikipedia, Iraq War). Pictures were released of American soldiers taunting and

abusing Iraqi prisoners. According to Seymour Hersh (2004), many prisoners were

civilians, among them women and children, many of whom had been picked up in

random military sweeps. Hersh states that the prison held three kinds of detainees:

„common criminals; security detainees suspected of “crimes against the coalition”;

and a small number of suspected “high-value” leaders of the insurgency against the

coalition forces.‟ (Hersh 2004). An extensive report, made by Major General M.

Taguba, states that between October and December of 2003, many “sadistic, blatant,

and wanton criminal abuses” were committed by the U.S. military (Hersh 2004).

9

In January 2005, a transition government was elected by the Iraqis. Most of

the Kurd and Shia citizens voted, in spite of some violence and a widespread Sunni

boycott. (Wikipedia, Iraq War) There was a relatively peaceful period from February

till April, followed however by the bloodiest month since the beginning of the invasion.

Overall, insurgent attacks increased in 2005, with a total of 34,131 recorded

incidents, in comparison with 26,496 in 2004 (Wikipedia, Iraq War). Furthermore, in

October 2005, a constitutional referendum was held, leading to the election of a

national assembly in December.

1.4. George W. Bush and the weapons of mass destruction.

According to the Center for Public Integrity2, Bush and seven of his administration‟s

top officials have made at least 935 false statements in the two years after the

attacks on the World Trade Center. In an investigation by Charles Lewis and Mark

Reading-Smith, it is shown that these statements were „part of an orchestrated

campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and led the nation to war under

decidedly false pretences‟ (Lewis and Reading-Smith 2008). Lewis and Reading-

Smith found 532 occasions where Bush and his officials stated unequivocally that

Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to obtain or produce them), ties

to Al Qaeda, or both. It is now quite certain that Iraq had neither. This conclusion was

reached by various investigations, such as those by the Senate Select Committee on

Intelligence3 (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission and the multinational Iraq

Survey Group4 (Lewis and Reading-Smith 2008).

Some of the statements that Lewis and Reading-Smith found and indicated as false

are5:

2 The Center for Public Integrity is a non-profit organization dedicated to producing original

investigative journalism about significant public issues to make institutional power more transparent and accountable (Center of Public Integrity 2008). 3 The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (sometimes referred to as SSCI) is

dedicated to overseeing the United States Intelligence Community, which consists of the agencies and bureaus of the Federal government of the United States who provide information and analysis for leaders of the executive and legislative branches (Wikipedia: SSCI). 4 The Iraq Survey Group (ISG) was a fact-finding mission sent by the multinational force in Iraq after

the 2003 Invasion of Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction programs developed by Iraq under the regime of Saddam Hussein (Wikipedia: Iraq Survey Group). 5 All these statements can be found in Lewis and Reading-Smith 2008.

10

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass

destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our

allies, and against us. (Cheney, August 26, 2002).

Former CIA director George Tenet later refuted this claim, stating that the CIA at that

time had no such information. In September 2002, Tenet also briefed Bush that

Saddam did not have any weapons of mass destruction. This top-secret intelligence

from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam‟s inner circle, and approved by

two senior CIA officers, was dismissed by Bush (Lewis and Reading-Smith 2008).

This information later turned out to be accurate.

We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. (Bush, May

29,2003).

Journalist Bob Woodward reported however that after an examination by a team of

civilian experts, these mobile laboratories were not for the production of biological

weapons but probably for the manufacture of hydrogen for weather balloons.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant

quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to

purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. (Bush,

January 28,2003).

Two weeks before this address, an analyst with the State Department‟s Bureau of

Intelligence sent an email to his colleagues explaining why he believed the uranium-

purchase agreement „probably is a hoax.‟ (Lewis and Reading-Smith 2008)

What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite

some examples, and these are from human sources. (Powell, February 5, 2003).

In fact, two of these main human sources turned out to have provided erroneous

information. One source was an Iraqi con artist, „Curveball‟, whom U.S. intelligence

officials were dubious about and had actually never spoken to. The other source was

an Al Qaeda detainee, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, who later revoked his information, saying

that he had „decided he would fabricate any information interrogators wanted in order

to gain better treatment and avoid being handed over to [a foreign government]‟

(Lewis and Reading-Smith 2008)

In addition to these clearly false statements, hundreds of other statements

were made in which Iraq was implied to have weapons of mass destruction and links

to Al-Qaeda. The effect of these statements was massive, since the media had very

often repeated and amplified these statements. Bush later had to admit that no

11

weapons of mass destruction were found. However, instead of admitting his error or

poor judgement, he attributed the blame to poor intelligence:

It is true that Saddam Hussein had a history of pursuing and using weapons of mass

destruction. It is true that he systematically concealed those programs, and blocked the

work of U.N. weapons inspectors. It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had

weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. As

your president, I am responsible for the decision to go into Iraq. Yet it was right to remove

Saddam Hussein from power. (Bush Jr3, lines 19-24)

An important publication showing the intent of the U.S. Government is the „Downing

Street memo‟, published on May 1, 2005 by The Sunday Times. This memo

contained a summary of a meeting among UK Labour government, defence, and

intelligence officials discussing the build-up to the Iraq war:

There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action. (Rycroft 2002).

President Bush‟s administration has recently been criticized by a growing number of

critics for ignoring and distorting the available intelligence. So far no congressional

investigation about their personal responsibility has been done.

12

2. Theoretical framework.

2.1. Appraisal and Systemic Functional Linguistics.

The framework on which the analysis is based is drawn from The language of

Evaluation by Martin and White (2005). The focus in this framework is on meaning

and rhetorical effect (Martin and White 2005: 94). Appraisal is a subdiscipline of

Systemic Functional Linguistics (henceforth SFL) that specifically deals with

evaluative language. One kind of evaluative language is language use by which the

speaker indicates or implies positive or negative assessments of certain phenomena.

A second kind is language use by which a speaker can take a stance towards the

propositions they are putting forward, thus positioning themselves and their

utterances in relation to other people‟s viewpoints and positions (Vandenbergen

2008: 5).

Appraisal involves three domains of subjectivity: attitude, graduation and

engagement. Attitude is concerned with values by which speakers pass judgements

and associate emotional responses with participants and processes. Graduation is

concerned with the raising or lowering of the strength of an utterance and with the

sharpening or blurring of the boundaries of certain categories. Engagement positions

the speaker‟s voice in relation to other voices (Vandenbergen 2008: 6).

Systemic Functional Linguistics is a grammar model developed by M.A.K.

Halliday. While formal grammar places the elements of language as central, SFL

focuses on the functions or the meanings of the language, thus seeking to interpret

language use. In SFL, a distinction is made between three complementary kinds of

meaning, namely ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning. These meanings are

also referred to as metafunctions. Just about any communicative act can be

categorized by one of these metafunctions (Martin & White: 2005: 7).

The ideational metafunction involves experience, i.e. how the world is

represented through language. A clause can be ideationally analysed as having a

process, participants and circumstances. Halliday (1994:106-107) distinguishes

different types of processes here, namely material processes (doing), mental

processes (thinking), relational processes (being), behavioural processes (partly

13

material and partly mental), verbal processes (saying) and existential processes

(there is…).

The interpersonal metafunction has to do with interaction between people,

how they share feelings and values and how the social relations between them are

defined. The interpersonal metafunction also concerns subjectivity of the

writer/speaker and what identities writers/speakers create for themselves (Martin &

White 2005: 1, 7). An analysis of the clause from this perspective is based on the

Mood, which consists of a subject and a finite.

The third metafunction, the textual one, has to do with the distribution of

information throughout the text. A well-known principle here is to mention the topic of

the sentence first (theme) and then what the speaker wants to say about this topic

(rheme) (Halliday 1994: 37-38). An example of this is „The doctor examined a

patient.‟ In this example, the doctor is information which is already known and a

patient is the new information.

The interest in evaluative language and subjectivity situates appraisal within

the interpersonal metafunction. Appraisal is interested in establishing relationships,

positioning the speaker and influencing people through the use of specific language

features.

2.2. Graduation: force and focus.

In my analysis, I will explore one aspect of appraisal in detail, namely force, a

subcategory of graduation. Most examples here come from the analysed speeches.

Some examples however were taken from Appraisal. The source of the examples is

mentioned every time, except for those providing a comparison with the examples

taken from the speeches. These examples are invented for comparison‟s sake.

Graduation is a mechanism by which a speaker can graduate the force of an

utterance or the focus of the categorization by which semantic values are identified.

Focus has to do with the prototypicality and the preciseness of category

boundaries. When viewed from an experiential perspective, these categories most

often are not scalable. Instead, they are presented as an either-or dichotomy. (Martin

and White 2005: 137-138) When focus is applied to these unscalable categories

however, they become scalable; for example:

14

competition […] sought out of joy and exhilaration and a quest for excellence.

competition […] sought out of joy and exhilaration and a true quest for excellence. (Bush

Sr2, line 123)

In the second example, belonging to the category of „quests‟ is no longer a matter of

either-or. It has become a matter of degree, which makes it possible to sharpen

(prototypicality) or soften (a marginal membership) the specification. Even when a

term is typically non-attitudinal, it often becomes laden with an attitudinal meaning

when it is under focus. This is shown in the second example.

The second sub-category of graduation is force. This sub-category deals with

upscaling and downscaling of certain locutions. Force can be further subdivided into

intensification and quantification. Intensification deals with degree of intensity of

qualities, processes and modality. Qualification is the collective term for assessments

of amount, more specifically assessments of number, extent and mass. These

assessments apply to entities rather than processes or qualities (Martin and White

2005: 140-141).

Assessments of number give an imprecise reckoning of the number of the

quantified referents. Some examples are a few, many and a multitude. Assessments

of mass or presence quantify the size of the referent, as in a small problem. Other

examples are small, huge, tiny and gigantic. Assessments of extent quantify either

the proximity or the distribution of the referent, both of which can refer to either time

or space. Some examples of proximity are recent arrival, ancient betrayal (time),

nearby mountains and distant mountains (space). Some examples of distribution are

long-lasting hostility, short battle, wide-spread hostility and narrowly-based support

(Martin and White 2005: 150-151).

2.3. Force: formal distinctions.

Intensification is generally realized in two different lexicogrammatical classes:

isolating and infusing. The distinction lies in whether the up- or downscaling is

realized by an isolated item which solely serves to set the level of intensity or whether

the up- or downscaling is fused with another semantic function (Martin and White

2005: 141-144).

15

the United Nations has a new and vital role in building towards that partnership. (Bush

Sr2 line 139, infusion)6

the United Nations has a new and very important role in building towards that

partnership. (isolation)

Another means to express intensification is through the use of metaphor. The use of

metaphor is a means to attract attention to the expression and therefore a way to

underscore the significance of the message (Trosborg 2000). Both isolated and

infused metaphors are possible:

He came out like a jack in a box. (Martin & White 2005: 147, isolated)

Prices have sky-rocketed. (Martin & White 2005: 148, infused)

A fourth way to realize intensification is via repetition, either by the repetition of the

same lexical item, or by the assembling of lists of semantically closely related terms.

It‟s hot hot hot. (Martin & White 2005: 144)

It was probably the most immature, irresponsible, disgraceful and misleading address

ever given. (Martin & White 2005: 144)

Quantification is most often realized by an isolated term which acts as a modifier of

the graduated entity. Infusion is also a possible way to express quantification. In this

case however, the assessment of quantity is carried by a noun head.

Our friends and allies in the Middle East recognize that they will bear the bulk of the

responsibility. (Bush Sr3, line 51, infused)

Our friends and allies in the Middle East recognize that they will bear most of the

responsibility. (isolated)

Infused quantification often is metaphorical ,as can be seen in the example above.

However, metaphor can also be found in isolated examples of quantification:

Very shortly we were struggling through mountainous seas. (Martin & White 2005: 152)

2.4. Force: semantic distinctions.

Another possible distinction between different kinds of graduation is a semantic

distinction. In this case the semantic meaning of the locution is looked at. Some

possible semantic distinctions are „place‟, „time‟, „importance‟ and scaling of „good‟

and „bad‟:

6 In all instances of force, I will underline the referent of the graduation. The graduation itself will be put

in bold. Infused instances of force will also be put in bold.

16

Even the new world order cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace. (Bush Sr3, lines

122-123, „time‟)

We went halfway around the world to do what is moral and just and right. (Bush Sr3, line

192, „place‟)

a new and historic session of the General Assembly (Bush Sr2, line 3, scaling

„importance‟)

a true quest for excellence. (Bush Sr2, line 123, scaling „good‟)

proposals to banish these terrible weapons from the face of the Earth. (Bush Sr2, line 92,

scaling „bad‟)

The easiest way to distinguish between various kinds of meaning is by paraphrasing

the graduated locution. When analysing infused intensification, this paraphrase

generally looks like „very X‟ or „extremely X‟, with X being a quality. In the above

examples, the graduated words (in bold) can thus be paraphrased as follows:

perpetual peace becomes „extremely long peace‟, halfway around the world equals

„very far away‟, historic can be paraphrased as „very important‟ and terrible as „very

bad‟. Only the fourth example differs from the others in that it is an abstract noun,

making it impossible to paraphrase it as an adjective or an adverb.

I will also pay attention to instances of judgement that are reinforced through

the use of force (for more on judgement, see 2.5.). I did not count all the instances of

judgement for this purpose. Instead, I counted all instances of force and

subsequently determined their meaning and whether or not they are judgemental.

This implies that not all instances of judgement are accounted for in the analysis. All

instances of judgement mentioned in the analysis are consequently also examples of

force.

Because of the difference in length between the six speeches, the figures that

are used are not representative. For example, both Bush Sr2 and Bush Jr2 contain

10 instances of scaling „good‟. However, Bush Sr2 contains 2759 words while Bush

Jr2 only contains 2454 words. A method to solve this issue is by using an average

word frequency. The average word frequency is the number of judgemental instances

in a speech, divided by the total number of words in that speech, multiplied by

10,000. We then get the number of occurrences if the speech in question contained

10,000 words, thus giving us the numbers needed to adequately compare the

speeches.

An important issue is what to include in the analysis. Within a semantic

category, there are always core examples and examples belonging at the margins of

17

that category. Some words can even be analysed as belonging to more than one

category. Core examples of scaling „importance‟ for example can be easily

paraphrased as „very important‟, such as vital, key and central. However, not all

examples are as clearly defined as these. I will therefore briefly elaborate on some

non-core elements of intensification.

One group of words I will also analyse as instances of intensification are the

comparatives. While definitely less strongly polarized than superlatives, they can still

be placed on a scale of intensity. Some examples are:

With all the hardships of this transition, the lives of the Iraqi people will be better than

anything they have known for generations (Bush Jr2, lines 133-134)

Following September 11, these pledges are even more important. (Bush Jr1, line

157)

The intensity of the comparatives can often depend on what something is compared

with. The first example is quite strongly intensified because of some reinforcing

elements in the second part of the sentence. These are anything and for generations.

Consequently, the Iraqis‟ lives will be better in comparison with a very large range of

alternatives. Even though this example is not an instance of maximization, it is still

intensified very strongly. The second example compares the importance of the

pledges after 9/11 with the importance of these same pledges before 9/11. It is

implied that the pledges were already very important before 9/11, and that they „are

even more important‟ now.

Another group of non-core examples of intensification are those cases that are

interpretable as both scaling „importance‟ (intensification) and focus. I include these

in my semantic analysis of intensification as they still convey some extra sense of

importance. Some examples are:

Every civilized nation here today is resolved to keep the most basic commitment of

civilization. (Bush Jr1, lines 4-5)

We will stand by our friends. One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this

fundamental truth. (Bush Sr1, lines 78-79)

Truth and commitment are normally non-scalar. Here however, they have become

scalable and can thus be analysed as focus. Both instances also carry a sense of

importance and are consequently also analysed as force: intensification. This shows

that these classifications are not absolute and should only serve as tools for analysis.

My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make

some tough decisions (Bush Jr3, lines 136-137)

18

Another questionable instance of „importance‟ is Solemn in the above example.

Solemn has nothing to do with „importance‟ in its literal sense. In this context, it is

interpretable as: „I will take this responsibility very seriously.‟ In other words, „this

responsibility is very important to me‟. It can also be paraphrased as „most important‟.

This demonstrates the importance of the context in the analysis. The meaning of the

graduated word itself is not enough to determine what semantic category it belongs

to.

Other included instances which might also be open for debate are desperately

needed and much needed:

Coalition members and the United Nations and other international organizations are

sending much needed medical supplies. (Bush Jr2, lines 126-130)

And very soon our coalition will be making direct emergency payments to Iraqi doctors

and nurses who will be providing desperately needed care to their fellow citizens.

When something is much needed, it is by implication also very important. For this

reason, I also included these instances as instances of scaling „importance‟.

2.5. Judgement.

Judgement is a subsystem of attitude encompassing meaning which evaluates

human behaviour according to certain institutionalized norms. Formally, judgement

can occur as an adjective, a verb, a noun or an adjunct.

A distinction can be made here between words dealing with „social esteem‟

and words dealing with „social sanction‟. Judgements of esteem have to do with

„normality‟, „capacity‟ and „tenacity‟. „Normality‟ means how special or unusual

someone is. Some examples are lucky, predictable, eccentric and obscure. „Capacity‟

expresses how capable one is. Adjectives of „capacity‟ are powerful, experienced,

expert, weak and uneducated. „Tenacity‟ says how resolute or dependable someone

is. A few examples are heroic, careful, loyal, cowardly, capricious and unfaithful.

„Social sanction‟ can be further divided into „veracity‟ and „propriety‟. „Veracity‟

has to do with how honest one is. Words which can be used here are truthful, honest

and tactful. „Propriety‟ has to do with ethics, with good and evil. Some adjectives of

„propriety‟ are law abiding, respectful, evil, greedy and cruel (Martin and White 2005:

52-54).

19

All judgement words are either positively or negatively evaluative. This way,

social esteem judgements can be divided into admiring (positive) and criticizing

(negative). Social sanction judgements can be divided into praising and condemning.

2.6. Manipulation, polarization and graduation.

An important topic in linguistics is the relationship between language and society.

Sociolinguists often claim that language is influenced by society. However, that

relationship goes in the opposite direction as well; i.e. language also influences

society (Fowler & Kress 1979:190). Manipulation is an example of the latter (This has

already been discussed in Goderis 2007).

Van Dijk (2006:360) defines manipulation as a communicative and

interactional practice, in which a manipulator exercises control over other people,

usually against their will or against their best interests. He also states that

manipulation is an observer‟s term, in the sense that people do not normally call their

own language manipulative.

The difference between manipulation and persuasion is that in persuasion the

interlocutors are free to believe or act as they please, while in manipulation the

recipients have a more passive role (van Dijk 2006:361). This occurs when the

addressees are unable to fully understand the intentions or the consequences of the

manipulator‟s beliefs or actions. According to this definition, advertising would be an

example of persuasive language use, while a genre with less transparency

concerning the speaker‟s purposes, such as political propaganda, would be an

example of manipulative language use. This means that whether or not a text is

manipulative depends more on the context than on textual features, such as

grammar and lexis. Consequently, the difference between persuasion and

manipulation can often be very hard to draw. However, this does not mean that some

structures of a language may not be more optimal for influencing people‟s minds.

For van Dijk, one of the most striking examples of manipulation of both U.S.

and world opinion is the rhetoric used to refer to 9/11 (van Dijk 2006: 370). In this

case, a specific event which made a huge impact on a group‟s mental models is

generalized to a whole ideology. The attack on the Twin Towers, which had a strong

emotional impact, is used to influence the mental models of not only the U.S. citizens,

20

but of people from around the world. By exploiting similar events, (like the Taliban

oppression and Saddam‟s alleged weapons of mass destruction,) this one event is

generalized to a whole ideology of „us fighting terrorism.‟ Van Dijk (2006: 370) states

that the language use here is manipulative because it is not in the best interest of the

citizens. On the contrary, it only serves the manipulator and his associates. Because

of this war on terrorism, terrorism may actually be promoted, which will only further

endanger the citizens. Bush claims to fight for freedom but he actually restricts civil

rights and freedoms for the cause of freedom (van Dijk 2006: 374).

Manipulation in this case is an abuse of power because citizens are manipulated into believing that such measures are taken in order to protect them. (van Dijk 2006:370).

An important issue when one deals with war rhetoric is the fact that nations are not

persuaded to go to war by a single speech, but rather by several persuasive efforts.

The war message is gradually developed over different speeches so that the

audience would not feel imposed upon. The advantage of the mental model of „war

on terror‟ is that it is an overarching model that can consist of many different

campaigns, such as the war in Afghanistan and the Iraq war. As soon as this

overarching model is justified, the individual campaigns require no further (or less)

justification as they can be integrated in the frame of „war on terror‟ (Görtz 2007:5-6).

A key element in my analysis is what van Dijk calls positive self-representation

and negative other-representation (van Dijk 2006:373). This means that an „us versus

them‟ image is constructed by linking positively evaluative items to the „us‟-group and

negatively evaluative items to the „them‟-group7 These negatively evaluative items

can be polarized even further by the use of force, thus resulting in dehumanization or

even demonization of the other. Positively evaluative items can be upscaled to

demonstrate (one‟s own) moral superiority, as can be seen in the following example:

they will find that their welcomed guests are parasites that will weaken them and

eventually consume them. (Bush Jr1 line 84)

He represents the finest of the fine -- those of our country who wear the uniform. (Bush

Jr2, line 47)

The second example is an amplification of good soldier. Force can thus be seen as a

device to facilitate both negative other -representation and positive self-

representation.

7 For more information on Polarizing „us‟ versus „them‟, see Goderis 2007

21

3. Analysis.

3.1 Analysis of intensification.

Bush Sr1 Bush Sr2 Bush Sr3 Bush Jr1 Bush Jr2 Bush Jr3

scaling „good‟ 5 10 12 3 10 0

scaling „bad‟ 5 9 7 13 7 11

scaling „importance‟ 12 15 9 4 10 7

absolute word frequency 3265 2759 2887 2477 2454 2265 Frequency of graduated judgements

Bush Sr1 Bush Sr2 Bush Sr3 Bush Jr1 Bush Jr2 Bush Jr3

scaling „good‟ 18 36 45 12 41 0

scaling „bad‟ 15 33 24 52 24 48

scaling „importance‟ 37 54 31 16 41 31

Judgement: Total 23 41 33 27 35 26 Frequency per 10,000 words

8

Bush Sr Bush Jr total

scaling „good‟ 31 18 25

scaling „bad‟ 24 42 33

scaling „importance‟ 40 29 35 Total average of each president

3.1.1. Overview of semantic domains.

In this section I will discuss the semantics of the intensified entities by looking at how

these can be paraphrased. I will first sketch the overall picture by determining which

semantic fields occur with the highest frequency. I will then narrow down the

discussion by looking at specific examples of these semantic fields.

The speeches contain three recurrent semantic fields where intensification

serves to further amplify judgemental items. These judgements can be positively or

negatively evaluated, thus constituting a semantic subdivision of graduation

8 The numbers in table 2 and table 3 are rounded off for convenience sake. This rounding off only took

place after all calculations were made to avoid any inaccuracies. Everything lower than „,6‟ is rounded down and everything higher than or equal to „,6‟ is rounded up.

22

consisting of scaling „good‟ and scaling „bad‟. This shows that a word can have

various functions at the same time, as can be seen in the following example:

1. All the world faces the most horrifying prospect of all. (Bush Jr1, line 46)

In this example the graduated entity is an instance of both social sanction

(judgement) and maximization (graduation, intensification).

Another very frequent instance of graduated judgement found in the speeches is

scaling „importance‟:

2. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. (Bush Sr1,

line 70)

This is an instance where the graduation is infused with „importance‟. This structure is

mirrored later in the sentence with an intensified instance of scaling „bad‟, resulting in

a reciprocal amplification. A possible paraphrase is given below. Clearly, this sounds

less emphasized than in example 2.

We cannot permit a very important resource to be dominated by a very ruthless one.

The most frequent semantic field of graduation in the speeches of Bush Sr is scaling

„importance‟, as can be seen in the above table. It has an average occurrence

frequency of 40 times per 10,000 words, while scaling „good‟ and scaling „bad‟ only

occur 31 and 23 times respectively. In the speeches of Bush Jr, scaling „bad‟ is the

most frequent semantic field with an average of 43 occurrences per 10,000 words.

Scaling „importance‟ only occurs 29 times per 10,000 words. and scaling „good‟ only

18 times.

When looking at the speeches separately we see that the general pattern is

confirmed in four of the six speeches, namely in Bush Sr1, Bush Sr2, Bush Jr1 and

Bush Jr3. Bush Sr1 and 2 have a respective frequency of 36 and 54, contrasting

quite sharply with the much lower amounts of scaling „good‟ and scaling „bad‟. In

Bush Sr3, scaling „good‟ is the most frequent semantic field with 42 occurrences per

10,000 words, thus deviating from the general pattern. Bush Jr1 and 3 respectively

contain 52 and 49 instances of scaling „bad‟. In Bush Jr1, this contrasts sharply with

both scaling „good‟ and scaling „importance‟, which have a very low frequency. In the

case of Bush Jr3, the amount of scaling „bad‟ contrasts strongly with the absence of

scaling „good‟. Bush Jr2 substantially deviates from the other speeches. All three

forms of judgement have a rather high frequency here and, as opposed to Bush Jr‟s

other two speeches, scaling „bad‟ has the lowest frequency.

23

3.1.2. Scaling ‘importance’.

Scaling „importance‟ is in general the most frequent semantic field, with an average

occurrence of 35 over all the speeches. Bush Sr clearly makes more use of this

judgemental device than his successor does, as can be seen in the above tables. In

five out of six speeches, scaling „importance‟ has a relatively high average frequency

of more than thirty times per 10,000 words. The only speech with a rather low

„importance‟ frequency is Bush Jr1.

I have further subdivided all instances of importance according to referent and

its meaning. In the subsequent sections, I will discuss the recurrent meanings, which

are „own virtue‟, „cooperation and solidarity‟ and „own interests and benefit‟.9

As has already been mentioned in 2.4., an important issue is what to include in

the analysis. Some of the examples are core examples that can easily be

paraphrased as „very important‟, while others belong to the margins of this category.

The obscurity of the boundaries between different semantic fields is demonstrated in

example 3. Here, fundamental can be analysed as both an instance of scaling

„importance‟ (intensification) and as focus (see section 2.4. for more on this).

3. We will stand by our friends. One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this


3.1.2.1. Emphasizing one’s own virtue.

The group of referents with the highest frequency is the one containing all instances

that demonstrate the virtuousness and good intentions of both presidents, their

administration or the whole coalition. This use does not occur in Bush Sr1 and is

most frequent in Bush Sr2, Bush Jr2 and Bush Jr3.

Bush Sr1 does not contain any instances of own virtue. In Bush Sr2, there are

five examples where his virtue is emphasized. Bush primarily achieves this by

claiming that he (or their side) is fighting for global peace and progress:

4. It is in our hands to […] press forward to cap a historic movement towards a new world

order and a long era of peace. (Bush Sr2, lines 104-106)

5. the calendar offers up a convenient milestone, a signpost, by which to measure our

progress as a community of nations. (Bush Sr2, line 112)

9 The table containing these different meanings has not been included in the paper itself due to its

large size. See appendix 7 for an overview of these referents.

24

In that same speech, Bush Sr calls the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait a crisis to which the

United Nations Security Council has offered a solution in the form of eight very

important resolutions. This once again underlines the importance and necessity of

Bush Sr‟s intervention in Iraq:

6. Since the invasion on August 2d, the Council has passed eight major resolutions

setting the terms for a solution to the crisis. (Bush Sr2, lines 55-56)

In Bush Sr3, the blending of „importance‟ with „own virtue‟ mostly deal with U.S.

internal affairs:

7. We must also enact the legislation that is key to building a better America. For example,

in 1990, we enacted an historic Clean Air Act. And now we've proposed a national

energy strategy. We passed a child-care bill that put power in the hands of parents.

And today, we're ready to do the same thing with our schools and expand choice in

education. (Bush Sr3, lines 134-137 and further)

This emphasis on U.S. internal affairs can be imputed to the audience of the speech,

which consists of U.S. citizens, as this is an address to Congress. The difference

between these instances and regular instances of scaling „good‟ is that the

righteousness of the war is further amplified by emphasizing its importance. Also, the

demonstration of virtue does not necessarily have to be in the graduation or in the

referent. In the following example the „own virtue‟ is contextually generated by the

use of an anecdote:

8. I'm sure that many of you saw on the television the unforgettable scene of four terrified

Iraqi soldiers surrendering. They emerged from their bunker broken, tears streaming

from their eyes, fearing the worst. And then there was an American soldier.

Remember what he said? He said: ``It's okay. You're all right now. You're all right

now.'' That scene says a lot about America, a lot about who we are. (Bush Sr2, lines

168-149)

This anecdote contrasts the horror suffered by the Iraqi soldiers and their

expectations of behaviour in war with the alleged immaculacy of the American

soldier. This scene deliberately shows a distorted image of the war. The war is

presented as if it is a „clean war‟, as if the U.S. Soldiers in Iraq are there to comfort

the broken Iraqi soldiers. It also creates the impression that there are hardly any

casualties in the Gulf War.

In the case of Bush Jr, the demonstration of his own virtue is most often

realized by saying that he is fighting for freedom:

9. You and I and all the world are witnessing historic days in the cause of freedom. (Bush

Jr2, line 49)

25

10. In Iraq, the world is witnessing something dramatic, and something important. We're

seeing the deep and universal desire of men and women to live in freedom. (Bush Jr2,

lines 152-153)

11. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own leaders

-- a landmark day in the history of liberty. (Bush Jr3 lines 1-2)

In examples 9, 10 and 11, it is not explicitly said that Bush Jr fights for freedom, but

that meaning is definitely invoked. In example 9, historic days in the cause of

freedom is juxtaposed to a description of the victory of the coalition forces in Iraq,

thus implying that freedom has been obtained by launching a war on Iraq. In example

11, landmark day in the history if liberty is equated to the fact that Iraqis were able to

choose their own leaders. The latter is a feat accomplished by the coalition, thus the

implication is evoked that the coalition has brought freedom to Iraq.

Bush Jr also shows his good intentions by saying that he fights for the

protection and safety of the United States and its citizens. In contrast with Bush Sr,

who openly admits that the Gulf war is partly for oil, Bush Jr mentions oil only once,

and here it is put forward as Special Operation forces protecting the oil fields of the

Iraqi people (for these references to oil in Bush Sr1, see section 3.2.8). This motive of

protection benefits greatly from the alleged claim that Saddam has ties with Al-Qaeda

as this is one of the main reasons used by Bush Jr to convince the nation to go to

war.

12. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make

some tough decisions (Bush Jr3, lines 136-137)

13. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the

security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and

grandchildren. (Bush Jr3, lines 144-146)

The decision to launch a war on Iraq is presented as a necessity and a decision that

was hard to make. The argument of U.S. security being at stake can be easily

contested by the Downing Street Memo, thus making the argument of security a

possible fallacy (see chapter 1.4).

The following examples emphasize that the U.S. and the Coalition are not only

going to war, but that they are also providing humanitarian aid, thus once more

emphasizing their positive acts and downscaling their negative ones. This serves to

maintain support from the public. Too much attention to casualties, either Iraqi or

American, would only result in a decrease in support for the war.

14. We're also addressing Iraq's urgent medical problems -- problems left by a regime that

built palaces in a country that needed hospitals[...] Coalition members and the United

26

Nations and other international organizations are sending much needed medical

supplies. (Bush Jr2, lines 126-130)

15. And very soon our coalition will be making direct emergency payments to Iraqi doctors

and nurses who will be providing desperately needed care to their fellow citizens.

(Bush Jr2, lines 131-133)

The last instance of blending „importance‟ with „own virtue‟ can be found in Bush Jr1.

This is also the only example of scaling ‟importance‟ in this speech.

16. Every civilized nation here today is resolved to keep the most basic commitment of

civilization.. We will defend ourselves and our future against terror and lawless

violence. The United Nations was founded in this cause. (Bush Jr1, lines 4-6)

This instance unifies all U.N. countries as being civilized, thus enhancing the

solidarity between these countries. At the same time, it implicitly contrasts „being

civilized‟ with others who do not share this most basic commitment of civilization, with

which is meant defending their future against terror and lawless violence.

Consequently, this sharply contrasts the virtue of the U.N. and its members with the

evil terrorists and their ally, the Taliban.

3.1.2.2. Emphasizing solidarity.

The semantic field that occurs with the second highest frequency is a blend of

„importance‟ and „solidarity‟. More concretely, they state the importance of the

coalition and their cooperation. This use of solidarity occurs once in Bush Sr3, three

times in Bush Sr1 and most frequently, seven times, in Bush Sr2. The speeches by

Bush Jr do not contain any instances of „solidarity‟ merged with „importance‟.

Bush Sr1 contains the following instances of solidarity:

17. The crisis in the Persian Gulf, as grave as it is, also offers a rare opportunity to move

toward an historic period of cooperation. Out of these troubled times, our fifth

objective -- a new world order -- can emerge: a new era -- freer from the threat of

terror, stronger in the pursuit of justice, and more secure in the quest for peace. (Bush

Sr1, lines 48-49)

18. We will stand by our friends. One way or another, the leader of Iraq must learn this


19. From the outset, acting hand in hand with others, we've sought to fashion the broadest

possible international response to Iraq's aggression. The level of world cooperation

and condemnation of Iraq is unprecedented. (Bush Sr1, lines 79-81)

27

Example 17 can be seen as a way to invite other countries to join the coalition

against Iraq. The importance of joining the coalition is greatly emphasized by rare

opportunity and historic period of cooperation. The invitation is made more attractive

by stating that they are fighting for the good of all: they fight for justice, peace and

security.

Example 18 illustrates the magnitude of America‟s loyalty. This loyalty of the

U.S. to their friends is portrayed as an extremely important truth that Saddam still has

to learn. This implicitly suggests that if a country aids the U.S., in this case with

fighting the war, then the U.S. will in turn help that specific country.

Example 19 evokes the image of the whole world uniting against an evil

aggressor. This is a prototypical example of promoting solidarity, which is

interpretable as an attempt to further include other nations in the war and to reassure

those already involved that they have made the right choice. Unprecedented literally

means „never happened before‟, but can in this context be interpreted as „very

important‟. By stating that the world has never condemned one to such extent and

never cooperated like that before, Bush demonizes Saddam even further. Interesting

is that all instances of unprecedented coincide with references to solidarity and

cooperation (see also examples 20 and 68).

Bush Sr2 contains by far the most instances of solidarity. A possible

explanation is the target audience of the speech, which are the United Nations

members. Even if the war has been approved by the U.S. Congress, Bush still needs

the support of the U.N. members to wage a war in the Middle East. Invoking solidarity

may then be analysed as an attempt to persuade those nations who still disagree

with Bush‟s declaration of war.

20. And on a personal note, I want to say that, having witnessed the unprecedented unity

and cooperation of the past 2 months, that I have never been prouder to have once

served within your ranks and never been prouder that the United States is the host

country for the United Nations. (Bush Sr2, lines 4-7)

21. And I see a world building on the emerging new model of European unity, not just

Europe but the whole world whole and free. This is precisely why the present

aggression in the Gulf is a menace not only to one region's security but to the entire

world's vision of our future. It threatens to turn the dream of a new international order

into a grim nightmare of anarchy in which the law of the jungle supplants the law of

nations. And that's why the United Nations reacted with such historic unity and

resolve. (Bush Sr2, lines 126-132)

28

Example 20 serves to show Bush‟s gratefulness towards all those who are

cooperating in the Gulf War and thus to further enhance feelings of solidarity. It also

emphasizes that the war is not an American affair but rather a choice made by the

United Nations in general. The importance and uniqueness of the level of

cooperation is greatly emphasized by the blend of „solidarity‟ and „importance‟. This

same principle is also used in examples 18 and 20.

Example 21 evokes an image where the aspirations of freedom of the entire

world are thwarted by an evil aggressor. Saddam, till recently supported by the U.S.,

is now called a grim nightmare of anarchy threatening the entire world. This is a

prototypical example of other-demonization and positive self-representation.

22. The Soviet Union has taken many dramatic and important steps to participate fully in

the community of nations. And when the Soviet Union agreed with so many of us here

in the United Nations to condemn the aggression of Iraq, there could be no doubt -- no

doubt then -- that we had, indeed, put four decades of history behind us. (Bush Sr2,

lines 35-39)

The fact that the Soviet Union agrees with the United States is at that time, recently

after the end of the cold war, a rather exceptional feat. Bush utilizes this fact to

demonstrate the concord within the United Nations. The fact that a former enemy of

the U.S. agrees with the Gulf War implicitly underlines the justness of the war and

thus also the malice of Saddam.

23. But the world's key task -- now, first and always -- must be to demonstrate that

aggression will not be tolerated or rewarded. Through the U.N. Security Council, Iraq

has been fairly judged by a jury of its peers, the very nations of the Earth. Today the

regime stands isolated and out of step with the times, separated from the civilized

world not by space but by centuries. (Bush Sr2, 79-80)

The first sentence in example 23 equates the united nations with the whole world.

This tacitly gives the United Nations authority over the whole world. The U.N.

resolution to go to war in Iraq is presented as a trial, where Iraq is the accused and

the United Nations is the judge. Once more the Iraqi government is denounced by

stating that it is separated from the civilized world. By opposing Iraq to the civilized

world and calling it out of step with the times, the Iraqi government is implied to be

primitive and barbaric. This is an attempt to justify the Gulf War.

24. In June the United States and the Soviet Union signed a landmark agreement to halt

production and to destroy the vast majority of our stockpiles. Today U.S. chemical

weapons are being destroyed. […] The Gulf crisis proves how important it is to act

together, and to act now, to conclude an absolute, worldwide ban on these weapons.

29

We must also redouble our efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, biological

weapons, and the ballistic missiles that can rain destruction upon distant peoples.

(Bush Sr2, lines 96-102)

In example 24, Bush Sr explains not only the importance of cooperation in the ban on

weapons of mass destruction, he also emphasizes the importance of cooperation in

the future. This can thus be seen as a marker of solidarity, aiming to bond all

members of the United Nations.

25. And throughout those 10 years, and beginning now, the United Nations has a new and

vital role in building towards that partnership. […] And for the first time, the U.N.

Security Council is beginning to work as it was designed to work. (Bush Sr2, lines

138-142)

26. Building on these and other initiatives, we must join together in a new compact -- all of

us -- to bring the United Nations into the 21st century, and I call today for a major

long-term effort to do so.[…] The United States is committed to playing its part,

helping to maintain global security, promoting democracy and prosperity. (Bush Sr2,

lines 169-171, 175-176)

In the two examples above, Bush Sr once again tries to boost feelings of solidarity

and to persuade other U.N. countries to cooperate more fully. He also wants to

extend the current cooperation in the Gulf war to a long-term form of cooperation,

thus aiming to create alliances for the future.

This use of upscaling to establish feelings of solidarity is also used in political

interviews, as has been demonstrated by Simon-Vandenbergen (1997). In both

cases, this is achieved by linking positively evaluative connotations to the „us‟-group

while making this group as large as possible and the „them‟-group as small as

possible.

3.1.2.3. Emphasizing importance of interest and benefit.

The third most frequent graduated use of „importance‟ is a blend of „importance‟ and

„interest‟. These interests are national, safety and economic interests. Some of these

instances are already mentioned in section 3.1.2.1. This has to do with the fact that

no word has only one isolated meaning, especially when looking at these words in a

larger context. This is even more true when the words are seen in a larger context.

The speech containing the largest number of „interest‟ is Bush Sr1. These

instances are:

30

27. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the

world's proven oil reserves. (Bush Sr1 lines 70-71)

28. We cannot permit a resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we

won't. (Bush Sr1, lines 74-75)

29. Even with our obligations in the Gulf, a sound defense budget can have some

reduction in real terms; and we're prepared to accept that. But to go beyond such

levels, where cutting defense would threaten our vital margin of safety, is something I

will never accept. (Bush Sr1, lines 175-178)

30. The world is still dangerous. And surely, that is now clear. Stability's not secure.

American interests are far reaching. Interdependence has increased. The

consequences of regional instability can be global. This is no time to risk America's

capacity to protect her vital interests. (Bush Sr1, lines 178-181)

These instances serve to show the audience that they also have a stake in the war.

Although the war is fought on the other side of the world, its consequences are very

real for all Americans, as it is fought to protect U.S. interests. In examples 27 and 28,

these interests are economic, more specifically oil-related. In example 28, an

intensified instance of „interest‟ is contrasted with one so ruthless, which is an

intensified instance of scaling „bad‟. This is a perfect example of polarization by

means of force. This is in contrast to Bush Jr, who never mentions any American

interest in oil. Examples 29 and 30 deal with U.S. Security interests. In example 29,

Bush Sr says that a large reduction of the defence budget would result in a serious

safety risk. This seems like an exaggerated statement as the current U.S. budget is

almost as much as that of all other countries combined (Shah 2008). In example 30,

the instability in the Gulf is presented as a risk to America’s capacity to protect her

vital interests. By saying that he is acting to defend his country, Bush aims to justify

the Gulf War once again.

Bush Sr3 also contains an instance of „interest‟:

31. Let it be clear: Our vital national interests depend on a stable and secure Gulf. (Bush

Sr3, lines 56-57)

This instance has exactly the same justifying function as example 30 from Bush Sr1.

Not only the function is the same, the form is as well: vital as instance of

intensification and interest as referent. Two other examples from Bush Sr3 are also

interpretable as a blend of „importance‟ and „interest‟. These are already discussed in

section 3.1.2.1. (See example 6)

32. We must also enact the legislation that is key to building a better America. For

example, in 1990, we enacted an historic Clean Air Act. (Bush Sr3, lines 134-135)

31

Both building a better America and clean air are beneficial for the U.S. citizens, and

thus interpretable as a blend of „interest‟ and „importance‟. However, building a better

America and providing it with clean air also shows Bush Sr‟s virtue.

The third speech containing blends of „importance‟ and „interest‟ is Bush Jr3.

33. And this vote -- 6,000 miles away, in a vital region of the world -- means that America

has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror. (Bush Jr3, lines 6-7)

34. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our nation, and that requires me to make

some tough decisions. (Bush Jr3, lines 136-137)

35. And I have never been more certain that America's actions in Iraq are essential to the

security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and

grandchildren. (Bush Jr3, lines 144-146)

Example 33 is classified under „interest‟ because the region is vital for U.S. interests.

In example 34, most solemn can be paraphrased as „very important.‟ (for more on

this example, see section 2.4.) Also, this sentence shows how grudgingly Bush Jr

made the decision to go to war, and that it was made to protect the nation. This

demonstrates how good Bush Jr‟s intentions really are, as has also been discussed

in section 3.1.2.2. This motive of security is greatly emphasized in example 35, once

more underlining that the war is not fought for personal gain.

Interestingly, all instances of „interest‟ occur in speeches to an American

audience and refer to national interests, illustrating both the importance of the

audience and of the context. The very frequent use of vital is also very striking. More

than half of all instances of „interest‟ are combined with vital.

3.1.2.4 Contrast with ungraduated instances of ‘importance’.

Ungraduated instances of „importance‟ are very hard to find in all six speeches.

Nonetheless, one interesting case can be found in Bush Jr3:

36. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols […] has brought

danger and suffering and loss. This loss has caused sorrow for our whole nation --

and it has led some to ask if we are creating more problems than we're solving. That

is an important question, and the answer depends on your view of the war on terror.


Remarkably, this also happens to be the only analysed speech where attention is

paid to dissenting voices. This speech is delivered at a time when support for the Iraq

32

war is lower than ever before. If this instance of importance were graduated, it would

evoke a different picture:

That is a vital question.

Too much importance would then be accredited to the opinion of the dissenters,

making it harder to refute their question. This heed to dissenting voices can be linked

with the historical context, as the speech is given at a time when violence in Iraq

flared up, once more necessitating a justification of the war.

3.1.3. Scaling ‘bad’.

The second most frequent semantic subdivision of judgement is scaling „bad‟, with an

average frequency of 33 over all the speeches, which is only slightly lower than the

frequency of scaling „importance‟. Scaling „bad‟ is far more frequently used by Bush

Jr, with a frequency of 43. Bush Sr‟s speeches only have an average frequency of

24. The entities that are most often intensified refer to the enemy.10 51 instances of

scaling ‘bad‟ were found throughout all the speeches, 25 of which have the enemy as

referent. Five of these refer to „tyrant‟(or dictator), meaning Saddam, and four refer to

terrorism. Nine instances refer to bad values which are attributed to the enemy. The

eight remaining instances mostly refer to the enemy in general or the Iraqi regime. All

these references to the enemy will be discussed in the next sections. Since the other

instances of scaling „bad‟ do not show any recurrent pattern, they will not be dealt

with here.

3.1.3.1. References to terrorism.

Bush Jr1 contains the largest number of direct references to terrorism. This is due to

the fact that this speech is delivered shortly after 9/11 and at the beginning of the war

in Afghanistan, a war waged against Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

37. Last week, the sheik of Al-Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic institution of

higher learning, declared that terrorism is a disease and that Islam prohibits killing

innocent civilians. (Bush Jr1, lines 25-26)

10

For an overview of these referents, see appendix 8.

33

In example 37, terrorism is condemned by saying that it is a disease, which is a

metaphorical use of intensification. This condemnation is given extra credibility by

attributing it to a member the Al-Azhar University. This university is then explicitly

described as the world‟s oldest Islamic institution of higher learning. By explicitly

mentioning that the condemnation is by an Islamic authority, Bush Jr aims to

persuade other Islamic countries to join in the war against the Taliban and the

terrorists.

38. And some governments, while pledging to uphold the principles of the U.N., have cast

their lot with the terrorists. They support them and harbor them, and they will find that

their welcomed guests are parasites that will weaken them and eventually consume

them. (Bush Jr1, lines 82-84)

Example 38 also contains a comparison of terrorism and disease. However, this

comparison is even more metaphorical and definitely more strongly upscaled than in

the last example. This extract serves as a warning to those who might be inclined to

aid the terrorists. For this purpose, the terrorists are dehumanized by comparing

them with parasites that weaken and consume their host. In turn, these parasites are

contrasted to welcomed guests, once more demonstrating the bad intentions of the

terrorists and underlining the absence of any feelings of gratitude.

39. The conspiracies of terror are being answered by an expanding global coalition. (Bush

Jr1, line 69)

In the above example, Bush Jr emphasizes that the terrorists are not separate groups

but that they form a whole network conspiring against the (western) world.

Bush Jr2 does not contain any graduated references to terrorism, even though

there are plenty of regular references to terrorism. Bush Jr3 contains one intensified

reference to terrorism, more specifically to Al Qaeda, as can be seen in example 40.

In this example, Bush Jr evokes an image of the war where all opposition (in Iraq)

comes from the terrorists. This way, Bush always avoids the mention of an ordinary

Iraqi who might just be defending his home country. All those who oppose the U.S.

are almost automatically seen as terrorists, making it ethically much easier to quench

any opposition and to support the war. By stating that Al Qaeda attempts to frighten

and intimidate America, Bush also gives another argument to continue the war in

Iraq. Because no one would want to make any concessions to the terrorists

responsible for 9/11, these terrorists can easily be used to motivate any prolongation

of the war.

34

40. These terrorists view the world as a giant battlefield -- and they seek to attack us

wherever they can. This has attracted al Qaeda to Iraq, where they are attempting to

frighten and intimidate America into a policy of retreat. (Bush Jr3, lines 43-45)

The speeches by Bush Sr do not contain any intensified references to terrorism. In

fact, terrorism is only mentioned once in his speeches. What is mentioned a couple of

times is terror, as in the threat of terror or the tactics of terror. The relative absence of

words referring to terrorism is due to the fact that this war is not against any form of

terrorism but rather to stem Iraq‟s invasion of Kuwait. Once more, this shows the

influence of the historical context on the speeches and more specifically on the use

of force. More remarkable is the relative absence of quantified references to „tyrant‟

or „dictator‟, which is discussed in the next section.

3.1.3.2. References to dictatorship and the enemy in general.

In this section, I will discuss both implicit and explicit references to Saddam and his

government. These can be found in appendix 8, respectively under the headings

„enemy‟ and „dictator‟.

Bush Jr1 does not contain any references to Saddam or the Iraqi regime. The

only references to enemies are those referring to terrorism. This can be very easily

explained by the fact that the United States did not have any conflict with Iraq at the

time of delivering this speech. The enemies of the U.S. were the Taliban and the

terrorists.

In Bush Jr2, the intensified references to dictatorship consist of once explicit

reference to „dictator‟, one implicit reference to Saddam and one reference to the

Iraqi forces and regime in general. Again, this might be explained by looking at the

context of the speech. At that time, a month after the beginning of the Iraq war, Iraq

and its president Saddam had to be represented as the main enemy and not anyone

in Afghanistan, even though that war was still ongoing as well. Worldwide, the Iraq

War was greeted with more reluctance than the Afghanistan war was. Saddam was a

perfect candidate for the role of villain, or as Bush Jr says it, „a murderous dictator‟

(Bush Jr3, line 27).

41. One month ago -- just one month ago -- the forces of our coalition stood at the borders

of Iraq, with orders to advance hundreds of miles through hostile territory, against a

ruthless enemy. (Bush Jr2, lines 49-51)

35

Example 41 contains the most general reference to „enemy‟, namely to Iraq in

general or at least to the Iraqi government and the Iraqi troops. This sentence marks

the beginning of a short chronological account of all the progress the coalition has

made (Bush Jr2, lines 49-65). This account is presented as a comparison of the

situation before and after the invasion of Iraq. Every time, the situation after the

invasion is shown to be much better than before. This example shows the great

amount of progress the coalition forces have made.

42. Just days after the fall of the dictator, just days after the people of Iraq realized they

were free from the clutches of his terror, the Iraqi people are reclaiming their own

streets, their own country, and their own future. (Bush Jr2, lines 141-143)

In example 42, the graduation metaphorically dehumanizes Saddam. Terror already

is an upscaled term, in the sense of „very frightening‟. It is also a very useful term, as

it can refer to fear, to tyranny and to terrorism. In this sentence, it stands for tyranny,

even though it still conveys a sense of intense fear as well. This term is further

strengthened by the modification the clutches of. This underlines the stranglehold in

which Saddam held his citizens. It also evokes a certain monstrosity, as clutches can

also be paraphrased as „claws‟.

43. The journey from a totalitarian, brutal dictatorship to a free society is not easy. (Bush

Jr2, line 136)

The above example opposes the values of Saddam with those of the free Western

world through the use of the metaphor „journey‟. The coalition‟s presence in Iraq is

presented as a catalyst that will initiate a journey from repression to freedom. This

sentence is followed by specific examples where Iraqis are cooperating with the

coalition‟s forces, showing that the Iraqis are mostly content with the invasion.

The largest number of graduated references to the enemy can be found in

Bush Jr3. This speech contains three graduated references to „dictator‟, one to

terrorists (see 3.1.2.1) and one to enemy in general.

44. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined

and brutal, unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war. (Bush Jr3, lines 60-61)

Example 44 once again demonstrates the wickedness of Saddam. All the violence

and suffering in Iraq is attributed to Saddam, which is a personalization of the war in

Iraq. The war is said to be fought against Saddam solely. Blaming one person is

more tenable blaming an entire people. Consequently, blaming the other side for all

the suffering shifts the blame away from the U.S. Government, one of the major

players in this war. The two instances of intensification in the next example (45)

36

further underline the intensification in example 44. Saddam is depicted here as a

murderous dictator and a raging tyrant who was toppled by the coalition against

terror. It is mentioned that he was given an ultimatum but eventually chose differently

and declared the U.S. to be his enemy. However, Saddam gave his consent to the

search of the U.N. weapon inspectors for weapons of mass destruction, which can

hardly be called a choice for war:

The important thing to remember, Blix said repeatedly, was that Saddam was cooperating with the inspections, despite the difficulties they create for a leader. (Powell 2004)

Rather it was Bush‟s administration that gave no credence to the meagre results of

the inspectors and decided to invade Iraq anyway to remove Saddam and install

freedom in his place (Lewis and Reading-Smith 2008).

45. He was given an ultimatum -- and he made his choice for war. And the result of that

war was to rid a -- the world of a murderous dictator who menaced his people,

invaded his neighbors, and declared America to be his enemy. Saddam Hussein,

captured and jailed, is still the same raging tyrant -- only now without a throne. His

power to harm a single man, woman, or child is gone forever. And the world is better

for it. (Bush Jr3, lines 25-29)

In the next example, Bush Jr is talking about the tyrants in the Middle East, implying

that there are more than just Saddam. Tyrant is further intensified by their repressive

grip. Bush subsequently mentions enemies who have pledged to attack us and global

terrorist movement, stimulating the people‟s fear and thus aiming to convince them to

continue to lend him their support for the war.

46. It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out

of Iraq before our work is done. […] We would cause the tyrants in the Middle East to

laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq

over to enemies who have pledged to attack us and the global terrorist movement

would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. (Bush Jr3, lines 106-

112)

Of the three speeches by Bush Sr that have been analysed, Bush Sr1 is the one

containing the largest number of intensified references to Iraq. These are all

references to the Iraqi regime in general. There was no such need to demonize

Saddam as Bush Sr‟s purpose was not to overthrow Saddam but rather to stem the

Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. This implies that the emphasis of the arguments should be

focused on bad consequences of the invasion of Kuwait and not on the malice of

Saddam.

37

47. As you know, I've just returned from a very productive meeting with Soviet President

Gorbachev [...] In Helsinki, our joint statement affirmed to the world our shared resolve

to counter Iraq's threat to peace. Let me quote: ``We are united in the belief that Iraq's

aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger

states can devour their smaller neighbors.'' (Bush Sr1, lines 41-46)

In this example (47), Bush Sr quotes a joint statement made by Gorbachev and

himself. The explicit agreement with the president of a former enemy of the U.S.

gives this statement extra credibility. Devour is an example of metaphorical use of

scaling „bad.‟ It is as if the larger state (a generalization for Iraq) is a predator and the

smaller state (Kuwait) is the prey. Example 48 replaces „devour‟ with „swallow‟, which

is clearly less strong but basically has the same meaning. This example, already

discussed in section 3.1.2.3, warns the world of the danger of letting a villain (one so

ruthless) control such a vital resource (oil). They cannot permit such a danger, and

thus the U.S. is implied to be acting for the safety of the world.

48. An Iraq permitted to swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as

well as the arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors -- neighbors who

control the lion's share of the world's remaining oil reserves. We cannot permit a

resource so vital to be dominated by one so ruthless. And we won't. (Bush Sr1, lines

71-75)

Bush Sr2 contains one reference to Iraq in general and one to despots. The

intensification in the reference to Iraq consists of terrorized, which can be interpreted

as an upscaled version of „scare‟ (see example 49). The invasion of Kuwait is

presented as a barbaric act, an image that is also found in example 23 (see 3.1.2.2.).

This example is a justification of the war, as it shows all the things the Iraqi regime

has done wrong.

49. Iraq's unprovoked aggression is a throwback to another era, a dark relic from a dark

time. It has plundered Kuwait. It has terrorized innocent civilians. It has held even

diplomats hostage. Iraq and its leaders must be held liable for these crimes of abuse

and destruction. (Bush Sr2, lines 84-86)

Example 50 is another justification of the war. It states that the aim of the Gulf War is

to stem the use of weapons of mass destruction. I analysed this instance as a

reference to „dictator‟, even though it is also interpretable as a reference to enemies

in general. Even though it refers to more than one despot, this speech is about the

situation in Iraq and consequently „despots‟ implicitly refers to Saddam.

50. We must also redouble our efforts to stem the spread of nuclear weapons, biological

weapons, and the ballistic missiles that can rain destruction upon distant peoples. The

38

United Nations can help bring about a new day, a day when these kinds of terrible

weapons and the terrible despots who would use them are both a thing of the past.


Bush Sr3 only contains one instance referring to „tyrant‟. An explanation for this

would be the fact that the Iraq war has already been terminated with Saddam

remaining in power. If Saddam were still dehumanized thoroughly, people would

wonder why he was left in place, which might harm the popularity of Bush Sr. This

example can also be seen as a portrayal of the enemy‟s bad values, since the

reference is to tyranny in general and not to one specific example (for more on this

example, see section 3.1.3.3.).

51. We went halfway around the world to do what is moral and just and right. We fought

hard and, with others, we won the war. We lifted the yoke of aggression and tyranny

from a small country that many Americans had never even heard of, and we ask

nothing in return. (Bush Sr3, lines 192-194)

As can be seen above, Bush Sr mostly intensifies the wickedness of Iraq‟s invasion

of Kuwait while Bush Jr most often intensifies the malice of Saddam‟s personality.

3.1.3.3. References to the enemy’s bad values.

This section contains all instances referring to intensified „bad values‟ that are

characteristic of the enemy. These can consequently be seen as references to the

enemy.

Bush Jr1 contains two instances of graduated „bad values‟.

52. Few countries meet their exacting standards of brutality and oppression. Every other

country is a potential target, and all the world faces the most horrifying prospect of all:

These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass destruction, the tools to turn

their hatred into holocaust. (Bush Jr1, lines 45-48)

The enemies to whom these standards of brutality and oppression refer are the

terrorists, more specifically Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Bush Jr creates a very strong

image here, namely that of the holocaust. This evokes the horrors of the Second

World War and Hitler‟s annihilation of the Jews and all dissenters. By stating that not

a lot of countries are evil enough to join the terrorists and that the other countries

may all be targets for them, Bush aims to persuade all U.N. nations to join his war

against the terrorists.

39

53. It undermines the credibility of this great institution, for example, when the Commission

on Human Rights offers seats to the world's most persistent violators of human

rights. (Bush Jr1, lines 167-169)

In example 53, scaling „good‟ is contrasted with scaling „bad‟. More specifically, great

institution is contrasted with most persistent violators of human rights. This is meant

to frighten those who might support the terrorists. Saying they are the worst violators

of human rights in the whole world is a clear condemnation of the terrorists.

Bush Jr2 does not contain any instances of intensified bad values, whereas Bush Jr3

contains two instances, both of which can be found in the same utterance:

54. I see a global terrorist movement that exploits Islam in the service of radical political

aims -- a vision in which books are burned, and women are oppressed, and all dissent

is crushed. (Bush Jr3, lines 38-40)

Radical can be paraphrased as „very extreme‟ and can thus be analysed as

intensification. Crushed is a metaphorical use of intensification. By showing how

radically intolerant the enemy is, Bush Jr makes it ethically easier to fight against this

enemy.

Bush Sr1 contains one instance of bad values:

55. A soldier, Private First Class Wade Merritt of Knoxville, Tennessee, now stationed in

Saudi Arabia, wrote his parents of his worries, his love of family, and his hope for

peace. But Wade also wrote, ``I am proud of my country and its firm stance against

inhumane aggression. I am proud of my army and its men. I am proud to serve my

country.'' (Bush Sr1, lines 17-20)

Example 55 contains a quote made by a soldier stationed in the Middle East. By

showing that the soldier agrees with him on the necessity of the war, Bush Sr

increases his own credibility. This anecdote also personalizes the war by giving the

private opinion of one who is directly involved. Furthermore, the gulf war is presented

as a firm stance against inhumane aggression. This one-sided account emphasizes

the benevolent intentions of the U.S. The intensified utterance inhumane aggression

clearly dehumanizes the actions of the Iraqi government.

56. It has plundered Kuwait. It has terrorized innocent civilians. It has held even diplomats

hostage. Iraq and its leaders must be held liable for these crimes of abuse and

destruction. But this outrageous disregard for basic human rights does not come as a

total surprise. Thousands of Iraqis have been executed on political and religious

grounds, and even more through a genocidal poison gas war waged against Iraq's

own Kurdish villagers. (Bush Sr2, lines 84-89)

40

Example 21, already discussed in section 3.1.2.2, also contains a graduated

reference to the enemy‟s bad values by giving an account of the evil deeds

committed by the Iraqi regime, once more justifying the Gulf War. Grim already is an

intensifier for nightmare, and nightmare in turn intensifies anarchy.

Bush Sr3 also contains two instances or intensified bad values:

57. Our uncommon coalition must now work in common purpose: to forge a future that

should never again be held hostage to the darker side of human nature. (Bush Sr3,

lines 36-38)

Example 57 is a call for unity within the United Nations, an attempt to rally support for

the future. The second instance of intensified bad values has already been

mentioned in example 51, which contains a metaphorical instance of intensification.

In this example, The waging of this war is depicted as the ultimate altruistic deed.

This example implies that the removal of aggression and tyranny was their aim.

However, they did not overthrow the tyrant so the question to what extent they have

actually removed aggression and tyranny remains open for debate.

3.1.4. Scaling ‘good’.

The speeches by Bush Jr contrast sharply with one another. Bush Jr1 and 3 have the

lowest amount of scaling „good‟, with three instances in Bush Jr1 and not a single

occurrence in Bush Jr3. The three instances of scaling „good‟ in Bush Jr1 all consist

of great:

58. The terrorists call their cause holy, yet they fund it with drug dealing. They encourage

murder and suicide in the name of a great faith that forbids both. They dare to ask

God's blessing as they set out to kill innocent men, women and children. But the God

of Isaac and Ismail would never answer such a prayer. (Bush Jr1, lines 27-30)

Example 58 is a good example of polarization through the use of lexis and force. This

passage opposes murder and suicide with a great faith that forbids both. This

simultaneously compliments the Islam, condemns the terrorists and shows the Islam

that the terrorists are evil. Throughout the whole paragraph, religious references are

opposed to words referring to murder and delinquency, thus condemning the

terrorists.

59. The steps I've described will not be easy. For all nations, they will require effort. For

some nations, they will require great courage. Yet, the cost of inaction is far greater.


41

In example 59, Bush shows how reasonable he is by acknowledging the fact that it

might not be easy for some countries to join the fight against terrorism. However, he

implicitly pushes the audience towards joining the coalition by saying that the cost of

inaction is far greater. The third example, great institution, is a reference to the U.N.

(Bush Jr1, lines 166-167, see example 53 in section 3.1.3.3.).

Bush Jr2 on the other hand has the second highest frequency of scaling

„good‟, with an average of 41. In general, Scaling „good‟ occurs much more frequently

in the speeches by Bush Sr. Bush Sr1 has an average of 18 occurrences per 10,000

words, while Bush Sr2 and 3 have an average of 36 and 45 respectively. This clearly

shows an increase in scaling „good‟ throughout the development of the war. Scaling

„bad‟ and scaling „importance‟ however have their highest frequency in Bush Sr2.

A subdivision can be made, comprising four different semantic categories11.

By far the most frequent category is the one complimenting the U.S. military and its

performance (14 occurrences). The second most frequent semantic category

contains instances referring to positive U.S. goals, mostly in Iraq (8 occurrences).

The third category gives a positive characterization of the United States (6

occurrences). The fourth category compliments and expresses the speaker‟s

gratitude towards the audience (5 occurrences).

3.1.4.1 Complimenting the U.S. military or its performance.

Bush Jr1 and 3 do not contain any instances complimenting the U.S. military. Bush

Jr2 contains 10 instances of scaling „good‟, four of which compliment the U.S.

military.

60. And also standing out there at the stairs was Adrian Fakes Private First-class U.S.

Marine Corps [...] He represents the finest of the fine -- those of our country who

wear the uniform. (Bush Jr2, lines 45-48)

61. People who serve in the military are giving their best to America (Bush Jr2, line 101)

62. In any conflict, however, this nation's greatest single asset is the kind of men and

women who put on the uniform of the United States. The methods of war have

changed, but the need for courage has not. (Bush Jr2, lines 108-110)

63. From Kabul to Baghdad, American forces and our fine allies have conducted some of

the most successful military campaigns in history. (Bush Jr2, lines 82-83)

11

For an overview on scaling „good‟, see appendix 9.

42

Example 60 clearly is an instance of maximization. The intensification here is even

stronger than a regular superlative. In example 61, the soldiers are represented as

people who serve America as best as they can. In example 62, Bush Jr says that

soldiers are the nation’s greatest single asset in conflict and further implies that they

are very courageous, once more complimenting the U.S. military. The compliment in

example 63 differs slightly from the first three in that it refers to the campaign as a

whole. The American forces are still mentioned and are thus explicitly included in this

compliment.

Remarkable is that in all these instances, „soldier‟ is referred to indirectly. The

use of superlatives is also striking. All these examples are maximized instances of

scaling „good‟. Consequently, we can conclude that references to „U.S. military‟ are

often euphemised. When adding the negative portrayal of the enemy as seen in

3.1.3, a polarized image is constructed showing America‟s fine soldiers fighting

against a ruthless enemy. However, in contrast to Bush Jr‟s other two speeches,

Bush Jr2 puts slightly more emphasis on the goodness of the Americans, while the

other two speeches very clearly emphasize the malice of the enemy and rarely

upscale the Americans‟ goodness.

Bush Sr contains more than twice as many compliments to the U.S. army,

most of these occurring in Bush Sr3.

64. At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert

and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. They

are some of the finest men and women of the United States of America. And

they're doing one terrific job. These valiant Americans were ready at a moment's

notice to leave their spouses and their children, to serve on the front line halfway

around the world. They remind us who keeps America strong: they do. In the trying

circumstances of the Gulf, the morale of our service men and women is excellent. In

the face of danger, they're brave, they're well-trained, and dedicated. (Bush Sr1, lines

9-16)

To fully contextualize example 64, I included the whole paragraph, which has only

one function: complimenting the U.S. military. This paragraph contains three

instances of scaling „good‟ that refer to the military. Besides instances of force, this

paragraph is filled with instances of judgement, such as brave, valiant and dedicated.

This paragraph demonstrates the valour and high morale of the U.S. army, despite

the harsh circumstances and thus boosts not only the morale of the troops but also

that of the U.S. citizens.

43

65. I also want to thank the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Powell; the

Chiefs here tonight; our commander in the Persian Gulf, General Schwartzkopf; and

the men and women of the Department of Defense. What a magnificent job you all

are doing. (Bush Sr1, lines 22-25)

This instance of scaling „good‟ is similar to terrific job in example 64. The difference

here is that this is a direct address to specific people who are present at the address,

while in example 64 these people are not present and are thus referred to in third

person. Example 65 could also have been analysed as „thanking the audience‟, but

as the compliment refers to their accomplishments in the Gulf War, I interpreted it as

a compliment to the U.S. performance in Iraq.

Bush Sr2 does not contain any instances complimenting the American military.

A probable explanation for this is the primary audience of the speech, which consists

of the U.N. members. They might not appreciate an extreme glorification of the U.S.

military.

Bush Sr3 contains the largest number of compliments to the military. A

plausible explanation here is the ceasefire. The war is over, and thus the president

shows his extensive gratitude towards those who have helped him to achieve this

victory.

66. But I wish to depart from tradition tonight and express to you on behalf of the

Congress and the country, and through you to the members of our Armed Forces, our

warmest congratulations on the brilliant victory of the Desert Storm Operation. (Bush

Sr3, lines 2-5)

67. And Mr. Speaker, thank you, sir, for those very generous words spoken from the heart

about the wonderful performance of our military. (Bush Sr3, lines 8-9)

Examples 66 and 67 are both maximized instances of „capacity‟, showing the

competence of the U.S. military and Bush Sr‟s gratitude towards them. Despite the

fact that Saddam remains in power in Iraq, Bush Sr wants to emphasize that the

victory of the U.S. was complete.

68. This is a victory for every country in the coalition, for the United Nations. A victory for

unprecedented international cooperation and diplomacy, so well led by our Secretary

of State, James Baker. (Bush Sr3, lines 18-20)

In example 68, Bush Sr presents the Gulf War as a victory for unique international

cooperation and diplomacy and largely attributes this victory to the American

Secretary of State, whose competence is intensified in this instance.

69. Desert Storm's success belongs to the team that so ably leads our Armed Forces: our

Secretary of Defense and our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Dick Cheney and Colin

44

Powell. And while you're standing -- [laughter] -- this military victory also belongs to

the one the British call the ``Man of the Match'' -- the tower of calm at the eye of

Desert Storm -- General Norman Schwarzkopf. (Bush Sr3, lines 21-25)

Once again, the competence of the U.S. administration and military is emphasized. In

the first instance of intensification, the grammatical referent is the team. However, the

team is a cataphoric reference to Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint

Chiefs, which in turn refer to Dick Cheney and Colin Powell. Consequently, al these

instances can be seen as the semantic referent. I chose for the official titles because

they carry a heavier semantic load than team and because they have a higher

patriotic value than just the names Powell and Cheney. The second intensification of

„good‟ in this example is the double metaphor tower of calm at the eye of Desert

Storm. The eye of Desert Storm is a blend of Desert Storm and the eye of the storm,

which in this case means „the core of the conflict‟. In the centre of this conflict stands

the tower of calm, not only starkly contrasting with the fury of the conflict, but also

calmly and competently towering above it.

70. We hear so often about our young people in turmoil -- how our children fall short, how

our schools fail us, how American products and American workers are second-class.

Well, don't you believe it. The America we saw in Desert Storm was first-class talent

[...] We saw the excellence embodied in the Patriot missile and the patriots who

made it work. (Bush Sr3, lines 155-159)

Those possessing the first-class talent in example 70 are the Americans in Desert

Storm, another reference to the U.S. soldiers that emphasizes their competence.

After emphasizing America‟s (military) technological advancement, Bush Sr calls the

Patriot missile and its creators excellence embodied. This is a rare example where a

weapon is positively maximized. The positive image of this weapon is further

reinforced by its name: the „patriot‟ part underlines the American nationalism and

gives it a positive connotation.

71. This victory belongs to the finest fighting force this nation has ever known in its

history.(Bush Sr3, lines 190-191)

In this example, the competence of the U.S. military is maximized once again. This is

strengthened even more by the quantification in its history. The quality of the U.S.

army at the time of the speech is thus compared with those throughout the whole

U.S. history, and still that fighting force is the best.

45

All these instances aim to enhance the feelings of nationalism by stimulating the

pride of the army and by enlarging the extraordinariness of the feats accomplished in

the Gulf War.

3.1.4.2. Positive description of U.S. actions in Iraq.

Positive descriptions of the American actions in Iraq occur four times in Bush Jr2,

once in Bush Sr2 and twice in Bush Sr3.

72. With all the hardships of this transition, the lives of the Iraqi people will be better than

anything they have known for generations. The journey from a totalitarian, brutal

dictatorship to a free society is not easy. (Bush Jr2, lines 133-136)

This example stresses the difference in Iraq before and after the Gulf War. The

situation presented here is that of a transition from repression to freedom. War is

presented as a journey that will improve the situation in Iraq. The hardships of the

war are mentioned, but Bush Jr states that even with these hardships of war, the

lives of the Iraqi people will still be better than they were before the war, under the

reign of Saddam. Bush Jr thus minimizes the hardships of the war. When looking at

the current situation however, this might not be a realistic picture. Even though a

tyrant has in fact been removed, a war never improves the citizens‟ standards of

living.

73. Our country and our good allies are united by a great goal: We're working to create

the conditions for peace. We're confronting the threats to peace from terrorism and

weapons of mass destruction. (Bush Jr2, lines 160-162)

Example 73 literally states that the goals of the coalition are purely benevolent: they

go to war to fight for peace. They are fighting in Iraq to confront the threats of

terrorism (links to Al-Qaeda) and of weapons of mass destruction.

74. Free societies turn the creative gifts of men and women towards progress and the

betterment of their own lives. American interests and American founding beliefs lead

in the same direction: We stand for human liberty.(Bush Jr2, lines 164-166)

Once more, the benevolence of the U.S. is underlined here. The United States is

presented as fighting for the freedom of humankind.

In example 75, Bush Sr talks about democracy, human rights and their hopes

for a more stable, more peaceful, more prosperous world. This implies that the U.S.,

or in this case the U.N. in general, is fighting for the good of the world. This instance

of intensification consists of a blend of repetition and comparatives.

46

75. But the world also remains a hopeful place. Calls for democracy and human rights are

being reborn everywhere, and these calls are an expression of support for the values

enshrined in the United Nations Charter. They encourage our hopes for a more

stable, more peaceful, more prosperous world. (Bush Sr2, lines 154-157)

76. The Persian Gulf and Middle East form a region rich in natural resources with a wealth

of untapped human potential. Resources once squandered on military might must be

redirected to more peaceful ends. (Bush Sr3, lines 84-87)

In example 76, once squandered on military might is opposed redirected to more

peaceful ends, contrasting the bad situation before the intervention with what should

be done in the future. Bush Sr criticizes countries that squander resources on

defence.12 The next instance of intensification, found in example 51, is realised

through the use of repetition. In this example, Bush states that they benevolently

protected a small nation from tyranny without asking anything in return. When

comparing this with example 28 from Bush Sr1, however, (see section 3.1.2.3.), a

discrepancy can be found. In Bush Sr1, it is stated that the U.S. did have interests in

the Middle East, namely the oil reserves.

All these examples illustrate the aim to convince the public that the U.S. is not

fighting for its own interests, but for the interests of the entire world. This implies that

the motives for the war are purely altruistic and that the war is just.

3.1.4.3. Positive U.S. characterization.

The examples in this section are quite similar to those in the above section, both

positively portraying the United States. The difference lies in what has been

presented in a positive way. In the last section, these were U.S. goals in Iraq, while in

this section, it is the U.S. itself and the American values that have been positively

portrayed. All these instances occur in speeches by Bush Sr, more specifically three

times in Bush Sr2 and twice in Bush Sr3. The three instances in Bush Sr2 occur in

the same paragraph:

77. I see a world of open borders, open trade and, most importantly, open minds; a world

that celebrates the common heritage that belongs to all the world's people, taking

pride not just in hometown or homeland but in humanity itself. I see a world touched

by a spirit like that of the Olympics, based not on competition that's driven by fear but

12

This however contrasts with the worldwide military spending. The U.S. defence budget is almost as much as that of all the other countries put together (Shah 2008).

47

sought out of joy and exhilaration and a true quest for excellence. And I see a world

where democracy continues to win new friends and convert old foes and where the

Americas -- North, Central, and South -- can provide a model for the future of all

humankind: the world's first completely democratic hemisphere. (Bush Sr2, lines

119-126)

The evocation of a world of open borders belonging to all the world‟s people might be

interpreted as a justification for the fact that a war is being waged in a different

country at the other side of the world. The second sentence refers to a typically

Western and American value, namely that of capitalism. This is opposed to

competition driven by fear, which is interpretable as a reference to the dictatorship in

Iraq. The third sentence shows a world that is being engulfed by a benevolent wave

of democracy. The Americas are then shown to provide the role model of democracy.

This shows the goodness of the Americans and simultaneously compliments all other

countries on the American continent, which might be an incentive for these countries

to support the U.S. in the future.

78. There is something noble and majestic about the pride, about the patriotism that we

feel tonight. (Bush Sr3, lines 160-161)

79. May God bless this great nation, the United States of America. (Bush Sr3, line 197)

Example 78 explicitly appeals to the nationalism of the Americans. This nationalism is

positively evaluated and further emphasized by use of intensification. Earlier in this

same paragraph, the U.S. army was glorified (See example 70 in section 3.1.4.1.).

This whole paragraph aims to boost nationalistic feelings and increase the pride in

the U.S. military. Example 79 occurs at the end of the speech and concludes the

speech. Consequently, it is a more peripheral example as it is part of a fixed formula.

Still I include it because once more the greatness of the U.S. is emphasized, thus

boosting feelings of nationalism.

When looking at the above analyses of Bush Sr2 and Bush Sr3, a difference in

the tone of the speech is noticeable. In Bush Sr2, whose primary audience is the

U.N. countries, positive U.S. values are extended to include the whole world. In Bush

Sr3, whose primary audience is the U.S. Congress, nationalism and pride in the U.S.

military is enhanced. It can thus be concluded that the audience is a determining

factor in the writing of the presidential speeches.

48

3.1.4.4. Complimenting the audience.

The last semantic subdivision of scaling „good‟ contains instances where the

audience is complimented. Some instances have been analysed in the above

sections, such as example 69 in section 3.1.4.1. As these people who are

complimented here are present in the audience, this instance might have been

included here. However, I chose to classify it as a compliment to the U.S. campaign

because that is where the accent of the compliment in question lies.

The speeches by Bush Jr contain two instances of complimenting the

audience, both of which can be found in Bush Jr2. Bush Sr 1 also contains two

instances and Bush Sr2 contains one.

80. For the sake of the security of this country and for the sake of peace in this world, the

United States must maintain every advantage in weaponry and technology and

intelligence. Our edge in warfare comes, in part, because of the American spirit of

enterprise -- great companies such as Boeing, great workers such as yourselves.


Example 80 implicitly justifies the high U.S. defence budget by stating that it is

necessary for the country‟s safety and for worldwide peace. He goes on by attributing

the strength of the U.S. military to the American spirit of enterprise and to the

audience present. The American spirit of enterprise can thus be seen as a device

that boosts the nationalism and patriotic pride of the audience. The audience is

subsequently complimented as an example of this spirit of enterprise. They are

shown how important their contribution to the war and its conclusion is, once more

complimenting them.

81. We're now in sight of a United Nations that performs as envisioned by its founders. We

owe much to the outstanding leadership of Secretary-General Javier Perez de

Cuellar. The United Nations is backing up its words with action. (Bush Sr1, lines 97-

99)

Example 81 not only compliments the achievements of the U.N. Secretary-General, it

also gives a positive evaluation of the more active role of the U.N. This partly justifies

the war and it also aims to increase further support from U.N. members by stating

that this war is part of the main goal that the founders envisioned when founding the

United Nations.

82. I commend, in particular, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and several European nations who

have joined us in this purely humanitarian effort. There's an energy-related cost to be

borne as well. Oil-producing nations are already replacing lost Iraqi and Kuwaiti

49

output. More than half of what was lost has been made up. And we're getting superb

cooperation. (Bush Sr1, lines 123-127)

Example 82 explicitly says that the Gulf War is a purely humanitarian, which is

opposed by the claim that vital economic interests are at stake, mentioned in the

same speech (lines 70-71,74-75, see example 27 in section 3.1.2.3). Bush Sr goes

on to show to Congress that the burden of war will not be only for the U.S. to bear.

Both these factors make it easier for congress to support the Gulf War.

83. We should build on the success -- the admirable success -- of our distinguished

Secretary-General, my longtime friend and yours, my longtime colleague I might also

say, Javier Perez de Cuellar. We should strive for greater effectiveness and efficiency

of the United Nations. (Bush Sr2, lines 171-173)

This example is similar to example 81. Here however, Bush Sr states that future

cooperation still has to increase, implying that the U.N. should play an even more

active role.

50

3.2. Analysis of quantification.

For the analysis of quantification, I subdivided all quantified referents into different

semantic categories. Many instances of quantification do not graduate a specific

entity but rather the whole utterance. These quantifiers are often references to „time‟

like ever, never and always. The latter have not been included in this semantic

analysis.

The pronouns included in this analysis are the universal pronouns all, each,

every and everyone, the assertive pronoun some, the multal and paucal quantifiers

many and (a) few and the non-assertive pronoun any (see Quirk 1985 for more on

pronouns and determiners). Also included are numerals, which are in most cases

premodified by the adverbs more than or most. Another analysed category of

quantifiers consists of adjectives denoting quantity, such as excessive. Vague

quantifiers are also included, such as a handful of and in large numbers. I also

analysed metaphorical quantifiers, such as the lion’s share of. A last means of

quantification I included in this analysis is enumeration, which can be found in

examples 85 and 144.

3.2.1. Quantified instances of nation.

The most frequent semantic entity is nation, and by extension all words referring to

„country‟. This occurs most frequently in Bush Jr1 and Bush Sr1. Bush Sr1 is a

speech given to Congress, just after the beginning of the Gulf War. Often the

emphasis is on the fact that the war is not fought by the U.S. alone, but by a coalition

consisting of many countries. This demonstration of international support may serve

as a justification of the war. Another possible purpose is to emphasize that the

financial and military burden is not for the U.S. alone, but that it will be shared by

other countries as well, thus aiming to illustrate to Congress that the war will not be

so expensive13:

84. At this moment, our brave servicemen and women stand watch in that distant desert

and on distant seas, side by side with the forces of more than 20 other nations. (Bush

Sr1, lines 9-10)

13

For an overview of recurrent quantified referents in the different speeches, see appendices 10-15.

51

85. Moslems and non-Moslems, Arabs and non-Arabs, soldiers from many nations stand

shoulder to shoulder, resolute against Saddam Hussein's ambitions. (Bush Sr1, lines

83-84)

86. These goals are not ours alone. They've been endorsed by the United Nations

Security Council five times in as many weeks. Most countries share our concern for

principle. And many have a stake in the stability of the Persian Gulf. (Bush Sr1, lines

36-39)

Bush Jr1 contains 18 instances of nation and 5 instances referring to „country‟, which

is almost thrice as many as in Bush Sr1, the one with the second highest frequency.

Thirteen instances are maximized (all, every), three are upscaled (many) and the two

remaining are downscaled (some). Eight maximized instances refer to „all nations in

general‟, four to the audience (the U.N. nations) and one specifically to the Arab

nations.

87. Tomorrow the secretary-general, the president of the General Assembly and I will visit

that site where the names of every nation and region that lost citizens will be read

aloud. (Bush Jr1, lines 11-13)

88. Every nation has a stake in this cause. As we meet, the terrorists are planning more

murder, perhaps in my country or perhaps in yours. (Bush Jr1, lines 39-40)

89. Not every nation will be a part of every action against the enemy, but every nation in

our coalition has duties. (Bush Jr1, lines 70-72)

90. They called our secretary-general a criminal and condemned all Arab nations here as

traitors to Islam. (Bush Jr1, lines 44-45)

The above instances aim to evoke feelings of solidarity from the audience. Example

87 (and lines 15-21) emphasises that not only the U.S. was attacked, but that people

from the entire world were killed. Bush thus aims to involve other countries in the war.

In example 88, Bush literally states that the war on terror is important for all nations

because they might all be the next target of a terrorist attack. Once again, this is an

attempt to convince other countries to join his coalition against terror. The invocation

of solidarity in the subsequent example is realised by demonstrating that every

country will be a valuable ally in the war because they will all have their duties to fulfil.

Example 90 is aimed at the Arab nations in the audience. By saying that the terrorists

have condemned them, they seem to have little choice but to join Bush‟s war.

91. Every civilized nation here today is resolved to keep the most basic commitment of

civilization. (Bush Jr1, lines 4-5)

92. This calling is worthy of any life and worthy of every nation. (Bush Jr1, line 193)

In the two preceding examples, Bush evokes feelings of solidarity by showing that he

stands for righteous values. Example 91 emphasizes that the nations present at the

52

meeting are civilized and implicitly contrasts these with the terrorists, once more

aiming to include these nations in the coalition against terror. Example 92 aims to

convince the audience by saying how worthy this calling is. This paragraph (lines

191-193) is filled with metaphors that illustrate the righteousness and honour of

Bush‟s war, once more aiming to persuade the audience.

93. History will record our response and judge or justify every nation in this hall. The

civilized world is now responding. (Bush Jr1, lines 53-54)

94. These obligations are urgent, and they are binding on every nation with a place in this

chamber. (Bush Jr1, lines 134-135)

95. The leaders of all nations must now carefully consider their responsibilities and their

future. (Bush Jr1, lines 75-76)

In the above three examples, Bush appeals to the conscience and sense of

responsibility of the U.N. members. Example 93 achieves this in an abstract way.

Here, it is „history‟ that will judge if the audience has made the right choice. What this

choice should be can be seen in the second sentence: a civilized response to a

malicious attack. In example 94, Bush Jr literally states that the adjustment of some

laws (see example 96) is compulsory for every country, which is actually an implicit

order to all U.N. members. Example 95 is a warning to all nations not to remain

neutral or join the terrorists. Once again, this is achieved in an abstract way, by using

responsibilities and future. The lines just before this example show the sacrifices the

U.S. have made to fight terrorism, while in the subsequent lines Bush aims to frighten

nations from joining the terrorists.

96. We must pass all necessary laws in our own countries to allow the confiscation of

terrorist assets. We must apply those laws to every financial institution in every

nation. (Bush Jr1, line 126)

97. And every nation must have avenues for the peaceful expression of opinion and

dissent. (Bush Jr1, line 153)

98. The steps I've described will not be easy. For all nations, they will require effort. For

some nations, they will require great courage.(Bush Jr1, lines 172-173)

Examples 97 and 98 illustrate Bush‟s reasonableness. More specifically, example 97

shows his good intentions and example 98 shows that he is aware that joining his

war might not be easy. Great courage has a positive connotation, once again

implicitly linking his war with goodness.

As can be seen in examples 87-98, maximized quantification in this speech is

most frequently realized by every, rather than all. Every is a distributive pronoun,

meaning that it picks out the single members of a group. All on the other hand is a

53

universal pronoun, referring to a group as a whole. (Quirk et all 1985: 380-382)

Consequently, Bush Jr aims to address the U.N. members present there as

individually as possible, making sure they will feel addressed in person. This token of

solidarity might facilitate the audience‟s decision to join the war against terrorism.

All these instances of nation refer to some extent to the „us‟-group, mostly to

U.N. members, to nations part of the coalition, and to nations of which citizens died in

the 9/11 attacks. It can thus be concluded that all instances of nation have a positive

connotation. This can be opposed to quantified instances of government, most of

which are used to refer to countries excluded from the „us‟-group. These instances

are:

99. Some governments still turn a blind eye to the terrorists, hoping the threat will pass

them by. They are mistaken. And some governments, while pledging to uphold the

principles of the U.N., have cast their lot with the terrorists. They support them and

harbor them, and they will find that their welcomed guests are parasites that will

weaken them and eventually consume them. For every regime that sponsors terror,

there is a price to be paid, and it will be paid. (Bush Jr1, lines 80-85)

100. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist

friends, will know the consequences. (Bush Jr1, lines 142-144)

In the first instance, governments wanting to remain neutral are warned that they too

can be attacked. The latter three instances condemn and intimidate the governments

that aid the terrorists.14 Examples 99 and 100 can easily be contrasted with the

following example, where nation is used to refer to those who want to join the fight

against terror:

101. Some nations want to play their part in the fight against terror but tell us they lack the

means to enforce their laws and control their borders. We stand ready to help. (Bush

Jr1, lines 78-79)

3.2.2. Quantified references to ‘victim’ and ‘religion’ in Bush Jr1.

Apart from the very high frequency of nation and other words referring to „country‟,

Bush Jr1 contains other quantified referents that deviate from the other speeches,

namely references to „religion‟ and „victim‟. The instances of religion15 show the world

that this war is not one of Christianity versus Islam.

14

For more on this second instance see example 38 in section 3.1.3.1. 15

For more on the use of religion in Bush Jr1, see Goderis 2007.

54

The first example of „religion‟ can be found at the very beginning of his speech,

where Bush Jr talks about victims from Gambia, Mexico and Pakistan (lines 15-20).

All three anecdotes given here are about people who are not US citizens. This is

immediately reinforced by the following statement, where the quantifier many is used

to emphasize that all religions and nations were attacked. Bush thus aims to include

the whole world in his coalition against terror:

102. The suffering of September 11 was inflicted on people of many faiths and many

nations. All of the victims, including Muslims, were killed with equal indifference and

equal satisfaction by the terrorist leaders. The terrorists are violating the tenets of

every religion, including the one they invoke. (Bush Jr1, lines 21-24)

By explicitly mentioning Muslims, Bush shows the representatives of Muslim

countries that the terrorists killed their compatriots too, and with as much

“satisfaction”. This serves to persuade the Islamic nations to join his war. He goes on

to state that the terrorists are actually violating the tenets of Islam, once more

demonstrating that the Islamic countries should oppose the terrorists.

103. They cannot hide behind Islam. The authors of mass murder and their allies have no

place in any culture and no home in any faith. (Bush Jr1, lines 67-68)

In this example, Bush Jr explicitly dissociates the terrorists from Islam. He aims to

include the Islamic nations in the coalition against terror by showing that he has

nothing against other religions, and that he does not condemn Islam in general. This

also enlarges the „us‟-group and limits the size of the „them‟-group (Vandenbergen

1997).

104. We know that evil is real, but good will prevail against it. This is the teaching of many

faiths. (Bush Jr1, line 186)

In this instance, Bush implicitly equates himself and the coalition with „good‟ and the

terrorists with „evil‟, linking this to the teachings of the audience‟s religion. The

teaching of many faiths he appeals to is implied to be evidence of his benevolence

and the others‟ malice.

Another quantified meaning that only occurs in Bush Jr1 is „victim‟. The only

victims mentioned in the other five speeches are Iraqis and Afghans who are victims

of their (previous) governments. This speech, just after 9/11, is the only one

containing quantified references to victims, almost all of which refer to victims of the

9/11 attack. These victims are given greater emphasis as this is the only time ever

that the U.S. has suffered an attack on its own soil.

55

105. A few miles from here, many thousands still lie in a tomb of rubble. (Bush Jr1, line

11)

In example 105, the number of deaths is extremely generalized. Many thousands

sounds like a much larger number than approximately 4,000. A few thousand would

actually be more correct, but as this is a hedge, it would not serve in this context

because it would show disrespect. This serves to further upscale the wickedness of

the terrorists‟ act.

Another instance of quantification of „victim‟ is all of the victims, found in

example 102. Great emphasis is put on the fact that Muslims were killed with equal

satisfaction, once more aiming to convince Muslim nations to join his coalition.

106. We will remember every rescuer who died in honor. We will remember every family

that lives in grief. We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals

of the children. (Bush Jr1, lines 32-34)

This example emphasises both the valour and the grief of all Americans, thus

justifying an act of retribution. The use of every here emphasizes that not a single

death will be forgotten (or perhaps even go unavenged). Bush continues by

appealing to the emotions of the audience by talking about the last phone calls and

the funerals of the children.

Remarkable is that in all speeches, the victims that are mentioned were killed

by the enemy. No attention is paid to deaths caused by the U.S. and its allies. The

avoidance of this topic is easily explainable, as this would only cause a decrease in

public support.

3.2.3. Quantified references to the enemy.

There are three speeches containing quantified references to the enemy, namely

Bush Jr1, Bush Jr2 and Bush Jr3 with eight, two and one instance respectively. This

instance in Bush Jr3 is part of a rhetorical pattern which is discussed in section 3.2.7.

The first instance in Bush Jr2 is very concrete, referring to Iraqi troops:

107. Overwhelmingly, yet carefully targeted, air strikes left entire enemy divisions without

armor and without organization. (Bush Jr2, lines 87-88)

This instance shows the American technological superiority by demonstrating that

they were able to disrupt the Iraqi forces without killing them. This, in addition with

56

carefully targeted, illustrates the American moral superiority as well. The second

instance in Bush Jr2 involves a very abstract and generalized enemy:

108. We believe that the appeal of liberty will, in time, overcome any coercive power on

Earth. (Bush Jr2, lines 55-56)

This example, together with example 10 in section 3.1.2.1, links liberty to the U.S.

and coercive power to Iraq. However, it goes further that that: any coercive power on

earth will in time be overcome by liberty. This implies that the U.S. should continue

fighting wars to „liberate‟ people from all over the world.

The largest number of quantified references to the enemy can be found in

Bush Jr1. In some cases, „enemy‟ is represented by regime and government. These

cases, containing a condemnation of Bush‟s enemies, have already been discussed

in section 3.2.1. (see examples 99 and 100).

109. Few countries meet their exacting standards of brutality and oppression. (Bush Jr1,

line 45)

In this example, a downscaling quantifier is used to reinforce the malice of the

terrorists. The terrorists are said to be too brutal and oppressive for the majority of

the countries. Consequently, those few countries who meet the terrorists‟ standards

are the enemy.

110. We're asking for a comprehensive commitment to this fight. We must unite in

opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. (Bush Jr1, lines 139-140)

In this example, Bush states that all terrorists should be vanquished, explicitly

contrasting this with not just some. This comprehensive commitment can then be

seen as the harbinger of the subsequent war in Iraq.

111. But peace will only come when all have sworn off forever incitement, violence and

terror. (Bush Jr1, lines 164-165)

This example reinforces example 110. Both instances demonstrate that the world will

be in jeopardy till the day that all terrorists have sworn off violence, thus justifying the

war in Afghanistan and possibly a future war in Iraq.

The large number of quantified references to enemy countries in Bush Jr1

might be due to the fact that the war on terror is not a conventional war, in that it does

not have a single country as an enemy. In contrast with the wars in Iraq, the enemies

here are the terrorists, probably dispersed over many different countries. It is not

always clear if these countries cooperate with the terrorists or if they are just hiding in

these countries. This might explain the numerous generalized and vague references

to „enemy countries‟.

57

3.2.4. Quantified ‘us’.

Most speeches contain some quantified references to „us‟, even though they are not

frequent, with a maximum of five instances in Bush Sr2. The use of first person

pronouns can be ambiguous, as it is not always clear when they are used inclusively

or exclusively (Hillier 2004: 131). However, even without knowing exactly who is

included in „us‟, the audience may still feel a sense of solidarity.

Bush Jr2 contains one instance and Bush Sr1, Sr3 and Jr1 all contain two instances.

Bush Jr3 does not contain any instances of quantified „us‟..

The first instance of „us‟ in Bush Sr2 is so many of us in example 22. The

number of people condemning Iraq‟s aggression is upscaled here. This invokes an

image of worldwide condemnation, in turn strengthened by the agreement of

America‟s former enemy, the Soviet Union. The combination of these elements

boosts the solidarity between the U.N. members.

112. We are hopeful that the machinery of the United Nations will no longer be frozen by

the divisions that plagued us during the cold war, that at last -- long last -- we can

build new bridges and tear down old walls, that at long last we will be able to build a

new world based on an event for which we have all hoped: an end to the cold war.


In example 112, a first person plural pronoun is upscaled to boost feelings of

solidarity among the U.N. In this case, all people present cherish the same hopes.

Bush Sr thus manages to establish a common ground with the audience. Also

interesting in this instance is the repetition of the „time‟ quantifier at long last, which

illustrates Bush‟s relief.

113. Let me also emphasize that all of us here at the U.N. hope that military force will

never be used. We seek a peaceful outcome, a diplomatic outcome. (Bush Sr2, lines

73-74)

In this example, Bush speaks in name of the whole audience, saying that everyone

present there hopes that military force will never be used. This is a demonstration of

the moral superiority of the U.N., justifying the war by saying that they do not want

one.

114. And 10 years from now, as the 55th session of the General Assembly begins, you will

again find many of us in this hall, hair a bit more gray perhaps, maybe a little less

spring in our walk; but you will not find us with any less hope or idealism or any less

confidence in the ultimate triumph of mankind. (Bush Sr2, lines 115-118)

58

The demonstration of the U.N. members‟ righteousness in example 114 can once

again be seen as a justification of the war. The U.N. members are presented as

idealistic and fighting for the ultimate triumph of mankind. This is also an instance of

maximized quantification, as in reality they are not fighting for mankind in general, but

rather to achieve their own goals (oil) and to aid Kuwait. Another interesting feature

here is the use of hedges when depicting themselves ten years from now, illustrating

that they will all be rather well preserved. This is one of the few instances in all six

speeches where a (slightly) negative assessment of the speaker and the audience

occurs. This assessment is not meant as a criticism but rather aimed to be humorous

or ironical. Interestingly enough, these negative assessments are all downtoned by

hedges. Their slight aging is then contrasted with the upscaled not any less hope or

idealism or any less confidence in the ultimate triumph of mankind. This shows that

although human and fallible, they strive for the benefit of all humanity, once more

illustrating their moral supremacy.

The last instance of quantified „us‟ in Bush Sr2 is all of us in example 26. By adding

this, it is greatly emphasized that all countries should join together, once more

boosting any feelings of solidarity.

In the first instance of quantified „us‟ in Bush Sr1, Bush demonstrates both the

American pride in their military and his hopes for a quick return of all soldiers in Iraq.

These hopes however are contrasted with what they all know as reality, namely that

their job is still not finished:

115. Well, let me just say, Wade, America is proud of you and is grateful to every soldier,

sailor, marine, and airman serving the cause of peace in the Persian Gulf […]What a

magnificent job you all are doing […] I wish I could say that their work is done. But we

all know it's not. (Bush Sr1, lines 20-26)

This shows Bush‟s sincerity and once again feelings of solidarity (within the U.S., as

it is a speech to Congress) are boosted. The second instance of quantified „us‟ is not

ours alone, discussed in example 86. Bush thus emphasizes the solidarity of other

countries in this war. This is further reinforced by most countries and many, once

more showing nations who share America‟s values and beliefs.

Bush Sr3 contains two instances of quantified „us‟:

116. All of us grieve for the victims of war, for the people of Kuwait and the suffering that

scars the soul of that proud nation. We grieve for all our fallen soldiers and their

families, for all the innocents caught up in this conflict. And, yes, we grieve for the

people of Iraq, a people who have never been our enemy. (Bush Sr3, lines 44-47)

59

This passage is meant to show how conscientious Bush is and how much he grieves

for all the victims of the war. He goes further than that by saying that he also grieves

for the Iraqis, who are not his enemy.16 The next example uses quantified „us‟ to talk

about something that both speaker and audience know and agree on, thus

establishing a common ground with the audience:

117. All of us know the depth of bitterness that has made the dispute between Israel and

its neighbors so painful and intractable. (Bush Sr3, lines 68-69)

Bush Jr1 contains two instances of quantified „us‟:

118. In the Second World War, we learned there is no isolation from evil. We affirmed that

some crimes are so terrible they offend humanity itself, and we resolved that the

aggressions and ambitions of the wicked must be opposed early, decisively and

collectively before they threaten us all. That evil has returned, and that cause is

renewed. (Bush Jr1, lines 7-10)

This instance conjures up a parallel between the war on terror and the Second World

War, immediately evoking an image of good against evil. The terrorists are compared

with Nazi-Germany, responsible for the deaths of millions of people. This comparison

strongly condemns the terrorists and any dissenters to Bush‟s declaration of war.

Bush says that it was then decided that the wicked had to be opposed before they

become a real threat, thus justifying the war in Afghanistan, and, possibly, the future

war in Iraq.

119. In this war of terror, each of us must answer for what we have done or what we have

left undone. (Bush Jr1, lines 116-117)

Example 119 is a warning to those who want to aid the terrorists and to all who want

to remain neutral. In the subsequent lines, Bush says that the time of action has

come. This example functions as an implicit condemnation of those who do not want

to join his coalition against terror. This same function also occurs in examples 99 and

100.

Bush Jr2 contains one instance of quantified „us‟:

120. I want to thank management and worker alike for inviting me here today. It's truly an

honor to be here [...] It gives me a chance to come and say firsthand how much we all

appreciate what you do on behalf of the security of this country. (Bush Jr2, lines 27-

30)

In this example, Bush Jr voices everyone‟s gratitude towards the workers of Boeing.

We all most likely either refers to all Americans or to my whole administration and

me. This maximized demonstration of gratitude towards the audience boosts their

16

If the Iraqis are not his enemy, then who is? Saddam, whom he left in power?

60

feelings of solidarity, since they have been acknowledged by their president. Also,

Bush speaks on behalf of people about whom he probably does not know if they are

in fact grateful towards these workers. Most of those to whom we refers have

probably never even given a moment of thought to these workers. This

demonstration of gratitude is a way of making the audience feel important and to

increase his popularity with them.

Quantified „us‟ generally has a positive connotation and serves to boost

feelings of solidarity and to persuade other U.N. countries to cooperate more fully.

Often the speaker in question speaks for the audience as well by including them in

the „us‟. Consequently, the audience is often attributed certain emotions and opinions

without their consent or even without them realizing it. Another striking feature is the

high frequency of the universal pronoun all and the relative absence of distributive

pronouns. This can be explained by looking at the purpose of these instances,

namely boosting feelings of solidarity. All refers to a group as a unity, while every and

each single out the individuals of the group. All can thus be seen as a solidarity

marker.

3.2.5. Quantified references to the audience.

Quantified references to the audience occur most frequently in Bush Sr3 and Bush

Jr2, each containing four instances. Bush Jr3 also contains one instance of

quantification that refers to the audience. For this analysis, I will distinguish between

references to „audience in general‟ and references to „Americans, including those in

the audience‟. The latter is discussed in section 3.2.6.

Two of the eight instances will not be discussed as they are part of a fixed

formula, used for leave-taking. These instances are God bless you all (Bush Jr2, line

171) and thank you all very, very much (Bush Sr3, line 197). A third instance is also

part of a fixed formula, in this case a greeting: thank you all very much. (Bush Jr2,

line 1)

The other two quantified references to the audience in Bush Jr2 are the

following:

121. Seeing all the good workers here reminds me of one of the big tasks we have in

America -- and that is to make sure anybody who's looking for a job can find one.


61

122. And the other big task for this nation is to overcome any threats to our country,

wherever they gather. Each of you has had a part of preparing this nation to meet the

dangers of our time. (Bush Jr2, lines 18-19)

Both these instances compliment the audience and underline their importance for the

war. Bush thus aims to enhance his popularity with the audience by showing his

gratitude for their important contribution to the war.

Bush Sr3 contains three references to the audience that are not part of a fixed

formula:

123. So, to everyone here and everyone watching at home, think about the men and

women of Desert Storm. Let us honor them with our gratitude. Let us comfort the

families of the fallen and remember each precious life lost. (Bush Sr3, lines 62-64)

In example 123, Bush Sr shows to what extent he is grieving for all American soldiers

who died. Everyone should honour these fallen soldiers. Once more this might be

seen as aiming to enhance American solidarity and nationalism. The third instance is

many of you in example 8. Here, Bush includes the audience in his story by

appealing to shared knowledge.

Example 124 contains the reference to the audience in Bush Jr3.

124. In the months ahead, all Americans will have a part in the success of this war.

Members of Congress will need to provide resources for our military. Our men and

women in uniform, who have done so much already, will continue their brave and

urgent work. And tonight, I ask all of you listening to carefully consider the stakes of

this war, to realize how far we have come and the good we are doing, and to have

patience in this difficult, noble, and necessary cause. (Bush Jr3, lines 123-128)

Bush literally states that their cause is good, noble and necessary. He also states

that they have made a lot of progress (realize how far we have come). He asks the

audience to be patient and to have faith in his decisions. This example serves to

make the audience feel important and to convince them to continue their support for

their president. As this speech is an address to the nation, the audience includes all

Americans. The important role of the American citizens in the war is further

emphasized with a quantified reference to „Americans‟ (all Americans). Here, Bush

mentions that they will all have a part in the success of the war, although he does not

explain how, except by being patient.

Quantified references to the audience generally serve to include them in the

speech and to give them a greater feeling of importance.

62

3.2.6 Quantified references to ‘Americans’.

Four out of six speeches contain quantified references to „Americans‟. The highest

frequency can be found in Bush Jr3, which contains seven references. Bush Jr2

contains three references to „Americans‟ and Bush Sr1 and Sr3 each contain two.

125. I know many Americans have questions about the cost and direction of this war. So

tonight I want to talk to you about how far we have come in Iraq, and the path that lies

ahead. (Bush Jr3, lines 10-11)

126. The mission of American troops in urban raids and desert patrols, fighting Saddam

loyalists and foreign terrorists, has brought danger and suffering and loss. This loss

has caused sorrow for our whole nation -- and it has led some to ask if we are

creating more problems than we're solving. (Bush Jr3, lines 30-34)

127. Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth

another dime or another day. I don't believe that. Our military commanders do not

believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do

not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. (Bush Jr3,

lines 62-65)

These three instances in Bush Jr3 all refer to possible American dissenters, those

who question the war. The first example is the weakest form of dissent. These many

Americans do not seem to have any doubt towards their president or the war. In fact ,

they only want to know more about the cost, evolution and purpose of the war.

Therefore, many can be safely used, as it does not refer to real dissenters. The

second and third examples both make use of the pronoun some, which downscales

the number of Americans mentioned. The use of some is rather exceptional, as all

other instances are either upscaled (many) or even maximized (every and all). These

two downscaled instances minimize the number of people disagreeing with the war,

thus implying that only a small minority is questioning the war in Iraq. This confirms

Simon-Vandenbergen‟s findings (1997) that politicians make use of downtoners to

deal with statements they do not agree with or find embarrassing. On the other hand,

politicians upscale or even „overtone‟ the commitment to their own point of view.

The next quantified reference to „American‟ has already been mentioned in

section 3.1.3.2. (see example 46). Here, Bush states that it is very important for every

single American to understand that the consequences of a withdrawal in Iraq would

be far worse than the current situation is. In example 128, Bush tells the American

audience what to expect from the Iraq war in the coming year. First, he briefly

mentions that more people will die and then immediately goes on to elaborately

63

explain all progress that will be made, thus aiming to justify America‟s extended

presence in Iraq.

128. We're approaching a new year, and there are certain things all Americans can expect

to see. (Bush Jr3, line 114)

The next instance containing a quantified reference to „Americans‟ is all Americans,

found in example 124. This instance gives the audience a greater sense of

importance, as has already been explained in section 3.2.5. The last instance,

example 129, is actually a reference to families. However, as these are American

families, I included them in this section. This instance emphasizes the unity of all

Americans. All of them will celebrate these holidays, thus uniting them in their belief.

Bush also invokes solidarity between those families who have a relative fighting in

Iraq. Once again, it is emphasized that this fight is a just one, reassuring the family

and showing Bush‟s good intentions.

129. Next week, Americans will gather to celebrate Christmas and Hanukkah. Many

families will be praying for loved ones spending this season far from home -- in Iraq,

Afghanistan, and other dangerous places. Our nation joins in those prayers. We pray

for the safety and strength of our troops. We trust, with them, in a love that conquers

all fear, in a light that reaches the darkest corners of the Earth. (Bush Jr3, lines 146-

150)

The first two instances found in Bush Jr2 show the president‟s almost paternal

concern for his citizens (see example 130). He then vaguely mentions some

suggestions he has made, showing not only his modesty by not bragging too much

about it, but also his good intentions by showing he wants to help the American

people.

130. Seeing all the good workers here reminds me of one of the big tasks we have in

America -- and that is to make sure anybody who's looking for a job can find one.

(Applause.) Too many of our fellow Americans are looking for work, and that bothers

me. So I sent some suggestions up to the United States Congress about how to

stimulate job growth. And it starts with letting you keep more of your own money.


131. In order for all Americans who are looking for work to find work, the Congress must

pass this jobs package as soon as they come back from their recess. (Bush Jr2, lines

15-16)

Example 131 presents his suggestions as the ultimate solution that will enable all

Americans looking for work to find a job. This „jobs and growth package‟ however

proposes a tax cut rather than any stimulus for job creation. Furthermore, this tax cut

64

applies principally to the highest incomes. The importance of Bush‟s suggestions is

greatly upscaled:

Policymakers in Washington should consider what makes a stimulus package effective. If they are truly concerned about returning millions of Americans to work quickly, then they will pass on the Bush Administration‟s current proposal and enact a short-term, focused, and fair plan (Kozlowski and Mellon: 2003).

Bush Sr1 contains the following quantified references to „Americans‟:

132. So, if there ever was a time to put country before self and patriotism before party, the

time is now. And let me thank all Americans, especially those here in this Chamber

tonight, for your support for our armed forces and for their mission. (Bush Sr1, lines

27-29)

In example 132, Bush Jr shows his gratitude towards all Americans and especially

towards all members of congress. Example 133 emphasizes all and contrasts it with

any, showing Bush Sr‟s good intentions and his fairness of judgement.

133. I want to be able to tell the American people that we have truly solved the deficit

problem. And for me to do that, a budget agreement must meet these tests […] It must

be fair. All should contribute, but the burden should not be excessive for any one

group of programs or people. (Bush Sr1, lines 194-198)

The first instance containing quantified references to „Americans‟ in Bush Sr3 is

actually a reference to community (example 134). But since all Americans are in

some way part of a community, this can be interpreted as a reference to Americans

in general. The first sentence in this example once again shows the American moral

superiority. In the second sentence, Bush wants everyone to celebrate the return of

the U.S. troops. Such a celebration could be another nationalistic inspiration for the

U.S. citizens.

134. Americans have always tried to serve, to sacrifice nobly for what we believe to be

right. Tonight, I ask every community in this country to make this coming Fourth of

July a day of special celebration for our returning troops. (Bush Sr3, lines 182-184)

The second example in Bush Sr3 (many Americans) has already been mentioned a

couple of times and can be found in example 51. This instance shows the moral

superiority of the U.S. The altruism of the Americans is emphasized by stating that

they have aided a small country that many have never even heard of without asking

anything in return.

The two speeches without references to „Americans‟ are Bush Sr3 and Bush

Jr1. Interestingly enough, both speeches were delivered to an audience consisting of

U.N. members. Consequently, these references should have a function that is

unnecessary in speeches addressed to a primarily international audience. The

65

largest number of these instances occurs in Bush Jr‟s address to the nation, which is

the only speech that has all U.S. citizens as primary audience. Quantified references

to „Americans‟ generally serve as solidarity markers.

Almost all quantified references to „Americans‟ are either upscaled or even

maximized. The only exceptions are the two instances of some, which downscale the

number of Americans disagreeing with their president and the war.

3.2.7. Other instances of quantification in Bush Jr3.

Bush Jr3 contains an unusual number of references to Iraqis. Examples 135 and 136

contain references to Iraqi citizens while example 137 contains references to Iraqi

troops. Striking is that the instances portraying the current situation all upscale the

number of Iraqis mentioned. There is only one downtoner linked to „Iraqis‟, and this is

a depiction of the situation last year (see example 138). This situation is contrasted

with the current situation, where an increase in numbers is greatly emphasized.

Example 135 illustrates the success of democracy in Iraq by emphasizing that a lot of

people voted. Example 136 states that this democracy has been successfully

implemented. Both these instances emphasize the success of the Americans and

their benevolence.

135. Three days ago, in large numbers, Iraqis went to the polls to choose their own

leaders -- a landmark day in the history of liberty. (Bush Jr3, lines 1-2)

136. Second, we're helping the Iraqi government establish the institutions of a unified and

lasting democracy, in which all of Iraq's people are included and represented. Here

also, the news is encouraging. Three days ago, more than 10 million Iraqis went to

the polls -- including many Sunni Iraqis who had boycotted national elections last

January. (Bush Jr3, lines 83-86)

137. At this time last year, there were only a handful of Iraqi army and police battalions

ready for combat. Now, there are more than 125 Iraqi combat battalions fighting the

enemy, more than 50 are taking the lead, and we have transferred more than a

dozen military bases to Iraqi control. (Bush Jr3, lines 79-82)

Example 138 could also have been mentioned in the sections referring to „enemy‟

and to „Americans‟, as it contains both. However, these references are only a part of

the rhetorical pattern found here. This pattern consists of the opposition between a

quantified negative fact about the Iraq War and an even more strongly quantified

positive fact about the war. Bush makes two very strong claims here by saying that

66

more is being rebuilt than is destroyed and that many more people are saved than

have been killed. This extract has many functions. First, it is an answer to those who

do not support the war. It also demonstrates the necessity of the war by showing all

the good things they have accomplished there and by showing how much more

important these accomplishments are in comparison with the destruction and deaths.

This demonstration of benevolence once again establishes Bush‟s moral superiority.

The demonstration of Iraqi cooperation also implies that most Iraqis are content with

the American invasion in Iraq and thus justifies the war once again.

138. Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every

scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every

life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to

stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat

them. (Bush Jr3, lines 101-104)

Another interesting instance of quantification in Bush Jr3 is the downtoner found in

example 139:

139. Third, after a number of setbacks, our coalition is moving forward with a

reconstruction plan to revive Iraq's economy and infrastructure -- and to give Iraqis

confidence that a free life will be a better life. (Bush Jr3, lines 91-93)

The quantification is so vague that it could refer to many and to few. Setbacks is a

downscaled instance of intensification. Except in Bush Jr1 when talking about 9/11,

American misfortunes and casualties are often minimized for fear of a decline in

support for the war.

3.2.8. Other instances of quantification in Bush Sr1.

In contrast to other speeches, Bush Sr1 contains quantified references to „oil‟

(examples 140-142) and to „soldiers‟ (examples 115, 85, 143 and 144).

140. Vital economic interests are at risk as well. Iraq itself controls some 10 percent of the

world's proven oil reserves. Iraq plus Kuwait controls twice that. An Iraq permitted to

swallow Kuwait would have the economic and military power, as well as the

arrogance, to intimidate and coerce its neighbors -- neighbors who control the lion's

share of the world's remaining oil reserves. (Bush Sr1, lines 70-74)

The lion’s share is a metaphorical quantifier reinforcing the (economic) importance of

the Middle East. This sharply contrasts with example 82, where Bush Sr states that

the war in Iraq is purely humanitarian. The importance of oil for the Bush

67

administration is further emphasized in examples 141 and 142. Example 141 shows

that the Iraq war will not cause any economic problems for the U.S. Example 142

implicitly underlines America‟s economic interests in the Gulf and warns against an

excessive dependence on foreign oil.

141. Oil-producing nations are already replacing lost Iraqi and Kuwaiti output. More than

half of what was lost has been made up. (Bush Sr1, lines 125-126)

142. The Gulf situation helps us realize we are more economically vulnerable than we

ever should be. Americans must never again enter any crisis, economic or military,

with an excessive dependence on foreign oil and an excessive burden of Federal

debt. (Bush Sr1, lines 159-162)

The first two quantified instances referring to „soldier‟ can be found in example 115.

The first instance is every soldier, sailor, marine, and airman serving the cause of

peace. The soldiers are said to be fighting not for economic interests but for peace,

which serves as a justification of the war. This same example also boosts feelings of

nationalism by illustrating the Americans‟ pride in their military. The second instance

is you all, when addressing the soldier Wayne. Bush directly addresses the soldiers,

thus aiming to boost their morale with a demonstration of his gratitude.

The third instance of quantification that refers to „soldier‟ is the enumeration

that can be found in example 85. This is an illustration of the solidarity between many

nations and their soldiers. The support from this multitude of nationalities augments

Bush‟s credibility. Stand shoulder to shoulder is a metaphorical means to emphasize

the unity of these nations. These resolute soldiers are then opposed to Saddam

Hussein’s ambitions, which has a rather negative connotation.

143. Our interest, our involvement in the Gulf is not transitory. It predated Saddam

Hussein's aggression and will survive it. Long after all our troops come home -- and

we all hope it's soon, very soon -- there will be a lasting role for the United States in

assisting the nations of the Persian Gulf. Our role then: to deter future aggression. Our

role is to help our friends in their own self-defense. (Bush Sr1, lines 138-141)

Example 143 shows that the U.S. will remain „interested‟ in the Middle East. This

instance does not mention any national interest. They will only remain there to help

their friends, not only justifying the current war, but even justifying any future

intervention in the Gulf.

144. Once again, Americans have stepped forward to share a tearful goodbye with their

families before leaving for a strange and distant shore. At this very moment, they

serve together with Arabs, Europeans, Asians, and Africans in defense of principle

68

and the dream of a new world order. That's why they sweat and toil in the sand and

the heat and the sun. (Bush Sr1, lines 218-221)

Example 144 illustrates the heroism and courage of the American soldiers. The war

is once again justified as defence of the dream of a new world order. The mention of

people from many different continents emphasizes the amount of international

support the war has. The harsh circumstances are also greatly emphasized through

the use of enumeration, which underlines the valour of the soldiers. There is no

explicit mention of „soldier‟ in this paragraph. It is clear however that it is implied with

the word serve.

The examples in this section illustrate how certain ideals are used to justify the

war. However, real American interests are also mentioned, further reinforcing the

importance of the war. The purely humanitarian and benevolent aims are actually

opposed to the national interests, creating an ambiguity of intent. This mention of

America‟s own interests can also be contrasted with the speeches by Bush Jr, who

often justifies the war but never mentions any national or personal interests.

3.2.9. Quantified references to ‘people everywhere’ in Bush Sr2.

145. The human spirit cannot be locked up forever. The truth is, people everywhere are

motivated in much the same ways. And people everywhere want much the same

things: the chance to live a life of purpose; the chance to choose a life in which they

and their children can learn and grow healthy, worship freely, and prosper through the

work of their hands and their hearts and their minds. (Bush Sr2, lines 21-25)

This example illustrates how similar people are around the globe, thus stimulating

feelings of solidarity between all U.N. members. This extract referring to the

revolution of 1989 implies that America stands for these good values, as the

countries where these revolutions occurred were the former enemies of the U.S. in

the Cold War.

The other two instances can be found in example 77. The first instance is a world that

celebrates the common heritage that belongs to all the world's people. Bush Sr thus

shows the U.N. members that he is actually fighting for the whole humanity. He also

argues for more cooperation between nations by invoking pride in humanity rather

than in one‟s hometown or homeland. This interest in humanity rather than in one‟s

homeland implicitly justifies America's involvement in the Middle East. The second

69

instance is a world […]where the Americas […]can provide a model for the future of

all humankind. This instance emphasizes America‟s moral superiority and its

benevolent influence on other nations. Once again, Bush Sr refers to all humankind

to invoke feelings of solidarity between all U.N. members present at his address.

All these instances aim to increase the solidarity between the world‟s nations,

and primarily among the U.N. members. This is opposed to speeches to an American

audience, where references to the audience, to „Americans‟ and to „us‟ are used to

construct feelings of solidarity and unity. This speech also differs from the speech to

the U.N. by Bush Jr, where solidarity is mainly invoked by references to „nation‟, as

opposed to quantified references to „enemy‟

70

4. Summary and conclusions.

The aim of this dissertation was to explore if force can amplify the level of polarization

in war rhetoric, and thus to determine whether force can be used as a manipulative

device that facilitates the justification of a war and enhances the opposition between

the „us‟-group and the „them‟- group. A second goal was to examine the influence of

the audience and historical context on the use of force. The third purpose of this

dissertation was to make a comparison between the speeches by Bush Jr and Bush

Sr.

As has been shown in chapter three, force is a means to further polarize a

discourse. Very striking is that the majority of all instances of force are either strongly

upscaled or even maximized. The most important function of force in the speeches is

to evoke solidarity within the „us‟-group and to make this „us‟-group as large as

possible. Establishing solidarity is mostly achieved by referring to and complimenting

the „us‟-group (e.g. us, nation, Americans) while opposing it to the „them‟-group

(enemy). This opposition is further polarized by establishing one‟s own moral

superiority and by dehumanizing the „them‟-group, both of which are emphasized

through intensification. The „us‟-group can in turn be expanded as much as possible

through the use of maximized or heavily upscaled instances of quantification.

In the analysed speeches, intensification specifically serves to upscale the

importance of one‟s own virtue, to demonstrate the importance of solidarity and

cooperation among the „us‟-group and to emphasize the importance of what is at

stake in the war in question. The upscaling of one‟s own virtue is mainly used by

Bush Jr, while quantified instances referring to importance of solidarity only occur in

speeches by Bush Sr.

Secondly, intensification serves to emphasize the malice of the enemy and

their values. This function occurs much more frequently in speeches by Bush Jr,

especially in Bush Jr1. This can be explained by looking at the context of the speech,

as America had been attacked by terrorists recently and a war had just begun for

which public support was needed. This war was mainly justified by elaborating on the

evil deeds of the terrorists and their ally, the Taliban. The most obvious deeds are of

course the attacks of 9/11. We notice that Bush Jr gives a very negative portrayal of

71

Saddam‟s personality, while Bush Sr condemns the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait rather

than the person of Saddam. The lower frequency of scaling „bad‟ in the speeches by

Bush Sr can be explained by the fact that Saddam was not overthrown after the Gulf

war.

The third function of intensification in these speeches is to create a more

positive portrayal of the U.S. military, of America‟s actions in Iraq, of America in

general and also of the audience. Consequently, intensification mainly serves to

stimulate feelings of nationalism and to show the audience that the U.S. is fighting

not for its own interests but rather for the benefit of all humankind. Scaling „good‟ can

thus be used as another means of justifying the war.

Quantification occurs most frequently with the word nation, especially in Bush

Jr1. The most frequent quantifier co-occurring with nation is every, which makes each

member of the audience feel addressed in person. Nation in this speech is a marker

of solidarity, as all instances refer to the „us‟-group. Nation is often opposed to

regime, government and enemy, thus enhancing the polarization between the „us‟-

group and the „them‟-group.

Two quantified referents only occur in Bush Jr1, namely religion and victim.

Both serve to emphasize that the victims of 9/11 are not only Americans, but people

with many different nationalities and religions. This is an attempt to persuade the

U.N. members (with an emphasis on the Islam nations) to join his coalition against

terror. Quantified references to the enemy are also far more frequent in Bush Jr1

than in any other speech. An explanation may be found in the historical context, more

specifically in the unconventionality of the war, as it is a war against terrorists all over

the world, not just against any one country.

Quantified „us‟ mainly serves as a marker of solidarity, bonding the speaker

and the audience while opposing them to the enemy. Quantified „us‟ is often used to

persuade other U.N. countries to cooperate more fully. A striking feature is the high

frequency of all and the low frequency of distributive pronouns, which once more

demonstrates that „us‟ is used as a solidarity marker.

Quantification can also be used to refer to the audience, functioning not only

as a solidarity marker but also to give the audience a greater sense of importance.

Comparable to these instances of quantification are those referring to „Americans‟. In

some cases, these are used to downscale the number of people that disagree with

the war. Most often however, these instances boost feelings of solidarity and

72

nationalism. Both speeches addressed to the U.N. contain no quantified references

to „Americans‟, while the speech containing the largest number is Bush Jr‟s address

to the nation, which has all Americans as primary audience. This clearly

demonstrates the importance of the audience for speech writing.

This dissertation was focused on the semantics of force. Interesting for further

linguistic research would be a formal analysis of the use of force in these speeches.

This would broaden the picture set up in this dissertation and verify the analyses

made here. Another possibility for further analysis is extending the analyses to

graduation in general, thus also including focus. A third possibility for further analysis

would be a comparison of war rhetoric by republican and democratic presidents.

In conclusion, this paper has attempted to identify different linguistic devices

that facilitate the justification of a war in rhetoric and to uncover the connection

between speech writing and audience or historical context. More research is still

required, however, not only to gain further insight in language as a manipulative

device, but also to raise awareness of such manipulation and thus to contribute to a

more critical attitude and more independent thinking.

73

References

Center of Public Integrity 2008 <http://www.publicintegrity.org/default.aspx> (accessed on 13/05/2008) CNN 2004 „Iraq war wasn't justified, U.N. weapons experts say‟, 22/03/2004,

CNN.com. <http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/> (accessed on 13/05/2008)

Drury, T. 2003 „How Iraq built its weapons programs‟, 16/03/2003, St Petersburg

Times online. <http://www.sptimes.com/2003/03/16/Perspective/How_Iraq_built_its_we.shtml> (accessed on 12/05/2008).

Eland, I. 2004 The Empire Has No Clothes: U.S. Foreign Policy Explored.

Independent Institute, Oakland, California. <http://stpeteforpeace.org/saddam.html#sources> (accessed on 12/05/2008).

Fowler, R. and Kress G. 1979 „Critical Linguistics‟, in Fowler, R., Hodge, B., Kress G. and Trew T.

Language and control. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, pp. 185-212.

Goderis, S. 2007 „Polarization in War Rhetoric: a linguistic analysis of President Bush

speech to the United Nations, November 10, 2001‟ Afstudeertaak Bachelor Engelse taalkunde, Ghent University. Görtz, L. 2007 „Changes in the justificatory rhetoric of George W. Bush in the

course of the Iraq conflict 2002-2004‟, MA thesis; Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität zu Bonn.

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994 An Introduction to Functional Grammar: Second Edition. Arnold, London.

74

Hersh, S. 2004 „Torture at Abu Ghraib - American soldiers brutalized Iraqis. How far

up does the responsibility go?‟, 10/05/2004, The New Yorker. <http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact> (accessed on 15/05/2008) Hillier, H. 2004 „Political Speeches‟, in Analysing Real Texts: Research Studies in Modern English Language. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp. 120-144. Kozlowski, R.J., Mellon, A.W. 2003 „The Bush Stimulus Plan: Analysis and Alternatives‟, 03/2003, Minnesota Budget Project. <http://www.mncn.org/bp/stimulus.htm> (Accessed on 14/05/2008)

Lewis, C. and Reading-Smith, M. 2008 „The War Card‟, 21/01/2008, Center of Public Integrity.

<http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/> (accessed on 12/05/2008).

Martin, J.R. and White, P.R.R. 2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan, London. Mideastweb „The Iraq Crisis – An Overview‟, Mideastweb. <http://www.mideastweb.org/iraq.htm> (accessed on 15/05/2008) Norton, M.B., Katzman, D.M., Blight, D.W., Chudacoff, H.P., Bailey, B., Paterson, T.G. and Tuttle Jr, W.M. 2007 A People & A Nation – A History of the United States, Brief Seventh

Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, New York. Powell, B.A. 2004 „U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix faults Bush administration for

lack of "critical thinking" in Iraq‟, 18/03/2004, UC Berkeley News Center.<http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2004/03/18_blix.shtml> (accessed on 19/05/2008)

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartik, J. 1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Longman Group Limited, London. Rycroft, M. 2002 „The secret Downing Street memo‟, 01/05/2005, Times online.

<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/election2005/article387390.ece> (accessed on 12/05/2008).

75

Shah, A. 2008 „World Military Spending‟, 01/03/2008, Global Issues. <http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/ Spending.asp#WorldMilitarySpending> (accessed on 15/05/2008) Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. 1997 „Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: a functional account‟, in

Language Sciences vol. 19 (4): 341-356. Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. 2008 Text and genre: course materials. MA course English Linguistics, Ghent University. The Guardian 2001 „Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over‟, 14/10/2001, Guardian.co.uk. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/ afghanistan.terrorism5> (accessed on 12/05/2008). Trosborg, A. 2000 „The Inaugural Address: President Clinton‟s 1993 Address‟, in

Analysing Professional Genres. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. U.N. news centre 2006 ‘Afghanistan could return to being a „failed State,‟ warns Security

Council mission chief‟, 22/11/2006, U.N. news centre. <http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=20702&Cr=afghan&Cr1=> (accessed on 12/05/2008).

Van Dijk, T.A. 2006 „Discourse and manipulation‟, in Discourse & society vol. 17 (3): 359-383. <http://das.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/3/359>

(accessed on 12/05/2008).

Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopaedia 2008 „Great Satan‟, 07/04/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Satan>

„Iran hostage crisis‟, 11/05/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Iran_hostage_crisis>

„Iran-Iraq war‟, 09/05/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_iraq_war> „Iraq-gate‟, 07/05/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq-gate_(Gulf_War)> „U.S. support for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war‟, 05/04/2008.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran Iraq_war>

„War in Afghanistan‟,12/05/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ War_in_Afghanistan_(2001–present)> „Iraq war‟, 12/05/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War> „White phosphorus‟, 07/05/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ White_phosphorus> „SSCI‟, 24/04/2008. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence>

76

„The Iraq Survey Group‟, 12/05/2008, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki /Iraq_Survey_Group> (accessed on 15/05/2008)

Data

Bush W.H. „Address Before a Joint Session of Congress‟, 11/09/1990. „Address to the United Nations‟, 01/10/1990.

„Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the End of the Gulf War‟, 06/03/1991.

<http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches> (accessed on 12/05/2008) Bush W. „U.S. President Bush‟s speech to United Nations‟, 10/11/2001.

„President Bush Outlines Progress in Operation Iraqi Freedom‟, 16/04/2003.

„President‟s address to the Nation‟, 18/12/2005. <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/> (accessed on 12/05/2008)

77

Appendices

1. Bush Sr1: Address Before a Joint Session of Congress.

George H. W. Bush, September 11, 1990.

2. Bush Sr2: Address to the United Nations.

George H. W. Bush, October 1, 1990.

3. Bush Sr3: Address Before a Joint Session of Congress on the End of

the Gulf War.

George H. W. Bush, March 6, 1991.

4. Bush Jr1: U.S. President Bush's speech to United Nations.

George W. Bush, November 10, 2001.

5. Bush Jr2: President Bush Outlines Progress in Operation Iraqi

Freedom.

George W. Bush, April 16, 2003.

6. Bush Jr3: President's Address to the Nation.

George W. Bush, December 18, 2005.

7. Scaling „importance‟ - semantic classification of referents.

8. Scaling 'bad' - semantic classification of referents.

9. Scaling „good‟ - semantic classification of referents.

10. Quantified referents in Bush Sr1.



13. Quantified referents in Bush Jr1.



polarization in war rhetoric: a linguistic analysis of

Documents