The research is set to conduct a critical discourse analysis of President’s Bush speeches delivered after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. President Bush faced excessive criticism for being believed to have been indecisive since he remained silent for about seven minutes even after receiving news of a second hijacked plane that had crashed into the World Trade Centre building (Dimaggio, 2015). Through carrying out a critical discourse analysis (CDA) on the speech made by President Bush on 11/9/2011, after the attack, is of importance given the complexity of terrorism and the fact that it stands at the forefront of national and international agendas. This critical discourse analysis, therefore, shall aid in addressing the issue of terrorism, specifically, by effectively using speech in communicating information to the public.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that language is more than just a tool for communicating with each other. The community and the world in general gains meaning through language and that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter (Blackledge, 2005). The language we use that is through use of verbal, gestures or even reactions to various emotions reflects and shapes the kind of world we create around us and how we relate with others (Charteris-Black, 2013). This is a clear indication of the complexity of the term terrorism.
The militant psychological assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the manner in which the country sees country security and fear mongering. It changed the needs of the country. The substance casing of reference on psychological warfare, national security, and dread of future assaults was educated by political comments. Also, discourses were made in the quick repercussions of the fear-based oppressor assaults. Political talks that characterized the psychological oppressor assaults as demonstrations of war established various aspects. They include framework for a time of open uncertainty and weakness to the danger of fear-based oppression in the country. Correspondingly, they gave avocations that prevented individuals from opportunities and social equality (Gal, 1989).
Description of Data to Be Collected
The data to be collected mainly includes selected published speeches of Former President Bush concerning the September 11, 2001 attack. The samples of the speeches shall be obtained from transcripts available on the internet. Also, they shall be derived from the four speeches that will be analysed under the critical discourse analysis. They include the initial speech of President Bust addressing the Nation, remarks to New York Rescues Workers, President Bush addressing a joint congress and a national television, the one where he addresses the Department of defense.
Some possible problems to be encountered during the process of evidence collection include complex vocabulary, verifying the choices of quotes presented in the speeches by different media analysts on internet, the patterns used while presenting the articles online, as well as the selection, framing, and coverage bias (Leech, 2010). Moreover, the most reliable methods of presenting data that will be applied include the PowerPoint presentations as well as charts.
Outline of Linguistic Models, Theories and Existing Literature Regarding the Topic
Critical Discourse Analysis as a methodology, an overview, ideology, power, politics, American politics, and speeches
According to Bloor (2004), an overview of the critical discourse analysis represents a brief synopsis of the theories behind it. The context includes how a certain language is impacted through the significant critical discourse approaches, theoretical explanations, ideology, and the background knowledge of the study.
The ideologies that usually discriminate against a certain language more often discriminate the speakers of that language (French, 1959). The language ideologies existed in private and public context of the discourse. Most of the multilingual societies which tolerate heterogeneity undervalue the language diversity of their people (French, 1959). The liberal orientation towards equality will block the drive towards homogeneity (French, 1959). The language ideologies establish the power in which discrimination will be based on.
The researcher Wodak (2012) indicated that language contributes to a sort of domination by increasing consciousness. The researcher further stated, the language element is a crucial aspect of making sense of transformation and changes in the society Wodak (2012). The power is conceptualized and inferred to mean that power is not derived from language but the language can derive the power Wodak (2012). The critical discourse analysis in various settings works in more than one discipline (Wodak, 2012). The critical discourse analysis is not just a single kind of theory or just one approach, but it is a broad-based field.
The critical discourse analysis views the language as a social practice (Blackledge, 2005). The social life encompasses a network of diverse social practices. The emphasis of the social life is that it allows analysis of the social structure and the agency (Blackledge, 2005). The discourse is socially constitutive and helps to reproduce and sustain the status quo and help in transforming it. The critical discourse analysis determines the narrative and tension between the understanding language when is socially shaped and when language is socially shaping (French, 1959).
The key feature and the question of the critical discourse analysis is in how communicative it is. It is how events are in most cases transformed as they navigate along the chain of discourse Wodak (2012). The idea of transformation of the discourse is achieved through changes that occur in the discursive strategies (French, 1959). The transformed discourse is seen in the repetition of arguments in the most authoritative tone (Blackledge, 2005). The repetition in an authoritative manner can gain power and authority. When it is repeated in the debating chamber in most cases, the argument will move up the line of discourse (Blackledge, 2005).
The usual use of multilingual language in linguistic practice contributes to upcoming of ideology. The monolingual language in political situations contributes to the political discourse (Blackledge, 2005). The increased power and authority in the political discourse is essential for understanding how various dominations or people come to supplement dominant ideologies.
According to Howarth (2010), the study on critical discourse analysis can be attributed to Gramsci, Althusser, Habermas and Foucault’s work on discourse. Similarly, Mazid (2007) suggests that the defining characteristics of critical discourse analysis are socio-historical situatedness, self-reflexivity as well as the concern with power, ideology, and control. The study also borrows from the theory of Fowler (2013) who suggests that the inequality of power in society is prominent and it influences linguistic structures. Reisigl (2017) states that it is essential to get more concerned with control and power when performing the critical discourse analysis because they are necessary for the development and interpretation of any oral interaction.
Research by authors such as Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Fowler, and Ruth Wodak would also be included in the study. They have documented extensive literature regarding critical discourse analysis, which is vital for this study. For instance, Fairclough (2009) defines ideology as a representation of the world from the perspective of particular interest. Since language carries ideology, people are influenced by it, although the fact that language carries ideology is often overlooked by the writer/speaker and hearer/reader (Carter, 2012). Thus, the critical discourse analysis aims to denaturalize ideology and make it recognizable to both the listeners and readers (Fairclough, 2009). Van Dijk (2008) defined critical discourse analysis as a study of the “enactment, reproduction, and resistance methods of dominance, social power abuse, and inequality both in the political and social context”. In the context of this research, the theory will be useful in analysing the speeches by Bush because of the steps to be followed in the critical discourse analysis. The process, thereby will ensure that all the critical information has been explored. Fowler (2013) suggested several aspects through which researchers can conduct a critical discourse analysis on a given piece of written or recorded speech. They include grammar of modality, the grammar of transitivity, classification, order, and unity, and transformation (Raven, 2012). These aspect will assist in analysing various features in President Bush speeches.
The liberal discourses of most of the politicians and the policymakers can link languages other than the usual English with terrorism stands (Kellner, 2004). There is the discourse of linking the race riots in America with the language ideology (Kellner, 2004).
The political actors in America linked or associated language other than English with terrorism stands (Kellner, 2004). The discriminatory political discourse gained power and the legitimacy of the state. The essential political discourse reveals the linguistic character or attribute of cultural and social processes in social life (Kellner, 2004).
Research shows that after the 9/11 attack certain narratives were framed to dominate the politics of the US. The move was settled to represent the attacks across all the aspects of society like culturally, politically and in jurisdictionally (Bond, 2015). Mazid (2007) documented literature about propaganda devices which relate well to the present study. Some of the devices that he explored include glittering generality, transfer, name-calling, band-wagon, and everyday folks. The theory is synonymous to the populism and fear model of Van Dijk (2008). In name calling, the speaker uses derogatory terms that make the enemy appear inhumane. It is a calculated move to evoke hatred and anger towards the audience so that the public will accept plans to attack the enemy that would otherwise be a cause for concern (Hanson, 2015). Van Dijk, (2015) states that fear is an appropriate propaganda device used by leaders to wage war against a perceived enemy. A leader can manufacture an enemy even though in reality there is none (Kellner, 2004). As people subscribe to the fear, they will develop loyalty towards their leader who promises to fight the perceived threat (Irvine, 1989). Also, Lakoff (1985) outlines that during communication; we should consider the relationship between the different forms a language uses, that is, syntax and phonology, and the general function the language used in communication is intended. For instance, the best way to examine the relationship between form and function in linguistics is to look at the tag question (Morton, 2006). A tag question is a construction that is unique to English and lies between a declaration and a question (Orwell, 1968). The knowledge on syntax linguistic features are significant in examining Bush speeches to find out whether or not the arrangement of phrases and words are logical regarding the 9/11 speeches. Also, phonology features will assist in the assessment of constructive associations among the Bush’s speech sounds.
The Speech made by President Bush on 9/11 shall also be examined to find out how word choice was used to pass across well-calculated messages to the Americans and the world at large (Fairclough, 2009). The message may have triggered the cause in the political arena around America, and the world shall also be considered. This shall be by establishing how some of the politicians used the utterances of the President to shape their political opinions or to have political advantages over opponents (Wodak, 2013). According to Halliday and Hasan (1994), speeches like a funnel and texts should be uttered with a consideration of both personal and social contexts. In other words, a speech should be generated in a way you convey out your message to be understood, and moreover, your audience should not get out of context base on how you convey the speech or the words you choose to use while conveying your message (Razfar, 2012).
Outline of the Data Analysis Process
One of the most appropriate data analysis methods would be the qualitative content analysis method. The analysis process shall be well structured in a formulated number of steps to distinguish them from each other. The first step shall entail examining the meanings, themes, and patterns from the speeches (Mautner, 2008). Identifying the lexico-grammatical items used by President Bush to depict terrorism and anti-terrorism will also be a significant concern in the data analysis process (Vaughan-Williams, 2014). The analysis method will establish what technique President Bush used to construct his narratives and how they influenced public perception, reaction, and emotion in the midst of significant security threats (Dixit, 2013). It is interesting to discover how context control, ideology, power, and mind control manifested in the President's speeches bearing in mind that he carefully selected emotionally charged expressions and vocabulary.
As we have seen from the above review, the aspects of ideologies, overviews, speeches, American politics, power, politics, and speeches dictate the critical discourse analysis. Firstly, the overview presents the significant theories and their relationship with languages. Secondly, the ideological theories reveal discrimination upon a certain languages as well as its speaker. Thirdly, the power theory represents its influence to the language used by the speaker in the speech. In Politics, politicians have linked the language with the significant elements of the speeches to attract the attention of the audience. On the other hand, speeches are examined to verify the linguistic features used in the phrases and words to capture the terrorism events.
References
Bloor, T. & Bloor, M., 2004. The functional analysis of English: a Hallidayan approach, 2nd edition. London: Arnold. pp. 95-103.
Carter, R., 2012. Investigating English Discourse: language, literacy, literature. London: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J., 2013. Analyzing political speeches: Rhetoric, discourse, and metaphor. Macmillan International Higher Education.
Dimaggio, A.R., 2015. Selling war, selling hope: presidential rhetoric, the news media, and US foreign policy since 9/11. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Dixit, P. and Stump, J.L., 2013. Critical terrorism studies: an introduction to research methods. London: Routledge.
Fairclough, N., 2009. A dialectical-relational approach to critical discourse analysis in social research. In M.. Meyer (2nd Edition). Methods of critical discourse analysis, (pp 162 -187). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Fowler, R., 2013. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. Routledge, Abingdon.
French, J. & Raven, B., 1959. The bases of social power. In D.Cartwright (Ed.) Studies in Social Power.pp.48-67.Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research
Gal, S., 1989. Language and political economy. Annual Review of Anthropology, 18(1), pp.345-367.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R.,1994. Cohesion in English. London: Longman
Hansson, S., 2015. Discursive strategies of blame avoidance in government: a framework for analysis. Discourse & Society, 26(3), pp.297-322.
Howarth, D., 2010. Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies, 3(3-4). pp. 309-335, DOI: 10.1080/19460171003619725
Irvine, J.T., 1989. When talk isn't cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist, 16(2), pp.248-267.
Lakoff, R., 2008. Language, gender, and politics: putting “women” and “power” in the same sentence.The Handbook of Language and gender. pp.160–178. doi:10.1002/9780470756942.ch7.
Mautner, G., 2008. Qualitative discourse analysis in the social sciences. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
Mazid, B.E.M., 2007. Presuppositions and strategic functions in Bush’s 20/9/2001 speech: a critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics, 6(3), pp.351-375.
Morton, A.D., 2006. Language and Hegemony in Gramsci–Peter Ives. The British Journal of Sociology, 57(2), pp.320-322.
Orwell, G., 1968. Politics and the English language. The collected essays, journalism and letters of George Orwell. Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. pp. 127-140
Razfar, A., 2012. Narrating beliefs: a language ideologies approach to teacher beliefs. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 43(1), pp.61-81.
Reisigl, M.,2017. The discourse-historical approach from: The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies Routledge. [Online] Available at: [Accessed Nov. 8, 2017]
Van Dijk, T.A., 2008. Discourse and power. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave McMillan.
Van Dijk, T. A.,2011. Chapter 18: Discourse and ideology. In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. [Online] Available at <.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n18>[Accessed November 8, 2018]
Van Dijk, T.A., 2015. The handbook of discourse analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Vaughan-Williams, N. and Peoples, C., 2014. Critical security studies: an introduction. London: Routledge.
Wodak, R., 2011. Complex texts: analyzing, understanding, explaining and interpreting meanings. Discourse Studies, 13(5), pp.623-633.
Onwuegbuzie, A.J., Leech, N.L. and Collins, K.M., 2010. Innovative data collection strategies in qualitative research. The qualitative report, 15(3), pp.696-726.
Bond, L., 2015. Frames of memory after 9/11: culture, criticism, politics, and law. London: Springer.
Kellner, D., 2004. 9/11, spectacles of terror, and media manipulation: a critique of Jihadist and Bush media politics. Critical Discourse Studies, 1(1), pp.41-64.
