Analysis of the War on Terror Discourse from the Perspective of Systemic-Functional Linguistics - Dissertation Example

?The day after the 9/11 attacks, former President George W. Bush address the joint session of the Congress and a live television audience. While the World Trade Center and the Pentagon was still burning, dead bodies are still being recovered, and the whole world still either laughing or in shock or both, Bush announced America’s “War on Terror”. Written by Michael Gerson, the speech was the very first time the phrase was used and it was to set the precedent for all the other speeches Bush made for the rest of his Presidency. This speech is one of the strong demonstration on how the Interpersonal Metafunction almost singlehandedly manipulated the human experience, the very core of M.K. Halliday’s Systemic-Functional Linguistics. Before we go into the actual formation in the speeches, let us first re-examine the core essence of the Interpersonal Metafunction within SFL itself. There are three component areas: the speaker/writer persona, social distance, and relative social status. Interpersonal Metafunction within SFL Societies, or individual if you like, form contexts based on experience. The evolution of experience, therefore, equals the evolution of meaning. However, the system of this formation is more a maze than a cycle because almost every components is a variable whose value is relative to almost every receiver in the formation of the experience. On the interpersonal level, the context and meaning of a text depends largely on speaker/writer, the giver of the text. From the image, persona, and all that constructs the speaker/writer stands for, the context is formed and subsequent meaning to the text is attached. It is, therefore, almost impossible to examine any process of information exchange by isolating the speaker or source of the message from historical frameworks. By now, some of you are probably saying that contexts are also largely formed by the receiver’s personal experience. That is true but that is also why the speaker becomes even more critical because meanings are often formed even before language is spoken. That meanings are changeable, of course, but the first element that can manipulate that meaning is the speaker by utilizing the perceived social status and social distance. Interpersonal Metafunction in Political Speeches Speeches are usually examined in the context of how the text is oriented towards the future and modalities. However, expressions of future orientation or modalities are not independent causations that you can examine in isolation. In fact, these are results rather than causes of a long process where language is constructed, evolved, deconstructed and elevated to a position of power that can change countries and its destiny. A political speech is one clear example of how the interpersonal metafunction can influence and even manipulate human experience through systematic functional linguistics. Political speeches are delivered rarely as a mode of reporting. Political speeches are delivered to convince, gain votes, get approval of current and prospective voters primarily and all the other secondarily. There is, perhaps, no other platform of communication where meanings are pre-formed even before actual linguistics than a political speech. The persona or source of the message has already formed his meanings through the political parties he or she has chosen to join, stance on political issues, overall media behaviour, and even, physical appearance. The personal forms the social standing and establishes the social distance. Yes, those meanings can be changed as receivers form their own contexts but it can also be enforced once the speaker imposes his or her own using different rhetoric, form different ideas, and establish different presets. The rhetoric used in that speech was one that inspired, not forced take note, the entire nation into war. The text that was used, the thematic formation, and the poetry above the message operated across texts and across time. To demonstrate how the Interpersonal Metafunction in a Political Speech can manipulate human experience, let us look at three different speeches delivered by former President Georbe Bush on his war on terror zoning in to the first quarter of the speeches where context are usually set, ideas are introduced, and serves as a prelude to the proposition he is trying to make. Speaker and the Formation of Meaning Emotions were high and it was the primary construct that formed the meanings even before Bush took to the platform. The experienced was distressed and people was still struggling to form a cohesive opinion and belief on the whole experience. What Bush utilized is his own history and that of America. Every time future action is declared or implied, Bush consistently asserted the legacy of the America’s past. In the speech delivered before the Congress, he talked about how, for the past 136 years, America has constantly been in war. Embedded in this is 136 years of winning wars. It was a reminder that America is used to fighting and used to winning. He elevated the impact by further reminding Americans that except for the Pearl Harbour attacks, wars we won were not our own. Bush extracted the substances of our past and attached it to the current framework of the 9/11 experience to create new meanings to old concepts of patriotism, peace, and protection. He utilized the intensity of events to change who we see as enemies and what must one do to be considered one. He iterated and reiterated how even those who didn’t directly attack us but would so simply as to allow alleged terrorists to live in their country would be considered an enemy. That also changed the meaning of independence. It was no longer limited to those who attack us. What further worked to his advantage is the events of more recent history. Bill Clinton left the office with the longest economic boom in American history (BBC, “Clinton’s Legacy”). He came in with America at peace except for isolated aides extended to other countries. America found itself with no more battles to be won. Arnold Toynbee pointed out in his book “Experiences” (1969) that war is humanity’s masterpiece. This is an event that humanity continuously work on as an ultimate expression of their worth and superiority. That changes after every major war like World War I and World War II (Luard, 1986) but as history gallantly demonstrates, humanity returns only with better arms. Bush reconstructed, or reminded if you like, America of what seemed natural, the need to fight. Another critical discourse is the continuous emphasis on the evil of the action and not the doer of the action. In all the speeches examined, Bush was explicit first on the `act of murdering thousands of Americans. What we didn’t have at the time the war on terror was declared was knowledge about the terrorists. That has changed since then. Associated Press (2006) re-examined the events of ten years ago and determined that terrorists kill without mercy but not without purpose, that terrorists have a global network driven by their own version of Islam, that no matter how skewed we think their belief is they think the same of ours, that not all Islams are evil, and that not all countries dominantly Islam condone them. These, however, didn’t surface until years after and millions of other Islams’ efforts to make us understand. We didn’t know it then and neither did Bush. His first speech expectedly condemned the action and barely talked about the face behind the action (primarily because they were still verifying their intelligence reports on who did the attacks but also) because the action is what defines his future orientation towards the war he declared. It is a framework that he continued to use in all his other speeches on his war on terror. He compounded on the action demonstrating merciless killing, discrimination towards women, hatred towards other races, and clipping of freedom of expression. These are all familiar issues and problems that, even to this day, are still being experienced by other American. Through this discourse, Bush was able to shroud America with a feeling of familiarity, problems that we still fight to this day, and struggles we would never want to compound. Speaker and Social Status Speeches aren’t just done to report progress or new plans. Politicians do it to influence votes and influence a nation (Graber) and a war is a major undertaking . An industrialized nation enjoying the fruits of progress won’t be easy to convince in undertaking any move that would threaten that sheltered life. It is natural, even expected, that the President project himself as the leader of the nation especially when the nation is about to go to war. However, the world went through two of that and important constructs need to be in place for him to convince an entire nation that war is inevitable. Bush needed to be perceived as the strong, determined and powerful leader who can protect the nation and who guards safety and peace in the U.S. and round the world (Wloderek, 2010). He reinforced that by implying that for that to be possible, Americans needed to support him. Even more interesting is his use of threat to demonstrate the consequence America faces if he is not supported. He used statements like “Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror” and “These acts of mass murder were intended to frighten our nation into chaos and retreat”. It was a clear vision of what was to come unless he is able to protect the nation the best way he sees fit. Speaker and Forming Contradicting Meanings One of the trickiest and perhaps the hardest thing to do in a speech is be able to pain a clear picture or of a vision with nothing but words but nonetheless critical. First he needed to paint a picture of leadership and control. One of the popular Puritan values (Hopper & Hopper) is the ability to show concern and vulnerability even during the most formal of occasions without having to appear weak. The 9/11 is one of the emotional times and the leader needed to be both strong and accessible. Bush seemed to have followed this advice on all speeches examine. Then, he needed to paint a picture of the kind of nation he wishes to achieve through this war. He did this by linking general social knowledge to his very specific intention to fight the terrorism at whatever cost. He emphasized the values of freedom, justice, independence and, yes, superiority to project a clear picture of the America he is trying to achieve. Speaker and Closing the Social Distance I do believe that despite the politics, Bush was trying to solidify nation. Whether or not it was towards the right cause is not the point of this paper. What is important is how he employed universal values to construct a personal conversation to the millions of Americans watching on their television. He heavily laid out concepts of solidarity like “(…) our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom”. The purpose is to make every American feel that the speech is directly for them, that they are included in the call for help. Conclusion Bush treated each member of his audience as a target supporter allowing him to enforce an idea as difficult as war. However, using universal or common discourses may be difficult considering America is known to be comprised of different nationalities, ethnicities and religious beliefs. Each of those is tolerated. To get that connection, he used five major values used in these speeches: reconstruction of contexts, strengthening of an ideology using familiar concepts, interpersonal connection, sense of control and clear image of the future orientation. Each of those values were geared towards reassuring Americans that he is the leader that they need to trust and that he will take them towards the future they ought to be, a future of freedom and prosperity. Appendix Speech to a Joint Session of Congress, Sept. 20, 2001 Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, Members of Congress, and fellow Americans: In the normal course of events, Presidents come to this Chamber to report on the state of the Union. Tonight, no such report is needed. It has already been delivered by the American people. We have seen it in the courage of passengers, who rushed terrorists to save others on the ground, passengers like an exceptional man named Todd Beamer. And would you please help me to welcome his wife, Lisa Beamer, here tonight. [Applause] We have seen the State of our Union in the endurance of rescuers, working past exhaustion. We have seen the unfurling of flags, the lighting of candles, the giving of blood, the saying of prayers in English, Hebrew, and Arabic. We have seen the decency of a loving and giving people who have made the grief of strangers their own. My fellow citizens, for the last 9 days, the entire world has seen for itself the state of our Union, and it is strong. Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom. Our grief has turned to anger and anger to resolution. Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done. I thank the Congress for its leadership at such an important time. All of America was touched, on the evening of the tragedy, to see Republicans and Democrats joined together on the steps of this Capitol, singing "God Bless America." And you did more than sing, you acted, by delivering $40 billion to rebuild our communities and meet the needs of our military. Speaker Hastert, Minority Leader Gephardt, Majority Leader Daschle, and Senator Lott, I thank you for your friendship, for your leadership, and for your service to our country. And on behalf of the American people, I thank the world for its outpouring of support. America will never forget the sounds of our national anthem playing at Buckingham Palace, on the streets of Paris, and at Berlin's Brandenburg Gate. We will not forget South Korean children gathering to pray outside our Embassy in Seoul, or the prayers of sympathy offered at a mosque in Cairo. We will not forget moments of silence and days of mourning in Australia and Africa and Latin America. Nor will we forget the citizens of 80 other nations who died with our own: dozens of Pakistanis; more than 130 Israelis; more than 250 citizens of India; men and women from El Salvador, Iran, Mexico, and Japan; and hundreds of British citizens. America has no truer friend than Great Britain. Once again, we are joined together in a great cause - so honored the British Prime Minister has crossed an ocean to show his unity with America. Thank you for coming, friend. On September 11th, enemies of freedom committed an act of war against our country. Americans have known wars, but for the past 136 years, they have been wars on foreign soil, except for one Sunday in 1941. Americans have known the casualties of war, but not at the center of a great city on a peaceful morning. Americans have known surprise attacks but never before on thousands of civilians. All of this was brought upon us in a single day, and night fell on a different world, a world where freedom itself is under attack. Americans have many questions tonight. Americans are asking, who attacked our country? The evidence we have gathered all points to a collection of loosely affiliated terrorist organizations known as Al Qaida. They are some of the murderers indicted for bombing American Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and responsible for bombing the U.S.S. Cole. Al Qaida is to terror what the Mafia is to crime. But its goal is not making money. Its goal is remaking the world and imposing its radical beliefs on people everywhere. The terrorists practice a fringe form of Islamic extremism that has been rejected by Muslim scholars and the vast majority of Muslim clerics, a fringe movement that perverts the peaceful teachings of Islam. The terrorists' directive commands them to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinctions among military and civilians, including women and children. This group and its leader, a person named Usama bin Laden, are linked to many other organizations in different countries, including the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. There are thousands of these terrorists in more than 60 countries. They are recruited from their own nations and neighborhoods and brought to camps in places like Afghanistan, where they are trained in the tactics of terror. They are sent back to their homes or sent to hide in countries around the world to plot evil and destruction. Speeach at Ft. Bragg 28 June 2005 President Bush addressed the nation, delivering a speech at Ft. Bragg, NC, that was broadcast on network TV during prime-time. Sen. John McCain, interviewed on CBS's The Early Show, maintained that "one of the very big mistakes early on was that he didn't have enough troops on the ground, particularly after the initial victory, and that's still the case." With that background, here is the text of the speech. Good evening. I am pleased to visit Fort Bragg, home of the airborne and special operations forces. It's an honor to speak before you tonight. My greatest responsibility as president is to protect the American people. And that's your calling as well. I thank you for your service, your courage and your sacrifice. I thank your families, who support you in your vital work. The soldiers and families of Fort Bragg have contributed mightily to our efforts to secure our country and promote peace. America is grateful, and so is your commander in chief. The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. To achieve these aims, they have continued to kill: in Madrid, Istanbul, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Bali and elsewhere. The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent and, with a few hard blows, they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September the 11th, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York and Washington and Pennsylvania. There is only one course of action against them: to defeat them abroad before they attack us at home. The commander in charge of coalition operations in Iraq, who is also senior commander at this base, General John Vines, put it well the other day. He said, We either deal with terrorism and this extremism abroad, or we deal with it when it comes to us. The work in Iraq is difficult and it is dangerous. Like most Americans, I see the images of violence and bloodshed. Every picture is horrifying, and the suffering is real. Amid all this violence, I know Americans ask the question: Is the sacrifice worth it? Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and others. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents and remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors, lose their recruits and lose their hopes for turning that region into a base for attacks on America and our allies around the world. Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Here are the words of Osama bin Laden: This third world war is raging in Iraq. The whole world is watching this war. He says it will end in victory and glory or misery and humiliation. The terrorists know that the outcome will leave them emboldened or defeated. So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction. And there is no limit to the innocent lives they are willing to take. 9/11 First Anniversary Address New York Good evening. A long year has passed since enemies attacked our country. We've seen the images so many times they are seared on our souls, and remembering the horror, reliving the anguish, re-imagining the terror, is hard -- and painful. President George W. Bush address the nation from Ellis Island in New York City on the one year anniversary of the terror attacks on September 11. For those who lost loved ones, it's been a year of sorrow, of empty places, of newborn children who will never know their fathers here on earth. For members of our military, it's been a year of sacrifice and service far from home. For all Americans, it has been a year of adjustment, of coming to terms with the difficult knowledge that our nation has determined enemies, and that we are not invulnerable to their attacks. Yet, in the events that have challenged us, we have also seen the character that will deliver us. We have seen the greatness of America in airline passengers who defied their hijackers and ran a plane into the ground to spare the lives of others. We've seen the greatness of America in rescuers who rushed up flights of stairs toward peril. And we continue to see the greatness of America in the care and compassion our citizens show to each other. September 11, 2001 will always be a fixed point in the life of America. The loss of so many lives left us to examine our own. Each of us was reminded that we are here only for a time, and these counted days should be filled with things that last and matter: love for our families, love for our neighbors, and for our country; gratitude for life and to the Giver of life. We resolved a year ago to honor every last person lost. We owe them remembrance and we owe them more. We owe them, and their children, and our own, the most enduring monument we can build: a world of liberty and security made possible by the way America leads, and by the way Americans lead our lives. The attack on our nation was also attack on the ideals that make us a nation. Our deepest national conviction is that every life is precious, because every life is the gift of a Creator who intended us to live in liberty and equality. More than anything else, this separates us from the enemy we fight. We value every life; our enemies value none -- not even the innocent, not even their own. And we seek the freedom and opportunity that give meaning and value to life. There is a line in our time, and in every time, between those who believe all men are created equal, and those who believe that some men and women and children are expendable in the pursuit of power. There is a line in our time, and in every time, between the defenders of human liberty and those who seek to master the minds and souls of others. Our generation has now heard history's call, and we will answer it. References Associated Press. Text of Bush 9/11 Address. Washington Post. 11 September 2006. Web. 4 September 2011 Hopper, William & Hopper, Kenneth. The Puritan Gift: Triumph, Collapse and Revival of an American Dream. I. B. Tauris. 3 April 2007. Print Schifferes, Steve. Bill Clinton’s Economic Legacy. BBC News. 15 January 2001. Web. 4 September 2011. Toynbee Arnold. Experiences. New York: Oxford University Press. P. 214. 1969. Print. Wlodarek, Lukasz. George W. Bush’s War on Terror from a Political Discourse Perspective. The Nationwide Language School Lingua Nova. 2 November 2010. Web 4 September 2011 Graber, Doris. Political Communication: Scope, Progress, Promise. Washington D.C. American Political Science Association. Print. 1993 Appendix Read More