International J. Soc. Sci.

& Education
2013 Vol.3 Issue 2, ISSN: 2223-4934 E and 2227-393X Print

Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush

and Obama on Terrorism
By

Emmanuel Sarfo and Ewuresi Agyeiwaa Krampa

Department of English, University of Cape Coast, Cape Coast, Ghana
E-mail: [email protected] & [email protected]

Abstract

The concept of terrorism (and antiterrorism) is a complex phenomenon that has received a lot of debate in the last
decade. A highly complex phenomenon, terrorism stands at the forefront of national and international agendas.
Taking on many forms, it is associated with a wide variety of groups and motivations. It has been presented in
different ways, depending on who is speaking. It is against this backdrop that this paper seeks to do a Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA) of speeches of Bush and Obama on terrorism. Using six speeches from Bush and Obama
as the data and using a qualitative content analytical approach, it draws on van Dijk’s concept of Critical Discourse
Analysis. The study reveals that Bush and Obama projected terrorism negatively while they projected anti-terrorism
positively by carefully selecting emotionally charged vocabulary and expressions. The notion of power as control,
mind control and context control were common features of Bush and Obama’s speeches. This study has implications
for the theory of Critical Discourse Analysis and studies on terrorism.

Keywords: Terrorism, speech, linguistic forms, critical discourse analysis, mind control.

1. Introduction
A highly complex phenomenon, terrorism stands at the forefront of national and international agendas.
Taking on many forms, terrorism is associated with a wide variety of groups and motivations. Moreover,
the emotionally charged nature of the term itself makes it especially difficult to define. In simple terms,
terrorism is the threat or use of violence for political, religious or ideological purposes designed to
influence the attitudes and behaviour of a group or to achieve objectives that are otherwise unattainable
(Turner, Switzer & Redden, 1996; Rapport & Alexander, 1982). The Council of the European Union
describes terrorism as an offence under national law, which, given its nature or context, may seriously
damage a country or an international organization - seriously intimidating a population, or unduly
compelling a Government or international organization to perform or abstain from performing any act, or
seriously destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional, economic or social
structures of a country or an international organization (The Council of the European Union, 2002).

Although speeches on terrorism have been part of American politics for a long time now, they seem to
have somewhat become more popular with ex-President Bush and the incumbent U.S President, Barack
Obama, since 2001, as a result of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York. Seeing itself
as probably the freest, decent and most powerful society in existence (D‘Souza, 2006), the US has a
policy of ‗no-negotiation-with-terrorists‘ and therefore such speeches are usually used to criticize, warn,
and invoke fear in the so-called terrorists. However, the issue of who a terrorist is has given rise to
different interpretations and attitudes to/towards the term, with some justifying the legitimacy of terrorist
acts ‗if the cause is genuine ... [seeing] terrorism as a tool of resistance against outside influence and
control‘ (Turner, Switzer & Redden, 1996). For instance, in an interview with an ABC reporter, John
Miller, in 1998, Osama bin Laden asserted that ‗America has no shame... the worst thieves in the world
today and the worst terrorists are the Americans‘. In writing an introduction to Language, Discourse &
Society, an international journal, O‘Hare (2011) quotes Professor Celine Marine Pascal as saying that
language is more than just a tool for communicating with another. To her, the world gains meaning
378
 Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush and Obama on Terrorism

through language, and that ‗one person‘s terrorist is another person‘s freedom fighter. The language we
use both reflects and shapes the kind of world we create around us‘. This is a clear indication of the
complexity of the term ‗terrorism‘ (or ‗terrorist).

It is therefore unsurprising that the concept of terrorism has attracted some scholarly attention. Agner
(2002), whose article, ‗Why terrorism doesn‘t work‘ identifies some important reasons why terrorism
conflicts tend to go into long-lasting deadlocks - the imbalance of power, the failure of negotiations and
the effect of the mass media. Aning‘s (2010) ‗War on terror‘ examines the connections between
development aid, security and the War on Terror (WOT) and finds that aid programmes have become
highly securitized and politicized as a weapon for the realization of the goals of war on terror after 9/11.
Zysberg & Zysberg (2012) explore ‗Differential reaction patterns to September 11th‘s events‘ of
Americans and ‗bystander populations‘ and conclude that Americans view the situation more as a war
and tend to be less yielding or understanding toward the perpetrators than the ‗bystander populations‘. In
its study on ‗Exploring the root and trigger causes of terrorism‘, the Transnational Terrorism, Security &
the Rule of Law (2007), states that one of the causes of terrorism was that it was viewed as a means of
communicating a message and using violence as a way to further solidify the triumph of their (terrorists)
cause.

Also, speeches have received considerable attention from scholars. Different approaches have been used
in such studies, including: Critical Discourse Analysis (David & Dumanig, 2011; Horváth, 2011;
Adetunji, 2006; Boyd, 2009); Critical Discourse Analysis with the Systemic Functional Linguistics
(Kamalu & Agangan, 2011; Wang, 2010); Political Linguistics, Pu (2007); and checklist model (van
Leeuwen, 2009). These studies mostly highlighted issues of race, racism, identity, unity, cultural
transmission and other political issues. Apart from that, while some of the studies were pragmatic,
semantic or stylistic, others were lexico-grammatical in nature.

Even though the current paper also employs CDA, it differs from those mentioned above as it focuses on
the subject of terrorism. Again, what makes this study differ from other studies on terrorism is that it
focuses on the linguistic portrayal of terrorism in the speeches of two American presidents.

2. The Present Study

Theoretical Framework
This paper draws on the critical discourse analytical theory. According to van Dijk (1998: 352), Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA) studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted,
reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. He identifies some of the
dominant notions in CDA as ‗power‘, ‗dominance‘, ‗inequality‘, ‗hegemony‘, ‗ideology‘, ‗class‘,
‗gender‘, ‗race‘, ‗discrimination‘, among others which he labels as ‗macro level of analysis‘. However, he
posits that micro-level of social order involves language use, discourse, verbal interaction and
communication. CDA, thus, tries to bridge the 'gap' between the two micro and macro approaches.

Fairclough (2003), on the other hand, classifies the various approaches of CDA into those that include a
detailed analysis of a text and approaches that do not involve a detailed text. According to Fairclough &
Wodak (1997: 271-280) CDA addresses social problems. They posit that CDA regards: power relations
as being discursive; discourse as constituting society and culture; discourse as doing ideological work;
discourse as history, making reference to culture, society and ideology in historical terms; that the link
between text and society is mediated; that CDA is interpretative and explanatory; and discourse as a form
of social action.

Van Dijk asserts that CDA concentrates on the abuse of power especially on dominance, examining how
power in discourse is abused by controlling people‘s beliefs and actions to suit the interests of dominant
groups as against the interest of the powerless or the will others. He says that those who have power

379
 Emmanuel Sarfo and Ewuresi Agyeiwaa Krampa

control discourse. According to him, social power is the result of access to and control of resources such
as force, money, status, fame, knowledge and information. In the exercise of these powers, dominant
groups through text and talk, may either directly or indirectly coerce, influence, control or even abuse the
minds of people through persuasion and manipulation.

Text and talk control people‘s minds, and, therefore, discourse may also indirectly influence people‘s
actions through persuasion and manipulation. This means that those groups who control most influential
discourse also have more chances to control the minds and actions of others. Such powers of dominant
groups ―may be integrated in laws, rules, norms, habits and even a quite general consensus‖ leading to
'hegemony' (Gramsci, 1971, cited in van Dijk, 1998: 355).

This theoretical framework is considered suitable and appropriate because the present study seeks to
establish how power, ideology, context control and mind control manifest themselves through the various
linguistic choices the two American presidents made.

3. Methodology
Data collection and Treatment
The data were obtained from the internet, http://www.google.com (see References for specific details).
These were scripted speeches delivered by Presidents Obama and Bush in the last decade (2001-2011).
All of the speeches were delivered in the U.S.A but at different venues including the U.S Naval
Academy, U.S Congress, the White House, National Archives Museum and the U.S Department of State.
A total of ten speeches were chosen from the internet, out of which six, three each of Bush‘s and
Obama‘s, were purposively selected. The following are the summaries of the speeches.

Bush 1 – President Bush’s speech on Terrorism: Bush spoke about the 9/11 event together with some acts
of terrorists. He also spoke about Guantánamo Bay and a program created to capture these terrorists so as
to keep America safe. BSH 2: President Bush’s speech on the War on Terrorism, delivered on November
30, 2005 at the US Naval Base. He described the terrorists and their acts but most importantly he
emphasized their strategies carried out in Iraq. BSH 3: A speech delivered on September 20, 2001.
President Bush addressed a joint session of Congress and a national television audience to launch the war
on terror, a phrase he used for the first time that night. In this speech, he first described the terrorists like
he did in his previous speeches. He then declared war on terrorism and asked for the help of other nations.
He also assured Americans of their safety.

OBM 1- Protecting our security and our values: Delivered at the National Archives Museum,
Washington, DC, this speech was about Guantánamo and terrorism, delivered on May 21, 2009. Obama
addressed the issue of Guantánamo established by Bush‘s government. In this speech, he explained why
he banned the interrogation techniques used for terrorists, ordered the closure of Guantánamo and ordered
a review of all the pending cases at Guantánamo. He also spoke about terrorism and anti-terrorism in
general. OBM 2: Obama addressed the war in Afghanistan and the new strategy that was being carried
out in Afghanistan and Pakistan to fight terrorism. OBM 3- A Moment of Opportunity, delivered on May
19, 2011: In that third speech of Obama, he briefly talked about terrorism and anti-terrorism and the
death of Osama bin Laden as terrorism was not the only focus of his speech.

4. Data Analysis Procedure

In an attempt to analyse the data presented, we used a qualitative content analysis approach, which is ―a
research method for the subjective interpretation of the context of the text data through the systematic
classification process of coding and identifying themes and patterns‖ (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005:1278). It
goes beyond merely counting words or extracting objective content from texts to examine meanings,
themes and patterns that may be manifest or latent in a particular text. It allows researchers to understand

380
 Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush and Obama on Terrorism

social reality in a subjective but scientific manner. In analysing the data collected, the speeches were
coded as BSH 1, BSH 2, BSH 3, OBM 1, OBM 2 and OBM 3 for easy referencing, where BSH means
Bush and OBM means Obama. The data were critically scrutinised in order to identify the various
lexico-grammatical items used by the two speakers to depict terrorism and anti-terrorism in their
speeches. In doing this, we paid attention to grammar and vocabulary while using critical discourse
analysis for a macro-level analysis (van Dijk, 1998) to observe how power, ideology, context control and
mind control manifest in the speeches.

5. Analysis and Discussion

Linguistic Projection of Terrorism and Anti-Terrorism
The data collected and analyzed showed that there were various linguistic resources (e.g. words and
phrases) that projected terrorism and anti-terrorism in the speeches. Indeed, these linguistic resources
were wide spread such that they were realized in all the six (6) speeches analyzed. These linguistic
features included vocabulary, phrases, clauses and sentences. It is noteworthy that although all the
linguistic resources identified in the collected data were widespread, some appeared to be more
widespread than others. Each of these linguistic resources is illustrated and extensively discussed in the
subsequent paragraphs.

Vocabulary Items
It is a generally true that some words, even when in isolation and not used with other words or in context,
have the tendency to communicate some meaning or purpose. It has been reported that because words
have communicative purposes (say to create a good impression or a bad picture), it behoves individuals to
be careful and mindful of their choice of words, consciously or unconsciously (Sekyi-Baidoo, 2002). The
data analyzed showed that different kinds of words that projected terrorism and anti-terrorism could be
found in the speeches. These words were solely lexical and/or content words and belonged to the four
major word classes in English- nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. It is noteworthy also that of the four
major word classes, nouns were dominantly used. The following are illustrations.

Vocabulary Items that Projected Terrorism

The following words were used to project terrorism as verminous:
1. Attack (OBM 2, L 26 pg.1)
2. Kill (OBM 1, L 1, pg.7)
3. Enemy (OBM 2, L 22, pg.5)
4. Danger (BSH 3, L 12 pg.1)
5. Tragedy (BSH 3, L 16, pg.4)

The ‗armed men‘ were not only referred to as terrorists but also as an ‗enemy‘- a person who hates
somebody or who acts and speaks against something. The use of ‗enemy‘, somewhat, created an
impression that these people (terrorists) were against their (Americans‘) interests and therefore must not
be tolerated. The mention of ‗enemy‘ in Example 3 was most likely to arouse anger aside fear.
Contextually, ‗danger‘ was used to depict terrorism and portray it as something that could jeopardise the
existence of humanity. Also, the speaker described the 9/11 event as a ‗tragedy‘. Without having heard
the initial part of the speech where the speaker gave a recap of the number of lives that were lost in the
attack, the audience could be reminded of the sad memories through the use of the word ‗tragedy‘. In the
entire speech, Bush used the word ‗tragedy‘ to evoke feelings of sorrow and grief. ‗Tragedy‘, thus,
contextually highlights the concept of terrorism and projects it as something obnoxious or unpleasant.

Examples 3, 4 and 5 above highlight van Dijk‘s (1998) study on CDA, specifically mind control and
context control. This assertion stems from the notion that controlling people‘s mind is another
fundamental way to reproduce dominance and hegemony. Most of our beliefs about the world are
acquired through discourse (van Dijk, 1998; Fairclough, 2001). Unless inconsistent with their beliefs and

381
 Emmanuel Sarfo and Ewuresi Agyeiwaa Krampa

experiences, recipients tend to accept beliefs (knowledge and opinions) through discourse from what they
see as authoritative, trustworthy or credible sources such as scholars, experts, professionals or from other
reliable sources (Nelser et al. 1993). From the speeches analysed, it is evident that Americans believe in
freedom. The belief in freedom is evident in Bush‘s speech when he says, ‗I‘ll continue to work with the
international community to construct a common foundation to defend our nations and protect our
freedoms‘ (BSH 1, L 29-31 pg.10). Therefore, the use of such words as ‗kill‘, ‗attack‘, ‗enemy‘, ‗tragedy‘
and ‗danger‘ denote negativity and is inconsistent with their beliefs. Coming from a credible and
authoritative source as claimed by Bush, however, the audience are somewhat manipulated in their minds
to believe and accept the acts of terrorism as nefarious and, hence, have a negative outlook towards such
acts. It can also be opined that the vocabulary items are indicative of context control because the speakers
appear to have taken advantage of the ‗situation (terrorist attacks), setting (time and place), participants
present (security personnel and citizens of America) and mental representation: goals, knowledge,
attitudes, opinions and ideologies (van Dijk, 1998; Diamond, 1996) to manipulate the audience to believe
that terrorism is evil.

Vocabulary Items that Projected Anti-terrorism:

The following project anti-terrorism as a means of fighting and guarding against terrorism:
6. Supreme Court (BSH 1, L8, pg.8)
7. CIA (BSH 1, L 10, pg.10)
8. Troop (OBM 2, L 23, pg.2)
9. Military Commissions (OBM 1, L 2, pg.6)
10. Justice Department (OBM 1, L 8, pg.8)

The nouns in examples 6, 7, 9 and 10 are all names of legal bodies authorized by the US government to
carry out actions in order to ensure safety. The speaker, perhaps, mentioned these people to let his
audience know that the actions they carried out were legal, unlike the ‗terrorist‘ ‗who wear no uniform‘
and ‗do not mass armies on borders...‘ The nouns, ‗troop‘, ‗Military Commissions‘ and ‗Justice
Department‘ connote an idea of resistance as far as terrorism is concerned, thereby projecting anti-
terrorism.

The ideas contained in these vocabulary items that project anti-terrorism lend support to van Dijk‘s notion
of power as control. He asserts that a central notion in most critical works is that of power, and more
specifically the social power of groups or institutions. He defines social power in terms of control. Thus,
groups have (more or less) power if they are able to control the acts and minds of (members of) other
groups. The two speakers under reference made use of such words to let their audience know that the
‗war‘ could only be won through the use of security agents and of course the law. Some of the vocabulary
items such as ‗Supreme Court‘, ‗CIA‘, ‗troops‘, ‗Military Commissions‘ and ‗Justice Department‘ put the
minds of the audience at ease because they denote legitimacy, power and dominance (Fairclough, 2001)
over acts of terrorism, which is a way of manipulating the audience into accepting the measures carried
out against terrorists.

Phrases and Clauses

Phrases and clauses were identified as a linguistic resource employed by the presidents to project
terrorism and anti-terrorism. That is, the individual words in a phrase/a clause may not necessarily project
terrorism and anti-terrorism in isolation but rather collectively. After a careful analysis of the speeches, it
was observed that the verb phrase was most frequent followed by the noun phrase. This is probably
because of the frequent description of the acts and actions of terrorism and anti-terrorism.

Phrases/Clauses that Projected Terrorism:

11. to plot evil and destruction (BSH 3, L.10, pg.4)
12. violent extremist (OBM 2, L 32, pg.8)
13. to kill the innocent and create chaos for the cameras

382
 Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush and Obama on Terrorism

(BSH 2, L 23-24 pg.4)

14. the slaughter of innocents (OBM 2, L 17 pg.1)
15. launch attacks against America (BSH 2, L 18, pg.3)

In example 13 above, the act of taking the life of people by the terrorists was described by the speaker as
killing. ‗Kill‘ is defined as to ‗make somebody or something die‘. Emphasis must be put on the word
‗make‘ because in this context the individuals did not choose to die; rather, death was imposed on them.
This act could somewhat be defined as treacherous, especially when the speaker went on to say ‗innocent
lives‘. That is, the act was treacherous because death was imposed on the lives of ‗innocent people‘ who
did not deserve it. The speaker could have said 3,000 people died in the plane crash but in order to make
his audience aware of the ‗enemy‘ they were dealing with he chose to use such a verb phrase so as to
arouse sentiments. Clearly, the expression is used by the speaker to depict the terrorist as a brutal enemy.

In Example 14, the speaker used the word ‗slaughter‘ and not ‗kill‘ in order to be as blunt as possible. In
describing his own actions he did not use such extreme negative words. He described his activities using
words like ‗fight‘, ‗dismantling‘ and ‗defeating‘. The speaker emphasised that the killing was done
cruelly to people who did not deserve it. Clearly, therefore, the activities of the terrorist were presented
and portrayed by the speaker as nefarious. The phrase ‗the slaughter of innocents‘ therefore created a
terrible perception about the terrorists and in so doing terrorism is projected as cruel, brutal, heartless,
callous, and lethal.

The speaker, in Example 15, tried to tell America that on daily basis, attacks were being planned against
Americans. The terrorists did not give up; hence they also must not give up until ‗complete victory‘ was
theirs. This was a way of suggesting to his audience that the war and strategies on terrorism must be
accepted. The speaker, thus, used the phrase to make Americans aware of how close the activities of
terrorism were to them. By so doing, he projects terrorism negatively to them.

Phrases/Clauses that Projected Anti-terrorism:

The following were used to portray antiterrorism:
16. under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy (OBM 2, L 30
pg.1)
17. to fight this enemy ( OBM 2, L 8, pg.4)
18. hunt the enemy (BSH 2, L 18, pg.2)
19. to construct a legitimate framework for Guantánamo detainees( BSH 3, L 13 pg.5)
20. to prevent a cancer from once again spreading through that country. (OBM 2, L 13-14,
pg.6)

To ‗hunt the enemy‘ creates the picture that it is a bad person that is being tracked down. The idea of
dealing with the enemy as suggested in the verb phrase, Example 18, is indicative of the fight against
terrorism.

Examples 16, 19 and 20 project anti-terrorism positively in the sense that the ‗enemies‘ the speaker spoke
of did not ‗abide by any law of war‘ but they (Americans), though were also in the war, did so legally.
That is, the measures and strategies they took concerning the defeat were lawful, legitimate and justifiable
as they were backed by law. These statements tried to nullify any sense of doubt or uncertainty in the
minds of those who thought the war, detainees and justices being carried out against the terrorists were
wrong. Again, there is a portrayal of determination and strong will to nib terrorism in the bud, as a result
of which anti-terrorism is projected.

In the verb phrase in Example 20, the speaker strategically stated their aim as preventing ‗a cancer from
once again spreading‘. He likened terrorism to a deadly illness called cancer and symbolised Afghanistan
as the patient under a cancerous attack. The Americans were, therefore, in Afghanistan to cure

383
 Emmanuel Sarfo and Ewuresi Agyeiwaa Krampa

Afghanistans of their illness and prevent any spread to other countries. In other words, the speaker sought
to create the impression that the rest of the world mattered to them (Americans) just like their very own
welfare mattered to them (Americans). Like the other instances in which anti-terrorism was projected, the
example above is indicative of Americans resolution to prevent, stop or curb terrorism. By so doing, anti-
terrorism legitimised.

The examples that project terrorism and anti-terrorism at the phrasal and clausal levels corroborate van
Dijk‘s concept of mind control. In the speeches of Bush and Obama, they tactically employed the use of
certain phrases and clauses to paint a bad picture about the concept of terrorism, while they lured the
audience into accepting anti-terrorism. This is evident in Examples 14 and 20. This is a manifestation of
mind control because ‗... the recipients may not have the knowledge and beliefs needed to challenge the
discourses or information they are exposed to‘ (Pu, 2007). For instance, the only evidence the audience
had as to why there were troops in Afghanistan was what the speaker said, ‗to prevent a cancer from once
again spreading through that country‘ (OBM 2, L 13-14, pg.6). The audience may not have had any other
knowledge or information on why those troops were sent to Afghanistan except for what they were told
and therefore could not challenge but only believe the speaker. Like the presidents, citizens of America
seem to believe in freedom and so knowing this, the speakers carefully used expressions that would
denote their interest in the freedom and welfare of the people and that of terrorists‘ interest against the
freedom and welfare of Americans.

Sentences
In order to appreciate the real sense of the projection of terrorism and antiterrorism, it was necessary to
consider sentences, as sentences make complete senses: simple, compound and complex sentences. Most
of the sentences that were used to project terrorism and anti-terrorism were complex. Perhaps, this is a
reflection of the complex nature of the concept of terrorism and antiterrorism. In other words, talking
about a complex phenomenon may require complex language use. It is worth mentioning, however, that
since lexical items and phrases subsume under sentences, a sentence structure in itself may not
necessarily project terrorism and anti-terrorism. Rather, it is the various components and/or constituents
of the sentence structure that depict terrorism. Below are examples of sentences that project terrorism.
These examples will be followed by another set of examples that project anti-terrorism.

Sentences that Projected Terrorism:

21. He was a mass murderer who offered a message of hate - an instance that Muslims had
to take up arms against the West, and that violence against men, women and children
was the only path to change (OBM 1, L 21-23, pg.1).
22. Americans saw the destruction the terrorists had caused in New York and Washington
and Pennsylvania, and they wondered if there were other terrorist cells in our midst
poised to strike (BSH 1, L 13-15, pg.1).
23. Our commanders believe they‘re responsible for most of the suicide bombings and the
beheadings and the other atrocities we see on our television (BSH 2, L 11-12, pg.3.).
24. We watched the twin towers collapse before our eyes and it became instantly clear that
we‘d entered a new world and a dangerous new war (BSH 1, L 8-9, pg.1).
25. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four planes and used them to murder nearly,
3,000 people (OBM 2, L 10-11, pg.1).

In Example 23, the speaker specifically mentioned some of the acts of the terrorists although the audience
may have already been aware. He carefully selected some of the most gruesome activities and referred to
the other activities of the terrorist as ‗atrocities‘. He did this to ignite some sort of dislike from the
audience. He also did this to gradually paint a bad picture about the terrorists so that perhaps all
(Americans and non-Americans) would be against them as America needed allies to fight this war. In this
example, it can be seen explicitly that, terrorism was emphasised and brought to the fore via the use of
language. To equate the instantiations of the U.S commanders to the beheadings, atrocities and other

384
 Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush and Obama on Terrorism

terrorist activities makes it possible for the audience to see the complex nature of the terrorist activities as
well as how barbaric and diabolical these activities were.

Van Dijk (1998) asserts that our beliefs about the world are acquired through discourse; hence, it is not
surprising that the speakers embraced the opportunity to use language to somewhat brainwash the
audience into accepting that terrorism is inhuman, whereas anti-terrorism is in their (Americans) best
interest. As can be seen from the speeches, Americans uphold certain beliefs and values (for example,
freedom) and, therefore, the acts of terrorism such as ‗suicide bombings‘ were indeed‘ inconsistent with
their personal beliefs‘ (Nesler et al, 1993). Example 23 above, therefore, highlights mind control in CDA.

It can be deduced from Example 24 that the speaker gave a recap of the 9/11 event not because his
audience were not aware or may have forgotten but because he somewhat wanted to rekindle fear and
pain. It is evident in the speaker‘s speech that he was concerned about the safety and welfare of his
people and as such this excerpt was not to deliberately cause pain but to turn his audience against the
terrorists. He did this by bringing back to memory any pain and fear that was caused as a result of the
terrorist attacks. In doing so, the audience were reminded of who and what the enemies were. All who
may or may not have lost a loved one and were affected in some other way by the 9/11 event but yet were
indecisive or against measures being planned against these terrorists seemed to have been cleverly
manipulated to join in the fight against terrorists. To recount the 9/11 incident and link it to ‗a dangerous
new war‘ in the same sentence allows the audience to see the attack as a war, and therefore creates the
environment to face the ‗enemy‘.

The compound sentence in Example 25 can be said to be suggestive of some coordinated action-
hijacking and murdering- of acts of terrorism. These armed men changed the very thing that was
supposed to comfortably send people to their destination into a dangerous tool. The airplane is created not
only to transport people but also to make them have and feel as comfortable and secure as possible. From
the expression above, it can be inferred that these ‗armed men‘ disrupted this comfort and peace by
turning the airplane into weapons, endangering the life of those on board.

Examples 24 and 25 are in line with van Dijk‘s (1998) notion of context control. This is because the
speakers strategically took advantage of the context (situation, setting and ongoing actions) to discuss the
concept of terrorism and to manipulate the people into accepting the measures being carried out against
the terrorists. It can be inferred from the excerpts that the speakers defined the communicative situation
by deciding the place and time of the communicative event, or on which participants may or must be
present. It is, therefore, not surprising that the speakers skilfully used such language in the midst of
security bodies and those who were affected by the attack.

Sentences that Projected Anti-terrorism:

26. The United States is a nation of laws, and we must abide by these rulings (OBM 1, L
27-28, pg.6).
27. We‘re now approaching the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and the families
of those murdered that day have waited patiently for justice (BSH 1, L 18-19, pg.8).
28. We will take defensive measures against terrorism to protect Americans (BSH 3, L 12-
13, pg. 4).
29. I can say that questioning the detainees in this program has given us information that
has saved innocent lives by helping us stop new attacks, here in the United States and
across the world (BSH 1, L 26-28, pg.3).
30. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution
and our treaty obligation (BSH 1, L 22-23 pg.4).

The speaker made a careful selection of his words in Example 28. He created a picture that, although it
was the Americans who were being abused, they were careful in their defence since they were a people

385
 Emmanuel Sarfo and Ewuresi Agyeiwaa Krampa

who believed in freedom unlike the terrorists who sought not only to kill but ‗to disrupt and end a way of
life‘. In the sentence, a strong desire to combat terrorism is explicitly presented.

In Example 29, the speaker justified the act of interrogating the detainees (terrorists). By so doing he
informed his audience of what was being done to those detained but he did not give them full details for
security reasons. He sought to let his audience out of the dark and protect their face or respect their
presence. He explained his actions, perhaps, to enlighten or manipulate his audience so he could have
their support (in his actions) and not be criticized or opposed. He did not inform his audience about the
reasons for the acts of the terrorists; however, he gave reasons for his actions concerning terrorism. He
gave the reasons and justified them, painting a picture that these terrorists were simply nefarious and they
committed ruthless acts for no apparent reason. The speaker assured them that his reasons were justifiable
as all these measures were carried out to keep citizens safe. The sentence, thus, makes us aware of the
government‘s attitude towards terrorism; it is anti and definitely not pro.

In Example 30, the speaker did not mention what these procedures were but assured his audience that
they were lawful and safe. He did this because he knew he could not disclose the details of the procedure.
Though most Americans are against the terrorists, they may not have necessarily agreed or supported the
plans and strategies used against the terrorists. Therefore, he assured them (the audience) that the
procedures, although secret, were safe and lawful in order to put the audience at ease. More importantly,
it can be inferred from the sentence that the government obviously wanted to counter terrorism; hence,
the need to put in place some procedures and strategies.

The examples above reflect van Dijk‘s (1998) concept of power as control. This is because the speaker
used language to his advantage as he was of a higher authority than his audience were. He had more
power and therefore took advantage of it to exercise his powers by manipulating and indirectly imposing
the concept of anti-terrorism on his audience.

Examples 27, 28 and 30 also mark mind control. This is because the speakers cleverly manipulated and
persuaded the speakers into thinking that the acts of anti-terrorism were done in their best interest,
especially because these acts of terrorism were ‗inconsistent with their personal beliefs‘ (Nesler et al.
1993). Context control could also be said to reflect in the examples because the speakers showed that they
were in charge by cleverly deciding what to talk about, when, where and how to talk about the situation at
hand.

Cognitive Mechanism of Manipulation

In the speeches, terrorism was projected as evil and since it was evil there was the need to curb it. Anti-
terrorism, on the other hand, was projected as appropriate and lawful. It is through the various linguistic
resources that one gets to know how terrorism and anti-terrorism were projected. These linguistic
resources were, however, used by employing cognitive mechanisms of manipulations. Cognitive
mechanisms of manipulation are based on interfering with processes of understanding, affecting general
beliefs, attitudes and ideologies, and forming or changing specific personal mental models representing
personal opinions and emotions (Rudyk, 2007). The analysis of the speeches revealed some cognitive
mechanisms of manipulation. First, the means by which terrorism was projected is discussed, followed by
how anti-terrorism was projected.

Terrorism
The projection of terrorism as evil was done through an appeal to a highly emotional event which had a
strong impact on personal mental models as is highlighted by the examples below:
31. On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four planes and used them to murder nearly
3,000 people (BSH 1, L 5, pg.1).
32. Tonight we are a country awakened to danger and called to defend freedom (BSH 3,
L13-14, pg1).

386
 Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush and Obama on Terrorism

In the examples above, very emotional, personal and mental models about the September 11, 2001 attacks
in the USA were repeatedly employed to generalize the level of general beliefs, attitudes and ideologies.
Such social beliefs, attitudes and ideologies are not personal models but shared social representations of a
group of people, or forms of social cognition (van Dijk 2006).

Another means by which terrorism was presented was via events which happened outside the U.S as is
illustrated in the examples below:
33. Just last week they massacred Iraqi children and their parents at a toy giveaway outside
an Iraqi hospital (BSH 2, L 31-32, pg.4).
34. As the recently foiled plot in London show, the terrorists are still active, and they are
still trying to strike America and they are still trying to kill our people (BSH 1, L 28-30,
pg.1).

These actions were performed by terrorists in different countries (Britain and Iraq). But by mentioning
them, the speaker was obscurely forming the general belief that the world‘s citizenship security was also
in danger and, thus, needed to be protected.

Anti-terrorism
In the speeches of the two presidents, anti-terrorism was projected as lawful and appropriate through
indirectness (Searle, 1969). Indirect speech acts can either set up a power imbalance between an addresser
and an addressee or mask it. In the examples below, the speaker provided information to the listeners:
35. The thousands of FBI agents who are now at work in this investigation may need your
cooperation and I ask you to give it (BSH 3, L 19-20, pg.5).
36. I ask for your patience with the delays and inconveniences that may accompany tighter
security and for your patience in what would be a long struggle (BSH 3, L 21-22, pg.5).

Both examples above are requests that belong to the category of injunctions and hence commit the
addressee to a certain future course of action - cooperating with authority. It can be inferred from the
examples that decisions had already been made concerning the agents responsible for security and the
measures that had been put in place to ensure security. With the course of action already chosen, the
addressee‘s commitment to support the government was no longer the case. Rather, the requestive form
of the utterances in the examples was to save the addressee‘s face, to create the atmosphere of an intimate
relationship, and thus to disguise power imbalance between the speaker and the addressee. In this context,
the speaker‘s decision did not appear to be one of imposition but coordinated with the addressee, which is
a covert exercise of power, or manipulation (Rudyk, 2007). From the illustrations above, it can also be
inferred that anti-terrorism was projected as lawful and appropriate in that they ensured the freedom and
security of the people.

Language is seen as connected with ideological means, although language in itself may not be ideological
(Wodak, 2006). Fairclough (1989) recognises that power is not just a matter of language, it is an
ideology in itself. For him language contributes to the exploration and domination of some people
through commonsense assumptions ideologically shaped by power relations. Power abuse does not only
involve the abuse of force but more crucially may affect the minds of people. It is said that power and
ideology influence our linguistic choices and vice- versa. From the analysis, it was realised that the
linguistic choices by the two presidents were influenced by their ideology. This was done for the
promotion of freedom as is evident in the examples below:
37. I‘ll continue to work with the international community to construct a common
foundation to defend our nations and protect our freedoms (BSH 1, L 29-31 pg.10).
38. We‘re fighting for our way of life and our ability to live in freedom (BSH 1, L4, pg.32)

Examples 37 and 38 reiterate Americans‘ ideology of their ‗way of life‘ and freedom. Thus, the fight
against terrorism is to protect and maintain America‘s ideology.

387
 Emmanuel Sarfo and Ewuresi Agyeiwaa Krampa

5. Conclusion
The chief objective of the study was to find out which linguistic resources were used to project terrorism
and anti-terrorism by Bush and Obama in their speeches. The study was informed by van Dijk‘s (1998)
concept of Critical Discourse Analysis. His notion, together with some scholars‘ (Fairclough, 2001;
Rudyk, 2007) notion of power as control, mind control and context control was, thus, the main conceptual
underpinning of the study.

The study found that vocabulary items, phrases, clauses and sentence structures constituted the linguistic
resources that were used to project terrorism and anti-terrorism as far as speeches on terrorism by the two
presidents were concerned. The vocabulary items used to project terrorism and anti-terrorism were
dominantly verbs and nouns. The phrasal categories that were used to project terrorism and anti-terrorism
included verb phrases, noun phrases, adjectival phrases, adverbial phrases and prepositional phrases and
clauses while sentences that were used to project terrorism and anti-terrorism included simple, compound
and complex sentences. Through these linguistic forms, the two presidents legitimised antiterrorism and
illegitimised terrorism.

The study has some implications for theory and practice. The theoretical position that language can be
used to construct an ideology, or establish a power relation of imbalance between two groups of people
was amply supported by the study. To this end, it can be asserted that the present study has implications
for the theory of Critical Discourse Analysis. Also, the theoretical stance that political discourses are,
generally, characterized or underpinned by linguistic expressions carefully selected by speakers in order
to achieve a certain purpose or intent and to have a specific kind of impact on listeners was underscored
by this study. It was evident in the study, for instance, that both Bush and Obama carefully and
intentionally selected specific forms, words and expressions in order to make a specific impact on their
listeners. The study therefore has implications for the theory of Political Discourse Analysis. The study
has implications for the increasing interest in research on the concept of terrorism. It provides an impetus
for further studies in the concept of terrorism, especially from the linguistic point of view.

References
Adetunji, A. (2006). Inclusion and exclusion in political discourse: deixis in Olusegun Obasanjo's
speeches. Journal of Language and Linguistics. 5 (2), 1475-8989.
Agner (2002) Why terrorism doesn’t work (Draft Article). Retrieved from http://www.agner.org/
cultsel/terror.pdf.
Aning, K. (2010). Security, war on terror and ODA. Critical Studies on Terrorism, 3(2), 3-28.
Boyd, M. S. (2009). De-constructing race and identity in US presidential discourse: Barack Obama‘s
speech on race. Journal of the Spanish Association of Anglo-American Studies, 75-94.
David, M. K. & Dumanig. F. (2011). National unity in multi-ethnic Malaysia: A Critical discourse
analysis of Tun Dr. Mahathir‘s political speeches. Language, Discourse and Society.1(1), 11-31.
Diamond, J. (1996). Status and power in verbal interaction. A study of discourse in a close-knit social
network. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
D‘Souza.D (2006) What’s so great about America? Retrieved from http://
www.wisdomword.info/dinesh_dsouza
Fairclough, N. L. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman Press.
Fairclough, N. and Wodak, R. (1997) Critical discourse analysis . In T. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as
Social Interaction. 2, 258-284. London: Sage

388
 Language at War: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Speeches of Bush and Obama on Terrorism

Fairclough, N. L. (2001). Critical discourse analysis as a method in social scientific research. In R.

Wodak and M. Meyer: Methods of critical discourse analysis (121-38). London: Sage.
Fairclough N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
Gramsci, A. (1971). Prison notebooks. New York: International Publishers.
Horváth J. (2011) Critical discourse analysis of Obama's political discourse. Retrieved from
http://www.pulib.sk/elpub2/FF/Ferencik2/pdf_doc/6.pdf
Hsieh H. F. & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health
Research. 15 (9), 1277-1288.
Kamalu, I. & Agangan, R. (2011). A critical discourse analysis of Goodluck Jonathan‘s declaration of
interest in the PDP presidential primaries. Language, Discourse and Society. 1(1), 32-54.
van Leeuwen, M. (2009). ‗Clear‘ vs. ‗woolly‘ language use in political speeches: The case of the
controversial Dutch political Geert Wilders. Tekstblad. 15(2), 6-11.
Nesler, M. S., Aguinis, H., Quigley, B. M. & Tedeschi, J. T. (1993). The effect of credibility on perceived
power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 23(17), 1407-1425.
O‘ Hare, K. (2011). Language, Discourse & Society. E-journal. Washington DC. College of Arts &
Sciences. Retrieved from http://www.american.edu/cas/news/language-discourse-society-journal.cfm
Pu, C. (2007). Discourse analysis of President Bush‘s speech at Tsinghua University, China. Intercultural
Communication Studies. XVI.1, 205-216.
Rapport, D. and Y. Alexander. (1982). The rationalization of terrorism. Maryland: University
publications of America.
Rudyk. I (2007). Power relations in president Bush‘s state of the union speech. International Journal of
Language Society and Culture. 5(23), 68-76.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sekyi-Baidoo, Y. (2002). Learning and communication. Accra: Infinity Graphics Ltd.
The Council of the European Union (2002). Council Framework Decision of 13 June 2002 on combating
terrorism (2002/475/JHA). Retrieved from eur-lex.europa.eu /LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri...
2002F0475— EN— 09.12.2008 — 001.001— 1
Transnational terrorism, security & the rule of law (2007). Retrieved from http://www
.transnationalterrorism.eu.
Turner, M. J, Switzer, K & Redden, C. (1996). American government: Principles and practices. USA:
Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology. A multidisciplinary study. London: Sage
Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society. 17 (3). 359-383.
Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama‘s speeches. Journal of Language
Teaching and Research. 1(3). 254-261.
Wodak, R. (2006). Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches. Discourse
Studies. 8(1). 179-190.
Zysberg & Zysberg (2012). Differential reaction patterns to September 11th‘s events. International
Journal of Peace and Development Studies. 3(1). 6-12.

389
 Emmanuel Sarfo and Ewuresi Agyeiwaa Krampa

Sources of the Speeches

(Accessed: 24th May, 2012, 3:20pm.
Bush 1: www.nytimes.com/2006/09/06/.../06bush_transcript.html
Bush 2: www.washingtonpost.com > World > Middle East > Iraq
Bush 3: www.georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov › ... › September 2001
Obama 1: www.andyworthington.co.uk/category/guantanamo/page/84/
Obama 2: www.whitehouse.gov/.../remarks-president-address-nation-wa
Obama 3: www.whitehouse.gov/.../2011/.../19/remarks-president-barack

390