Terrorism and anti terrorism in the three speeches by american president barack hussein obama in 2009 and 2011 a critical discourse analysis

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
…………………….



……………………..

ĐỖ THU TRANG

Terrorism and anti-terrorism in the three speeches by
American President Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 and2011:
A Critical Discourse Analysis
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ CHỦ NGHĨA KHỦNG BỐ VÀ
CHỦ NGHĨA CHỐNG KHỦNG BỐ TRONG BA BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA TỔNG
THỐNG MỸ BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA VÀO NĂM 2009 VÀ 2011)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201

HANOI – 2014


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF POSTGRADUATE STUDIES
…………………….



……………………..

ĐỖ THU TRANG

Terrorism and anti-terrorism in the three speeches by
American President Barack Hussein Obama in 2009 and2011:
A Critical Discourse Analysis
(PHÂN TÍCH DIỄN NGÔN PHÊ PHÁN VỀ CHỦ NGHĨA KHỦNG BỐ VÀ
CHỦ NGHĨA CHỐNG KHỦNG BỐ TRONG BA BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA TỔNG
THỐNG MỸ BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA VÀO NĂM 2009 VÀ 2011)

M.A. MINOR PROGRAMME THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng

HANOI – 2014


DECLARATION
To the best of my knowledge and belief, this minor thesis contains no material
which has previously been submitted and accepted for any other degree in any
university. The thesis is my own work and based on my own research. It involves no
material previously published or written by any other person, except where due
reference is made in the paper.
Hanoi, 2014
Đỗ Thu Trang

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
On the completion of the course work, I wish, first of all, to express my deepest
gratitude and indebtedness to my supervisor Dr. Ngô Hữu Hoàng for his hearty
guidance and his valuable criticism, which helps me so much in accomplishing my
research.
I also would like to thank my classmates for their advice and assistance in
keeping my progress on schedule.
My great thankfulness is also given to the teachers of Faculty of Postgraduate
Studies for their ideas to my paper and many thanks to all my friends who have
encouraged and helped me during the time of collecting necessary data, information
for the study.
Eventually, the study has been completed to the best of my knowledge;
however, mistakes and shortcomings are unavoidable. Therefore, I am looking forward
to receiving comments and suggestions from any readers for the perfection of the
course work.

ii


ABSTRACT
Over the past few years, Barack Obama, the first African-American president in
American history, has captured the world‘s attention when he applied his rich language
expressions, impassioned speeches and wholehearted attitude to try to gain the public‘s
support. Out of Obama‘s speeches, Terrorism and Anti-terrorism are the frequentlyoccurring concepts; therefore, in order to explore Obama‘s military ideology on
terrorism and anti-terrorism, the author uses his three speeches as the data and applies
a qualitative analytical approach based on Fairclough‘s Critical Discourse Analysis
model. Through the study, the readers can have a better understanding about the
political purpose of the selected speeches. Furthermore, the study has implications for

Critical Discourse Analysis theory and for further studies on terrorism.

iii


FEAGURES AND TABLES
1.

Figure 1:

2.

Figure 2:

3

Table 1:

4.

Table 2:

iv


ABBREVIATIONS

CDA:

Critical Discourse Analysis

CL:

Critical Linguistics

MR:

Member’s Resources

SFL:

Systemic Functional Language

v


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Declaration........................................................................................................................................... ..i
Acknowledgement.............................................................................................................................. ii
Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. iii
Figures and Tables............................................................................................................................. iv
Abbreviations...................................................................................................................................... v
PART A: INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 1
1. Rationale............................................................................................................................................ 1
2. Scope of the study.......................................................................................................................... 2
3. Aims of the study............................................................................................................................ 2
4. Research questions......................................................................................................................... 2
5. Design of the study........................................................................................................................ 3
PART B: DEVELOPMENT........................................................................................................ 4
Chapter 1: Theoretical Background and Literature Review................................................ 4

1.1 DA and Approach to DA........................................................................................................... 4
1.1.1 What is DA?....................................................................................................................... 5
1.1.2.Approach to Discourse Analysis:............................................................................... 5
1.1.2.1 Textual Analysis:.................................................................................................. 5
1.1.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis:............................................................................. 6
1.2. CDA approach of Norman Fairclough................................................................................ 7
1.2.1. Description....................................................................................................................... 7
1.2.2. Interpretation:.................................................................................................................. 9
1.2.3. Explanation:..................................................................................................................... 10
1.3. Review of previous studies..................................................................................................... 11
Chapter 2: Methodology................................................................................................................... 14
2.1. Context where the three speeches by Obama came out.............................................. .14
2.2. Method of the study................................................................................................................... 14
2.3. Data Collection............................................................................................................................ 15
2.4. Data Analysis............................................................................................................................... 15
Chapter 3: A CDA of the three speeches.................................................................................... 16
3.1. An Analysis of textual description....................................................................................... 16
vi


3.1.1. Vocabulary used.............................................................................................................. 16
3.1.2. Grammatical features..................................................................................................... 18
3.1.2.1. The use of personal pronoun....................................................................... 18
3.1.2.2. Modes of the sentences................................................................................. 20
3.1.2.3. Modality.............................................................................................................. 21
3.1.2.4. Connective values of the text...................................................................... 22
3.1.3. Macro-structure of the text.......................................................................................... 25
3.2. Interpretation................................................................................................................................ 27
3.2.1. Interpretation of situational context......................................................................... 27
3.2.2. Intertextual context and presupposition.................................................................. 29

3.2.3. Speech acts........................................................................................................................ 31
3.2.4. Frames, Scripts and Schemata.................................................................................... 32
3.2.5. Topic and point................................................................................................................. 33
3.3. Explanation................................................................................................................................... 33
PART C: CONCLUSION............................................................................................................. 37
1. Summary of Findings.................................................................................................................... 37
2. Conclusion........................................................................................................................................ 38
3. Implications...................................................................................................................................... 38
4. Suggestions for further study..................................................................................................... 39
REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................. 40
APPENDIX: …………………………………………………………………………I

I. Protecting our security and values
II. New Strategy in Afghanistan
III. A Moment of Opportunity

vii


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1.

Rationale

Language in use is considered as a kind of social activity which is associated with
other social activities. It is also known as ―Discourse‖ in which the first function is to
serve human beings‘ needs and communication purpose in all fields of life. It can be
understood that discourse is meta-function as it takes control over other functions in
mankind‘s activities. With this function, Discourse always plays an important role in
creating interaction and affecting communication. (Hoang, 2014).

Through mass media discourse such as TV, newspaper, magazine and radio, people
have known about terrorism and anti-terrorism concepts. Terrorism and anti-terrorism
have received a lot of debate in the last decades. Hardly does a week go by without an act
of terrorism taking place somewhere in the world and indiscriminately affecting innocent
people. Because of this reason, politicians create interaction with their citizens and people
in other nations by using discourse to gain the public support for anti-terrorism and
military engagements. Terrorism is one of the greatest threats to the country‘s national
security and that the war against terrorism should be a major focus of national policy.
Countering this scourge is in the interest of all nations and the issue has been on the
agenda of the United Nations for decades. Each nation has its own way against terrorism.
Many countries usually take advantages of using the power of discourse to convey their
propaganda against terrorism and the U.S is not an exception. Speeches on terrorism have
been part of American politics for a long time. Of these speeches seem to be most popular
with the first African-American president, Barack Hussein Obama. As D‘Souza (2006)
once stated that the U.S sees itself as the freest and most powerful society and has a policy
of ―no-negotiation-with-terrorists‖; thus it takes advantage of such speeches to criticize,
warn and invoke fear in the so-called terrorists.
As a student of English Linguistics major at Post-graduate Department at
University of Languages and International Studies and the one who is interested in
Discourse Analysis (DA), I realize that DA is a useful tool for not only studying
linguistics but also broadening knowledge in socio-culture. I am also aware that antiterrorism is a matter of great urgency. Everybody in the world should join hands towards a
peaceful world with no wars. Because of that, I decided to examine Obama‘s persuasive
strategies and find out his covert ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism through his
three speeches.
1


The approach that I apply to this study is Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as it
makes CDA different from other forms of discourse analysis is the element ‗critical‘.
According to Fairclough (1992:9), ―‗Critical‘ implies showing connections and causes

which are hidden; it also implies intervention, for example providing resources for those
who may be disadvantaged through change‖. Since hidden things are not evident so that it
is necessary to expose them. Out of theoreticians of discourse linguistics, Norman
Fairclough is a famous name. This analysis is grounded in Norman Fairclough‘s
framework of CDA.
2. Scope of the study
Although there are many speeches by Barack Obama on terrorism and anti-terrorism,
the author just focuses on three ones addressed in 2009 and 2011: (1) Protecting our
security and our values in 2009, (2) New strategy on Afghanistan in 2009 and (3) A
moment of opportunity in 2011. Besides, the author just analyzes the transcript of
speeches, not the spoken ones so that paralinguistics and extralinguistics, though
important, are not in consideration. As mentioned above, Norman Fairclough‘s framework
of CDA is chosen as a main analytical tool, who considers social context as one of the
elements of discourse analysis. Therefore, some information of the U.S context at the time
the speeches given is summarized.
3. Aims of the study
By analyzing Obama‘s speeches from CDA viewpoint, the study is aimed at
deciphering ideological traits in Barack Obama‘s speeches from linguistic features,
uncovering how Obama persuades people through his language and what has made his
speeches impressive and influential and helping language users understand more about
CDA as well as promoting their critical thinking – a useful method to approach political
discourse
4. Research questions
In order to fulfill the aims of the study, the following research questions are posed:
1.

How are Obama’s covert ideologies on terrorism and anti-terrorism expressed

in terms of discoursal linguistic features?
2

2.

What can the readers interpret from the discourse in terms of situational

context and intertextual context?
3.

Design of the study

The study is divided into three main parts:
-Part 1- Introduction (rationale, scope, aims, research questions, and methodology).
-Part 2- Development:


Chapter 1- Literature Review:



Chapter 2- Methodology (Research context, methods of study, data collection

and data analysis).


Chapter 3 - An analysis of three speeches based on Fairclough‘s analytical

framework
-Part 3- Conclusion: (Major findings, conclusions and suggestions for further research)

3


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter 1
Theoretical background and Literature Review
THEORY
1.1 Discourse Analysis (DA) and approaches to DA
1.1.1 What is DA?
Undoubtedly, the past few decades has seen a significant growth of interest in
discourse analysis. Many linguists have focused on the term ‗discourse‘ as the main topic
for their articles and researches. Up to now, this term has been defined variously by
different linguists. Potter (1987) says that the term ‗discourse‘ itself has been used in
many varying ways. Some researchers take ‗discourse‘ to mean all forms of talk and
writing (Gilbert and Mulkay, 1984), other take the term to apply only to the way talk is
meshed together (Sinclair and Coulhard, 1975). It should be noted that discourse is all
forms of spoken interaction, formal and informal, and written texts of all kinds whereby
discourse is a process or a practice and text (or talk) is the product of that process.
Furthermore, discourse plays a fundamental role in our daily expression and
communication because it can maintain interaction and build social relationships. It
appears to be the main label of the study of language use, talk, text, verbal action, and
communication. Thus, the name for the field is later considered as ‗Discourse Analysis‘
(Tannan, 1989a as cited in Schriffin, 1994:38)
From the above definitions, Discourse Analysis can be understood by the analysis
of any these forms of discourse or of language in use (Brown and Yule, 1983). Schriffin
(1994:42) sees DA using a combined structural and functional view that actual analysis of
discourse reveals interdependence between structure and function. His view leads DA to
be seen as the study of text and context in which structure focuses on text and function on
context. Consequently, DA cannot be restricted to the description of linguistic forms, but
DA has focused very much upon the social nature of communication, stressing contextual

aspects of meaning which are interactive and negotiated, determined by the social
relations and identities of the participants in communication (Cook, 1994). It can be
inferred that discourse analysis studies and analyzes what actually reveals in a text or texts
related to the context and its or their functions.
4


1.1.2 Approaches to Discourse Analysis
1.1.2.1 Textual Analysis
Schriffin (1994:363) sees the term ‗text‘ to differentiate linguistic material from
the environment in which the saying occurs (context). In terms of utterances, ‗text‘ is
regarded to be the linguistic content including semantic meanings of words, expressions,
and sentences. The foundation of text linguistics was laid down by Halliday and Hasan‘s
―Cohesion in English‖ in 1976. Cohesion is defined as the set of linguistic means we
have available for creating texture (Halliday and Hasan, 1976:2), i.e, the property of a text
of being an interpretable whole (rather than unconnected sentences). Cohesion occurs
―where the interpretation of some element in the text is dependent on that of another. ―
(Halliday and Hasan, 1976:4). Halliday and Hasan view cohesion as a semantic relation
based on the central notion of presupposition – one element presupposes another which is
located somewhere in the text (anaphora or cataphora) or in the context of situation
(exophora) and which is essential for text interpretation. Presupposition is realized at three
levels: the semantic level (as in the case of reference), the lexicogrammatical level ( as in
the case of substitution and ellipsis) and the grammatical level as in the case of
conjunctions. Text is a discoursal unit; therefore textual analysis is considered to be one of
approaches to DA. In order to analyze a text, it should analyze the seven following
criteria.
1.

Cohesion concerns the way in which the components of the surface text, i.e

the actual words we hear or see, are mutually connected within a sequence. The
surface components depend upon each other according to grammatical forms and
conventions.
2.

Coherence concerns the ways in which the components of the textual world,

i.e the configuration of concepts and relations which underlie the surface text are
mutually accessible and relevant. Cohesion and coherence are text-centered
notions. The other criteria of textuality are user-centered
3.

Intentionality concerns the text producer‘s attitude that the set of occurrences

should constitute a cohesive and coherent text instrumental in fulfilling the
producer‘s intentions, e.g. to distribute knowledge or to attain a goal specified in a
plan.
5


4.

Acceptability concerns the text receiver‘s attitude that the set of occurrences

should constitute a cohesive and coherent text having some use or relevance for the
receiver, e.g. to acquire knowledge of provide co-operation in a plan
5.

Informativity concerns the extent to which the occurrences of the presented

text are expected vs. unexpected or known vs. unknown/certain.
6.

Situationality concerns the factors which make a text relevant to a situation

of occurrences.
7.

Intertextuality concerns the factors which make the utilization of one text

dependent upon knowledge of one or more previously encountered text.
(Beaugrande and Dressler, 1981)
1.1.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis
The 1970s witnessed the emergence of Critical Linguistis (CL ) which is a form of
discourse and text analysis. However, when time went by, CL gradually got out of textual
analysis and focused more on the stage of interpretation and explanation. This form
considers the role of language in expressing power relations in society. Critical discourse
analysis (CDA) is a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way
social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by
text and talk in the social and political context. With such dissident research, critical
discourse analysts take explicit position, and thus want to understand, expose, and
ultimately resist social inequality (van Dijk 1993).
Fairclough (1995: 135) in his definition perceives CDA as ―discourse analysis
which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality and
determination between (a) discursive practice, events and texts, and (b) wider social and
cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and
texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over
power; and to explore how the opacity of these relationships between discourse and
society is itself a factor securing power and hegemony.‖
Having the same perspective, Hyland (2005) said the CDA approach is the method

that one must employ to study ideas, values, and status behind the language used which
are not always overtly stated. Through employing CDA we can understand what and how
discourse can highly impact an audience and communicators when it is purposely utilized.
6


Gee (2004) stated that CDA examined the relationship of form-function and the
interaction of contextual language related to social practices regarding the out-of-text
things such as positions, unity, power, and social goods. In Huckin‘s (1997) statement, he
said that CDA is a ―highly context-sensitive, democratic approach that takes an ethical
stance on social issues with the aim of transforming society – an approach or attitude
rather than a step by step method‖.
1.2

CDA approach of Norman Fairclough ( Systemic Functional Grammar)
This study is attached to Fairclough‘s framework because it has been one of the most

comprehensive frameworks of CDA. This framework founded on SFL by Michael Halliday
whose approach to language is concerned primarily with semantics, phonology and
lexicogrammar. Therefore, Fairclough stated that ―the version of CDA which we work with
ourselves has used SFL as its main resource for textual analysis.‖ (Fairclough and
Chouliaraki, 1999:139). Fairclough‘s analytical framework covers in detail three stages:

Description, Interpretation and Explanation
1.2.1 Description
In the first stage, ten main questions and a number of sub-questions are introduced
to analyse a text in terms of formal linguistic features.
A. Vocabulary
1. What experiential values do words have?
What classification schemes are drawn upon?

Are there words which are ideologically contested?
Is there rewording or overwording?
What ideologically significant meaning relations (synonymy, hyponymy, antonymy)
are there between words?
2 What relational values do words have?
Are there euphemistic expressions?
Are there markedly formal or informal words?
7


3.What expressive values do words have?
4.What metaphors are used?
B. Grammar
5.

What experiential values do grammatical

features have? What types of process and
participants predominate? Is agency unclear?
Are processes what they seem?
Are normalizations used?
Are sentences active or passive? Are
sentences positive or negative?

6.What relational values do grammatical features have?
What modes (declarative, grammatical question, imperative) are used?
Are there important features of relational modality?
Are the pronouns we and you used and if so, how?
7.

What expressive values do grammatical

features have? Are there important features of
expressive modality?
8.How are (simple) sentences linked together?
What logical connectors are used?
Are complex sentences characterized by coordination or/ subordination?
What means are used for referring inside and outside the text?
C. Textual structures
9. What interactional conventions are used?
Are there ways in which one participant controls the turns of others?


8


10. What larger scale structures does the text have?
Fairclough (2001: 92-93)
It is important to understand three terms: experiential, relational and expressive.
Experiential values in CDA attempt to show the way in which ‗the text producer‘s
experience of the natural or social world‘ is represented. Relational values deal with social
relationship between the producer of the text and its recipient. Expressive value is ‗the
producer‘s evaluation (in the widest sense) of the bit of the reality it relates to.‘
(Fairclough, 2001: 93). Furthermore, he stresses connective value to connect together
parts of a text.
1.2.2 Interpretation
According to Fairclough (2001:117), experiential, relational and expressive values
of formal features of texts are connected with three aspects of social practice which may
be constrained by power (contents, relations and subjects) and their associated structural
effects (on knowledge and beliefs, social relationships, and social identities).However, one

cannot directly infer from the formal features of a text to structural effects upon the
constitution of a society. Values of textual features only become real when being put in
social interaction. In other words, texts are produced and interpreted against the
background of common-sense assumptions (part of members‘ resources - MR). These
discourse processes and their dependence on background assumption are the concern of
this stage - interpretation.

9


Firgure 1: Interpretation (Fairclough, 2001:119)
1.2.3 Explanation
It is the third stage in CDA. According to Fairclough (2001:135), the objective of
this stage is to portray a discourse as part of a social process, as a social practice. It tries to
show how discourses are determined by social structures, and what reproductive effects
discourses can have on those structures, sustaining them or changing them. These social
determinations and effects are mediated by MR: that is social structures shape MR while
MR in turn shape discourses; and discourses sustain or change MR, which in turn sustain
or change structures.

Figure 2: Explanation (Fairclough, 2001:136)

10


The approach mainly bases itself on Halliday‘s Systemic Functional Linguistis (SFL),
which views language in use as simultaneously performing three functions: ideational,
interpersonal and textual function in which the ideational function refers to the experience
of the speakers of the world and its phenomena, the interpersonal function reveals the
speakers‘ attitudes and evaluations about the phenomena in question and establishing a

relationship between speakers and listeners, and the textual function helps to create the
cohesion and coherence for the text.
Obviously, the methods of analyzing CDA are quite various. However, over the last
decades, Fairclough‘s approach has been considered to be central to CDA. His approach
seems to be comprehensible to everybody. He wrote this framework at an introductory
level for those who do not have extensive backgrounds in language study. Moreover, the
set of textual features is ‗highly selective, containing only those which tend to be most
significant for critical analysis’. (Fairclough, 2001:92) Because of that, I decided to
choose Fairclough‘s approach as the method of my thesis.
LITERATURE REVIEW
1.3

Review of previous studies

Aning‘s (2010) ‗War on Terror‘ used the method of Critical Discourse Analysis to
examine the connections between development aid, security and the War on Terror. The
author found that aid programs under Obama administration had become highly
securitized and politicized as a weapon for the realization of the goals of war on terror
after 9/11.
Valentina Taddeo (2010) conducted a strategic analysis to examine the U.S
response to global terrorism and its campaign in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2010. This
article is to understand the fallacies, missteps, and misunderstanding of the U.S approach
in Afghanistan. It is also to evaluate the lessons learnt and some possible strategies for
achieving long-term stability and security in Afghanistan.
Ellison (2013) analyzes Obama‘s two speeches on national defense called the War
on Terror (one in May 2009 and another in May 2013) by using the method of critical
discourse analysis. The analysis uses the theory of Michel Foucault that power can be
used to influence knowledge and morality. On the one hand, the President uses his
discourse to create metanarrative which appears compassionate, emotive, pragmatic, legal
and inevitable. On the other hand, his speeches were perceived as encouraging criticism

11


and debate and implicitly aimed at promoting the ideological consensus in Washington
that ensures continued US hegemony and military and economic supremacy.
Long. K. (2013) conducted a study to examine how President Barack Obama
utilizes the ideograph ‗terrorism‘. In this study, the author conducted a textual analysis of
various speeches made by President Obama but mainly focused his analysis on speeches
that were dedicated to the specific discussion of terrorism and U.S foreign policy. The
author drew a conclusion that Obama conveyed a message that called for collective
commitment on a global scale. The President bridged the split between the partisan system
of two parties (Democratic and Republican), merging the Republican morality complex
with the Democratic judicial perspective.
Obviously, the issue has received considerable attention from scholars and
different approaches have been used in such studies. Therefore, I would also like to focus
on the subject of terrorism and decided to employ Critical Discourse Analysis as the
method of this study. However, what makes this study differ from other studies on
terrorism is that it focuses on the linguistic portrayal of terrorism in the three speeches of
American President Barack Hussein Obama.

12


Chapter 2:
Methodology
2.1 A context where the three speeches came out by Obama on terrorism and antiterrorism
Wooffitt (2002, as cited in Jufri, 2009:28) argues that context deals with the
assumption on when and where the speaking occurs by considering the topic, setting,
participants and the culture involved. Language is normally is used as an instrument of
communication in a particular context by a speaker or writer, not only to express meaning,

but also to achieve intentions. As a crucial factor in communication, context should be
regarded as a social construction (Akman, 2000, as cited in Wiberg, 2003). Understanding
context of communication will lead the communication to be well understood and avoid
the misunderstandings between the speaker and the hearer.
The first speech ―protecting our values and our security” was delivered at the
National Archives Museum, Washington, DC on May 21, 2009. Before the time this
speech given, on his second day in office in January 2009, President Barack Obama
signed executive orders to suspend military tribunals of terror suspects, close all secret
prisons and detention camps run by the CIA—including the infamous Guantanamo Bay
prison—and ban coercive interrogation methods. Obama's orders also said that the C.I.A.
can only use the 19 interrogation methods mentioned in the Army Field Manual. The
move ended Bush's policy of allowing the CIA to use methods that were not permitted by
the military. "We believe we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but we can
effectively obtain the intelligence we need," Obama said. According to him, the reason for
the close of Guantanamo is that this facility makes a bad impression on American politics.
This place is famous for brutal interrogation techniques for detainees, which risks the lives
of American troops and increase the will of enemies to fight this nation instead of keep the
American safe.
The second speech “New strategy on Afghanistan” is delivered on December 1
2009. When the U.S declared war against terror on October 7

th

st

,2001, the principal

objective of the U.S intervention is al-Qaida who is protected by Taliban regime.
However, after eight years of confrontation and seven years after the collapse of the
Taliban regime, al-Qaida is far from being defeated. The Taliban still have a strong

influence and Afghanistan is neither stable nor secure. Under the Obama Presidency, the
13


U.S strategy in Afghanistan has undergone another change. Upon inauguration, President
Obama proposed a new military strategy. He sent 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan,
which was counterbalanced by the combat troop drawdown in Iraq (Haley, 2012). The
troops were to focus on countering the resurgent Taliban and securing the border with
Pakistan. In December – the time this speech addressed, another 30,000 American troops
were sent to Afghanistan. This increase in troops reflects a willingness to end a period of
losses and stalemate, and to gradually shift the responsibility for the security of the
country to the Afghan military.
th

The last speech is ―A moment of opportunity‖ delivered in May 19 , 2011. Before
st

the speech time give, on May 1 , 2011, President Barack Obama announces the death of
Osama bin Laden during an address to the nation from the White House in Washington. Al
Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight with U.S. forces in Pakistan and
his body was recovered. The death handed Obama a major national security victory just as
he begins campaigning for re-election in 2012. Bin Laden‘s death created an image of
strength. During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama promised to bring U.S. troops
home from Iraq while boosting the war effort in Afghanistan and U.S. efforts to pursue bin
Laden. With bin Laden's body in U.S. custody, the president can say he has fulfilled
another pledge, giving him credibility as he tries to hold on to the White House. In the
wake of Osama bin Laden's death, Obama appealed to people in the Middle East to reject
Al Qaeda's ideology. In this speech at the State Department, President Obama laid out his
vision for a new chapter in American diplomacy to call for reform and democracy spread
across the Middle East and North Africa. He made clear that the United States will support

people who call for democracy and will oppose violence in cracking down on protests and
efforts to limit the rights of minorities, and continue to work for peace between Israelis
and Palestinians.
2.2 Method of the study
The method of this study is descriptive and qualitative since it intends to describe
words, phrases, or sentences in analyzing Obama‘s speeches. Because linguistic studies
are observable and regarded as social science, qualitative which is viewed as a general
approach to explore problems has been preferred by most linguists as the linguistic
research methodology ( Denzin and Lincoln, 1994). Qualitative method will be used to

14


examine and access the effects of linguistics aspects such as vocabulary, grammatical
properties (pronouns, modality and so on) and textual features.
2.3 Data collection
The data form of this research focuses on the words, phrases, expressions and
sentences in Obama‘s speeches which show his ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism.
The data sources are three text transcripts of Barack Obama‘s speech in 2009 and 2011:
(1) Protecting our security and our values (delivered on May 21, 2009) from

/>(2) New strategy on Afghanistan (delivered on December 2, 2009) from

/>ef=24hours
(3) A moment of opportunity (delivered on May 19, 2011) from

/>The next step is that I did intensive readings to get deep understandings on the
data. After that, I selected and underlined words, phrases, utterances, or sentences related
to Obama‘s ideology on terrorism and anti-terrorism. After finishing these data collection
steps, the data were analyzed based on Norman Fairclough‘s CDA framework.

2.4 Data Analysis
After the data were gathered, I did some steps as follows. The first step was the
analysis of linguistic features. This step was done to answer the first research problem
“How are Obama’s power and covert ideologies on terrorism and anti-terrorism
expressed in terms of linguistic features?”. The second step was the analysis of the
relationship between text and social interaction. This step was aimed to answer the second
problem of this research. Thirdly, an analysis of the impacts of the speeches on society in
terms of the fight against terrorism was conducted. The forth step was discussion. I
discussed the findings of the study based on the result of the data analysis. Lastly,
conclusions were formulated in accordance to the findings of the study.

15