Discursive strategies in political discourse: Discourse analysis of Georges Bush’s speeches from 9:11 to the war in Iraq 2003
Discursive strategies in political discourse:
Discourse analysis of Georges Bush’s speeches from 9:11 to the war in Iraq 2003
INTRODUCTION
A speech is commonly defined as an oral speech that develops a particular person or personality during a hearing.
In this sense, there may be various types of speech, but the speech that this study is interested in political discourse initiated by the President of the Republic on the occasion of an event, and to convey the ideas, the visions or information to the people.
Indeed, the political discourse is one in which a character tries to impose ideas to his interlocutors, thus a discourse of power, inseparable from the highest offices of state as function President of the Republic, since it is a « public discourse for public things, which are related to the management of the city. »
Giglione defines the political discourse as « a speech of influence occurs in a social world », whose goal is « to act on each other to do act, do think, to believe. »
This definition implies that, in a speech, an idea is necessarily conveyed, which aims to convince the public of the relevance and veracity, and that aims to invite the listener to join points to the person making the speech.
Also, the President, in a speech already has an idea of the argument, using about suitable and even appropriate emotions to the context of the speech, so that his ideas are discernible public who can analyze the grammatical composition and content his speech.
Because of his objectives, spontaneity is not the element that presides speeches, they are generally prepared with the greatest care, and the greatest attention, which explains the didactic and literary wealth that its contents.
Because even designed to convey some implicit messages, the speech is the best instrument of literary study.
Also, this wealth of teaching political discourse that they represent interesting media analysis because of their high level of literature, knowledge of the political context of a speech brings out a new method of learning of discursive strategies in political discourse, links and political contexts are conveyed through a highly literary post by the person who committed the speech.
Indeed, in political discourse, the Presidents of the Republic have power toward the people, the power to command, to give his opinion and convince. In most cases, under these words, the people did not even need to be convinced that the President began his action, in this case, the speech is made for information purposes only. This is the power of language.
The language has a very influential power over the other, it is through the language that one emits its position is required and if necessary modify the behavior of the other to join and adhere to his.
The language has an « empowerment » of an individual, the reason is the importance, content, intonation, the elements used in the expression of the language.
Precisely in the context of this study, it is necessary to analyze the discursive strategies of the speech by former U.S. President Bush from the month of November 2011, knowing that the commitment of the speech led to the war against the Iraq.
It is indeed to study how the former U.S. President, George Bush, knew and could impose, through language, discourse and discursive strategies, his opinion on the war against Iraq, to convince the U.S. to adhere to its own vision of war against this country?
Former U.S. President at the time, had better use all the strategies needed to convince the Americans, the Iraqi people, and all his « friends » to wage war against Iraq, hence the importance remarks used, so the loss of the September 11 exceeded the threshold of all the stories, the percentage of the civilian casualties reached 94%, the first time in all the wars and attacks.
So that, as the speeches are mainly public, it will feel more concerned, given the number of victims. And the importance of the media, the American people will be more sensitive to all discursive techniques that will be used by the President.
Indeed, when the degree of media coverage is high in a country, more the public has access to information, and the interventions of politicians must be carefully studied. Returns and comments can be numerous, and any deviation could destabilize the regime and illégitimer opinion conveyed by the politician.
In this study, the question is not to initiate or conduct political interpretations, but rather analyzes and linguistic studies of the content of the speech and the speech itself, which explains the strength and importance of this expression, taking into account the context in which the statements were made.
Indeed, it is clear that the speech is clearly a means of communication of a high authority as President to convey visions and communicate with his people. The speech is currently the best most effective social language that can exist within the relationship of a President of the Republic and its people. The speech can trace the intentions, to decrypt messages that are not necessarily all expressed explicitly by the President. It is through careful analysis of the structure and content of the speech that all these elements can be revealed.
Because of the multiplicity of discourse analysis, content analysis of speech, utterance discourse analysis, the modular analysis of speech, pragmatic discourse analysis, several interpretations can be born from the analysis of a speech, but the issue sought by the study of literary speech of George Bush is to unify these various interpretations by providing technical and literary deepening goals.
A set of constraints, intentions determine the discursive physiology of speech, the speech is the first time a call. Communication in the sense that it is through speech that the President was able to convey to his governed his idea, his views on Iraq.
And the speech is not only a communication but also an action.
It is through the delivery of a speech he urged the first step towards war against Iraq, and it is through the analysis of this speech that people could detect the « positioning » and opinion of the President of the Republic at the time of the war against Iraq.
Also, the knowledge of these policy objectives speeches to determine the issue of the subject responds to the question: what literary discourse and emotional strategies were conducted by Bush for his speech has become part of the legitimizing commitment to the war against Iraq?
The purpose of this study is to demonstrate the following three assumptions:
-The speech is an effective means of communication by its literary wealth,
-Former U.S. President used in his speeches larger discursive strategies to achieve the message he wants to convey,
-The wealth of literary and argumentative discourse founded the successful transmission of the opinion that has been set.
Also, in order to meet this assumption and everything from the initial situation, the study will focus on two main points.
The first part will focus on theoretical considerations and conceptual studies. The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the essence and purpose of this paper, as well as clarification on the field on the speech.
The second part, meanwhile, will be devoted to the study of literary speech of Mr. George Bush stated in the war against terrorism.
PLAN
Part I: Theoretical considerations and conceptual studies 8
I – Introduction to the topic 8
C – Working hypotheses to demonstrate in the study 9
First hypothesis: The speech is an effective means of communication by its literary wealth 9
D – Selection and interest of the subject 9
F – Methodology of study: ethical neutrality 10
II – Political and Presidential speeches 11
A – Conceptual Approach policies and presidential speeches 11
B – Characteristics of political speeches and presidential 12
The existence of a particular motivation which animates and guides the speech 12
The goal of convincing the listener to join a principle or idea 12
C – Policy Objectives and presidential speeches 13
1 – Summary of functions of President of the Republic 13
2 – Objectives of presidential interventions in speech 13
II – The speech of George Bush before the engagement of the wars in Iraq 14
A – Study of political and social context of the utterance of speech 14
1 – The official issues of the war in Iraq 16
2 – Informal issues of the war in Iraq 17
Part Two: Literary Study of the speech of Mr. George Bush stated in the war against terrorism 20
I – Scoping and factors to be considered 20
A – Approach speech utterance: a study of Bush’s speech as conflicting discourses 20
Masking and unmasking in Bush’s speeches 21
The concession in the Bush speech 21
B – Argumentative discourse 22
1 – The different types of argument 22
A – A public and brands of conflicts 25
1 – Objectives of the advertising war 25
2 – Signs of literary of the non discretion 25
B – The discursive strategies adopted by former U.S. President in his speech conflicting 26
1 – The Bush speech: a set of speech call of mobilization 27
III – argumentative processes in speech 32
A – Objectives of the argument 33
1 – Research of support from the American people 33
2 – Work for legitimizing the war against Iraq by the science of language 34
B – The methods of argument used by G. Bush in his speech 34
Part I: Theoretical considerations and conceptual studies
I – Introduction to the topic
A – State of the art
The topic will be the subject of this study is the study of literary discourse employed by the former U.S. President since November 2011.
Indeed, about the status of this question, speeches subsequently by George Bush have been much ink, with journalists, with public opinion, this because they were deemed to have been delivered to a very « strategic » way, because they founded fear against terrorism and led the U.S. to justify the war against the Iraqis.
Also, the analyzes showed that these discourses have contributed greatly to the commitment of the war against Iraq, without these words, this war would not have even taken place.
And the challenge posed to its objectives by speech if speech led to the conviction and the legitimization of war, the secret may be that the discursive strategies and literary techniques used by the President who has scrupulously and literary developed for these purposes.
However, it is clear that the idea that governs this study is certainly not to conduct a study of the political discourse, but rather to collect and analyze the wealth and literary strategies that explain the success of their transmission at the American people.
This leads us to conclude that this is a matter of news these days, and that the study of the speech is of utmost importance for one main reason: the ability to analyze literary elements that contribute to a successful speech, this is the state of the question.
B – Issues
The problem or question starting to guide the reflections in this study returns to answer the following question:
How the former U.S. President, George Bush, knew and could impose, through language, and discursive strategies in his speeches, his views on the war against Iraq, and to convince the U.S. to adhere to its own vision of war against this country?
In other words, this is how the speeches by former U.S. President were literarily rich to win the legitimacy of the war against Iraq.
C – Working hypotheses to demonstrate in the study
The following three assumptions will demonstrate in this study:
First hypothesis: The speech is an effective means of communication by its literary wealth
The speeches are used by politicians as the main instrument of communication with the people, and that for decades. And it is clear that all the words spoken in the speeches are not as « pure chance » but were built and studied by literary professionals to transmit messages and very specific ideas. And what basis the effectiveness of the communication based on this tool.
Second-assumptions: Former U.S. president used in his speeches larger discursive strategies to achieve the message he wants to convey
While the speeches are made to communicate with the people, but with the political, geopolitical and geostrategies AD, these speeches have become means of legitimizing ideas of politicians by the people. This is why these speeches are full of great discursive strategies.
Third hypothesis: The wealth of literary and argumentative discourse founded the successful transmission of the opinion that has been set.
The primary objective of speeches by politicians is to achieve listening, understanding and conviction of the interlocutors. And these goals cannot be achieved if communication strategies are in place, and if the literary discourse meets required standards.
D – Selection and interest of the subject
Why a study of speech, and more specifically why the speech of George Bush in the process of legitimating of the war against Iraq? Questions that naturally arise in the view of the subject.
Indeed, the focus is directly on political speech because these are areas where the words are well placed, or concatenation is the most well made, and no sentence is imposed randomly, with the intonation relating thereto.
Inserted in a specific speech, tone, time and location of words have been studied in much detail as possible, so as to make a literature study on the basis of a speech amounts to studying the literature authentic and strategic.
Speeches by former U.S. President George Bush were selected for survey instruments for the war against Iraq was a topic that has caused much ink and whose political context is interesting and rewarding study. Indeed, in the context of a literary study, understanding the context of delivery of speech improves understanding of the location and meaning of words, the discourse itself and its contents.
E – Research Objectives
Speeches by George Bush during the period before the war have had considerable success, they conquered the conviction of American and effectively legitimized the engagement of the war against the Iraqis.
The objective of this research is to demonstrate the discursive strategies of the former President in the development of his speeches that explain the actual success of these, and that proceeding with an analysis of political discourse.
Literary studies based analysis by speech was quite old teaching practice, which dates from 1960.
These studies address joined several fields such as philosophy, rhetoric, psychology, religious studies concepts, but the object of this study is not to perform these analyzes, but to focus on literary studies, semantic, linguistic and narrative discourse organization studied.
F – Methodology of study: ethical neutrality
Neutrality is defined as: « Character, attitude of a person, an organization, which does not take sides in a debate, a discussion, a conflict between people, theses or different positions. »
Also, in this study, of course, it comes to analysis of political speeches as delivered in a political context of large-scale well because it is a war between the leading world power with another oil power. And it is clear that this study will focus on the political aspect of the speech but rather on its literary aspects.
Although the literary study of a speech cannot be detached from the political context in which it was delivered, political neutrality is the principle that governs the study.
II – Political and Presidential speeches
A – Conceptual Approach policies and presidential speeches
A speech can be defined as the oral presentation before an audience, during a special event, and because of the special status of the person who is speaking. The speech is a collection of words meet specific goals, which is to communicate with the people.
Thus political speeches are the speeches made by a politician or not within a well-defined political context, or in a political event.
The Presidential speech, meanwhile, is necessarily political, because even political classification of the office of President of the Republic.
And it is clear that the political discourse is discursive form through which a political figure continues the exercise of power (to communicate, persuade, inform and share opinions) with the people.
This is what allows to state that the close relationship between political discourse and power, the political discourse is a discourse of power.
The politician in question performs speech is to acquire or to strengthen his power. The persons who are not yet in the government and who want to legitimize their accession to power by the people, and those who are already in power make speeches legitimizing their empowerment or one or more decisions that they want to take.
Also, the question of the presence of legitimacy in the speech is normal.
« Ideas » to legitimize may be different, but the question of legitimacy is still present in all political discourse. The paths in the pursuit of this goal may be different, but no matter the path, speeches have all communication channels important in order to carry out deep enough impact to regain belief and acceptance of listeners. And that is why the literary wealth of political discourse.
B – Characteristics of political speeches and presidential
It has been previously demonstrated that political discourse play an important and strategic role in the legitimating of the power and the decisions taken by the President of the Republic, as in the pursuit of these objectives, and in order to effectively reach all political speeches by the President of the Republic or any other politician should take the following characteristics:
The existence of a particular motivation which animates and guides the speech
Political discourse, especially one made by President of the Republic is not particularly pronounced without mobile, but in the case of unanimity, in a special statement and especially for political purposes.
Communicate an event, accountability, argue for a future decision to accept the aims and modes of expression that are attached can be diverse and can take different forms, but are still existing.
The goal of convincing the listener to join a principle or idea
All forms of discourse are used in political contexts clearly defined in order to influence the audience on a definite principle of the President of the Republic who speaks, and this by providing arguments, demonstrating evidence, all to lead the people to accept the idea advanced by the President.
But it is clear that, as stated above, have an objective discourse of legitimating, it is natural and logical that the argumentative form is the form commonly adopted by many speech to other forms of speech, informative, narrative, demonstrative …
Ideas to argue are not specifically defined and explained in the majority of cases, but the arguments invite the adoption of the desired behavior. All actions and maneuvers that are achievable only by word games.
C – Policy Objectives and presidential speeches
1 – Summary of functions of President of the Republic
To know the functions of the President of the Republic is interesting in the sense that it helps to know the orientation of his interventions, including his speeches.
Formerly, the presidential office is a simple honorary position, but currently the President of the Republic is forced to take more specific and strategic functions, under the conduct of a State.
The President of the Republic, under the Constitution, is the guardian of the Constitution, the arbiter of « regular functioning of government » and « the guarantor of national independence, territorial integrity and respect for treaties « .
Also, as part of the implementation of these three missions, it is required to perform the following two functions:
A policy-based: it is indeed a function that is not specifically contained in a statutory provision but is right recognized and attributed to the President of the Republic, because he is the first representative of the People. He is responsible for the conduct of the state and should take the good decisions in all policy options through which the country.
An institutional-function: with this function, the President of the Republic is the largest holder of state power, is the ability, ultimately, to decide on strategic options in the conduct of the institution.
2 – Objectives of presidential interventions in speech
Also, by these functions, presidential speeches are of interventions in the exercise of power over the people, he is elected by universal suffrage by the latter, which makes it the first authorized to represent and to take decisions on behalf of the people who elected him.
And under these decisions, it does not decide alone, but consult the people from time to persuade him to join his point of view, especially if the decision to take is to scale and international issue.
It is also held during the speech of the people accountable for the conduct of state affairs.
So that the speeches of the President of the Republic reflect the mastery of the art of language and communication in order to maintain a relationship of trust with the people.
II – The speech of George Bush before the engagement of the wars in Iraq
The main event that marked the presidency of George Bush is essentially the attacks of September 11, 2001.
From that date, which was the memory of the greatest American disaster, the President began to conduct so-called « war against terrorism ». The commitment to this war was materialized through various initiatives including the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the establishment by Congress of the « Patriot Act. »
A few years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, the U.S. government has decided to make the war against Iraq. The commitment to these wars statement, argument and justification for the U.S. intervention in the war against Iraq are set out in the succession of speeches pronounced by the U.S. President.
The content and the speech themselves and are very interesting in the sense that it is said speech that led to these wars, who announced and justified it, and it is clear that, American eyes, the war was unanimously legitimized.
And if the commitment to this war was legitimized, the public believes that this is due in large part to the discursive strategies adopted by the President during the presentation of his speeches.
A – Study of political and social context of the utterance of speech
The table below reflects the major historical lines of the war against Iraq.
| CHRONOLOGY OF THE WAR AGAINST IRAQ | |
| DATE | EVENTS |
| 29 january 2002 | on the occasion of his State of the Union, George W. Bush says that Iraq, Iran and North Korea form an « axis of evil » against which he promised to revenge. |
| 07 april 2002 | British Prime Minister Tony Blair sends warning to Iraq, citing a « reversal » by force of any government threatening international security. |
| 5 july 2002 | according to The New York Times, the U.S. military has secretly developed a plan of a massive attack against Iraq, strong hundreds of warplanes and about 250 000 men |
| 8 july 2002 | Washington wants a « regime change » and use « all means » to overthrow Saddam Hussein, said George W. Bush. |
| 09 january 2003 | « The use of force is always a failure and the worst solution finding, » says Jacques Chirac during his greetings to the press. |
| 20 january 2003 | « There is no reason to break the thread of inspections » or « consider military action, » said Dominique de Villepin, French Minister of Foreign Affairs, following a ministerial meeting of the Security Council on terrorism. |
| 22 january 2003 | U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld blames Germany and France, considering that these two allies who oppose the United States, represent only the « old Europe ». |
| 15 february 2003 | some ten million people are mobilizing around the world to demonstrate against the war in Iraq, mainly in Europe, where real human tides surging in the streets of Rome, Madrid and London. |
| 17 february 2003 | the United States, Britain and Spain give up their resolution to the vote at the UN. In the evening, George Bush gives Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave Iraq . |
| Kofi Annan announced the withdrawal from Iraq of weapons inspectors from the UN and other UN personnel, as well as the suspension of the « oil against food » program. Managed by the United Nations, it provides the essential supplies to the Iraqi people. | |
| U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says a coalition of 45 countries supporting the United States against Iraq. | |
| 01 may 2003 | George W. Bush said in a speech from the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, that « most of the fighting ended in Iraq » |
Also, by analyzing this table, it is shown that the war against Iraq has taken several steps, met many opponents, but after the speech and strength of conviction, the war has found members, and has even been materialized.
So that the grammatical structures, logical progressions, lexical fields in these speeches are extremely rich to come to acceptance of war by many states and communities around the world.
It must however be noted that the main arguments that have been set out to justify this war are:
-The fight against terrorism: Americans want retaliate against the attacks of September 11, 2001 by massive interventions in Iraq
-The elimination of weapons of mass destruction : in his speeches, President Bush states that as the Iraqi government has weapons of mass destruction, it represents a real threat not only for the U.S. people but also for the entire world population, what makes that an intervention to the disarmament of the Iraqi government, is quite legitimate.
-The arrest of Saddam Hussein is the primary condition for peace in the world, according to the statements of the former U.S. President.
B – Analysis of stated goals and objectives « deep and unspoken » speeches during operations in Iraq
1 – The official issues of the war in Iraq
The following issues have been expressly declared by former U.S. President during his speech in the context of interventions in Iraq
- Policy Objectives
Policy objectives of the United States during the engagement of the war against Iraq is certainly overthrow the dictatorship established by Saddam Hussein and contribute positively to the establishment of a transitional regime which corresponds to democratic conditions.
- humanitarian objectives
The dictator government set up by Saddam Hussein, in addition to exercising the principles of election contrary to democratic standards, has significant impacts on the people who is the main victim of the consequences of the damage caused by the regime’s violence, violence that seriously in discordance with the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Economic Objectives
It is widely recognized that Iraq is a member of OPEC, which holds large reserves of oil country, and it is also consensus that the oil still holds an important place in global consumption, and the United States are at the forefront of the oil consumers, and the situation is not yet ready to change, even in 2030.
Also, by engaging the war against Iraq, the United States wants to protect oil reserves that the country has, and will continue to support the « oil against food » plan with the Iraqi country.
- Military Objectives
Saddam Hussein was at the time a threat to all countries of the world, because of his power in war and mass destruction that are possible to him by the possession of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The military objective explicitly revealed by former U.S. President and is proceeding with the total disarmament of Saddam Hussein that he saw himself as a leader of terrorism.
The commitment to the war against Iraq was evident on many points specifically mentioned by the U.S. President at the time of his speeches. But it is also clear that, in order to complete the analysis of the literary structure of the discourse, it is also important to know the objectives undisclosed or this unofficial war against Iraq.
2 – Informal issues of the war in Iraq
- Policy Objectives
The attacks of September 11 were for America’s worst memories in terms of destruction and massacres.
With arguments of war for these attacks, a subject dear to the heart of the U.S. population unanimously, George Bush has an image he wants to convey by his words, he wants to be seen as a patriot and defender of nation.
Also, the speech of George Bush in the context of the war against the Iraqis allowed the government led by the former President and former President himself becoming a bulwark against terrorism in the eyes of millions of Americans.
- Military Objectives
Place of U.S. military bases and permanently on the ground in Iraq in order to gain control of the Persian Gulf. The commitment to the war is also an example demonstration of American strength, the Iraqi terrorists, and also to the world.
- Economic Objectives
It has not been specifically determined in speeches and actions of former President the real economic issues of the war against Iraq. Indeed, the end of this war will be marked by the defeat of the terrorists in Iraq, so, after that, many U.S. and European companies can now take advantage of Iraqi oil by acquiring control of oil wells.
Professionals study geopolitics of oil noted that major oil issue that primarily motivated Americans.
But apart from the acquisition of control of oil wells, the commitment of the war against Iraq is also a way for the U.S. to inject funds into the industry of war and weaponry, to revive the sector, increasing needs and trying to sell the stocks.
Part Two: Literary Study of the speech of Mr. George Bush stated in the war against terrorism
I – Scoping and factors to be considered
This first part is to identify and clarify the various aspects that will be analysis in the study of the speech of George Bush.
A – Approach speech utterance: a study of Bush’s speech as conflicting discourses
Political discourse generally intended to address another speech, in a word, a gesture of a person or entity treated as the enemy, in a confrontational speech. As its name suggests, the conflict is a conflict speech (words) between two entities or persons.
And as part of this analysis, Bush’s speeches will be analyzed as conflicting speech, knowing that the two main parties to the conflict are on the one hand the U.S. and other Iraqi terrorists are indeed speech conflicting as voted after an Iraqi terrorist, namely the attacks of 11 September 2001.
If the speech was delivered before the attack, it cannot be considered confrontational speech, because there has not been any conflict. But handed after the attack, the speech can be legitimately described as confrontational speech; the President even calls Iraqi terrorist « enemies. »
And some of the comments contained in these discourses are specifically addressed to terrorist enemies:
« Many Iraqis can hear me tonight on the air in their language, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you «
So it is indeed an exchange of words and actions between Iraq and the United States.
Indeed, according to Windish, the confrontational discourse necessarily contains, or evens both of the following criteria: masking or unmasking and concession.
Masking and unmasking in Bush’s speeches
A confrontational policy speech as masking, try dissimiler fears, weaknesses of the speaker, in order to strengthen its image and power in the conflict.
So, for example, in the context of discourse initiated by President Bush, the head of speechwriting have at any point, revealed the defeat of the United States, even after the September 11 attacks, the speeches President of all time strengthen American power.
« If the enemy struck our country, it would be an attempt to divert our attention with panic and begin our morale with fear. They fail. None of their actions can change our course of action or shake the resolution of this country. We are a peaceful people – but we are not a fragile people, and we will not let ourselves be intimidated by thugs and assassins. If our enemies dare to strike us, they will pay the terrible consequences, as well as those who have helped. «
About unmasking this principle consists in developing a speech to expose the limits of the powers of opponents, to bring to their attention that they are hardly invincible enemies.
The concession in the Bush speech
Any conflicting discourse necessarily contains some concession, in which it left an opening or some kind of option to the opponent, so that the verbal conflict has not materialized into action.
The speeches of President Bush are indeed conflicting discourses, and are the prerequisites for the appointment of a real conflict. Below one about Bush showing that his speeches are actually conflicting discourses:
« If Saddam Hussein had to choose confrontation, the American people know that we have taken all necessary measures to avoid war and also all necessary measures for the win. Americans realize the price of conflict because we have paid in the past. « The U.S. President is trying to demonstrate the cost of a war, and it implicitly tries to convince his opponent to adopt peaceful solutions.”
« However, the only way to reduce the damage caused by the war and its duration is to apply all the strength and the power of our military, and we are ready to do so.»
Persistence of terrorists in the Iraqi refusal to disarm will be the trigger event and the commitment of the war.
It must be noted that these arguments rely on manipulation to prepare it in his hand and a kind of progressive assembly incriminating evidence that would give a positive meaning for him.
B – Argumentative discourse
Successful communication in the framework of a political speech is mainly due to the level and the arguments of those who say the speech capacity.
Arguments that can be presented in four forms according Proulx: cooperative argumentation, directed, manipulated and misused.
1 – The different types of argument
- Cooperative argument
Cooperative argument is similar to the informative one. It is governed by the honesty of the speaker, presenting arguments and the consequences of each option. This cooperative argument is considered the most strategic among politicians, this because it is not about forcing people to decisions that speech is addressed, but issues arguments to guide the vision of the people and lead, in a very diplomatic way, to adhere to the principles of the speaker.
- Oriented argument.
The argument is directed to the use of amplification techniques and aspects while trying to devalue some others, or by demonstrating their negative aspects. It is to highlight the qualities of a decision adopted by the speaker, and that in order to « guide » the vision and the decision of the person.
- The manipulated argument
The argument usually handled hand from an individual to a persuasion will convince the entire community to join his vision.
Also, all information provided is established and conveyed so as to capture the conviction and commitment of the people to own the principles of the speaker.
- The argument away.
This type of argument has a pejorative sense, is considered as lying and misleading. This is because, for to convince the people, the information provided is not true or authentic, but formulated to convince the people, regardless of concern for truth.
2 – The type of argument in Bush’s speeches
For the case of arguments used by the former U.S. President’s argument was directed.
In fact, throughout his speech, he has continued to value the option of war against inaction, he considers harmful and destructive in the future, not only for Americans, but also for all countries of the world. This is because, let the terrorists would lead to their empowerment and the accumulation of even more weapons of mass destruction:
« We are now acting because the risks of inaction would be much larger. In a year, maybe five years, the capacity of Iraq to harm other countries would be multiplied to infinity. Armed with these new capabilities, Saddam Hussein and his terrorist allies could determine the moment of deadly conflict when they are strongest. We choose to meet that threat now, when in gestation, before it suddenly appears in our skies and in our cities. «
C – Language maneuvers
Linguistics is the scientific study of language. Also, in this practice section should analyze the language that the former U.S. president used his speech to gain the confidence of several countries and unanimously Americans.
The theoretical linguistic study is divided into several branches:
- phonetics: the study of different phones or sounds produced by the human vocal apparatus;
- phonology: a study of joint second-level elements or phonemes of a given language;
- morphology: study of the shape of the units;
- syntax: a study of the relationship between lexical units whose shape combination of sentences;
- semantic study of the meaning of words and statements;
- style: a study of a literary style or not set, the style is there a deviation from a standard?
- pragmatic study of the use (literally, figuratively or otherwise) of statements in acts of enunciation.
- Coherence in natural language: a study of coherence factors in the natural language processing
Several questions must arise from this linguistic study of speech, to detect what is not said from what is said, to identify how and why the deep meaning of words, and know how, by using what literary style listeners have they captured the real meaning of the speech.
And in search of answers to these various questions, studies will be carried out mainly study the syntactic, semantic study, all the words contained in the speech, without publishing the joint analysis of language by the speaker .
The importance of this linguistic study of the speech of George Bush is to replace the role of discourse in communication sciences and literature, and include, for linguistic analyzes, the overall functioning of discourse in the context of a major political issue.
II – The Bush speech: conflicting discourses
Speeches of the former U.S. President during the engagement of the war against Iraq are called conflicting discourses, which are essentially publicly spoken by large numbers of about explicit and highlights the discursive strategies according to the context of conflict.
In fact, it is a confrontational speech, committed on the basis of the conflict communication, because even if the speeches are spoken by only one person and there are no explicit exchanges between two protagonists, the opponent is always present.
And opponents, who, in this case Iraqis terrorists, are identified by name in these words:
« … That there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for world peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. «
And within these conflicting discourse goals of President Bush were:
– A combat position of his opponent: the possession of weapons of mass destruction in our case
– To overcome his own thesis: the commitment of the war against Iraq
– Share them and legitimize public witness to the world
Given that the objective of the conflict communication initiated by former U.S. President is to establish an unequal power relationship with Iraq, dominate, defeat, disqualify. Even if this is not explicitly stated by the way, since the war conflict is discrete in some respects, the grammatical styles will rule this can be clarified by the analysis.
A – A public and brands of conflicts
1 – Objectives of the advertising war
Indeed, it is clear that the former U.S. President, during his speech, revealed a number of information, even if it also has another side to process the retention of some of this information for purely strategic reasons.
Non discretion and explanation of all the words, but implied, is a sign of a desire to show their power to other countries, and their share of the willingness to engage in war and show that they are ready for it.
Signs advertising the information may be disclosed to these speeches.
2 – Signs of literary of the non discretion
The declaration of war was certainly not made by discretion of the commitment to the conflict is found by grammatical styles. Both opponents are war strategies are not secrets to the enemy.
- An explicit appointment of opponents
Under the confrontational speech by the former U.S. President, opponents are explicitly identified.
Iraq, Al Qaeda, terrorists are mentioned several times in every speech of George Bush.
Direct identification of the opponents like that are a sign of an express declaration of war against them. The leader of the terrorist gangs even identified without fear by former U.S. President: Saddam Hussein.
- The explicit instruction and intervention strategies
Strategies to be implemented by the U.S. during these interventions in Iraq are expressly stated by former President during his speech.
« Tonight in Iraq, the armed forces of the United States are engaged in a battle that will determine the direction of the global war against terror and our safety here at home. The new strategy I developed tonight will change our policy in Iraq and help us win the fight against terrorism. «
« In any conflict, your fate will depend on what you do. Do not destroy oil wells, which are a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any order intimating you to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including against the Iraqi people. War criminals will be prosecuted and punished, and they cannot defend himself by saying: « I was only following orders«
Both explain the conflicting evidence war between the two countries is no longer governed by discretion, hatred, desire to destroy terrorism are mentioned explicitly and repeatedly even in different discourses.
B – The discursive strategies adopted by former U.S. President in his speech conflicting
The discursive strategy is an issue that is currently at the center of debate, as access to the media by the U.S. is our easy, widespread days.
Also, the importance of the use of discourse strategies in communication with all the people found his interest; the public is omnipresent in all discursive actions.
Speeches before the engagement of the war in Iraq were the first to legitimize the invasion of Iraq by international authorities aim, and by the American people. This is how George Bush used his political power as a force and persuasion technique.
For this strategy to adopt has three well-defined phases: the call to rally, the awakening of motivation by eliminating uncertainty, and explanation of the issues and objectives of the intervention.
Indeed, with the experiences of two world wars, and recently the Gulf War the U.S., commitment to a war is always associated with feelings of uncertainty, fear and apprehension among the people, the fact victory is even uncertain.
Hence the importance of the three major phases that aim to intervene to change the level of assurance of the people who will be engaged first in case of war.
As part of the implementation of the five phases, it is found that each step in legitimizing its opinion, the former U.S. president uses thematic content and different lexical, that make the people feel concerned by the actions to do, which the President is closer to the people and becomes the highest authority that protects and acts for its goods.
On successful completion of these phases must match records of persuasion: the register of insurance, register activation and register sprawl strategies. In fact, these different registers are used depending on the level of integration in the war (register of insurance before the war, register spreading strategies during the war …)
1 – The Bush speech: a set of speech call of mobilization
This is actually the first phase of the spread of intelligent discourse strategies adopted by the former U.S. President in his speech.
In making this call for mobilization and this rally in his speech, George Bush has used many techniques, including: the presentation of an emotional speech by the use of language and emotional lexical fields combined with a strategy of reprobation of the terrorists.
- The use of an emotional speech, a sign of unity and brotherhood
The speeches by Bush to justify the war were initially geared towards the awakening of the sense of belonging among the public through the publication of common emotions, recalling shared experiences.
This game on the « community », the union contributes to the establishment of the unit in America, and why not sensu lato in the world to fight against the common enemy: the Iraqi terrorists.
Thus, for example, George Bush, at the beginning of every speech always begins with the word: « My dear Americans. »
The word « Dear » here refers to an emotional name, a desire of reconciliation and brotherhood.
Also, what amounts to motivate Americans to continue listening to the speech until the end, listening to the call was emotional and therefore more attractive.
A renowned artist has highlighted the importance of the affective and emotional language in the speech where the authoring system reached its highest stage of development:
« The means of emotional persuasion are, firstly, speeches, spoken and written, broadcast by audiovisual media and publications. This is commonly through language, through words and figures of speech; the politician sends stimulants messages, indignation and calls for support»
There is also, through the speeches of George Bush on the use of « we » to refer to those who are on the side of the engagement of the war, and « them » to refer to opponents.
« My dear citizens, we have arrived at the very last days of the decision on events in Iraq … We passed over a dozen resolutions in the Security Council of the United Nations … We have sent dozens of weapons inspectors UN to verify the disarmament of Iraq … Our good faith has not been paid back …. We will do everything to defeat … we wanted to resolve the issue peacefully … We believe in the mission of the United Nations. «
It is clear that the analysis of Bush’s speech, the Iraqi people are also fully included in the « we », they are not directly inserted into the « we » that are uniquely American (so that the former U.S. President privileged over all other people in his speeches), but are referred to as « you » which is different from « them » terrorists:
« Many Iraqis can hear me tonight on the air in their language, and I have a message for them. If we must begin a military campaign, it will be directed against the lawless men who rule your country and not against you. When our coalition drive them from power, we will distribute the food and medicine you need. We will destroy the apparatus of terror and we will help you build a new Iraq that is prosperous and free. «
So that, for the former President, all U.S. and non-Iraqi terrorists are placed in the same unit, the « we » and « you », which is still a symbol of strength, unity . The Americans, the Iraqi people, hearing the « we » and the « you » feel automatically covered by this war feel of right of victims of terrorist acts Iraqis.
The use of « good pronouns » and used to classify individuals, and to make them feel concerned parties and not third parties in the commitment to the war.
With this « we », George Bush, in his speech, try to remember a few lines of the common experiences that have been shared and experienced by Americans:
« If Saddam Hussein had to choose confrontation, the American people know that we have taken all necessary measures to avoid war and also all necessary measures for the win. Americans realize the price of conflict because we have paid in the past. «
George Bush tried to recall his speech in suffering, pain in the common experiences. This makes sense to the important and unique both in the sense of persuasion and the awakening of the motivation of the public to engage in war.
The study of emotions is not done in this case, the emotions specific to the speaker, but the words he uses to target a very specific emotion in the audience:
« The pathos, let us not forget, is the emotional effect on the hearer. For Aristotle, it is above all the provision in which it is necessary to get the audience to achieve a goal of persuasion. The feeling aroused in the audience is not to be confused with one feels or expresses the speaker «
The reminder of this common experience refers to emotional memories and pathemic effects (causing an emotion) that awaken all the motivation to continue to pursue the same path again, it’s just the awakening of the sense of belonging among Americans.
And finally, to raise the motivation and demonstrate this Unite of all the American people, George Bush, at the end of every speech, refers to a common symbol shared by all: the belief in God . Thus he always ends his speeches with the words: « May God continue to bless America. »
- The lexical fields condemnation of terrorist
George Bush, as part of this quest for legitimacy in terms of its people, and its partners, really distinguishes « us » from « them. »
He tries to bring any confusion in the classification of these two categories. And it returns to the same idea of war between « good » and « evil ».
-The game on victimhood purity
This is because the Americans are cleared, the Iraqi people are placed as victims of terrorist attacks, and before all that, and the terrorists are called «evil», source of all evil in the world:
« This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq’s neighbors and against the people of Iraq. The regime has a history of reckless aggression is in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. It also helped, trained and harbored terrorists, including Al Qaeda operatives … The United States and other nations did nothing to deserve or invite this threat «
In this regard, there is a clear distinction between « America and our friends, » from the Iraqi terrorists, and in this context, the former president continues to make calls to the unit.
In asserting that the U.S. and other nations have done nothing, George Bush classifies them as the innocents, and that to enlarge the pejorative image will these victims to terrorist Iraqis.
The purpose of these classifications is to legitimize the war in the first place and second, to convey the worst possible picture of terrorists.
All names are in fact used to qualify:
– « Men lawless »
– « Apparatus of terror » …
Alain Lipietz, provisional Green candidate in parliamentary elections that individuals targeted symbols of humanity.
« At the foot of the towers, the same motley crowds whites, Asians, Latinos, African Americans … all humanity. But this time tormented by a voluntary act: a crime against all humanity « (29 September 2001)
So that the attacks by terrorists were not only against the U.S. but against all the humanity. And besides, he brought victims, not only of people, but innocent people.
2 – The elimination of uncertainty strategies and tracking objectives of the intervention via speech
- The development strategies and legitimizing anti terrorism
The promotion and legitimization of anti terrorism performed first by legitimizing authority is against terrorists: the Presidential authority.
Indeed, in the context of this call for gathering in the war, George Bush removes all probability illegalities emphasizing its power and clarifying the degree of responsibility in the fight against the « enemies »:
« The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in order to ensure their own national security. It is the responsibility belongs to me, as Commander in Chief, by the oath I made, under oath that I will abide. «
In this connection it legitimate to both the war and its power to wage war, and that in order to remove any possibility of hesitation.
- The diffusion signs of mastery of the field of war
« If Saddam Hussein had to choose confrontation, the American people know that we have taken all necessary measures to avoid war and also all necessary measures for the win«
These words of former U.S. President demonstrates mastery of the war and the invasion of Iraq by U.S. forces. This is to reassure Americans, Iraqis, and « friends of America » that this act has been well studied and calculated by the professionals in the field.
And it is clear that the former U.S. President goes even further in his reasoning in the arguments of the war, advance further about that show he has mastered himself interventions. It aims both to reassure Americans and Iraqis, and intimidate opponents, who are, in this case, the Iraqi terrorists.
« Our government is strengthening surveillance against these dangers. Just as we are preparing to ensure victory in Iraq, we are taking additional steps to protect our homeland. «
« Our forces will give Iraqi military units clear instructions on actions they can take to avoid being attacked and destroyed »
« All the Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully this warning. In any conflict, your fate will depend on what you do. Do not destroy oil wells, which are a source of wealth that belongs to the Iraqi people. Do not obey any order intimating you to use weapons of mass destruction against anyone, including against the Iraqi people. War criminals will be prosecuted and punished, and they can not defend himself by saying: « I was only following orders. «
III – argumentative processes in speech
At an argument can be assigned different definitions, but the one most appropriate to the context of the study is as follows: « the argument as a set of processes to be persuaded by the speech. »
The questions that emerge from this definition are: Who should be persuaded? What must be persuaded?
Persuasion is the object and the main purposes of the argument, and in our case study, which is the speech by former U.S. President in the war against Iraq, who must be persuaded are:
- The American people
- The world and international community
- The Iraqi people
And as for the question of what should they be persuaded, the answer is that this set must be satisfied that:
- Iraq still has weapons of mass destruction even after disarming command sent by the United Nations
- With these weapons, Iraq has made crimes against humanity
- The possession of such weapons by Iraq is a global threat
- It is legal and legitimate to start a war in Iraq for the disarmament of dictatorial powers and liberation of the Iraqi people and the whole of humanity
The objective is to convey to the target logical concatenation and further destruction, that all agree that war is the most appropriate solution to the context. Thus the argument should aim to adopt a « wanted » target behavior from the moment they are convinced of the veracity of the argument put by the speaker.
To convey these ideas, and to achieve the targets specified by, George Bush did not fail to use the most recognized of argumentation strategies. Well-founded strategies that can make the arguments that advance will be more resistant to all possibilities of contestation.
A – Objectives of the argument
First, it is important to first determine the various objectives by inserting argumentative strategies in the speech of George Bush.
1 – Research of support from the American people
In the commitment of his speeches, George Bush recognizes that it may be the source of the idea and is able to establish strategies, but cannot do it alone without the support of several people:
« This is the future we choose. Free nations have a duty to protect their people by uniting against violence. And tonight, as they have done before, America and our allies accept that responsibility. «
That’s why he tries his best to support his ideas well-founded arguments.
2 – Work for legitimizing the war against Iraq by the science of language
As part of his arguments, the former President Bush opts for arguments legitimizing the war, and that beginning with the legitimacy of presidential authority to decide on the need for war
« The United States of America has the sovereign authority to use force in order to ensure their own national security. It is the responsibility belongs to me, as Commander in Chief, by the oath I made, under oath that I will abide. «
So that, while people who voted for him, and who recognizes as supreme commander of the army, it must be « trust » that the decision is balanced and appropriate to the situation.
B – The methods of argument used by G. Bush in his speech
1 – Metaphors
- The metaphors, definitions and goals
Patrick Bacry defines a metaphor as:
« Substitution in the course of a sentence, a word for another word on the same paradigmatic axis – these two words overlapping realities that have some similarity, or are given as such«
Indeed, the metaphor is a figure of speech which is an analogy or substitution, without need of comparison tools. The objective is to assimilate one idea to another which is similar as the two « things » belong to different lexical fields with concrete descriptive vocabularies.
Metaphorical styles are indeed two powers:
-Establish an apparent sense that captures the attention of rational
-Expose hidden solutions that should be obvious to the listener.
« The image is a pure creation of the mind (…). More reports of both close and distant realities are right, the image, the stronger it will be emotional power and poetic reality. «
Also, more Bush emphasizes the use of metaphors in his speeches, more he brings people to the reality and raises awareness on the actual course of events.
And it is clear that in these metaphors, all combinations and all comparisons are possible, subject to compliance with the « syntactic consistency. » And for that very reason it is possible to use unexpected comparisons to capture more attention and enhance the figure of speech style.
- metaphorical study of Bush’s speech
Various cases metaphorical adopted by Bush in his speech:
-The metaphors-terrorist
Metaphors about terrorists aim to compare this « class » of several ideas for Bush, they represent evil, lawless men, aggressive dictators.
All these metaphors are used to remind the American people and the Iraqi dictatorship and violence they have suffered. Discursive strategy here is to destabilize the opponent, to convey a pejorative image of it in the world.
-The metaphors of the American and Iraqi people: the American and Iraqi people are called « innocent » in all the speeches of George Bush:
« The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained through Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other.»
For him, the entire population of the world is innocent and does not deserve the violence perpetrated by these terrorists.
This double image that in Bush’s speeches, there is a great metaphorical style conveyed by all the speeches: the war between Iraq and the United States (and even the world, the United States is seen as representatives of all nations of the world) is compared to a war between good and evil.
Good people are all those who adhere to « we », evil terrorists led by Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussei, the source of evil, axis of evil are the “them” :
« States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By making weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a more serious threat. They can provide arms to terrorists, giving them the means to measure their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In all cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic»
2 – Study of Biblical references in the speeches of George Bush during the conduct of the war in Iraq
- Biblical references
The principle of secularism is that religion and politics are separate, that the biblical references are by no means required in political discourse.
But it is clear that nowadays, politicians and political figures begin increasingly to refer to biblical passages to justify the relevance and accuracy of their speech.
All these passages used in speech as « religious rhetoric ». What is the value of such use among politicians? Why violate the principle of secularism?
Indeed, it was found that the use of such religious references not primarily aims to refer to the Bible, but it is a strategy to legitimize the President’s decision.
Biblical passages that cannot be disputed, the statements that are based on these passages should no longer be a strategy to legitimize right.
- The biblical references in the speeches of George Bush
In the speech of George Bush, the biblical references are not numerous in a speech but common in most of his speeches, in other words, we see less of semantics of religion in his speeches.
But it is clear that the biblical references were not needed to be numerous and highly effectively reach the public and belief, speech is essentially political. And the President did not need a lot of biblical references to be considered the most religious president, and even a « religious fanatic » according to some.
For example, the fact of using the metaphor: « Axis of Evil » led to a religious connotation. And especially at the end of his speech, Bush appealed to God saying: « May God continue to bless America. »
This means that the President called on God to fight evil. The evil that is, if we always refers to the Bible, the Great Satan, and the good angels. The war between Iraq and the United States is thus a « divine war » where the property wants to eliminate evil to regain Paradise.
This is an interesting style of argument, because the divine war cannot be challenged, leading more or less bound to the U.S. to join the war and legitimize.
Indeed, the option adopted by Bush’s war, that is to say a military option. If he communicates in a military way, it will be difficult to understand its audience, hence the use of metaphors that compare well with the people and the evil terrorists, and the use of religious practices and terms, more easily understandable in the identification of the parties to the war.
The strategy of George Bush is, in addition to promote a better understanding of its military strategy to stay close to the American public. The majority of Americans are believers, and if Bush claims to believe in Him they believe the conquest of their confidence in the legitimacy of the principles of the President is probably not difficult. Bush said in a speech that he committed war according to the will of God: « We do this with the blessing of God, » he said.
Indeed, surveys have been made at the time have revealed that over 90% of Americans believe in God, whatever its name, or a supreme principle. Only about 3-5%, according to polls, assert atheists. 80% are Christians. Catholics make up about 25% of the population (65,270,444 faithful is the largest denomination)
CONCLUSION
The speeches are an important part of study, as they are pronounced in a very specific context, and have grammatical developments, lexical and stylistic adapted to this context. To know the context is also important in order to detect the words posts that really want to post the speech.
The speech is about a set of carefully studied by professionals, so they are an interesting study to support those who want to master the strategic assembly of words.
The speeches will be the subject of this study are those of George W. Bush as part of the commitment to the war against the Iraqis.
The context of the war is well analyzed, the second part was analyzing the discursive strategies adopted by the former U.S. President in these words, to be approved by the people and many countries official and unofficial goals.
So, in other words, in the second part, we have found how George Bush did it successfully carried by the speech, well-founded and valid arguments to justify the war against the Iraqi terrorists.
REFERENCES
Draxler, C. (2000). Speech databases. In F. van Eynde & D.
Gibbon (Eds.), Lexicon development for speech and language processing. (pp. 169-206). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Draxler, C. (2008). Korpusbasierte Sprachverarbeitung – eine Einführung. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.
Gibbon, D., Moore, R., & Winski, R. (Eds). (1997). Spoken language reference materials. Berlin – New York: Mouton de Gruyer.
Lamel, L., & Cole, R. A. (1997). Spoken language corpora. In R. A. Cole, J. Mariani, H. Uszkoreit, A. Zaenen, & V. Zue (Eds.), Survey of the state of the art in human language technology. (pp. 450-4). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiel, F., Draxler, C., Baumann, A., Ellbogen, T., & Steffen, A. (2003). The production of speech corpora. Institut für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation, Universität München
Schiel, F. (2003). The validation of speech corpora. Institut für Phonetik und Sprachliche Kommunikation, Universität München
JOHANSSON, S. (1995) « The approach of the Text Encoding Initiative to the encoding of spoken discourse », in LEECH, G.- MYERS, G.- THOMAS, J. (Eds) Spoken English on Computer: Transcription, Markup and Applications. Harlow: Longman. pp. 82-98
JOHANSSON, S. (1995) « The Encoding of Spoken Texts », Computers and the Humanities 29,1: 149-158; in IDE, N.- VÉRONIS, J. (Eds) (1995) The Text Encoding Initiative. Background and Context. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. pp. 149-158.
GIBBON, D. (1997) « Standards and Resources for Spoken Language Systems », in MARCINKEVICIENE, R.- VOLZ, N. (Eds.) TELRI. Trans-Europea Language Resources and Infrastructure. Proceedings of the Second European Seminar « Language Applications for Multilingual Europe ». Kaunas, Lithuania, April 17-20, 1997. Mannheim – Kaunas: IDS – VDU. pp. 35-54.
GIBBON, D. – MOORE, R.- WINSKI, R. (Eds.) (1997) Handbook on Standards and Resources for Spoken Language Systems. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
GIBBON, D. – MOORE, R.- WINSKI, R. (Eds.) (1998) Spoken Language Systems and Corpus Design. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. (Handbook of Standards and Resources for Spoken Language Systems, Volume I).
Pickett, J. M. (1980). The sounds of speech communication. A primer of acoustic phonetics and speech perception. Baltimore – Austin: University Park Press – Pro-Ed.
Fry, D. B. (1979). The physics of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Best, C. T. (1995). A direct realist view of cross-language speech perception. In W. Strange (Ed.), Speech Perception and Lingusitic Experience: Issues in Cross-Language Research, 171-204, York Press, Baltimore.
Cole, R. A. (Ed.) (1980), Perception and Production of Fluent Speech. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Cole, R. A. & Scott, B. (1974). Toward a theory of speech perception. Psychological Review, 81, 348-374.
Fant, G. (1960). Acoustic Theory of Speech Production. Mouton, The Hague.
Flanagan, J.L. (1965). Speech Analysis Synthesis and Perception. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Fry, D. B. (1979). The Physics of Speech. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England.
Liberman, A. M. (1998). When theories of speech meet the real world. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27, 111-122.
Massaro, D. W. (1987). Speech perception by ear and eye: A paradigm for psychological inquiry. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
li A. Allawi, The Crisis of Islamic Civilization. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. xvi, 304 pp.
John R. Ballard, From Storm to Freedom: America’s Long War with Iraq. Annapolis: Naval Institute Press, 2010. xxvii, 321 pp. Ballard, who served in Iraq as a USMC civil affairs officer, is now a professor of strategic studies at National Defense University.
Robert Fisk, The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East. New York: Knopf, 2005. xxii, 1111 pp. The 2003 war in Iraq, plus a lot of other recent history. Very critical of the US.
Gerald Astor, Presidents at War: From Truman to Bush, the Gathering of Military Powers To Our Commanders in Chief. Wiley, 2006.
Ofira Seliktar, The Politics of Intelligence and American Wars with Iraq. Palgrave, 2008. x, 214 pp. My impression is that this is very theoretical, and deals more with academics and public intellectuals than with intelligence agencies.
€24.90