The use of lexicon and grammar in political speeches

Master in de meertalige communicatie

The use of lexicon and grammar in political speeches

Masterproef aangeboden door

Cleo VAN SCHAP

tot het behalen van de graad van

Master in de meertalige communicatie

Promotor: Ludo TEEUWEN

Academiejaar 2014 – 2015

FACULTEIT LETTEREN

1

Preface

First of all, I would like to show gratitude to my supervisor Ludo Teeuwen for his

guidance and support. Since I have finished my master’s thesis in August, I really

appreciate his valuable time he spent on revising it. I would also like to thank him for the

four interesting courses I attended from him during the bridging program and the master’s

year. His subjects really awakened my interest for American history and hopefully have

improved my English. Besides my supervisor, I also render thanks to Mariet Raedts since

she also instructed two courses that were very helpful in order to fulfill my last year’s

bachelor paper and this years’ master’s study.

Furthermore I would like to thank Davy Lenaerts for providing me precious information

that was relevant for this master’s study. He completed Multilingual Communication last

year and also analyzed political speeches for his dissertation. I would also want to

mention a classmate Katrien Meus. She chose the same subject as I did and helped and

motivated me whenever I had a question concerning my master’s study.

Next, I would like to thank my boyfriend Pieter-Jan Loyens since we worked together on

our thesis during Summer and because he has supported me the entire period.

Finally, and not least importantly, I would like to thank my father Jacques Van Schap and

my mother Sandra Lambrechts together with my stepfather Rudy Arents for their loving,

stimulating and financial support. Also my two sisters Karen and Kim Van Schap have

always been there for me. They all have motivated me during the entire period.

2

Abstract

In deze masterproef wordt het gebruik van grammatica en lexicon onderzocht in politieke

speeches. De speeches die geanalyseerd worden, zijn die van Barack Obama en David

Cameron over de terreurdreiging van de Islamitische Staat. In augustus 2014, werden

beide politieke leiders samen met hun landgenoten gechoqueerd door de gruweldaden die

werden uitgeoefend door de terroristengroep bij twee Amerikaanse journalisten en een

Britse journalist. Obama en Cameron brengen op dat moment een krachtige speech om

hun landgenoten te informeren over de strategie die ze voor ogen hebben om IS te

bestrijden. Bovendien dienen ze ook de landgenoten gerust te stellen over hun veiligheid.

Het doel van de speeches is dus om de Amerikaanse en Britse inwoners te overtuigen van

Obama’s en Cameron’s strijd tegen terrorisme, specifieker Islamitische Staat.

De politieke leiders kiezen hiervoor om bepaalde boodschappen te framen om zo de

perceptie van het publiek te beïnvloeden. Zo framen ze allebei dat ze competente

wereldleiders van de vrijheid zijn. Obama portretteert dit beeld nog net iets meer, wat te

wijten is aan America’s exceptionalism. Dit begrip wordt later in de studie nader

verklaard. Daarnaast willen Obama en Cameron het publiek bewust maken van het

onderscheid tussen moslims en terroristen. Zo benadrukken ze dat moslims Westerse

waarden vertegenwoordigen terwijl terroristen aanhangers zijn van een fanatieke

ideologie. Hierdoor krijgen de politici meer steun van de moslimgemeenschappen in hun

land. Verder maken Obama en Cameron ook gebruik van specifieke metaforen zoals de

journey metaphor, war metaphor en construction metaphor. Zo vergelijken Obama en

Cameron bijvoorbeeld terrorisme met een oorlog, wanneer ze de war metaphor toepassen.

Obama gebruikt ook een specifieke metafoor, namelijk de disease metaphor, waarbij hij

de Islamitische staat met kanker vergelijkt om te benadrukken hoe moeizaam het is om

deze terroristengroep te bestrijden.

Daarnaast ligt de focus van deze masterproef bij de analyse van twee belangrijke

concepten, namelijk grammatica en lexicon. Wat betreft de grammaticale analyse worden

grammaticale aspecten, het gebruik van modale werkwoorden, persoonlijke

voornaamwoorden en nominalisaties besproken. De masterproef kijkt bijvoorbeeld na of

er een verschil of gelijkenis is in het gebruik van de perfective aspect. De perfective

3

aspect duidt aan welke acties zijn voltooid en afgehandeld. Dit grammaticaal aspect kan

op die manier vertrouwen uitstralen doordat de competentie van wereldleiders wordt

benadrukt. Daarnaast kunnen modale werkwoorden de intenties onthullen van politici,

zoals bijvoorbeeld het gebruik van will om progressie aan te duiden en must om

totalitarisme uit te stralen. Verder wordt er bijvoorbeeld naar de frequentie in beide

speeches van de inclusive we gekeken. De inclusive we staat voor solidariteit en

samenhang, iets waar Obama gepassioneerd voor staat. Nominalisaties worden ook vaak

geïntegreerd om verantwoordelijkheid te reduceren van de politicus in kwestie. Ook deze

grammaticale elementen worden onderzocht in de masterproef.

Wat betreft de lexicale analyse, wordt er nagegaan hoe taal en ideologie in verband met

elkaar staan. Zo wordt er naar de legitimiteit gekeken die politici toepassen aan de hand

van vijf strategieën, namelijk emotie, hypothetische toekomst, rationaliteit, expertise en

altruïsme. Deze strategieën duiden aan hoe taal als machtsinstrument kan gebruikt

worden. De eerste strategie slaat op het publiek beïnvloeden door emotionele manipulatie.

Dit kan gelinkt worden aan de retorische stijlfiguur pathos. De tweede strategie houdt een

hypothese in die wordt uitgedrukt aan de hand van een voorwaarde met een IF-clause.

Deze conditie wordt vaak toegepast wanneer een directie reactie vereist is, zoals

bijvoorbeeld bij terroristische aanslagen. Daarnaast kunnen politici hun rationaliteit

benadrukken door de strategie die ze aan het ondernemen zijn, duidelijk te bespreken

tijdens hun speech. Hierbij helpen ook verwijzingen naar experten, wat de vierde strategie

inhoudt. Dan wordt er vaak gerefereerd naar instituties, percentages etc. De laatste

strategie, altruïsme, houdt in hoe politici de waarden van hun natie willen accentueren

door zo meer steun te krijgen van hun publiek.

De algemene conclusie luidt dat er meer gelijkenissen dan verschillen zijn in het gebruik

van framing, metafoor, grammatica en lexicon bij Obama en Cameron. Desalniettemin

zijn deze verschillen toch relevante resultaten voor de studie.

5

Table of contents

1. Introduction 6

2. Literature review 7

2.1.1 Grammatical aspect 8

2.1.2 Modal auxiliaries 10

2.1.3 Pronominalization 11

2.1.4 Nominalization 15

2.2 Lexicon 17

2.2.1 Emotions 18

2.2.2 Hypothetical future 18

2.2.3 Rationality 18

2.2.4 Voices of expertise 19

2.2.5 Altruism 19

2.3 Framing 19

2.3.1 Rhetoric 19

2.3.2 Context 21

2.3.3 Identity 22

2.4 Metaphor 22

3. Methodology 26

4. Analysis 28

4.1 Context 28

4.1.1 Terrorism in America 28

4.1.2 Terrorism in Britain 30

4.2 Critical reception of the speeches 31

4.3 Speech analysis Obama 32

4.3.1 References to history 32

4.3.2 Framing 34

4.3.3 Metaphor 37

4.3.4 Grammatical analysis 39

4.3.5 Lexical analysis 47

4.4 Speech analysis Cameron 53

4.4.1 References to history 53

4.4.2 Framing 54

4.4.3 Metaphor 56

4.4.4 Grammatical analysis 59

4.4.5 Lexical analysis 66 4.5 Similarities and differences between Obama’s and Cameron’s speech 69

4.5.1 Similarities 69

4.5.2 Differences 77

5. Conclusion and discussion 81

6

1. Introduction

“If you harm America, we will follow you to the end of the Earth.” (Biden, 2012)

In 2012, Joe Biden used this expression with a firm IF-clause in order to respond to al

Qaida directly. This type of verbal aggressive political discourse is needed when terrorist

events have harmed the nation’s civilians and imminent action is required. Therefore

Biden’s direct expression was used to threaten those who had threatened America.

Furthermore, it also refers to how America will do its utmost to prevent that terrorism will

endanger Americans from having a free and secure life.

This master’s study will focus on how language is used in political discourse when

shocking events have occurred and immediate action is required. The correct use of

lexicon and grammar not only has the power to explain a matter clearly, but also to

convey hidden intentions of the speaker. The main point is therefore to see how grammar

and lexicon are used in order to persuade an audience of the politician’s intentions in

order to make these people feel safe again.

With regard to persuasion the first definition referring to this art of discourse, was called

rhetoric. Rhetoric was created by the philosopher Aristotle in which he viewed persuasion

by three means: logs, pathos and ethos. Logos refers to rationality, pathos appeals to

audience’s emotions and ethos conveys the politician’s goodwill. Besides rhetoric,

politicians tend to frame their ideas via metaphor since it concretizes abstract ideas into

more concrete matter. These items will be examined in this master’s thesis in order to

introduce the two focal concepts, which are grammar and lexicon. With regard to the

grammatical analysis, the use of grammatical aspect, modal verbs, pronominalization and

nominalization will be examined. As concerns the lexical analysis, a connection will be

made between lexicon and ideology of the politician through legitimization.

The first part of the study entails a literature review with a focus on grammar, lexicon,

metaphor and framing. The second part contains an analysis of two speeches on ISIL

from Barack Obama and David Cameron. These will be introduced by elucidating the

context and critical reception of the speeches. Then a section will discuss the differences

and similarities.

7

2. Literature review

Speeches, which are held by politicians to address the people as a group or to address the

entire nation state, have always played an important role in a nation’s discourse. Feng and

Liu concluded that the “initial purpose of every speaker is to accomplish the interaction

with the audience” (Feng & Liu, 2010, p. 825). According to them, the purpose of a

speech is not only to enhance the participation of the audience but to improve the

understanding of important questions amongst the audience as well. They assert that

speeches also have the power to persuade the listeners or let them share the same opinion

as those of the speaker. In this way a speech allows the listener to identify with the

speaker. Whether or not these listeners feel involved with the political issues that are put

forward, relies on qualitative and situational factors of the speech (Feng & Liu, 2010).

Van Leeuwen (2012) set up a checklist with which he made a stylistic comparison of two

speeches. His study can be situated between Critical Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical

Criticism. CDA examines the connection between language and ideology and language

and power, whereas Rhetorical Criticism focusses on framing and rhetorical use of

language. As regards his stylistic analysis, he made a checklist by which he examined

aspects such as grammatical and lexical elements, figures of speech and context and

cohesion.

In this master’s study I will merely examine how grammatical and lexical elements in

political speeches contribute to the credibility of the speaker. Furthermore, I will discuss

how framing and metaphor in a speech may influence the perception of the audience.

2.1. Grammar

According to Matlock (2012) grammar indicates the meaning of the speaker. In order to

discuss the influential role of grammar on the acceptance of the speech, I will first give an

extensive overview of the literature on the use of grammar in political discourse. The use

of specific verb tenses, modal auxiliaries, pronouns and nominalization on the credibility

of the speaker are included in this chapter.

8

2.1.1 Grammatical aspect

When analyzing the grammatical aspect of tenses, one should first of all look at the

function of the verb in a sentence. Feng and Liu (2010) pointed out that the primary and

pragmatic function of a verb is the indication of time of events. Verbs indicate whether

actions take place in the past, present or future. Another pragmatic function of verbs is

explained by Matlock (2012), who points out that verbs have the ability to indicate how

someone interprets a message. In this way the grammatical aspect of verbs can determine

the mental simulation of events and should therefore be considered as an interesting

persuasion device in political discourse. Feng and Liu (2010) assert that the choice of a

verb relies on the purpose of the speaker and may intensify the attitude of the audience

towards the actions of the speaker.

With regard to grammar in political discourse, Fausey and Matlock (2011) underline the

popularity of the imperfective and perfective aspect. According to them, the imperfective

aspect emphasizes the ongoing and dynamic nature of the action, whereas the perfective

aspect is used to highlight the end of that action. According to Fausey (2011), a perfective

verb (have + past participle) especially generates great power in political discourse since

it makes the listener believe that the negative actions which took place in the past, have

now come to an end. In this way, the perfective verb is used whenever politicians want to

frame the end of that negativity. As a result, they are positively framed by this use of

grammatical aspect. In “we have bombed the terrorists” the perfective aspect indicates

that the actions have finished. In this way, the politician underlines that the military

controls the terrorists since the bombing has come to end.

The use of the imperfective verb on the contrary (was + verb + ing) leads the audience to

think that the politician hasn’t managed to control the situation. Fausey (2011) therefore

concludes that listeners are more convinced that politicians didn’t realize to end negative

actions whenever they apply the imperfective aspect. In ‘we are bombing the

imperfective aspect elucidates that the action of the speaker is still going on and no

concrete solution to control the situation has been found yet.

In general, actions that are highlighted by the imperfective aspect, regardless if the

actions are positively or negatively described, will receive the most attention. There are

several explanations for this phenomenon. Bergen and Wheeler (2010) argue that listeners

9

mentally process the imperfective actions better than perfective ones. In this way, they

store their perceptions more easily in their minds. Furthermore people tend to give in

general more attention to negative actions than positive ones (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,

Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Fausey & Matlock, 2011). This is called the negative bias1 or

the negativity effect by which people automatically give more attention to things of a

negative nature such as traumatic events in the terrorist scene or other emotional

situations. Soroka and McAdams (2015) add that this effect is due to the strong

connection between news, politics and negativity. They concluded that negative news

items evoke arousal and attentiveness, which should not necessarily be perceived as a bad

thing since it alarms that something is going wrong and that the people as well as the

politician should change their behavior in order to deal with the situation (Soroka &

McAdams, 2015).

Not only does the imperfective aspect produce a strong effect, progressive sentences

could influence the listener’s perception as well. Bergen and Wheeler (2010) say that

progressive sentences drive listeners to mentally simulate the context of described events,

whereas perfect sentences do not.

- Example progressive sentence: ”He is sending troops.”

- Example perfective sentence: “He sent troops.”

In the progressive sentence the verb emphasizes the dynamic structure of the action in

which the person is holding a speech at the moment. This allows the speaker to visualize

the context of the current actions. The perfect aspect, however, ends the descriptive

process of the speaker because it highlights the end state of the action.

Finally I will discuss the use of the passive voice in political speeches in this part of

grammatical aspect. According to Sivric and Mihaljevic (2010) political leaders use the

passive voice to reduce the pressure or blame on themselves or even people working

together with them. The passive voice would therefore lead an audience to think that

politicians experienced the negative action rather than be blamed for the cause of it. In

1 The negativity bias (also known as the negativity effect) refers to the notion that, even when of

equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social

interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one's psychological state and

processes than do neutral or positive things. (Wikipedia, n.d.)

10

this way they will less easily be considered as the active agent that is held responsible for

the negative actions. For instance in “we were attacked” the speaker wants to make clear

that the people and himself were subjected to this attack and that they nor he cannot be

held responsible for it.

2.1.2 Modal auxiliaries

As mentioned above, a verb has the ability to indicate modality. In order to create

modality, the speaker could make use of several tools such as modal auxiliary verbs. In

English the modal verbs that give more information about the verb are: can, could, may,

might, must, shall, should, will and would. A subgroup of modal verbs are the quasi-

auxiliaries, that imply a duty, obligation or a habit. Examples of these quasi-auxiliaries

are verbs such as have to and ought to (Verstraete, 2001, p. 57) In ‘We have to end this

cruelty’ the speaker indicates how the group is obliged to take responsibility. This

likelihood is also present in ‘We ought to be respected’. This quasi-auxiliary indicates the

same purpose as in the first example.

With regard to modal auxiliary verbs, Halliday (2004) argues that there is a clear

distinction between their interpersonal and ideational function. The interpersonal function

is set up to strengthen social relations and their connection to other communicative

agents, whereas the ideational function of a modal verb does not require social reference

to the speaker or participants. Sentences with an ideational meaning refer to a neutral

reality or obligation and are therefore more objective (Verstraete, 2001).

- Example interpersonal meaning: “Yes you can.”

- Example ideational meaning: “Speeches must always be given to an audience.”

In the first example the interpersonal function has a subjective meaning that indicates the

respect from the speaker to the content and the interlocutor. In this way modal auxiliaries

highlight the speakers position with an interpersonal meaning. Halliday points out that

“through modality the speaker takes up a position and signals the status and validity of his

own judgments” (Halliday, 2000, cited in Feng & Liu, 2010). In 2010, Feng and Liu

examined the function of modality in Obama’s opening speech on his first 100th day

ruling as President of the United States. They concluded that Obama tends to use this

11

device to achieve interpersonal meaning. The modal auxiliary verbs will, can, should and

have occurred most frequently in Obama’s speech, as the table below shows.

Modal

auxiliary

Will Can Should Have to

Modality Futurity Ability/Possibility Obligation Obligation

Frequency 18 4 4 2

(Feng & Liu, 2010, p. 826)

Will appeared as the most frequent modal verb, and was used eighteen times. Feng and

Liu (2010) explain that will refers to the goals Obama wants to achieve for the future of

America. This occurrence may be explained by the fact that Obama is a democrat who

strives for progressiveness. Can determines the possibility and the ability for the

audience. This modal verb is a way of inspiring the listeners to create their own American

Dream. Besides will and can also the modal auxiliary verb should was discussed. Should

made the listeners believe that they have obligations that should be respected. Also the

last modal verb have to has this similar imperative connotation such as in should. Have to

refers to obligations that have to be respected by the audience because of external

reasons.

2.1.3 Pronominalization

Pronominalization has the ability to replace other words by basically one simple word, a

pronoun. In this way, speakers can make use of this grammatical element to avoid

repetition in written or oral texts. In English there are eight pronouns: personal, reflexive,

possessive, indefinite, demonstrative, reciprocal, relative and interrogative pronouns.

Since especially personal pronouns play a significant role in political discourse, I will

only discuss this type of pronominalizaton. Bramley (2001, as cited in Hommerberg,

2012) claimed that the prominent task of a politician is to create a certain image of reality.

In order to do so, Bull and Fetzer (2006) assert that personal pronouns are excellent tools

to highlight the positive effects of a political leader and to show one’s personal

involvement to a political question. Furthermore it allows the politician to refer to

him/herself. And finally, personal pronouns have the power to include or exclude people.

12

According to Bull and Fetzer (2006), it could serve as a strategy to deny, ignore or

position the enemies away from political actions. In this way the speaker has the power to

create a certain reality and identity. These aspects will be further discussed in the

literature part on each pronoun.

In the past speeches were seen in a more formal context, whereas this is not the case

anymore. Nowadays conversational speeches have become more common to heighten the

personal level of a speech, which leads to the first personal pronoun that will be discussed

in this grammatical part. Biria and Mohammadi (2012) assert that the pronoun I

emphasizes commitment, subjectivity and the importance of space and time. Another

positive aspect of I is the ability to show goodwill, responsibility, authority and a clear

opinion of the speaker. An example of this type can be found in “I will go anywhere in

the world to open new markets for American products”(Obama, 2012). Here Obama

clearly underlines his involvement and commitment to the well-being of America. The

use of I, however, can also be an interesting tool to blame others and set one’s own

beliefs apart from others, which can be perceived more negatively. In “I urge the

Congress to pass medical liability reform” (Bush, 2003), Bush underlines that he

separates himself from the others, and puts himself in a positive light whereas the other,

being ‘the Congress, is put in a negative light.

Biria and Mohammadi (2012) concluded with their CDA on speeches of Bush and Obama

that Bush gave preference to the use of I, whereas Obama has a recurrent pattern of the

use of we. According to them Bush wants to portray himself as an individual with strong

beliefs. Political speakers that tend to use I, want to maintain a certain distance between

them and their audience. Obama, however, has become known for expressing group

feeling and solidarity. Therefore he uses far more often we than I.

Proctor and Su (2011) examined the use of the first person plural in political discourse.

They argued that the choice of the pronouns we and our differs from speaker to speaker.

Also Feng and Liu (2010) pointed out that there is a strong distinction between an

inclusive and exclusive use of we. They conclude that Obama often uses the exclusive we

to refer to his government and himself, like in “We will increase our support”(Obama,

2014). Feng and Liu (2010) also explain that the inclusive we (our) is used by Obama to

create a feeling of unity and solidarity, like in “This is not our fight alone” (Obama,

2014). Here, the inclusive we is used to highlight the positive actions of the in-group,

13

even though it can be seen as a manipulation technique for two reasons. First of all,

Obama may point out that the government is a reference to the American people. As a

result, he invites the hearer to believe that American citizens as well as his government

are needed to do everything for America, since they need their nation’s best soldiers. By

doing so, he wants to transfer a strong feeling of commitment and belonging to the

audience. Secondly, it can also be applied strategically to reduce responsibility of the

government and the speaker himself, since it allows the political leader to speak on behalf

of his audience (Feng & Liu, 2010).

Pronominal choices in political differ depending on if the politician who makes

the utterance wants to share responsibility with other people or colleagues or not.

Pronominal choices can also vary depending on how confident the speaker is that

other will share his view and opinions. Beard, 2000, as cited in Hommerberg,

2012, p. 46

Biria and Mohammadi (2012) agree with the purpose of the inclusive we and concluded

that we was often used as the first word in successive sentences. The inclusive we would

be very effective in combination with modal auxiliaries to strengthen the unity and

solidarity of American citizens. Barack Obama tends to use this pronoun frequently. This

pattern can be seen clearly in Obama’s known statement: “Yes, we can.”

Besides we and I, are they and them also often implemented in political discourse. In

general, they is especially used to discuss issues and topics, not to express a relationship

with the speaker and the hearer. Sivric and Mihaljevic (2010) assert how this pronoun

can be effective to polarize groups. In this way the use of they and them allows the

speaker to depict the positive aspects of an in-group, whereas these pronouns are also

used to highlight the negativity of the out-group.

In “And tonight thanks to them, we are winning the war on terror” (Bush, 2002), it is

unclear if the pronoun separates self from other since they is normally used to indicate the

negativity of an out-group. Here them is positively framed because it implies that

America, being the in-group, has a great military that can defeat terrorism. With regard to

the negativity of an out-group, Biria and Mohammadi (2012) agree that they and them can

be used to point out a clear difference between themselves and other people, which

expresses the us and them separation. Hommerberg (2012) says that in political discourse,

14

they can refer to others, in which this otherness is described as an evilness that should be

conquered. Furthermore they may serve as an interesting tool to hold others responsible,

which obviously transmits a negative connotation. In “They embrace tyranny and death

as a cause and a creed” (Bush, 2002), the third person plural is framed by Bush to

emphasize the negative actions of the out-group, being the terrorists, that should be

defeated. Furthermore the pronoun they has the ability to hold them responsible for

putting American people in danger. By doing so Bush describes the inferiority of the

others consciously.

You seems to be the most difficult pronoun to determine its referent in political discourse.

In daily speeches, you usually refers to whom the speaker is talking to or is used for polite

forms, whereas in political speeches it can have multiple functions. Brozin (2010) asserts

two relevant functions of you. First the speaker might use the indefinite you as a

replacement of I and to refer to himself, or to include or exclude people. In this way, the

speaker’s strategy is to leave it vague to who s/he is referring to, but it allows the listener

to determine whether they take part in the group or not. In the excerpt below, it shows

that you can be used to refer to Congress as well as people in general.

“Many have of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. I listened,

and I agree” (Bush, 2001).

Another function of the use of you is to express a habitual wisdom or truth. In the excerpt

below, Obama stresses out how you might refer to anybody. So whenever the identity of

the addressee is uncertain, the speaker might use you to refer to anyone or everybody.

“In a global economy where the most valuable skill you can sell is your knowledge, a

good education is no longer just a pathway to opportunity, it is a prerequisite” (Obama,

2009).

In general, Bull and Fetzer (2006) do believe that personal pronouns could leave the

listener with ambiguous perceptions on the information of the speech. They also point out

the complexity of referential sources because presidents often receive help from

professional speechwriters, like John Favreau does for Barack Obama. Since personal

pronouns have the power to include or exclude people, the correct use of this

pronominalization is therefore essential.

15

2.1.4 Nominalization

In English, the word function in a text is used to determine what role language plays.

Furthermore, it serves as a sentence element to explain what the sentence is about.

Halliday (2002) pointed out that are three metafunctions of the use of language.

Ideational function Word choice relies on the relation between man and nature

(describe experiences, events)

Interpersonal

function

Word choice relies on the interaction between individuals

(describe role of participation between actors)

Textual function Word choice relies on the logical order of a text (how it organizes

a message)

(Halliday, 2000)

When it comes to political speeches, we should look at the ideational function of

language since nominalization plays a significant role here in describing events and

experiences. (see table) According to Kazemian and Hashemi (2014, p. 212)

nominalization refers to “the utilization of a verb or an adjective into a noun, with or

without morphological conversion, so that the word can now function as the head of a

noun phrase.” Because the word becomes the head of a noun phrase, it is considered as a

powerful linguistic device that expresses the meaning of a text. Kazemian and Hashemi

(2014) illustrate that in English some verbs receive a suffix during this process, for

example ‘terrorism’ from ‘terrorize’. As result, the nominalized verb becomes a concept

for the audience. When this meaning is interpreted by the listener, it has an existence and

can therefore also be considered as a participant or a theme.

Fowler (1991, as cited in Van Dijk, 2008) asserts that powerful actors like political

leaders use nominalization to emphasize abstract concepts to reduce their responsibility.

This technique of hiding politicians from negative actions is done by passivation. An

example of this manipulative nominalization can be found in political messages about

violent police attacks on the people during a walk-out. In “Demonstrators attacked” the

information is omitted by keeping the identity of the agent unknown. When using the

active voice, the writers wants to omit the information of whom should be identified for

16

the attack. In “Police attack demonstrators”, the writer points out that the police should

be held responsible since the verb is actively used.

According to Eggins (1994) nominalization expresses the ideology of formal writing

because it helps to process the objectivity of the speaker. Van Dijk (2008) further

explained that the purpose of CDA is to find illegitimate use of language. When this is

found, CDA examines whether nominalization is used manipulatively to obstruct the

listeners from receiving the correct information of the speech. According to him is “CDA

criticism premised on the norm that citizens get the best possible information from the

symbolic elites” (Van Dijk, 2008, p. 822).

With regard to this manipulative use of nominalization, Van Dijk (2008) sums up the

circumstances under which a noun is preferred:

the nominalization is generally the preferred or more common (lexically more

accessible) description of an action (as in election, revolution, inflation, etc.);

the author does not know who the agent is (as in car theft, pollution, etc.);

knowledge about agency is irrelevant in the current context (as in the weather

forecast);

the agent has already been identified in the (con)text, or as part of the

implications or implicatures of the text (as in demonstrators . . . the

demonstration);

the agent can be inferred from general knowledge about the action (as in

elections: voters);

the author momentarily does not want to focus on agents, but on actions or

victims (as in the assassination of the president);

there is lack of space, as in headlines, titles, slogans, etc. (as reform in ‘Ministers

back radical voting reform’ – The Guardian, March 24, 2008);

or, finally, the author wants to hide or downgrade the responsible negative agency

of ingroup agents (as in discrimination against immigrants is increasing).

The conditions above elucidate how nominalization is used to emphasize abstract

concepts. Especially the second, fifth, sixth and eight can be used whenever the politician

wants to hide from negativity and reduce responsibility. Nominalization is therefore

considered as a powerful linguistic device to manipulate the speaker’s audience.

17

2.2 Lexicon

Lexicon finds its origin in Greek language as it derives from ‘lexikon’, meaning the

vocabulary of a specific language or individual. Since political leaders have to choose

their words carefully, the use of the correct lexicon is therefore crucial. Thus, when

politicians frame their ideas to the audience, grammatical as well as lexical elements play

a vital role in this process.

2.2.1 Legitimization through language

A pioneer in the lexical field is Reyes (2010) because he tried to analyze the connection

between ideology, language and power via CDA. This is where the concept

‘legitimization’ comes in to play. Reyes (2010) examined how lexicon can be

implemented in discourse to justify actions or behaviors in the world. His research is

based on legitimization of studies such as those of (Martin Rojo & Van Dijk, 1997; Van

Dijk, 2005; Van Leeuwen, 1996, 2007, 2008; Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999). In his work

he developed five “key strategies of legitimization employed by social actors to justify

courses of action” (Reyes, 2010, p. 2011), which are legitimization through emotions,

hypothetical future, rationality, voices of expertise and altruism.

Before discussing the different strategies of legitimization I will first explain the concept

itself. Reyes (2010) defines legitimization as a process by which the actors want to justify

their actions either mentally or physically. This is put forward by arguments that are a

reflection of ideas and social behavior. Furthermore this legitimization is related to a goal

to find the support or approval of the audience.

This search for approval can be motivated by different reasons: to obtain or

maintain power, to achieve social acceptance, to improve community

relationships, to reach popularity or fame. (Reyes, 2010, p. 782)

The word legitimization derives from the Latin word ‘legitumus’, which entails that a law

or an agreement is settled. Reyes (2010) points out that speakers, whether in daily life or

in political context, try to legalize what they are saying. Meaning that the audience

should do what is being told, otherwise, they will not conquer the evil otherness that

18

might cross their path. The unfortunate events of 9/11 are a good example in the political

landscape. Reyes (2010) points out that Bush used legitimization to make sure that

American citizens had to follow him in his journey in order to conquer the terrorists,

otherwise similar actions would overcome them again. Emotions such as fear can be put

forward in such a context, which leads us to the first strategy of legitimization.

2.2.1 Emotions

The first strategy, which is called ‘legitimization through emotions’, explains the process

in which the representation of actors is positively or negatively highlighted. “Politicians

accomplish this linguistically through ‘constructive strategies’, that is, ‘utterances which

constitute a “we” group and a “they” group through particular acts of reference’“(Van

Leeuwen and Wodak, 1999, as cited in Reyes, 2010, p. 785). In this way a presentation of

the they group that entails a negative emotion, and the we group that entails a positive

emotion can be made by the listener.

2.2.2 Hypothetical future

The second strategy can be applied by political leaders through a ‘hypothetical future’.

Reyes (2010) asserts that the use of conditionals comes into play in case of fear and

threat, and when imminent action is required. Reyes (2010) also points out that political

leaders express their power by means of using the IF-clause. With regard to the context of

terror, politicians can express themselves by saying ‘“If you harm America, we will follow

you to the end of the Earth” (Biden, 2012). Here Biden addresses the enemy directly and

threatens the terrorist group by using the IF-clause, followed by the second person

singular. This allows the speaker to transfer great power in such imminent political

discourse. Furthermore it allows the politician to legalize him or herself as a leader who

fiercely invites the listeners to follow his path in order to fight the terrorists so no harm

can be done to the in-group, being the citizens of the attacked country.

2.2.3 Rationality

The third strategy is called ‘legitimization through rationality’, which implies references

to goals and uses of institutionalized social actions. Van Leeuwen (2012) also uses this

term to underline the importance of Theoretical Rationalization. This rationalization is

19

constructed by social institutions. Before making decisions, politicians might consult

other allies, other sources to act rationally. Reyes assert that “Rationalization needs to be

understood as a modus operandi defined and shaped by and from a specific society”

(Reyes, 2010, p. 786).

2.2.4 Voices of expertise

The fourth strategy, ‘legitimization through voices of expertise’, is used to shown the

evidence of the politician’s acquired knowledge in his political discourse. The reliability

of the political leader can then be increased if s/he emphasizes facts such as numbers,

social actors and social institutions.

2.2.5 Altruism

The final one, which is ‘altruism’, states how political leaders do not only emphasize their

personal welfare in the speech. Reyes (2010) explains how this strategy relies on moral

evaluation and is used to include specific values in the speech. In this way, politicians

emphasize the beneficial and well-being of the group for whom the speech has been set

up. This way the listeners are more convinced to follow their leader in his strategy.

2.3 Framing

2.3.1 Rhetoric

Aristotle once said that a “rhetorician can control the art of rhetoric only if s/he “discovers

the available means of persuasion” (Assmundson, 2008, p. 7). This means that the

speaker should have control over the context in which the situation occurs, and speak

according to the specific type of rhetoric that fits the situation. This art of persuasion

derives from the Ancient Greeks and concerns two parties, in which one tries to persuade

the other. Aristotle believed that every speaker can profit from the knowledge of rhetoric,

even when it is to address a true point towards the audience or to hide sincere intentions.

In this way a speaker can put forward his honest thoughts, but on other hand he can hide

himself from these and mislead the audiences perception (Assmundson, 2008).

Keeping the audience’s attention through persuasion is therefore the ultimate task of a

speaker. Aristotle’s view on the credibility of the speaker relies on the importance of

20

having persuasion skills and being able to use them accordingly. Nevertheless, being

persuasive by applying the art of rhetoric is not sufficient. Joseph (2006, as cited in

Assmundson, 2008) add that performance skills and other persuasion devices may

enhance the persuasion skills of a spokesman/woman as well such as “voice, quality,

pitch, volume, speed, modulation and even vibrato) but also gestures and other visual

aids.”

Artistotle views three means of persuasion, being ethos, pathos and logos. When

addressing logos, we are talking about “persuasion through reasoning” (Beard, 2000, p.

37). This logical reasoning is a reference to the Greek term ‘logos’. The basic idea of this

rhetorical device therefore is to use simple and factual arguments to underline the point of

view of a speaker to the audience. Obama for example often tends to show his knowledge

during a speech so that the listener can see that the president did his research well, which

makes the audience feel comfortable and secure (Assmundson, 2008).

The second rhetoric persuasion device is called ethos. Ethos is often used by the speaker

to show three important items: ‘good character’, ‘good sense’ and ‘goodwill’. First of all,

showing practical intelligence is a way of expressing good sense to the audience.

Assmundson (2008) explains that this goal can be achieved by appealing to authority to

justify an idea. Secondly, the good character should be put on the foreground to display

that one possess good human qualities such as being honest and sincere. Finally, the

speaker should express his goodwill to the speaker. If the speaker proves that he is

concerned about the listener, his credibility will rise among the audience.

Pathos is the third rhetoric appeal. This device allows to persuade the audience through

emotions. Pathos, also called the emotional appeal in the art of rhetoric, is used by

political leaders either to inform their audience of sensitive events or to persuade them

passionately. In both cases, Fortenbaugh (2007, as cited in Levrie, 2010) believes that

emotion can be seen as an intelligent response which can be triggered rationally. The

speaker should therefore use arguments to stimulate this emotion. First of all, a speaker

could look at the origin of the emotion, for example terror situations like those of ISIL.

Secondly the object of emotion should be defined, which is fear in this case. Finally we

have to see how the emotion evolves when the conditions occur. After applying these

three steps, the speaker will more easily understand what the emotion is about and use it

as a technique to influence its audience. According to Ahmed (2004), people might then

21

transform their perception of certain people into objects of emotion. In our actual

situation, it is likely that society has transformed those bodies, the terrorists, into objects

of hate. In this way, politics are succeeding in changing our perception on terrorism

(Ahmed, 2004).

Obviously, pathos does not only stimulate emotions such as fear and hate, but it also has

the ability to inspire people. America’s current president Barack Obama is considered by

many as a master in applying pathos in his speeches. He has the ability to persuade his

audience passionately by giving them a good feeling when emphasizing their identity and

self-interest. Also ending with a joke, is something for which Obama has become famous

for.

2.3.2 Context

Logos, ethos and pathos are not the only items a speaker should take into account, when it

comes to persuading his or her audience. Baresh, Hsu and Reese (2011) assert that

speakers should also look at the context that constructs their message for the audience.

According to them “framing highlights some aspects of the events behind a story and

downplays others often with the effect of supporting a certain way of looking at the

world” (Baresch, Hsu & Reese, 2011, p. 57). Speakers are able to do so by means of word

choice and source selection. Baresh, Hsu and Reese (2011) use examples in which

speakers would use “awakening” instead of “chaos” to describe the Middle East. As for

the source selection, political leaders might consult more “democracy activists” instead of

“state security officers”.

The definition of the concept framing is explained by Goffman (1974) in which he views

that simple frame brings a “scheme of interpretation that allows people to locate,

perceive, identify, and label a seemingly infinite number of concrete occurrences defined

in its limits” (Goffman, 1974, as cited in Baresh, Hsu & Reese, 2011, p. 638 ). In this way

news media try to limit our perception by portraying everything within a frame. They are

therefore to a large extent held responsible for our way of looking at things, at life. By

doing so, they carefully select interesting “words, new sources and metaphors” (Baresh,

Hsu & Reese, 2011 p. 638). As a result, people tend to “rely on expectations to make

sense of their everyday social experience” (Reese, 2001, as cited in Baresh, Hsu & Reese,

2011, p. 2).

22

Druckman (2004) accepts this view on framing but invites us to think about the fact

whether people are rational or not when they are exposed to this persuasive act.

According to him framing means highlighting the exact same information, but doing so in

a positive or negative light. Due to this vague information exposure, people tend to think

in an irrational way about the subjects that are being exposed.

2.3.3 Identity

Furthermore framing also concerns identity. Van De Mieroop (2010) points out that

identity is created because every human has multiple identities that constantly changes in

our dynamic society. This concept is seen as a recurrent topic in political discourse

because politicians often use certain transportable identities in terms of framing their

message strategically. In politics, politicians are often obliged to position themselves to

the context they are confronted with. For example, when Bush had to deal with the

situation of 9/11, he had to position himself from President of the United States to

Commander-in-chief leading the actual war on terror. Furthermore he also had to position

himself as a human being with feelings of disappointment and grief. This now also the

case for Obama, who is severely confronted with the actions that are undertaken by ISIL.

When looking at the identity of political parties, it seems that especially democrats have

become ‘the party of identity’. Kraushaar (2015, para.6) from the National Journal stated

that this identity-politics phenomenon is translated in the idea of Obama being the first

black president of the United States, who might be succeeded by Hilary Clinton, being the

first female president from 2016. With her president candidacy she wants to express the

historic message of gender equality just like Obama did for race equality when he was

running for president in 2008. According to Kraushaar (2015) from the National Journal

both democratic leaders would have an urge to establish their own identity in the identity

of their party.

2.4 Metaphor

As mentioned in the previous part on framing, Aristotle gave meaning to persuasion. In

order to convince a speaker’s audience through language, it is vital that s/he selects

her/his words carefully. This is also where metaphor comes into play. According to

23

Bougher (2012) metaphors can have a great impact on verbal communication as well as

on mental imagery because they can make a speech attractive and have the ability to

create something visual.

The term “metaphor” derives from “metapherein”, which is a Greek term that means “to

carry from one place to another” (Miller, 1979). In this way, the speaker gives a thing, an

idea, a concept a name that belongs to something else. The word which is used then,

serves as a denominator for something else which has nothing to do with the original

term. To define metaphor more extensively, I will discuss the two theories of Lakoff

(1993) Traditional Metaphor Theory and the Cognitive Metaphor Theory.

The Traditional Metaphor Theory is a more brief one that explains why metaphors are

used in decorative language. This theory only involves the poetical aspect of language,

concerning subjects such as life, death and rationality. According to the Traditional

Metaphor Theory metaphors are used in order to the transfer the idea that everything

which is literal, is not metaphorical. Lakoff (1992) explains this latter via a simple

example. When saying “The balloon went up”, the listener interprets the sentence

literally. Thus “as soon as one gets away from concrete physical experience and starting

talking about abstractions or emotions, metaphorical reasoning is the norm” (Lakoff,

1992, p. 3). Lakoff (1992) points out that in metaphorical reasoning one cannot interpret

the normal, literal meaning of a word since the word is linked to a linguistic expression

(Wong, 2012). So, metaphors would only occur in poetics or figurative language, whereas

this is not the case for practical language in daily life.

The second theory is the Conceptual Metaphor Theory that focusses on the idea how we

see the world. Michael Reddy (1979) was the first to examine this idea of metaphor, by

which he illustrated how one can understand a topic if the speaker uses another word to

refer to something else. Lakoff (1993) and Mark Johnson further developed this second

theory on the metaphor in Metaphors we live by. They asserted that metaphors have a

more powerful meaning than traditionally assumed. The second concept would rely on

the idea that we use a metaphor “to structure our understanding of the world, so the locus

of metaphor is not language, but thought, or the way we conceptualize one thing in terms

of another” (Lakoff, 1993, as cited in Wong, 2012, p. 11). The idea of this use of

metaphor is that the speaker gives a thing a name that belongs to something else. The

24

basic mechanism is a concept of analogical reasoning that enables the audience to

understand one thing, which is abstract in terms of another thing that is more familiar and

based on direct experience. Lakoff (1992) explains this conceptual metaphorical

reasoning via the following example. In “Our relationship has hit a dead-end street”, we

can find the underlying metaphor LOVE IS A JOURNEY. Lakoff (1992) points out that the

love in this relationship is conceptualized as a journey, by which the lovers have to face

that they cannot proceed in this direction and they have to face their problems. The

example shows us that more attention is given to the thought rather than the language that

is being expressed.

Steen (2012) and Bougher (2012) share the same view on conceptual metaphors in which

this “intelligent transfer for knowledge” is put forward. The heuristic aspect by which

something unfamiliar is being transferred into something familiar would allow the listener

to understand the utterance and would add cohesion to the text. Since we apply metaphors

in new situations, the listener interprets the context via visualizing what is being said.

Bougher (2012) also concludes that the more unfamiliar and abstract a concept is, the

more easily the speaker would implement metaphor in his reasoning. In politics this

mechanism “enables citizens to make sense of the political world by drawing from

previous knowledge and experience in non-political domains” (Bougher, 2012, p. 145).

Metaphors would have the ability to create something visual and make it easy to

understand what is being said. In this way, significant attention is given to the thought

that is being transmitted via the metaphor instead of the metaphor itself. Bougher (2012)

explains that metaphors help to see how citizens see the political world.

Politicians often make use of conceptual metaphors in order to make their speech more

comprehensible for the audience. In the example “The president has been under fire.”,

where the underlying metaphor is the war metaphor POLITICS IS WAR. Here we can see

two domains, in which ‘politics’ is the source domain and the target domain would be

‘war’. By analyzing these two domains, it seems clear that metaphor is an interesting

persuasion device that enables the listener to create an idea, a thought about a political

concept.

25

Since this master’s study focusses on the speeches on ISIL, I will examine whether

metaphors such as the journey metaphor, war metaphor or other interesting metaphors

occur in the speeches of Obama and Cameron.

26

3. Methodology

Whenever politicians want to involve or persuade their audience, they have to frame their

messages in order to influence the listener’s perception. The purpose of a speech also

includes informing the politician’s countrymen and women about sensitive and shocking

subjects. Therefore politicians should use their words carefully and give significant

attention to grammar and lexicon. The purpose of this master’s study is to examine how

political speeches on terrorism are framed through grammar and lexicon. The research

question is as follows: What are the similarities and differences in framing, metaphor,

grammar and lexicon between the speech of Obama and the speech of Cameron on ISIL?

The speeches that will be analyzed and compared are those of Barack Obama and David

Cameron. The speeches were delivered in the same period, after the unfortunate events

that took place when ISIL brutally assassinated the journalists James Foley, Steven

Sotloff and David Haines last August 2014. Both can be found in attachment at the end of

this study. Not only, the cruel assaults but also the flow of foreign fighters raised the

terror threat in both countries. Therefore I will compare how these two world leaders

responded to these barbaric events and how they informed their citizens of their

counterterrorism strategy.

As an introduction to the analysis of the speeches, the context of the theme and the event

will be explained first. Afterwards comments and reactions of the press will be illustrated.

In that section, I will give further information about the concept terrorism which became

a recurrent topic in America’s discourse after 9/11. I will also deal with Britain’s history

concerning terror involvement. This subject became a high priority on Britain’s political

agenda as well, due to the high number of British home grown terrorists and foreign

fighters.

Afterwards, both speeches will be analyzed separately by means of Critical Discourse

Analysis. The purpose is to examine the influence of grammar and lexicon through a

quantitative and qualitative approach in each speech. As for the quantitative analysis, I

will indicate the frequency of the most meaningful grammatical and lexical elements.

This will be illustrated through graphs.

27

As for the qualitative approach I will first examine how Obama and Cameron apply

framing and metaphor in their speeches. The greater part will focus on the grammatical

and lexical items in both speeches. With regard to grammar, grammatical elements such

as the grammatical aspect, modal auxiliaries, pronouns and use of nominalization will be

analyzed. First attention will be given to the verb tenses like the imperfective and

perfective use. Furthermore I will search for the use of passive voice and whether this is

applied strategically. Second, the use of modal auxiliaries will be examined in order to

reveal power and intentions of the political leader, like in Obama’s known statement “Yes

we can”. Since modal auxiliaries are linked to the grammatical person, pronominalization

will be the third grammatical element that will be discussed. Finally, special attention will

be given to the nominalization in both speeches.

As for the lexical part a connection will be made between language and ideology and

language and power. By doing so, the meaning and purpose of the selected lexicon will

be examined by linking them to legitimization. This legitimization entails applying

lexicon strategically emotions, hypothetical future, rationality, voices of expertise and

altruism. (These concepts were already explained in Chapter 2.)

The first speech that will be analyzed is those of Obama, followed by Cameron’s. After

the analysis of both speeches, another part is included in this study where the most vital

differences and similarities with regard to grammar and lexicon will be discussed. Finally,

a conclusion and discussion will end this master’s study.

28

4. Analysis

4.1 Context

Before I start with the analysis of Barack Obama and David Cameron’s speeches, I will

first summarize the context and critical reception of the speeches. The speech of Barack

Obama was delivered on September 10th 2014, whereas Cameron’s presented his on

August 29th. Both speeches were given to discuss the terror threat which was raised after

the brutal acts taken by Islamic State, being the beheadings of American Journalists

James Foley and Steven Sotloff and British Journalists David Haines. Both politicians

therefore had to present their counterterrorism strategy in order to defeat ISIL. The

purpose of both speeches was to persuade their audience of presenting themselves as

proficient Commander-in-Chiefs.

The main subject which can be linked to the context of the events is terrorism. The

European Commission (2015) defines terrorism as a threat that attacks individuals and

states, regardless of their geographical location. Since this master’s study concerns two

speeches on terrorism, I will discuss both countries’ involvement in the domain.

4.1.1 Terrorism in America

Previous American president, George Bush, was the first to use the expression “the war

on terror” after the unfortunate events that took place on 9/11. On September 11th 2001,

four airplanes hit America straight into the heart. Afterwards, previous al Qaida’s leader

Osama Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks. Commonweal (2009) said that

with Bush’s slogan “the war on terror” the image of Bin Laden was changed from a

Muslim leader into a military war commander. Also Bush had to position himself as a

Commander-in-Chief to deal with the post 9/11 situation.

De Genova (2010) stated that America then grew out from a homeland security state into

a global security state with an exceptional status. This policy originated in the Bush

doctrine in which America’s exceptionalism2 was clearly reflected. Some features of the

Bush doctrine, however, can also be reflected Obama’s legislature since they both share a

2 American exceptionalism is the theory that the United States is inherently different from other

nations. (Wikipedia, n. d.)

29

craving of counterterrorist feelings. De Genova (2010) stated that they both even focused

on a program of securitization as well for their homeland as internationally. After Bush’s

legislature, Obama put forth this exceptionalism in his 2008 when he declared: “If there is

anyone out there who still doubts that America is place where all things are

possible…tonight is your answer…So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism” (Obama,

2008).

The Muslim question

Ismail (2006, as cited in Mullin, 2011) stated that it were especially the Muslim symbols

such as Islamic movements that became a recurrent subject on the political agenda during

the post 9/11 period. Mullin (2011) asserted that due to this altered meaning of

movement, politics of fear came into being. As a result, the Bush doctrine proceeded with

a critical perception against the entire Islamic population.

Since the beginning of his candidacy, Obama also had to cope with his second Muslim

name, Hussein. In order to discuss the concept of terror properly, a more ingenious

respond on how to distinguish terrorists from Muslims had to be given. Obama’s election

was therefore perceived as “a new beginning for relations between the United States and

Muslims” (Saul, 2009, as cited in Mullin, p. 265). This way the so called ‘war on terror’

should not be perceived as a war against Islam.

In the excerpt below it is clear how Obama dealt with bringing up the Muslim question to

the people in his speech in Washington in 2007. Here, he clearly included that Muslims

should be seen as citizens of the United States who should be equally treated as other

American citizens.

As president, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll

back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. ... We will

open "America Houses" in cities across the Islamic world, with

Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America's Muslims

and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs.

Through a new "America's Voice Corps" we will recruit, train, and

send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak

with--and listen to--the people who today hear about us only from

our enemies. (Obama, 2007)

When it comes to Bush’s and Obama’s discourse, Mullin (2011, p. 265) stated that

Obama is more “sensitive to the power of language and its ability to impact perceptions

and relations between peoples and states”. This way, Obama tends to make use of his

30

subtle language by claiming that terror should be seen as a form of tactic and “not as an

enemy”. In 2009 Obama declared the following: “The language we use matters.” The use

of Obama’ language will thoroughly be discussed in the grammatical and lexical analysis

of this chapter.

4.1.2 Terrorism in Britain

The former American terror threat unfortunately grew out to a global threat, which also

reflected upon Great-Britain. Last August 2014 inhuman actions were taken by another

terrorist group called ISIL. ISIL is also an extreme terrorist organization, controlling

territory in Syria and Iraq. Their most monstrous extremity was seen when they dispersed

gruesome propaganda in which they beheaded American freelance war correspondent,

James Foley and Steven Sotloff but also British Journalist David Haines. With regard to

those terrifying events, the United States and Great-Britain set up an international

coalition against ISIL.

The Telegraph (2014) stated that last August 2014 Britain experienced the “greatest

terrorist threat in history”. The terror threat level was raised due to the attack on British

journalist. Second, the departure of more than 500, 2000 unofficially confirmed, Britons

leaving for Syria or Iraq to join ISIL, frightened the British government as well.

Therefore Cameron (2014) declared: “what we’re facing in Iraq now with ISIL is a

greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before”.

Even though terrorism marked Britain hard last year, the country was also confronted

with terrorist acts before. These are further explained in the analysis on Cameron since he

refers to the events in his speech.

31

4.2 Critical reception of the speeches

The second part in the introduction is the critical reception of the speeches. The main goal

of Obama’s and Cameron’s speeches was to respond to this terror threat by explaining

their counter-terrorism strategy in order to assure the security of their countrymen.

In this section I will discuss how the press reacted on Obama’s and Cameron’s political

discourse. In general, many negative reactions were given on the speeches. In Frum

(2014, para. 1) from the Atlantic for instance accused Obama for his emotional speech

that expressed the idea “Don’t blame me.” Frum (2014, para. 12) stated that Obama’s

speech was merely an emotional reaction with no clear strategy and no success. Rogan

(2014, para.7) from the National Review questioned his strategy since Obama was not

planning to send enough special forces on ground in Eastern and North/Central Iraq,

which is essential in order to defeat ISIL according to him. Rogan (2014, para. 2) also

reproached Obama for highlighting his popularity. Rogan (2014, para. 2) also adds that

the primary focus of the speech had to be ‘destroying ISIL’ and not accentuating his own

success in previous counterterrorism strategy against al Qaida.

Also British Prime Minister David Cameron was accused by The Week (2014, para. 11)

for not having a concrete plan to destroy ISIL and advised to get back to work. He

actually completely questioned Cameron’s capability of leading Britain in this war

against ISIL by saying that he is too influenced by public opinion and needed to get back

to work.

When it comes to Obama’s expression of ‘ISIL is not Islamic’, many Twitter reactions

were posted concerning this idea. Killough (2014, para.1) from CNN discussed that most

reactions accused this statement of not making sense at all since ISIL stands for ‘Islamic

State of Iraq and the Levant’. According to these people Obama did not succeed at

persuading his audience of making the separation between Islam and terrorism.

32

4.3 Speech analysis Obama

In this section, the references to historical events, which Obama associates the ISIL

actions with, will first be explained and discussed. This will be the introduction to the

actual analysis of the speech. Furthermore, I will examine which frames and metaphors

are applied by America’s leader. And finally, a grammatical and lexical analysis of the

speech will be given.

4.3.1 References to history

In the fragment below, Obama wants to refer to the history America has gone through

when it comes to fighting terrorism. First he refers to the assassination of former al

Qaida’s leader Osama Bin Laden, who was held responsible for the attacks of 9/11.

Afterwards, he explains how they, being Obama and the American government, were able

to target the affiliate in Yemen and how they executed the leader of al Qaida’s affiliate in

Somalia.

Over the last several years, we have consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten

our country. We took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in

Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen, and recently

eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. We’ve done so while bringing

more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in

Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military

and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer. (Obama, 2014)

The former leader of the terrorist group al Qaida was shot by Navy SEALs and CIA

paramilitary forces in Abottabad, Afghanistan on May 2 2011. According to BBC News

(2012) military forces searched for him near a Pakistani military academy, where

helicopters came in and attacked the commandos. Then Osama Bin Laden was shot.

During the entire operation, Bin Laden’s family was kept hostile and no other Americans

were hurt. Only his adult son Khalid Bin Laden was shot along with two random women.

According to BBC News (2012) the news of the raid of Osama Bin Laden immediately

raised questions whether al Qaida or other terrorist groups would respond with attacks to

the death of the ‘mastermind’ behind 9/11.

The second subject Obama points out to in the same excerpt concerns the execution al-

Shaab leader, an affiliate of al Qaida. The Telegraph (2014) stated how Ahmed Godane

was killed by American military forces on September 5 2014, which was one month after

33

the beheading of James Foley. By referring to these events, Obama gains trust from the

audience as being a competent Commander-in-Chief.

In the excerpt below, Obama wants to refer to one of America’s greatest historic events.

Here he indicates how the Americans were marked through 9/11 (See Introduction) and

the Great Depression. The Great Depression3 was a worldwide economic crisis, but

marked America even stronger since it originated there. The start of the Great Depression

was on October 29, 1929 when the stock market crashed. This crisis had serious

consequences for the rich and poor. Personal wages, taxes and prices dropped, and the

entire international trade crashed. Ever since, the Great Depression has become an

important symbol for the economy of America because it showed that the country

survived the pain and that the G.D. made them even stronger than before. Therefore

Obama refers to this historic event because he wants to point out that America is strong

enough to deal with shocks that can damage their economy and mobility.

My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change. Tomorrow marks 13 years since

our country was attacked. Next week marks six years since our economy suffered its

worst setback since the Great Depression. Yet despite these shocks, through the pain we

have felt and the grueling work required to bounce back, America is better positioned

today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth. (Obama, 2014)

The following excerpt concerns two aspects of American history, such as American

exceptionalism and the American Dream.4

Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that

has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that

has rallied the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian peoples’

right to determine their own destiny. It is America –- our scientists, our doctors, our

know-how –- that can help contain and cure the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that

helped remove and destroy Syria’s declared chemical weapons so that they can’t pose a

threat to the Syrian people or the world again. And it is America that is helping Muslim

communities around the world not just in the fight against terrorism, but in the fight for

opportunity, and tolerance, and a more hopeful future. (Obama, 2014)

3 The Great Depression was a severe worldwide economic depression in the 1930s. The timing of

the Great Depression varied across nations; however, in most countries it started in 1929 and

lasted until the late 1930. (Wikipedia, n.d.) 4 The American Dream is a national ethos of the United States, a set of ideals in which freedom

includes the opportunity for prosperity and success, and an upward social mobility for the family

and children, achieved through hard work in a society with few barriers. (Wikipedia, n.d.)

34

These two concepts are not expressed directly, but are used as an underlying metaphor.

First, Obama refers to the fact that America has the best leadership in the world and has

the best strategy to conquer terrorists. In this way, his expression of “American

leadership” is a reference to the metaphor of American exceptionalism since this theory

reflects that the United States outstand other countries in every domain. The Washington

Post (1996) stated that this idea was founded by Winston Churchill who clearly

distinguished the concept of national identity and ideology. In 1940 Churchill gave a

speech in the House of Commons in which he declared that being American is an

ideological commitment. Therefore one cannot compare American citizens with European

people since being Europe is related to a community, whereas being American is a matter

of birth. (The Washington Post, 1996)

Second, the excerpt contains an expression of “fight for opportunity, and tolerance, and a

more hopeful future”. This can be considered as a reference to the underlying metaphor of

the American Dream. This dream should guarantee all Americans to live in a peaceful

country with opportunities and prosperity without any fear whatsoever. Adams (1931)

asserted that the American Dream is “that dream of a land in which life should be better

and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or

achievement” (Adams, 1931). Opportunity, tolerance and future are therefore strong

words that bring meaning to the American Dream.

4.3.2 Framing

In addition to historical references, Obama also uses framing to influence the perception

of the audience. Obama tends to frame his messages in terms of protecting America and

defeating IS. Therefore, his primary concern is providing national security through a

counter-terrorism strategy. Below I will give an overview of the most important frames

that are put forward in his speech. These frames were chosen based on own interpretation

and with regard to the literature review.

America has experience in defeating terrorists and will do the same for ISIL.





35




As explained in the section on References to history, Obama points out that America has

already executed several military operations when it comes to defeating terrorists. Here

he clearly indicates how he, together with his military government, did their utmost to

defeat the terrorist group al Qaeda, which had the upper hand before ISIL did. He applies

logos here by highlighting his knowledge and competence in the domain, which might

persuade the audience of him being a proficient Commander-in-Chief. Obama affirms

that America succeeded well in achieving this counter-terrorism goal, inviting the

audience to believe that he can pursue the same goal by destroying the terrorist group

ISIL.

Muslims may not be confused with terrorists: “ISIL is not Islamic.”

Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.” No religion condones the killing

of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is

certainly not a state. (Obama, 2014)

As mentioned in the introduction, Obama made a clear statement in 2007 when it comes

to separating the Muslim world from the terrorist groups. Also in his Statement on ISIL in

2014, he asserts that ISIL is not Islamic and we therefore cannot accuse Muslims of being

terrorists. This way he clearly wants to show his respect to this group of the population.

By doing so, he is hoping for more support from the Muslim world in order to defeat

ISIL.

America is at its strongest today.






As mentioned in References to history, the Great Depression had a severe impact on

America’s economy and the well-being of all American citizens. In the excerpt above,

Obama underlines that although this crisis hit America hard, they managed to overcome.

He also mentions the events of 9/11 in order to point out that they, being him and the

36

government, have developed a mobilized military strategy. As a result, he frames the

image of a stronger America that is sustained against these shocks. This frame also

appeals to the audience’s emotions since the G.D. is a sensitive subject for the Americans.

Nevertheless, Obama’s way of highlighting America’s strength also persuades the

audience in believing him that he will do anything to destroy ISIL.

America has a strong leadership and is the only country that can ultimately destroy

terrorists.









opportunity, and tolerance, and a more hopeful future. (Obama, 2014)

In this excerpt, Obama wants to highlight the idea that ‘it is America’ that has the best

leadership in the world. He clearly emphasizes that his nation is the strongest by

mentioning his nation’s involvement in other domains such as the Russian aggression,

Ebola, the victory over chemical weapons of Syria. This frame is also related to the

concept of America’s Exceptionalism, that America takes the upper hand in being unique

in the world, which also reflects on the counter-terrorism strategy (the metaphor of

America’s Exceptionalism is further explained in the section on metaphors). In the end he

wants to gain trust from the audience by explaining that all Americans will have the

opportunity to achieve their American Dream when these terrorists are conquered. The

expression “It is America” is used here as repetition with the purpose of amplification to

highlight America’s Exceptionalism.

America is the free leader of the world

With regard to American exceptionalism, Obama wants to frame his country as the leader

of freedom. He therefore mentions the release of the Yazadi’s refugees since American

troops rescued them, when bombing ISIL. This expression persuades the audience to

believe that America has experience in liberating people. The idea of being the rescuer is

also framed through the two other excerpts. Obama highlights this patriotism, claiming

that God created America to lead the free world.

37

When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here's

what one of them said. “We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will always

remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to

protect innocent people.” (Obama, 2014)

That is the difference we make in the world. And our own safety — our own security —

depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation, and uphold the

values that we stand for — timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only

hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth. (Obama, 2014)

May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America. (Obama,

2014)

4.3.3 Metaphor

In this section, I will discuss the metaphors that are included in Obama’s speech. The

literature review clearly showed that metaphors are a recurrent pattern in political

discourse since they have a great influence on the audience’s perception. With regard to

this speech, I will look for the journey, construction and war metaphor.

The Journey Metaphor

The Journey Metaphor implies that one should go on a journey to find his or her

destination. Politicians tend to apply this type of metaphor to highlight the purpose of

politics since it makes relating to the journey they have to undergo more interesting for

the audience. The Journey Metaphor also concerns movement, which is applicable to this

speech since the freedom and security of the Americans have been imprisoned by the

terrorist group, ISIL. The most known conceptual metaphors in this domain are LIFE IS

JOURNEY and POLITICS IS A JOURNEY. In the extracts below, I will try to find more precise

conceptual metaphors that fall under this domain.

In the first excerpt, the journey metaphor is also present by the adjective forward. Obama

wants to highlight the concept of forward motion since it is related to positive actions.

Moving forward also means getting closer to one’s destination. By using this metaphor,

he invites the listeners to think alike and go forward in the counterterrorism strategy.

Moving backwards on the other hand obviously evokes negative connotations so he

38

avoids talking about the past and does not highlight the negative actions which were made

in the past with regard to the domain of counterterrorism.

Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. (Obama, 2014)

The second metaphor which can be found in the speech, is the A JOURNEY’S LEADER IS A

POLITICAL LEADER metaphor. This metaphor is applied by Obama to stress the fact that

every journey needs a leader. The excerpts below show how America wants to go further

with its ultimate task and therefore journey: to lead the free world. A leader is considered

to be wise and powerful. By doing so, Obama emphasizes the exceptionalism that

America brings about. He makes the listener believe that it is America that is responsible

for the entire world. This can also be perceived as appealing to the audience by using

ethos since he believes it is his moral duty to lead the free world and to stop the brutality

ISIL stands for.

Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. (Obama, 2014)

But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. (Obama, 2014)

I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition roll back this terrorist threat.

(Obama, 2014)

The last excerpt show how Obama informs his audience about his broad coalition against

ISIL. Here he underlines how America will be leading this international coalition.

The War Metaphor

The second type of metaphor that will be discussed in this section is the War or Fight

Metaphor, which is well-integrated in America’s political discourse. Due to the

unfortunate events of 9/11, the metaphor “the war on terror” became a well-integrated

element in the political landscape. The excerpt below discusses the metaphor POLITICS IS

WAR, which is a typical example of the war metaphor. The verb to fight is used here as a

metaphor to indicate the enemy. By using this verb, Obama makes the audience to dislike

the enemy even more. Obama clearly makes a goal-oriented relation here, claiming that

America is helping Muslim Communities to fight against terrorism and fight for

39

opportunity. He emphasizes that a hopeful future which bears reference to the American

Dream does not only concern the Americans but the Muslim communities as well.

And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the

fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, and tolerance, and a more hopeful

future. (Obama, 2014)

A final interesting metaphor is used by Obama to compare Islamic State to a disease,

namely a cancer. The metaphor formulated as TERRORISM IS A DISEASE, stresses the

cruelty and unhuman actions ISIL stands for. The nominalization cancer can refer to

terrorism as well as to disease since both concepts stand for being unhuman and

uncivilized. By integrating this metaphor, the people are able to visualize what Obama is

saying, which makes it more understandable.

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. (Obama, 2014)

4.3.4 Grammatical analysis

In this section, the use of Obama’s grammar in his ISIL speech will be analyzed. First of

all, the use of grammatical aspect will be discussed. Second, attention will be given to

modal auxiliaries in order to show Obama’s point of view towards the public. Third, the

use of pronouns will be discussed since they have the power to reveal the speaker’s real

intentions. And finally, the importance of nominalization will be analyzed since nominal

groups have the ability to remain vague about actions and to keep the agent irresponsible.

Grammatical aspect

In this section the use of the grammatical aspect will be examined. According to the

literature grammatical forms, which has already been discussed in chapter 2, the

perfective and imperfective aspect are used to achieve different goals. Whenever actions

are still going on, the imperfective aspect is applied. If a speaker wants to indicate that the

actions are still going on, the perfective aspect comes in to play.

When discussing negative actions in political discourse, the literature review asserts that

the imperfective aspect would lead an audience to think that a political candidate has

undertaken negative actions that are still going on. The perfective aspect on the contrary

40

would entail an end of actions that were undertaken by the politician (Fausey & Matlock,

2011; Matlock, 2012).

In the extract below, Obama uses the perfective aspect. (took out, targeted, eliminated,

done)

As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security of the American people.








Obama applies the perfective aspect of the verbs to take out, to target and to eliminate in

order to give power to the sentence. In this way he wants to emphasize that he has done

several actions in order to defeat terrorism. He begins with bringing up the actions when

he took out the former leader of al Qaida, Osama Bin Laden. Furthermore he underlines

how he targeted the affiliate of al Qaida and eliminated the leader of its affiliate in

Somalia. And finally, he uses the perfective aspect in order to state that he has brought

back a high number of American soldiers safe and sound to the United States. This means

that the perfective use is a good choice since he proves that he as good experience in

dealing with terrorist acts, which ended properly in the past.

In the following excerpts, Obama uses the imperfective aspect to stress the good that is

being done. (meeting, flying, sending, sharing, providing)

I know many Americans are concerned about these threats. Tonight, I want you to know

that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. (Obama,

2014)

The first excerpt contains an imperfective use of the verb to meet. Obama might want to

escape responsibility that he hasn’t met the enemy with strength and resolve before. But

he reformulates by using the imperfective aspect in order to make the audience believe

that he will do so now.

41

Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending arms and assistance to Iraqi

security forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing intelligence; and providing billions of

dollars in humanitarian aid. (Obama, 2014)

The second one shows that Obama uses the imperfective aspect to prove that he has

occupied himself in order to take actions. In this way, he formulates that he has a strategy.

Now he says that he is sending arms, sharing intelligence, providing humanitarian aid and

planes to Syria. Although these actions have not solved anything and are therefore not

finished yet, he puts himself in a positive light. The choice of the imperfective aspect is

therefore suitable here.

In the last extract which is included in this section, Obama uses another important

element concerning verbs, which is the passive voice. (was attacked)






By using the passive voice, Obama wants to emphasize the external factors that have had

positive consequences on the strength of America. He does so in this particular case in

order to make the listener believe that America could not prevent such gruesome acts.

The use of the passive voice is therefore a good choice to shift responsibility from the

events.

Modal auxiliaries

As mentioned in the literature review, modal auxiliaries are used to indicate modality.

The modal auxiliaries are: can, could, may, might, must, shall, should, would and will.

Below, a graph is included in this section to show the most frequent modal verbs in

Obama’s speech, which are will and can.

42

Figure 1 The frequency of modal auxiliaries in Obama's speech.

The modal will is used 28 times. The figure shows that it is the most frequent modal verb

in Obama’s speech. According to the literature review, will indicates the politician’s

intentions with regard to the future. This can be explained by the fact that will symbolizes

Obama’s rhetorical use of language. By using will he wants to persuade the listener about

his intentions to destroy Islamic State. Since he wants to focus on the future, he avoids

talking about the government’s mistake that were made in the past. Furthermore the use

of will makes the listener believe that his plans will have an impact on the actual

situation.

Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL through a

comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy. (Obama, 2014)

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists.

Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our

own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces

go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who

threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action

against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you

threaten America, you will find no safe haven. (Obama, 2014)

The excerpts above, indicate how Obama uses will to mark his counterterrorism strategy.

The first excerpt clearly shows how will brings power to his objective and to this

sentence. Here he highlights the determination of his purpose to ultimately destroy ISIL.

The second is one part of his fourfold strategy in which the paragraph contains the use of

will to accentuate his plans for the future. The following paragraphs with regard to his

strategy are also strengthened by the modal will.

43

The second frequent used modal is can, which expresses ability. When using can, Obama

wants to make the people aware of their abilities and opportunities This modal verb

received even more attention, due to the slogan of Obama’s known statement (Yes, we

can).

But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a decisive difference, but we

cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab

partners in securing their region. (Obama, 2014)

In this excerpt, Obama wants to point out on the one hand that America has the ability to

fight against Islamic State. On the other hand it also contains the negation of the modal

can, cannot. This use of modality is interesting because Obama also could have said “we

must not”. He uses cannot to urge on the impossibility.

Pronominalization

The graph below shows how the inclusive and exclusive we, being the first person plural

pronoun were the most frequent pronouns in Obama’s speech, followed by I, you, and

they.

Figure 2 The frequency of pronouns in Obama's speech.

As mentioned in the literature review, political leaders use the inclusive we to show unity

and solidarity. The most frequent pronoun is the inclusive we, which expresses unity and

solidarity. This pronoun is numerous throughout the entire speech. In the two excerpts

below, Obama uses our to stress that America which includes him and his citizens, were

44

both threatened by the terrorists. In this way he transfers a feeling of unity, that they have

to stick together to cooperate alike.


our country. (Obama, 2014)

We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home from Iraq, and

drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat mission will end later this

year. Thanks to our military and counterterrorism professionals, America is

safer. (Obama, 2014)

In the second excerpt, he refers to the cooperation which was realized in the past. This

was achieved by the military which includes citizens as well as counterterrorism

professionals that fall under his government. This whole expression transmits the idea

that America relies equally on the government as well as on military forces, which is a

democratic thing to say. Obama emphasizes that the mission will end because of the

cooperation of these two crucial groups

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched. Our manufacturing and auto

industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades. For all

the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job

creation in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see

the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single

day –- and that makes me more confident than ever about our country’s future. (Obama,

2014)

As mentioned in the extract above, Obama uses the inclusive we, our, to put pressure on

the people by persuading them that the technology companies, universities,

manufacturing and car industries they work in and form their economy, can be damaged.

By using our he manipulates the audience into believing that they should work together in

order to maintain their prospering economy. This results in an identification with the

speaker and the hearer. Therefore, he urges on the unity which is crucial in order to

guarantee America’s future.

Another interesting aspect is the use of the inclusive we to refer to the international

coalition America is about to lead. The feeling of unity and solidarity is clearly expressed

by using the inclusive we here. In the first excerpt, Obama informs the world about the

international coalition under leadership of America. In the second excerpt, the inclusive

we, our, is present in the second excerpt. The inclusive use of the first personal pronoun

is normally used to refer to the politician himself, the government and the citizens. In the

45

second excerpt on the contrary, it refers to the countries of the coalition America will be

leading. Even though America’s exceptionalism is present throughout the speech, he still

wants to emphasize this feeling of unity with the other countries here to destroy ISIL

completely.

So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following consultations with allies

abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to

roll back this terrorist threat. (Obama, 2014)



In the first extract below, Obama uses the inclusive and the exclusive we together in one

sentence. The inclusive we is used here to indicate the unity of America and its citizens,

including their military, assuring their support will be increased in order to make

everybody safe.

Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In

June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq to assess how we can

best support Iraqi security forces. (Obama, 2014)

We’ll also support Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni

communities secure their own freedom from ISIL’s control. (Obama, 2014)

The exclusive we, however, focusses more on the responsibility that Obama and his

government have to take in order to fight against the terrorists, which is a suitable

pronoun here since the exclusive we is used to refer to the politician himself and the

government. Thus, Obama does not include the citizens by using we. This way he

emphasizes that he positions himself together with his government responsible for

fighting terrorism. He does so by claiming that they will increase forces leaving for Iraq.

In the second excerpt, he also points out that the government and he will support Iraq’s

effort to secure the freedom of their own citizens against ISIL. By using the exclusive we,

he highlights his actions and decisions in order to make the listener believe that their

president and his government are undertaking actions to make America safe again.

The third frequent pronoun that I will discuss is the first person singular. Normally,

Obama tends to avoid that particular pronoun to show that he is in control of the situation.

In the extract below, Obama shows that he is confidently saying that he will do his utmost

46

to resolve the situation. By doing so, he shows full responsibility towards his commitment

to the subject. This would make the audience feel confident about the leader.


that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. Last month,

I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. (Obama,

2014)

They is used by Obama to highlight the evilness which the terrorist bring about. They is

used to create a distance between America and the evildoer. They refers to the terrorists

who bring America into danger and disrupt its harmony by saying that they execute, kill,

enslave, rape, slaughter etc. This allows the listener to believe that all Americans have to

unite in order to fight against the otherness, being the terrorists, so that the self cannot be

broken.

In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these terrorists are unique in their

brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and

force women into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And in

acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists -- Jim Foley and Steven

Sotloff. (Obama, 2014)

Finally, you is used in the speech to confront the enemy directly, which is ISIL.

This is a core principle of America: If you hurt America, you will find no safe haven.

(Obama, 2014)

In the excerpt above, Obama formulates himself as the leader of America who threatens

ISIL with a direct message, claiming that if you hurt America, you will regret it. The use

of you here is plain and simple but transfers a strong and clear message. The combination

of you and the modal verb will also bring power to the sentence since it affirms America’s

determination of defeating the terrorist group.

Nominalization

The last grammatical category which will be analyzed in the speech of Obama, is the use

of nominalization. The literature review showed how nominalization can be used to avoid

speaking about the agent who is held responsible for the situation.

In the excerpt below Obama highlights that he has undertaken many measures in order to

defeat the nation’s greatest enemy. By using this expression, Obama accentuates his

47

intentions throughout the years even though the enemy clearly hasn’t been defeated yet.

This way, he shifts responsibility from the cruel terror acts that are the subject of the

speech.


our country. (Obama, 2014)

The extract below shows how Obama underlines his strategy of dealing with the terrorist

situation. Here he indicates how he is taking several measures in order to conquer ISIL

such as improving good partnership, intelligence, military etc. His final measure which he

discusses here refers to the most disturbing problem he wants to deal with and cannot

seems to manage at the moment. By including his intention of decreasing the flow of

foreign fighters at end of his enumeration, and by using a nominalization he reduces

responsibility for the current situation.

Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve

our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology; and stem the flow

of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East. (Obama, 2014)

As already mentioned in the section on metaphor in Obama’s analysis, Obama used the

metaphor TERRORISM IS A DISEASE to stress the uncivilized profile of Islamic State. By

integrating the nominalization cancer in this expression, Obama shifts responsibility since

he admits that it will take time to destroy ISIL completely. The nominalization cancer is

therefore an ideal way for Obama to reduce his responsibility, explaining how difficult it

is to defeat such a cruel terrorist group. This way America’s president is hoping for

understanding from the audience and is soliciting for their trust and patience.


4.3.5 Lexical analysis

In this section I will make a connection between Obama’s use of language and the

ideology which he stands for. As mentioned in the literature review, politicians tend to

use certain lexicon to justify actions or behaviors in the world. Reyes (2010) asserts five

strategies of legitimization: emotions, hypothetical future, rationality, voices of expertise

and altruism. The use of these strategies, however, is based on the goal setting of the

48

politician. Considering the context here, I will examine which strategies Obama applies to

obtain and maintain power since ISIL has threatened America’s power.

Emotions

The first strategy is applied to appeal to the audience’s emotions. In this way, politicians

want to establish a feeling of we and they to create a distance between the safe basis,

which is America and the evilness, which are the terrorists. The strategy therefore is

applied to highlight positive and negative actions.

The extract below, clearly mentions the brutality which ISIL stands for and the actions

they have undertaken. Obama wants to highlight the negative actions the terrorist group

has done to America and will probably do again in the future. The accentuation of the

they-group, being the terrorists, was already discussed in the section on pronouns.






As a response to these negative actions, Obama sets out a strong powerful expression by

which he introduces his counterterrorism strategy in order to defeat ISIL. By doing so he

wants to highlight the positive profile of America that has a clear objective to defeat ISIL.



As mentioned in the literature review, pathos is a rhetorical device that appeals to the

audience’s emotions. In the excerpts above, Obama applies pathos so that each American

citizen will emotionally be involved. First a feeling of anger and fear will occur.

Afterwards Obama wants to gain a feeling of trust by explaining his objective in order to

reduce America’s fear and anger.

Hypothetical future

The second strategy deals with the legitimization through hypothetical future. The

literature review pointed out that conditionals come in to play in fear, threat or when

imminent action is required. The context of terror is therefore an applicable way to

legitimate actions. The excerpt below shows a clear statement in which Obama expresses

49

his goals for the future. This exemplifies how he uses language as an instrument of

control.


(Obama, 2014)

Obama wants to emphasize his power by using the IF-clause. Since the actions of ISIL

threatened America, his reaction can be interpreted as threatening as well. By doing so he

addresses ISIL directly, by using a core principle of America which now is applicable to

ISIL. This is direct communication and can be interpreted by ISIL that America will

equally harm their group and men if they continue to hurt America. With this expression

he transform himself from being America’s president into a military war commander.

This transportable identity allows Obama to position himself as one who has the power to

conquer ISIL, which will gain trust from the audience and augment his credibility.

Rationality

The third strategy concerns the goals and uses of social actions that institutions undertake

in order to deal with the situation. The literature review asserted the term of ‘Theoretical

Rationalizaton’ which is effectuated by politicians who call on institutions in order to set

up a rational strategy.

Since America was attacked by ISIL, Obama was obliged to set up a more effective

counter-terrorism strategy as soon as possible. Even though he mentions in his speech that

he already has developed one, he still accentuates the fact that he is consulting several

institutions in order to improve the mode of operation. In the excerpts below, Obama

points out that he will call on Congress to ask for additional authorities. Furthermore he

informs us that he will chair a meeting with the U.N. Security Council to improve the

international involvement on this matter since it is an international subject. This strategy

can also be linked to the rhetorical device ethos. Obama wants to prove that he is

concerned about the listener, which portrays his goodwill and moral obligation to defeat

the terrorist group, ISIL.

Tonight I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train

and equip these fighters. (Obama, 2014)

And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further mobilize

the international community around this effort. (Obama, 2014)

50

Voices of expertise

The fourth strategy entails legitimization through voices of expertise which is used to

show the evidence of the politician’s acquired knowledge in his political discourse.

Therefore I will examine whether facts such as numbers, social actors and social

institutions are emphasized by Obama to increase this reliability.

The first excerpt below tells us that Obama wants to highlight the knowledge he has

acquired in the domain of terrorism. By doing so he puts forward the actions he has

undertaken in fighting terrorists that have threatened America. This extract clearly shows

that he has gained intelligence, which is also typical for applying the rhetorical device,

logos.





eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. (Obama, 2014)

In the excerpts below, Obama uses numbers or facts to increase his reliability. In the first

excerpt below he mentions the number of American troops he brings home after they

have completed their military mission. This also increases his reliability as a powerful

Commander-in-Chief that not only guarantees the safety of his American citizens, but his

American troops as well. Furthermore he underlines that he is proud of his military and

counterterrorism professionals. In the two other excerpts below, Obama refers to more

than 150 successful airstrikes to fight against ISIL and how 475 service members were

sent to Iraq to proceed the military operation.





Last month, I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its

advances. Since then, we’ve conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq.

Now that those teams have completed their work –- and Iraq has formed a government –-

we will send an additional 475 servicemembers to Iraq.

The excerpt below shows that he has negotiated several actions with allies and other

actors to defeat the terrorist group. In the first he also talks about the broad coalition he

51

has set up with this partners in order to have a strong international resistance against ISIL.

Obama also underlines that Iraqi security forces and Syrian opposition are supporting

humanitarian aid.

So this is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be

joined by a broad coalition of partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq;

sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing

intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in

Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote

unity.

And finally, the last excerpt shows how Obama welcomes congressional support for

defeating ISIL. This voice of expertise is highlighted since he mentions how President

and Congress should work together in order to be strongest nation.

My administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I

have the authority to address the threat from ISIL, but I believe we are strongest as a

nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional

support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting

this danger.

Altruism

The last strategy, being the legitimization of altruism, will be discussed in this section.

The literature review showed us that this strategy is used by politicians to highlight the

benefit and well-being of the group. Politicians tend to do so by emphasizing specific

values in the speech.

America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden. But as Americans, we

welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe to Asia, from the far reaches of Africa

to war-torn capitals of the Middle East, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity.

These are values that have guided our nation since its founding. (Obama, 2014)

In the extract above, Obama mentions the values which America stands for: freedom,

justice and dignity. Furthermore he puts forward how America is the free leader (See

‘Framing’).

These strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters,

destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory.

These strikes have also helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and

children. (Obama, 2014)

This legitimization is also transferred by the extract above since Obama tells us that the

strikes that were executed have protected America’s personnel and facilities. By doing so,

52

he strategically gains trust from his audience that he is concerned with the well-being of

his countrymen. Altruism is therefore a good strategy here to highlight the benefit of the

audience and to appeal to their emotions, especially since it concerns their safety.

53

4.4 Speech analysis Cameron

Cameron’s speech will be analyzed the same way as Obama’s was examined. This section

also discusses the references to historical events first. Afterwards, the occurrence of

interesting frames and metaphors will be discussed. Finally, a grammatical and lexical

analysis will be given, which also similar to the analysis of Obama’s speech.

4.4.1 References to history

In this section I will illustrate how Cameron refers to historical events during his speech.

He actually refers to three terrorist events of which one is 9/11, and two others that took

place in Great-Britain. Finally, he ends with the fact that Britain is confronted with home

grown terrorists5 as well as with foreign fighters.

Because 9/11 has been the greatest global terrorist act of all times, it is obvious Cameron

also refers to this event. He does so in the beginning of his speech to introduce the

subject. Afterwards he mentions two extremist acts Britain has gone through in the past,

being the assassination of Lee Rigby and the home grown 7/7 bombers near the

underground station of London. The excerpt below refers to these events.

Now this is not a new problem: we have seen this extremism before here in our own

country. We saw it with the sickening murder of Lee Rigby and we saw it too with the

home grown 7/7 bombers who blew up tube trains and buses. The links between what

happens overseas and what happens here has also always been there. Many of those who

sought to do us harm in the past have been foreign nationals living in Britain or even

British citizens who have returned from terrorist training camps in Pakistan or elsewhere around the world. (Cameron, 2014)

On May 22nd 2013, the British army soldier Lee Rigby was killed by Michael Adebolajo

and Michael Adebowale. The Telegraph (2013) stated that both assassinators, previous

Christians, converted to Islam to give more meaning to their existence. The attack on Lee

Righy was the second homegrown terrorist event after the 7/7 bombers. The British

newspaper also adjudicated how these men felt needed to take revenge on Britain’s

5 Homegrown terrorism or domestic terrorism is commonly associated with violent acts

committed by citizens or permanent residents of a state against their own people or property

within that state in effort to instill fear on a population or government as a tactic designed to

advance political, religious, or ideological objectives. (Wikipedia, n.d.)

54

foreign policy since they claimed that the country was at war with Muslims. Abedolajo

and Adebwoal called themselves ‘soldiers of Allah’. (The Telegraph, 2013)

7/7 Bombers6 is the second homegrown terrorist event referred to in this excerpt, that

happened on July 7th 2005. The event is called the ‘7/7 bombers’ because four home

grown Islamist terrorists threw four bombs at London’s underground. Due to this attack,

fifty-two British and the four terrorists were killed and more than 700 people were

injured. Thomas (2012) stated that “the shock came not only through the large-scale

deaths and very serious injuries, but also in the associated realities that these attacks were

suicide attacks, carried out by four young British Muslims” (Thomas, 2012, p. 15). In his

book on preventing extremism, he recommends a counter-terrorism strategy. This strategy

entails the importance of long-term integration for these young home grown Muslims

instead of neglecting them which only results in revenge actions on their society.

Besides these home grown Islamist terrorists, Britain has also been dealing ever since

with an upcoming rate of more Islamist foreign fighters, leaving for Syria and Iraq. The

Telegraph (2014) stated that about 2000 British jihadists would left Britain last year to

join ISIL. Cameron also refers to this event to highlight the alarming situation.

4.4.2 Framing

In this section I will give an overview of the frames that are used by Prime Minister

David Cameron in order to influence his audience’s perception. These frames were also

chosen based on own interpretation and with regard to the literature review.

Just like Obama did in his speech, Cameron also invites the listener to believe that Islam

should not be confused with extremism. Here he clearly wants to distinguish religion

from political ideology. By doing so, he shows respect to the Islamic religion.

Furthermore he explains the concept of extremism which only relies on a barbaric and

fanatic ideology, which ISIL stands for. This ideology is opposed to Western civilization,

where values such as freedom, peace and respect are vital. The frame is included in the

first excerpt below.

6 The 7 July 2005 London bombings (often referred to as 7/7) were a series of coordinated suicide

bomb attacks in central London which targeted civilians using the public transport system during

the morning rush hour. (Wikipedia, n.d.)

55

Islam may not be confused with terrorism.

So this is about a battle between Islam on the one hand and extremists who want to abuse

Islam on the other. It is absolutely vital that we make this distinction between religion and

political ideology. Islam is a religion observed peacefully and devoutly by over 1 billion

people. It is a source of spiritual guidance which daily inspires millions to countless acts of kindness.

Islamist extremism is a poisonous political ideology supported by a minority. These

extremists often funded by fanatics living comfortably far away from the battlefields

pervert the Islamic faith as a way of justifying their warped and barbaric ideology. (Cameron, 2014)

As explained before, Britain already witnessed terrorist acts. Nevertheless Cameron

clearly emphasizes that the greatest terror threat in nation’s history is occurring now. He

explains how the terrorist group, ISIL, longs for expanding its own terrorist state by

bordering a NATO member and reaching Europe even closer than Western society might

have thought. This frame is transferred in the excerpt below.

This is the greatest terror threat in history for Britain.

But what we’re facing in Iraq now with ISIL is a greater and deeper threat to our security

than we have known before. In Afghanistan, the Taliban were prepared to play host to al

Qaeda, a terrorist organisation. With ISIL, we are facing a terrorist organisation not being

hosted in a country but actually seeking to establish and then violently expand its own

terrorist state. And with designs on expanding to Jordan and Lebanon, right up to the

Turkish border, we could be facing a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a NATO member. (Cameron, 2014)

In the third extract, Cameron wants to persuade the people that Great-Britain will be safe

again. By doing so he puts forward the idea that a whole range of measures will be taken

in order to deal with the situation, which also portrays his goodwill. This ethos show how

Cameron is concerned about the listener and highlights the measures he is undertaking.

By exemplifying these items, he succeeds in portraying him as a trustworthy leader who

is willing to make Britain safer again.

Britain will be the same safe place again because of this strategy.

We will always take whatever action is necessary to keep the British people safe here at

home. Britain has some of the finest and most effective security and intelligence services

anywhere in the world. We will always act with urgency where needed, as we did with the

emergency data retention legislation which is already yielding results. And we’ve already

taken a whole range of measures to keep our people safe. We are stopping suspects from

travelling by seizing passports. We’re barring foreign nationals from reentering the UK.

We’re depriving people of citizenship and we are legislating so we can prosecute people for all terrorist activity, even where that activity takes place overseas. Cameron (2014)

56

The last frame which is included in this section invites the listener to believe that s/he

should stand up for the values that will destroy this terrorism. Cameron asserts that

although Britain is an open, tolerant and free nation, measures have to be taken so that

their openness will not be confused with a tolerance for extremism. He highlights the

British citizens’ duty, which is to stand up for their values in order to defeat extremism.

Our openness may not be confused with a tolerance of extremism.

Britain is an open, tolerant and free nation. We are a country that backs people in every

community, who want to work hard, make a contribution and build a life for themselves

and their families. But we cannot stand by and allow our openness to be confused with a

tolerance of extremism, or one that encourages different cultures to live separate lives and

allows people to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values. Adhering to

British values is not an option or a choice; it is a duty for those who live in these islands.

And in the end it is only by standing up for these values that will defeat the extremism,

protect our way of life and keep all our people safe. Cameron (2014)

4.4.3 Metaphor

In this section I will discuss which metaphors occur in Cameron’s speech. These are the

journey, construction and war metaphor.

The Journey Metaphor

As already mentioned in Obama’s analysis, the journey metaphor is used in political

discourse to indicate freedom of movement. This latter is of great importance since the

context of the speech concerns imprisonment of freedom whereby terrorist acts hold

people’s nations hostile.

In the excerpt below Cameron uses the verb to step up to concretize his strategy to

respond to ISIL. The underlying metaphor which can be found here is PREVENTING

TERRORIST ACTS IS A JOURNEY. By using the verb to step, he refers to moving forward and

walking. The verb allows to transform the abstract concept ‘operational response’ in a

more concrete matter. Cameron wants to concretize the subjects he is discussing. By

doing so, the listener will more easily understand what Cameron is saying. The use of

metaphor here is therefore a good idea to concretize his actions.

57

We’ve also stepped up our operational response. Since last year we’ve seen a fivefold

increase in Syria related arrests. We’ve seen port stops and cash seizures grow by over

50%. We’ve taken down 28,000 pieces of extremist material off the internet this year

alone, including 46 ISIL related videos. We made clear that those who carry ISIL flags or

seek to recruit to ISIL will be arrested and the material seized. And we’ve seen a 58%

increase in referrals to our de radicalisation programme, called the Channel Project. (Cameron, 2014)

The second excerpt contains the nominalization form of to step, which reflects the same

metaphor of PREVENTING TERRORIST ACTS IS A JOURNEY. The nominal steps concretizes

the information of the statement Cameron will be making.

I’ll be making a statement in the House of Commons on Monday. This will include

further steps to stop people travelling with new legislation that will make it easier to take

people’s passports away. (Cameron, 2014)

The journey metaphor is also present in the excerpt below, using the adjective forward.

By using forward, Cameron is able to explain how he will continue to drive his counter

extremism approach in his policy. The metaphor allows to concretize the subjects he is

talking about and the steps he has already taken, which makes him trustworthy.

Therefore, the listener will like him as a speaker and will believe that he will continue to

act accordingly.

That is why as Prime Minister I have driven a new approach to tackling radicalisation and

counter extremism in Britain, focusing on all types of extremism, not just violent

extremism. I set this out in my Munich speech in 2011 and I’ve driven this forward

through my extremism task force.

The Construction Metaphor

The second type of metaphor which can be found in Cameron’s speech is the construction

metaphor. The construction or deconstruction metaphor is often used by political leaders

to indicate how goals can be achieved or destructed. The construction metaphor is

integrated in political discourse by verbs such as to build or to shape. In the excerpt below

the nominalization building blocks is used to evince the strength of Britain’s democracy.

This refers to the underlying metaphor DEMOCRACY IS A CONSTRUCTION. The metaphor

allows to concretize what Cameron is saying, concerning the strength of their nation’s

democracy.

So we must support the building blocks of democracy, the rule of law, the independence

of the judiciary, the rights of minorities, free media, free association, a proper place in

society for the army, and we must show perseverance. (Cameron, 2014)

58

Another example of the construction metaphor which is reflected by the verb to build is

pointed out in the excerpt below. Here Cameron applies to build in order to highlight the

concern of how the British should construct a prosperous and meaningful life. By using

the metaphor BUILDING A MEANINGFUL LIFE FOR ONESELF AND EACH OTHER IS A

CONTRIBUTION TO A NATION’S JOURNEY.

We are a country that backs people in every community, who want to work hard, make a

contribution and build a life for themselves and their families. (Cameron, 2014)

The War Metaphor

The excerpt below concerns the war metaphor. The war metaphor, formulated as BRITAIN

IS AT WAR WITH TERRORISM, is used by the means of the nominalization struggle to stress

the difficult task Great-Britain is undergoing. This way, Cameron concretizes how tough

it really is to completely destroy the enemy, ISIL. He enhances his expression by adding

‘poisonous and extremist ideology’ which accentuates the meaning of struggle even more.

By explaining the latter via the metaphor Cameron is seen as trustworthy by the people

since he conveys his honest thoughts. Nevertheless he proves he wants to continue his

strategy and conquer ISIL, by applying verbs such as to fight. Cameron wants to

concretize his intentions towards ISIL, clarifying that he is willing to fight as long as it

takes to defeat terrorism. The combination of these words in the same paragraph is a good

idea since it conveys the matter in a more concrete way. This will be appreciated by the

audience since Cameron concretizes the difficulty of his goals on the one hand, but show

his willingness to fight against ISIL on the other hand.

Not just because these building blocks take time to put in place, but because we are in the

middle of a generational struggle against a poisonous and extremist ideology that I

believe we’ll be fighting for years and probably decades. (Cameron, 2014)

In this excerpt, the war metaphor BRITAIN IS AT WAR WITH TERRORISM also occurs. Only

here the verb to fight can be replaced by the verb to combat and the expression to tackle

head on at root.

Now, as well as being tough, patient and intelligent, we also need to take a comprehensive

approach. Dealing with this threat is not just about new powers. It is about how we

combat extremism in all its forms. We need to tackle that ideology of Islamist extremism

head on at root before it takes the form of violence and terror. (Cameron, 2014)

59

4.4.4 Grammatical analysis

This section focusses on the grammatical analysis of the speech of Cameron. Just like in

Obama’s analysis, grammatical aspect, modal auxiliaries, pronouns and the use of

nominalization will be analyzed. In this grammatical analysis, the grammatical elements

will not be equally introduced as in those of Obama since they were already explained in

the literature review and briefly reviewed in the grammatical analysis of Obama.

Grammatical aspect

In the extract below, the imperfective aspect of the verb to face is used three times. By

using the imperfective aspect, Cameron clearly shows that the actions are still going on,

which evokes a negative connotation. He underlines the fact that Britain is now facing the

greatest terror threat in history. Furthermore, he also enlarges the problem, by using the

imperfective aspect of the verbs to seek and to expand since ISIL continues to stretch out.

In this way the imperfective aspect doesn’t shift Cameron’s responsibility but expresses

the actual situation Britain is dealing with.






Turkish border, we could be facing a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and bordering a NATO member. (Cameron, 2014)

In the second excerpt Cameron want to highlight the actions he already has undertaken in

the past in order to deal with terrorism, especially homegrown terrorists. He does so by

applying the perfective aspect. This allows the listeners to understand how committed

Cameron has been to the subject and how he already has succeeded to take hold of several

incidents or to undertake measures. As a result, the audience is reminded of the good

Cameron has accomplished. This evokes a feeling of trust for their Prime Minister.






60


The third excerpt is also an interesting one since it shows how the perfective and the

imperfective aspect are being used in one statement. Cameron uses the perfective aspect

of to chair and to agree to position himself as a leader who has undertaken several actions

to deal with the terror threat. Formulating his actions with the perfective aspect, seems a

good choice here since he emphasizes the finished cause he already has accomplished in

this situation.

I chaired a meeting a week ago with our intelligence and security services and we agreed

that the answer to this threat was not to dream up some sweeping new power that would

be ineffective in practice. But it is becoming clear that there are some gaps in our

armoury, and we need to strengthen them. We need to do more to stop people travelling,

to stop those who do go from returning, and to deal decisively with those who are already

here. I’ll be making a statement in the House of Commons on Monday. This will include



The imperfective aspect comes also into play when he talks about the negative actions

and conditions of the armory since they need to be strengthened. Here Cameron faces that

his military strategy should be improved in order to defeat the terrorists and to prevent

future terrorist acts. The imperfective use of to become and to travel, leaves the audience

to think that the actions are still going on and many other measures should be taken in

order to end the terror threat properly. Cameron reformulates by using the imperfective

aspect of to make. Here the imperfective aspect has a positive connotation because he

emphasizes the statement he will make that includes furthers steps in order to deal with

Britain’s counterterrorist strategy.

The use of the imperfective aspect is also powerful in the following excerpt. Here

Cameron elucidates the measures he is undertaking in order to defeat ISIL, which evokes

a positive connotation.

We are stopping suspects from travelling by seizing passports. We’re barring foreign

nationals from re entering the UK. We’re depriving people of citizenship and we are

legislating so we can prosecute people for all terrorist activity, even where that activity

takes place overseas. (Cameron, 2014)

The use of passive voice also occurs in Cameron’s speech. The two excerpts below

indicate the use of this grammatical aspect to reduce responsibility. By using the passive

61

voice here, Cameron emphasizes how the terror threat did not came into being during the

period the speech was produced, but way before. His responsibility is reduced since it

makes the listener believe that the current actions are difficult to prevent. The passive

voice is therefore a good choice since Cameron receives a passive profile and cannot be

held responsible for this unexpected gruesome act.

It was clear evidence – not that any more was needed – that this is not some foreign

conflict thousands of miles from home that we can hope to ignore. (Cameron, 2014)

The terrorist threat was not created by the Iraq war 10 years ago. It existed even before

the horrific attacks on 9/11, themselves some time before the Iraq war. (Cameron, 2014)

Modal auxiliaries

Contradictory to the speech of Obama, where will was used 28 times, it was now only

used nine times in Cameron’s speech. This is probably due to difference in use between

American and British English since Americans prefer to use will over shall. Nevertheless,

will occurs as the most frequent modal verb in Cameron’s speech. The second frequent

modal verb is can, which is used seven times. Other modal verbs that occur in the speech

are must, could, would and want.

Figure 3 The frequency of modal auxiliaries in Cameron's speech

In the extract below, will is used two times to express Cameron’s intentions. He uses the

modal verb in both cases, accompanied with the modifier ‘always’, which brings even

62

more power to his statement. By doing so, he wants to invite listener believe that he

guarantees a safer Britain for the future.




emergency data retention legislation which is already yielding results. (Cameron, 2014)

The second frequent modal verb in the speech of Cameron is can. I included an excerpt

which concerns the negation of can, cannot. In the first sentence, he underlines that more

measures should be taken. In the second one, Cameron points out that Britain may not

accept the ideology of ISIL. In both cases, he opts for cannot to reduce responsibility

from the actual situation, claiming that the terror threat could not be prevented. He also

could have chosen for must or should, but it seems that his strategy is not concrete enough

to select such modals which bring more power to the sentence. Therefore, cannot is a

good choice here.

This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over

Western foreign policy. (Cameron, 2014)

Now, we cannot appease this ideology. (Cameron, 2014)

The third modal that occurs the most is must. Cameron uses must four times to accentuate

the necessity of measures that have to be taken. Here he expresses the message that

Britain has to respond intelligently. Must is therefore a good modal here to underline the

urgency and obligation of the measures which he mentions in the excerpt below.

But it also must be an intelligent, political response. We must use all resources we have at

our disposal – aid, diplomacy, political influence, and our military. (Cameron, 2014)

Pronominalization

In Cameron’s speech, there is a clear discrepancy when it comes to the use of the

inclusive and exclusive we. In the grammatical analysis of Obama, it was clear that the

inclusive we was excessively used. This is not the case for the speech of Cameron since

the exclusive we takes the upper hand here with a frequency of 57.

63

Figure 4 The frequency of pronouns in Cameron's speech

By using the exclusive we frequently, Cameron does not involve the British citizens

directly. He wants to emphasize that he and his parliament take full responsibility in

dealing with the current situation, without addressing the audience that they are needed to

fight along his side.




emergency data retention legislation which is already yielding results. And we’ve already

taken a whole range of measures to keep our people safe. We are stopping suspects from

travelling by seizing passports. We’re barring foreign nationals from re entering the UK.

We’re depriving people of citizenship and we are legislating so we can prosecute people

for all terrorist activity, even where that activity takes place overseas. (Cameron, 2014)

In the extract above, Cameron wants to put forward his intentions and strategy through a

frequent use of the exclusive we. By doing so, he wants to persuade his countrymen about

the plans his parliament and he are conducting. This excludes the citizens because he

feels it is his duty together with the parliament to pass through these operations. As a

result, the British audience might feel comfortable by the fact that Cameron and his

parliament are doing the best they can to make Britain safe again.

The second frequent pronoun is the inclusive we, which is used 19 times. Interesting is

that our is mostly used with the following nouns: security (whether military or the word

64

security itself) people and country. As mentioned before, the inclusive we is especially

used to emphasize the idea of unity and solidarity. Since Cameron tends to combine our

together with these words, strengthens the idea of unity even more. The excerpts below

give an overview of these combinations.

Our country:

This is the first time in 3 years that the threat to our country has been at this level.

(Cameron, 2014)


country. (Cameron, 2014)

Our security:

The ambition to create an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is a threat to

our own security here in the UK. (Cameron, 2014)

The root cause of this threat to our security is quite clear. (Cameron, 2014)


our disposal – aid, diplomacy, political influence, and our military. Learning the lessons

from the past doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for our military; (Cameron, 2014)

Our people:

My first priority as Prime Minister is to make sure we do everything possible to keep our

people safe. (Cameron, 2014)

And we’ve already taken a whole range of measures to keep our people safe. (Cameron,

2014)


protect our way of life and keep all our people safe. (Cameron, 2014)

The other pronoun, which is used in his speech and will be discussed here, is the first

person singular. I only occurred eight times, whereas it did eighteen times in Obama’s

speech. The excerpts below shows how Cameron puts full responsibility on himself in

this paragraph, since he uses I three times here.




through my extremism task force. (Cameron, 2014)

Even though he uses I only three times, he includes the pronoun three times in this

paragraph because he clearly wants to gain trust from the people. He does so by

positioning himself central as a competent Prime Minister who came up with a new

65

approach to fight extremism for once and for all. By doing so, he might be aiming for

commendations of the audience, instead of involving his parliament to the latter.

And finally, an excerpt with you is included in this section on pronouns. The second

person singular only occurred once, which was at the complete end of the speech.

Cameron wants to end his speech by thanking his audience. The use of you signifies a

form of politeness here, which is a typical expression to end communication for the

British. Furthermore it serves as a way to invite the audience to trust him for his further

actions to conquer extremism.

Thank you. (Cameron, 2014)

Nominalization

The last grammatical element, which will be discussed in this analysis on Cameron’s

speech, is the use of nominalization. As mentioned before, nominalization is often used to

remain vague about actions and to keep the agent irresponsible. In the excerpt below,

which is the first paragraph of the speech, Cameron uses nominalization to remain vague

about his involvement concerning the actions that were taken by ISIL. Cameron

underlines that it is the first time in three years Britain’s terror threat level has augmented

this severely. This implies that the attack could not have been prevented and that the latter

should be seen as an unexpected event. This way, Cameron reduces responsibility from

this anticipation of danger since he leaves the identity of the agent unknown.

Good afternoon. Earlier today the Home Secretary confirmed that the Joint Terrorism

Analysis Centre has increased the threat level in the United Kingdom from ‘substantial’ to

‘severe’. This is the first time in 3 years that the threat to our country has been at this level. (Cameron, 2014)

In the second excerpt, Cameron also uses nominalization to reduce responsibility. He

does so by listing a number of actions that have to be taken. This way, the terror acts

don’t receive full attention anymore in the speech. Cameron opts to mention the measures

the British parliament together with the people have to undertake, which puts him in a

positive light here but also leaves the meaning of these concepts rather vague.




66

The third excerpt concerns another use of nominalization by which Cameron clearly shifts

responsibility since he explains the terror threat his country is faced with, was caused by

ISIL. He does so by saying that the root cause of terror threat in his country is ISIL’s

brutal approach. This way Cameron does not question his own security program and

therefore cannot be held responsible for preventing such unexpected events.


The final example in this part on nominalization is found in Cameron’s expression with

regard to the people. Here he invites the British to keep representing the hallmark of their

society, which is liberty. Since this concept has been damaged, Cameron’s use of

nominalization leaves the meaning of liberty rather vague.

And we’ll do so driven by the evidence and the importance of maintaining the liberty that is the hallmark of the society that we defend. (Cameron, 2014)

4.4.5 Lexical analysis

Just like I did in Obama’s speech, I will also analyze in this section how legitimization

through emotions, hypothetical future, rationality, voices of expertise and altruism are

applied by Cameron. The purpose of each strategy was already clarified in the literature

review as well as in the previous analysis on Obama.

Emotions

This strategy is applied to trigger the audience’s emotions by creating a we versus they

group, being the British versus the terrorists. In the excerpt below, Cameron wants to

make clear to the audience that Britain is dealing with the nation’s greatest and deepest

security threat, which obviously appeals to their emotions. By doing so, Cameron makes a

realistic picture of what is happening, which makes him an honest and sincere politician.

On the other hand he uses this type of legitimization to highlight the threat to their

nation’s security, which is perceived as a bad thing and might evoke feelings such as fear

and anger.


than we have known before. (Cameron, 2014)

67

Throughout the speech, Cameron also responds to these audience’s emotions by

highlighting the positive profile of Great-Britain, willing to defeat ISIL with a concrete

strategy. The second excerpt exemplifies how the country is ready to do so by mentioning

their best effective security and intelligence services, which could transform the feelings

of fear and anger into comfort and trust. This is realized by offering a good security

strategy which is vital to resolve their security’s imprisonment.




emergency data retention legislation which is already yielding results.(Cameron, 2014)

Hypothetical future

Cameron’s speech does not provide an illustration of hypothetical future.

Rationality

This strategy concerns the goals and measures Great-Britain wants to undertake. By doing

so, Cameron show how he calls on institutions in order to develop his strategy. Therefore

the expression of his goodwill which refers to ethos is also present here. The first excerpt

clarifies how the Prime Minister explains the measures he is taking in order to fight home

grown terrorists and foreign fighters. Here Cameron clearly accentuates the action he is

doing at the moment to keep the British safe by stopping suspects from travelling etc.

And we’ve already taken a whole range of measures to keep our people safe. We are

stopping suspects from travelling by seizing passports. We’re barring foreign nationals

from re entering the UK. We’re depriving people of citizenship and we are legislating so

we can prosecute people for all terrorist activity, even where that activity takes place

overseas.(Cameron, 2014)

The second extract below explains how Cameron provides us with a clear view of the

institutions he is consulting. Here he elucidates how he chaired a meeting with the

intelligence and security services in order to respond accordingly to the terror threat. He

admits that more has to be done in order to defeat ISIL completely.



68







Voices of expertise

The fourth strategy examines the politician’s knowledge in the domain. Therefore I will

discuss whether Cameron refers to numbers, social actors and social institutions in order

to increase his reliability. The excerpt below underlines how he uses voices of expertise

in order to convey his acquired knowledge. Here he clearly mentions all successful

actions that were achieved by his parliament by listing them one by one. Cameron also

uses significant numbers and percentages to stress the effect of his counterterrorist

strategy, such as taking 28 000 pieces of extremist material of the internet this year alone.

This affirms how Cameron has developed skills and a certain knowledge in the domain

which persuades the listener of his capability. Therefore this strategy can also be linked to

logos.






increase in referrals to our de radicalisation programme, called the Channel Project.

(Cameron, 2014)

Altruism

The last type of legitimization describes the well-being and benefit of the politician’s

group, which is in this case Great-Britain. As mentioned in Obama’s speech, politicians

tend to emphasize specific values related to the group. In the excerpt below, Cameron

applies this strategy by highlighting the importance of British values, which also appeals

to the citizen’s emotions and their sense of identity. By doing so, he persuades the

listeners to believe that adhering to British values should be perceived as a duty. As a

result, he invites British citizens to follow his path, which ultimately contributes to the

solution for the problem.

Adhering to British values is not an option or a choice; it is a duty for those who live in

these islands. And in the end it is only by standing up for these values that will defeat the

extremism, protect our way of life and keep all our people safe. (Cameron, 2014)

69

4.5 Similarities and differences between Obama’s and

Cameron’s speech

In this section I will discuss the most vital similarities and differences between Obama’s

and Cameron’s use of language in their speeches on ISIL. Therefore, I will examine

which historical references, types of framing and metaphor, grammatical and lexical

elements of Obama’s speech are in accordance or contrasting to those of Cameron.

4.5.1 Similarities

References to history

In their respective speeches, both Obama and Cameron refer to the historical event of

9/11. This is mentioned in the beginning of every speech, since the incident introduces the

concept of terrorism quite clearly. By referring to 9/11, Obama and Cameron both opt to

emphasize that extremism still harms their civilians. Both leaders even refer to the events

their country has gone through when it comes to this evil threat, explaining that the

situation hasn’t been resolved yet. This way Obama and Cameron denominate that more

action requiring support will be necessary.

In the excerpt below, Obama clearly stresses the continuous terrorist threat which

originated being before 9/11 and continues to do harm to their society.

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We can’t erase every trace of evil from the

world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case

before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as

threats emerge. (Obama, 2014)

Cameron also accentuates that terrorism existed even before 9/11, claiming that it

originated quite some time before 9/1, even before the Iraq War.



70

Framing

With regard to framing, Obama as well as Cameron tend to frame similar ideas. The first

conforming frame which is applied by both politicians concerns the distinction between

Islam and Islamic State.

Islam may not be confused with terrorism.

Obama as well as Cameron want to make a clear distinction in their speeches to separate

Islam from terrorism. By doing so, they want to clearly express that ISIL does not

represent any of the ideas the Islam stands for since ISIL represents a fanatic ideology for

which the Islam doesn’t stand. In the excerpt below, Obama even explains how the

terrorist group’s vast majority of victims are Muslims instead of Western. By using this

frame, Obama manages to receive more support from Muslim countries in order to fight

together with America against ISIL.

Obama



certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage

of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian

border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a

terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all

who stand in its way. (Obama, 2014)

Also Cameron stresses this separation between Islam and Islamic State in order to receive

more support from the people. This frame is therefore a good choice to express their

open-minded vision towards the Muslim religion and to receive more support from the

Muslims in their battle against terrorism.

Cameron




people. It is a source of spiritual guidance which daily inspires millions to countless acts of kindness. (Cameron, 2014)

The second frame also reflects on both speeches since it conveys the idea of both

countries being the world’s free leader. Both speeches express the politician’s view of

their countries’ values which are crucial for leading a free world. Obama does that in the

71

first paragraph of the excerpt below, claiming that their security and safety depends on

the American values in order to conquer those who bring these ideals into danger.

America is the free leader





May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America. (Obama,

2014)

Also in Cameron’s speech, the accent is put on the British values that would guarantee

security and safety. In the excerpt below, Cameron underlines these values, claiming that

Britain is an open, tolerant and free nation.

Britain is the free leader







And in the end it is only by standing up for these values that will defeat the extremism, protect our way of life and keep all our people safe. Cameron (2014)

War Metaphor

In both speeches there is also a clear occurrence of the war metaphor, since the war

metaphor is used indicating both politician' willingness to fight ISIL. Obama as well as

Cameron emphasize their anger against the terrorist group by using the verb to fight,

which can be related to the metaphor POLITICS IS WAR or FIGHTING TERRORISM IS WAR.

Obama

And it is America that is helping Muslim communities around the world not just in the

fight against terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, and tolerance, and a more hopeful

future. (Obama, 2014)

Cameron

Not just because these building blocks take time to put in place, but because we are in the


believe we’ll be fighting for years and probably decades. (Cameron, 2014)

72

Grammar

Perfective aspect

As already explained in the analysis on both speeches, the perfective aspect is used to

indicate that actions have come to an end, whereas the imperfective aspect is used to

highlight the dynamic nature of events. When comparing Obama’s speech to Cameron’s,

it seems that both politicians apply the perfective aspect to accentuate the actions they

have undertaken in order to deal with terrorism. This allows the listeners to understand

how committed Obama and Cameron have been to the subject and how they already have

resolved several incidents or have undertaken certain measures. As a result, the audience

is reminded of the good they have achieved, which evokes a feeling of trust.

Obama




eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia. (Obama, 2014)

Cameron







Imperfective aspect

The imperfective aspect normally entails a negative connotation of unfinished actions of

the politician. But in Obama’s and Cameron’s speeches, the imperfective aspect also

shows how both politicians are executing their strategy in order to defeat ISIL. It seems

that this grammatical aspect also has the power to concretize the actions Obama and

Cameron now want to undergo since they didn’t manage to end the threat of terrorism

completely. The excerpts below show how the imperfective aspect has the ability to

describe how their nation’s leader continues to carry out their counterterrorism strategy.

This way the imperfective aspect transfers a positive connotation of Obama’s and

Cameron’s intentions.

73

Obama


that the United States of America is meeting them with strength and resolve. (Obama,

2014)

Cameron

We are stopping suspects from travelling by seizing passports. We’re barring foreign

nationals from re entering the UK. We’re depriving people of citizenship and we are

legislating so we can prosecute people for all terrorist activity, even where that activity

takes place overseas. (Cameron, 2014)

Passive voice

Furthermore, an analogue pattern of the passive voice is used when Obama and Cameron

want to shift responsibility from the actions that have occurred. With the use of the

passive voice, citizens will more understand how difficult it is to prevent such unexpected

actions. This way Obama’s and Cameron’s passive profile remains vague. The use of

passive voice is therefore a good choice to shift their responsibility for a certain point.

Obama


our country was attacked.

Cameron


conflict thousands of miles from home that we can hope to ignore. (Cameron, 2014)



Modal auxiliaries

When it comes to the use of most frequent modal verbs, will takes the upper hand. In

contrast to Obama’s speech where will was used 28 times, it was only used nine times in

Cameron’s speech. This is probably due to differences in use between American and

British English since Americans prefer to use will over shall. Nevertheless, will also

74

occurs as the most frequent modal verb in Cameron’s speech as well since the modal verb

emphasizes future goals and actions that have to be achieved. This is therefore a good

choice of both politicians to highlight their future intentions to guarantee safety and

security, which results in gaining trust from the audience. Below two excerpts exemplify

the functionality of will.

Obama



Cameron




emergency data retention legislation which is already yielding results. (Cameron, 2014)

Also the modal verb can was the second frequent pronoun in both speeches, which is used

to express ability. This modal verb has the function to express the opportunity of actions

that can be taken. Interesting is that Cameron as well as Obama uses the negative form,

cannot. Both politicians could have chosen for must or should but they prefer to use

cannot to reduce responsibility since it implies that their strategy isn’t sufficient yet. If

they would have chosen must as a modal verb, their message is transferred without any

hesitation, whereas it now expresses an uncertain image of what is about to happen.

Obama



partners in securing their region. (Obama, 2014)

Cameron

This threat cannot be solved simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over

Western foreign policy. (Cameron, 2014)

Pronominalization

The first personal pronoun I occurred almost as frequently in Obama’s as in Cameron’s

speech. I included two excerpts below, in which both politicians completely want to

transfer their commitment to the subject, which increases their reliability and sense of

75

responsibility. Both extracts indicate how they gain trust from their audience by applying

I in their speeches.

Obama



I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. (Obama,

2014)

Cameron



extremism. I set this out in my Munich speech in 2011 and I’ve driven this forward through my extremism task force. (Cameron, 2014)

Nominalization

When comparing Obama’s speech to Cameron’s, both politicians use nominalization to

reduce responsibility from the actions that have occurred. Nominalization therefore has a

strong function here. In Obama’s speech for instance, he uses the interesting

nominalization cancer that refers to the metaphor TERRORISM IS A DISEASE. This used by

Obama to stress the uncivilized profile of Islamic State. By integrating the nominalization

cancer in this expression, Obama shifts responsibility since he admits that it will take

time to destroy ISIL completely. The nominalization cancer is therefore an ideal way for

Obama to reduce his responsibility, explaining how difficult it is to defeat such a cruel

terrorist group. This way America’s president is hoping for understanding from the

audience and is soliciting for their trust and patience.


Cameron also uses nominalization to shift responsibility from the actions that have

occurred. I included one of the most interesting examples, which I already have discussed

in Cameron’s analysis, to emphasize the power of using nominalization.

The nominalization here is also used by Cameron to shift responsibility from the actions

since he explains that the terror threat his country is faced with, was caused by ISIL. He

does so by saying that the root cause of terror threat in his country is ISIL’s brutal

76

approach. This way Cameron does not question his own security program and therefore

cannot be held responsible for preventing such unexpected events.


Lexicon

Emotions

The strategy of legitimization through emotions also occurs in both speeches since this is

applied to trigger the audience’s emotions by creating a we versus they group. In the

excerpts below, Obama as well as Cameron evoke feelings such as fear and anger

amongst the audience. It is obvious that Obama’s use of language arouses these feelings

even more since he clearly describes the cruel actions that were undertaken by ISIL by

integrating verbs such as to kill, to enslave, to rape, to execute etc. This awakes a

reprehensible image of the terrorists in the audience’s perception. Cameron, however,

does not describe this atrocity as strong as Obama does. He actually shocks people by

saying that they are confronted with Britain’s deepest security threat without going into

detail on ISIL’s gruesome actions against Britain.

Obama






Cameron

But what we’re facing in Iraq now with ISIL is a greater and deeper threat to our security than we have known before. (Cameron, 2014)

Altruism

The final strategy of legitimization through altruism, which implies to highlight the well-

being and benefit of the group is also present in both speeches. Obama as well as

Cameron emphasize their nation’s values, claiming that these are crucial for leading a free

nation. This seems like a good idea to make their civilians aware of the fact that they

make a contribution to their countries’ fight against terrorism. The inhabitants will

77

therefore feel more invited to stand up for these values and to agree with their leader’s

strategy.

Obama




These are values that have guided our nation since its founding. (Obama, 2014)

Cameron

Adhering to British values is not an option or a choice; it is a duty for those who live in

these islands. And in the end it is only by standing up for these values that will defeat the

extremism, protect our way of life and keep all our people safe. (Cameron, 2014)

4.5.2 Differences

Framing

Obama as well as Cameron tend to frame the idea of being free leaders. Nevertheless, it

seems that Obama’s speech conveys this exceptionalism even more than Cameron’s

speech does. In the excerpt below, Obama refers to God’s will of America being the

leader of the world. Therefore Obama should be seen as the only country that can rescue

the world from extremism and has the only leadership that can ultimately destroy the

terrorists. This frame is included in the excerpt below. Especially the first sentence gives

power to the whole idea of America’s exceptionalism.

Obama





Metaphor

With regard to the use of metaphor, the construction metaphor was only present in

Cameron’s speech and not in Obama’s. The construction metaphor is used by political

leaders to indicate how goals can be achieved. This is found in Cameron’s speech when

he refers to the building blocks of democracy. The latter entails a utilization of the verb to

78

build, referring to the strength of their nation’s democracy which is built through these

values. The excerpt below is one of the construction metaphors that can be found in

Cameron’s speech.

Cameron




Grammar

Pronominalization

A grammatical difference occurs in the use of pronouns by Obama and Cameron. The

pronoun you is used by Obama to threaten ISIL directly. This type of political discourse is

applied when fear or threat occurs. By integrating the second personal pronoun Obama

sends a clear message to the terrorist group, saying that he will do anything to destroy

them if they continue to harm America. The integration of you in this expression is

therefore a good choice since it has a very powerful function.

Obama


(Obama, 2014)

The use of you in Cameron’s speech has a complete different purpose than in Obama’s

speech since it is used by Cameron at the end to thank his audience. This signifies a form

of politeness here, which is a typical expression to end communication for the British.

Furthermore it serves as a way to invite the audience to trust him for his further actions in

conquering extremism.

Cameron

Thank you. (Cameron, 2014)

There is also another significant difference when it comes to the use of the inclusive (our)

and exclusive we (we). Obama uses the inclusive we most frequently, whereas the most

frequent pronoun for Cameron is the exclusive we. The inclusive we expresses unity and

solidarity, something Obama passionately stands for. Therefore, our is numerous

79

throughout the entire speech. By doing so, he creates a strong feeling of unity, inviting his

citizens to think alike in order to cooperate accordingly.

Obama





Cameron on the contrary uses the exclusive we more often than the inclusive we. The

purpose of the exclusive we is to accentuate the leader’s responsibility which excludes the

citizens. This is probably done to emphasize the fact that Cameron feels it is his duty

together with his parliament to stress their commitment to the counterterrorism strategy

instead of involving their citizens too much to the problem.

Cameron


people safe. Today I want to set out the scale and nature of the threat we face and the comprehensive approach that we are taking to combat it. (Cameron, 2014)

A final grammatical difference occurs in the grammar of Obama and Cameron. They is

only used by Obama’s speech, whereas it does not occur in Cameron’s. Obama uses they

to highlight the evilness which the terrorists bring about. They is used to create a distance

between the in-group America and the they-group, being ISIL. Obama especially uses

they in listing to gruesome acts that the terrorists undertake in harming innocent people,

including Americans. This allows the listener to believe that all Americans have to unite

in order to fight against the otherness, being the terrorists, so that the self cannot be

broken.

Obama




acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists -- Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff. (Obama,2014)

80

Lexicon

Hypothetical future

With regard to the lexical analysis, there is a remarkable difference when it comes to

legitimization through hypothetical future. In Obama’s speech this strategy is present

whereas it is not in Cameron’s. The strategy entails a firm IF- clause that comes into play

if fear, threat or imminent action is required. This conditional was also present in Biden’s

quote which was discussed in the introduction. It seems that America’s leaders tend to

react directly to the enemy with such expressions to threaten those who have threatened

them. With this direct communication, Obama also gains trust and creates the opportunity

to augment his credibility in his fight against terrorism.


(Obama, 2014)

81

5. Conclusion and discussion

This study confirmed that grammar and lexicon play a vital role for politicians in order to

persuade and comfort one’s audience. Two speeches, being Obama’s and Cameron’s

speech on ISIL, were analyzed and compared based on these two concepts. Framing and

metaphor were also examined to provide more information to the analysis. In both

speeches, Obama as well as Cameron inform their citizens of the terrorist threat after the

beheadings of their countrymen, James Foley, David Haines and Steve Sotloff. The

ultimate goal of the speeches therefore was to reassure the American and British civilians

and to gain trust from them in Obama’s and Cameron’s counterterrorism strategy to

defeat ISIL.

Cameron and Obama refer to historical events, of which 9/11 is applicable to both

speeches since reference introduces terrorism explicitly. Afterwards both politicians refer

to the events their nation has gone through when it comes to extremist events. Obama’s

speech clearly stresses his battle against al Qaida and his accomplishment in defeating

them. Cameron, however, explains how Britain is suffering from its greatest security

threat in history. This is not only due to the beheading of their nation’s journalists but also

to the worrisome amount of homegrown terrorists and foreign fighters, leaving for Syria.

Furthermore Cameron mentions the homegrown terrorist events that harmed Britain in the

past. By referring to these events they both alarm the present situation but also ease their

audience, claiming that they both have experience in defeating terrorism.

Since both world leaders want to inform their compatriots about the atrocity that has

occurred, they frame ideas to gain trust and augment their credibility. Our study made

clear that certain frames in Obama’s speech were in accordance to those in Cameron’s.

First they both frame the idea of leading the free world. Nevertheless, America’s

exceptionalism stood out which was discussed in the section on differences between both

speeches. This exceptionalism has always been present in America’s political discourse

and also takes the upper hand here. A second and similar frame concerned the separation

they both make between Islam and Islamic state, claiming that Islam stands for Western

values whereas Islamic State relies on a fanatic ideology. Therefore Obama and Cameron

succeed in persuading their audience of leading a counterterrorism strategy which only

82

calls on the terrorists and guarantees safety of security of the Muslim communities in

their country.

Furthermore this Critical Discourse Analysis provides an overview of the metaphorical

use in both speeches. In Obama’s as well as in Cameron’s speech, the war metaphor

occurred due to the context of the speech, being terrorism. Both leaders emphasize that

their country is at war with terrorism. Verbs such as to fight, to tackle and the

nominalization struggle stress this war situation. Obama’s speech also provided an

interesting metaphor, namely, the disease metaphor. This was used by America’s

president to compare ISIL to cancer. This way Obama achieves in presenting the terrorist

group as something inhuman and uncivilized, which also refers to the noun cancer. In

contrast to Obama’s speech, Cameron’s speech provided a construction journey that

referred to the importance of their democracy, which was accentuated through the

nominalization building blocks. The journey metaphor on the other hand occurred in both

speeches to indicate movement and progress in their future counterterrorist strategy

against terrorism.

In order to transfer their message towards the people of America and the people of

Britain, grammar and lexicon comes into play. The grammatical analysis was based on

four concepts such as grammatical aspect, modal verbs, pronominalization and

nominalization. With regard to grammatical aspect, Obama and Cameron clearly show

similarities when it comes to the use of perfective aspect. This is used in order to show

the actions they already have already undertaken in their battle against extremism. The

perfective aspect comes at hand here since it shows that these actions are finished and that

they are therefore capable in defeating extremism. Also the imperfective aspect did not

necessarily evoked a negative connotation to describe the dynamic nature of actions. The

study made clear that the imperfective aspect also gave a concrete image of the measures

and actions Obama and Cameron are undertaking, which corresponds to the study of

Fausey and Matlock (2011), who claim that the imperfective aspect is used to describe the

ongoing nature of actions. By applying this grammatical aspect, the audience receives a

better understanding of their counterterrorism strategy. The use of the passive voice was

also useful since this grammatical aspect showed how both leaders can reduce

responsibility from the actions that have occurred. As a result, this grammatical aspect

entails that they are little held responsible for the unexpected events.

83

The second grammatical element that was examined was the use of modal verbs. The

most frequent modal verb in both speeches was will, which refers to their progressive

attitude towards the future in order to defeat terrorism. The third grammatical element

concerned the use of pronouns in their discourse. First a difference in frequency of the

inclusive and exclusive we was found. The inclusive we occurred as the most frequent

pronoun in Obama’s speech to accentuate unity and solidarity of the Americans and their

government, something Obama passionately stands for. This result corresponds to the

study of Feng and Liu (2010) who claim that the inclusive we are used to indicate that

sense of unity and solidarity. In Cameron’s speech on the other hand, the exclusive we

was the most frequent pronoun. The exclusive we is often selected by politicians to

exclude their compatriots. This is done by the nation’s leader to take full responsibility

for the events together with his government, which is in Cameron’s case his Parliament.

Another difference was the use of you since this was of major importance in Obama’s

speech. Here the second personal pronoun was used to address ISIL directly since they

have harmed America severely. America’s president therefore opts for a firm IF-clause in

which he uses you to threaten the terrorist group directly. This can be interpreted as a

clear declaration of war and therefore has a very powerful function. In Cameron’s speech

on the other hand, the second personal pronoun is used at the end of the speech to thank

his audience. Nevertheless, you here also invites the British to trust Cameron in his battle

against terrorism, which also transfers an important message. Third the use of I was

almost as frequently used in Cameron’ speech as in Obama’s to show the politicians their

direct involvement and responsibility to the situation. This corresponds to the study of

Bull and Fetzer (2006), who claim that personal pronouns are used to show one’s

involvement to a political domain. Surprisingly, the third plural pronoun, they, only

occurred in Obama’s speech whereas it did not in Cameron’s. Obama uses they to identify

the enemy clearly, which corresponds to the study of Hommerberg (2012) and Sivric and

Mihaljevic (2010), who assert that they is applied to highlight the negativity of the out-

group. This master’s study also confirmed how the fourth grammatical element,

nominalization, is used to reduce responsibility from certain situations. Obama as well as

Cameron tend to use nominalization to highlight the difficulty of destroying ISIL.

The lexical analysis provided a connection between language and ideology in Obama’s

and Cameron’s speeches on ISIL. The analysis focused on how politicians tend to

84

persuade their audience through legitimization and how language serves as an instrument

of control. The speeches were examined based on five strategies: emotions, hypothetical

future, rationality, voices of expertise and altruism. Obama as Cameron both appealed to

their emotions, which is the first strategy, to stress the heinous deeds the terrorist group

has elicited. This way the audience obviously produced strong emotions such as fear and

anger. Nevertheless the analysis showed that both politicians want to transform these

feelings into trust and comfort, claiming that they are reliable Commander-in-Chiefs that

can guarantee safety and security.

The second strategy, the use of the hypothetical future, revealed some interesting

information since this only occurred in Obama’s speech even though Britain was attacked

as well. This strategy was applied by making use of the IF-clause, allowing America to

threaten ISIL directly in his speech. This result in Obama’s speech especially

corresponded to the study of Reyes (2010), who claims that such IF-clauses are used

when imminent action is required. Here language clearly serves as an instrument of

control. The third and fourth strategy, rationality and voices of expertise, were also

present in both speeches. These are used to indicate the measures one is undertaking and

the institutions the politician consults. Since this unexpected event, Obama as well as

Cameron needed to get to action immediately. The fifth strategy, altruism, was also

present in both speeches to indicate their nation’s values. By emphasizing these values,

Obama as well as Cameron invite their audience to stand up for these values in their

defeat against ISIL.

Obama and Cameron opted for short yet powerful speeches to present their

counterterrorism strategy. As a result, these were less inspirational but nevertheless they

conveyed a powerful message in which more similarities than differences stood out.

Although these differences were less numerous, they brought us some interesting insights

when it comes to using language as an instrument of control in terrorist situations. Obama

as well as Cameron expressed their willingness to defeat ISIL and requested their

audience to trust them in their battle against extremism. The goal therefore was to

persuade their audience as being competent Commander-in-Chiefs to guarantee the safety

of their nation. but also to address the enemy, which was applicable to Obama’s speech.

85

Further research, however, could amplify this political discourse by looking for more

detailed linguistic elements, such as puns, alliterations, other hidden messages that are

present in political discourse with regard to terrorism. This can be achieved by observing

more speeches by world’s leaders in order to examine how they address their citizens and

the world concerning their counterterrorism strategy.

86

Reference list

7 July 2005 London Bombings. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July, 14, 2015 from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

Adams J. (1931). The epic of America. Boston: Little Brown and co.

Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Edingburgh: Edingburgh University

Press

American Dream. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/americandream

American exceptionalism. (n,d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/americanexceptionalism

Assmundson, M. (2008). Persuading the public: A linguistic analysis of Barack Obama’s

speech on “Super Tuesday” 2008 (dissertation Dalarna University, Sweden).

Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/

Baresch, B., Hsu, H., & Reese, S. (2011). The power of framing: New challenges for

researching the structure of meaning in news. In Allen, S. (ed.), The Routledge

Companion to News and Journalism. New York, NY: Routledge.

Biden, J. (2012, May, 26). West Point Speech. Speech presented at the United States

Military Academy, West Point, NY.

Beard, A. (2000). The language of politics. London: Routledge.

Bergen, B., & Wheeler, K. (2010). Grammatical aspect and mental simulation. Brain and

Language, 112(3), 150-158. doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2009.07.002

Biria, R., & Mohammadi, A. (2012). The socio pragmatic functions of inaugural speech:

A critical discourse analysis approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(10), 1290–1302.

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2012.05.013

Bougher, L.D. (2012). The case for metaphor in political reasoning and cognition.

Political Psychology, 33(1), 145-163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00865.x

Bramley, N.R. (2001). Pronouns of politics: the use of pronouns in the construction of

‘self’ and ‘other’ in political interview (dissertation Australian National

University). Retrieved from https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au

87

Brozin, M. (2010). The intentions behind Barack Obama’s strategic use of personal

pronouns (dissertation Gävle University). Retrieved from http://akademiska.nu/

Brown. A., (2012, September, 10). Osama Bin Laden’s Death: How it happened. BBC

News. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.com

Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2006). Who are we and who are you? The strategic use of forms of

address in political interviews. Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of

Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 26(1), 3–37.

doi:10.1515/text.2006.002

Bush, G. (2001, February). Address to Joint Session of Congress. Speech presented at

Washington, DC.

Bush, G. (2002, January). State of the Union. Speech presented at Washington, DC.

Bush, G. (2003, January). State of the Union Address. Speech presented at Washington,

DC.

Cameron, D. (2014, August). Threat level from international terrorism raised: PM Press

statement. Speech presented at Prime Minister’s Office, London.

De Genova, N. (2010). Antiterrorism, race, and the new frontier: American

exceptionalism, imperial multiculturalism, and the Global Security State,

Identities. Global Studies in Culture and Power, 17(6), 613-640. doi:

10.1080/1070289X.2010.533523

Druckman, J. (2004). Political preference formation: Competition, deliberation, and the

(ir)relevance of framing effects. American Political Science Review, 98(4), 671–

686. Retrieved from http://www.unc.edu/

Eggins S. (1994). An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter

Publishers.

European Commission. (2015). Crisis & Terrorism. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/

Fausey, C.M., Matlock, T. (2011). Can grammar win elections? Political Psychology,

32(4), 563-574. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00802.x

Great Depression. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 10, 2015, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/greatdepression

88

Halliday, M.A.K. (2000). An introduction to functional grammar. Beijing: Foreign

Language Teaching and Research Press.

Halliday, M.A.K. (2002). On Grammar. London: Continuum.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd

ed.) London: Hodder Arnold.

Homegrown terrorism. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 14, 2015, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/homegrownterrorism

Hommerberg, C. (2010). The use of personal pronouns in Political Speeches. A

comparative study of the pronominal choices of two American presidents

(dissertation Linnaeus university). Retrieved from http://www.diva-portal.org/

Feng, H., & Liu, Y. (2010). Analysis of interpersonal meaning in public speeches: A case

study of Obama’s speech. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(6),

825-829. doi:10.4304/jltr.1.6.825-829

Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press. London:

Routledge.

Frum, D. (2014, September, 10). Obama’s emotional reaction to ISIS. The Atlantic.

Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/

Kazemian, B. & Hashemi, S. (2014). Nominalizations in scientific and political genres: a

systemic functional linguistics perspective. International Journal of Humanities

and Social Sciences, 3(2), 211-228. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/

Kraushaar, J. (2015, April, 7). Democrats have an identity-politics problem. The National

Journal. Retrieved from http://www.nationaljournal.com/

Lakoff, G. (1992). The contemporary theory of metaphor. Cambridge University Press.

Lakoff, G. (1993). The contemporary theory of metaphor. In A. Ortony (ed.), Metaphor

and thought (2nd ed.), 202-251. doi:10.1017/cbo9781139173865.013

Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago, IL: University of

Chicago Press.

Levrie K. (2010). De retoriek die Amerika veranderde. Een Aristotelische analyse van de

speeches van Barack Obama (dissertation University of Leuven). Retrieved from

http://www.scriptiebank.be/

89

Matlock, T. (2012). Framing political messages with grammar and metaphor: How

something is said may be as important as what is said. American Scientist, 100(6),

478-483. doi: 10.1511/2012.99.478

Miles, J. (2009, July 17). After ‘the war on terror’: Obama, Islam & Israel. Commonweal.

Retrieved from http://www.cweal.org

Miller, E.F. (1979). Metaphor and political knowledge. The American Political Science

Review, 73(1), 155-170. Retrieved from http://www.apsanet.org

Mullin, C. (2011). The US discourse on political Islam: is Obama’s a truly post-‘war on

terror’ administration? Critical Studies on Terrorism, 4(2), 263-281, doi:

10.1080/17539153.2011.586208

NBC, News. (2013). US forces kill Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. Retrieved from

http://www.nbcnews.com/

Negativity bias. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved July 5 , 2015, from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/negativitybias

Obama, B. (2007, August). Remarks in Washington. The war we need to win. Speech

presented at Woodrow Wilson International Center, Washington.

Obama, B. (2008). Victory speech. Speech presented at Grant Park, Chicago.

Obama, B. (2009, January). President Barack Obama’s Full Inauguration Speech.

Speech presented at the United States Capitol, Washington DC.

Obama, B. (2012, February). Remarks by the president on American manufacturing.

Speech presented at Master Lock, Milwaukee, WI.

Obama, B. (2014, September) Statement by the President on ISIL. Speech presented at

State Floor, Washington DC.

Proctor, K., & Su, L.I. (2011). The 1st person plural in political discourse: American

politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3251-

3266. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010

Reese, S., & Gandy, O., & Grant A. (2001). Framing public life: perspectives on media

and our understanding of the social world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

associates.

90

Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to

actions. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781-807. doi: 10.1177/0957926511419927

Rogan, T. (2014, September 11). Obama’s ISIS Speech. The National Review. Retrieved

from http://www.nationalreview.com

Sivric, M., & Mihaljevic, Z. (2010) Political discourse: ideological analysis of G. W.

Bush’s speeches. Hum, 6, 347-369. Retrieved from http://www.ceeol.com

Soroka, S. & McAdams, S. (2015). News, Politics and Negativity. Political

communication. 32, 1-22.

Steen, G. (2002). Towards a procedure for metaphor identification. Language and

Literature, 11(1), 17-33. doi: 10.1177/096394700201100103

Steen, G. (2011). The language of knowledge management: A linguistic approach to

metaphor analysis. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 28(2), 181-188.

doi: 10.1002/sres.1087

Telegraph, The. (2014). Muslim MP: 2,000 Britons fighting for Islamic State. Retrieved

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Telegraph, The. (2014). US confirms death of al-Shahaab leader in done strike. Retrieved

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Thomas, P. (2012). Responding to the Threat of Violent Extremism. London: Bloomsbury

academic.

Van de Mieroop, D. (2010). Making transportable identities relevant as a persuasive

device: The case of Hillary Clinton's 2008 concession speech. Hermes: Journal of

Language and Communication Studies, 44, 229-240. Retrieved from

http://hermes.asb.dk

Van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Critical discourse analysis and nominalization: Problem or

pseudo-problem? Discourse & Society, 19(6), 821-828.

doi:10.1177/0957926508095897

Van Leeuwen, M. (2012). Rhetorical effects of grammar. Critical Approaches to

Discourse Analysis across Disciplines, 5(2), 88-101. Retrieved from

http://cadaad.net/journal

91

Verstraete, J.-C. (2001). Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational

functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics, 33(10),

1505-1528. doi:10.1016/s0378-2166(01)00029-7

Washington Post, the. (1996). American exceptionalism. A double edged sword.

Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/

Week, the. (2014). Defeating IS: Why Cameron needs to get back to work. Retrieved

from http://www.theweek.co.uk/

Whitehead, T. (2013, December, 19). Lee Rigby Murder: We cannot stop lone wolves.

The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Whitehead, T. (2014, August, 27). Britain facing ‘greatest terror threat’ in history. The

Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

Wong, W. (2012). Cognitive metaphor in the West and the East: A comparison of

metaphors in the speeches of Barack Obama and Wen Jibao (dissertation

University of Tromso). Retrieved from http://munin.uit.no/

92

Attachment

Statement by the President on ISIL My fellow Americans, tonight I want to speak to you about what the United States will do

with our friends and allies to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as

ISIL.








and counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.

Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We can’t erase every trace of evil from the

world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case

before 9/11, and that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as

threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the Middle East and

North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances for their own gain. And one of

those groups is ISIL -- which calls itself the “Islamic State.”



certainly not a state. It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage

of sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides of the Iraq-Syrian

border. It is recognized by no government, nor by the people it subjugates. ISIL is a

terrorist organization, pure and simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all

who stand in its way.





Sotloff.

So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria, and the broader Middle East --

including American citizens, personnel and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists

could pose a growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States. While we

have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland, ISIL leaders have threatened

America and our allies. Our Intelligence Community believes that thousands of

foreigners -– including Europeans and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and

Iraq. Trained and battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home

countries and carry out deadly attacks.

93



I ordered our military to take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since

then, we’ve conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These strikes have

protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL fighters, destroyed weapons, and

given space for Iraqi and Kurdish forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have also

helped save the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.



partners in securing their region. And that’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action

depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have now done in

recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in place, and following

consultations with allies abroad and Congress at home, I can announce that America will

lead a broad coalition to roll back this terrorist threat.


comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism strategy.

First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists.

Working with the Iraqi government, we will expand our efforts beyond protecting our

own people and humanitarian missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces

go on offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who

threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action

against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you

threaten America, you will find no safe haven.

Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground. In

June, I deployed several hundred American servicemembers to Iraq to assess how we can

best support Iraqi security forces. Now that those teams have completed their work –-

and Iraq has formed a government –- we will send an additional 475 servicemembers to

Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission –- we

will not get dragged into another ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi

and Kurdish forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We’ll also support Iraq’s

efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni communities secure their own

freedom from ISIL’s control.

Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our military assistance to the Syrian

opposition. Tonight, I call on Congress again to give us additional authorities and

resources to train and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on an

Assad regime that terrorizes its own people -- a regime that will never regain the

legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best

counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to

solve Syria’s crisis once and for all.

Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent

ISIL attacks. Working with our partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its

funding; improve our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology;

and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East. And in two weeks,

94

I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to further mobilize the international

community around this effort.

Fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who

have been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims

who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious

minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven from their ancient

homelands.

So this is our strategy. And in each of these four parts of our strategy, America will be

joined by a broad coalition of partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq;

sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition; sharing

intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid. Secretary Kerry was in

Iraq today meeting with the new government and supporting their efforts to promote

unity. And in the coming days he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist

more partners in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni

communities in Iraq and Syria, to drive these terrorists from their lands. This is American

leadership at its best: We stand with people who fight for their own freedom, and we

rally other nations on behalf of our common security and common humanity.

My administration has also secured bipartisan support for this approach here at home. I

have the authority to address the threat from ISIL, but I believe we are strongest as a

nation when the President and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional

support for this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in confronting

this danger.

Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL. And any time we take military

action, there are risks involved –- especially to the servicemen and women who carry out

these missions. But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be

different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve American combat

troops fighting on foreign soil. This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a

steady, relentless effort to take out ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our

support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who

threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully

pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And it is consistent with the approach I

outlined earlier this year: to use force against anyone who threatens America’s core

interests, but to mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to

international order.





today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.

Our technology companies and universities are unmatched. Our manufacturing and auto

industries are thriving. Energy independence is closer than it’s been in decades. For all

the work that remains, our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job

creation in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our democracy, I see

95

the grit and determination and common goodness of the American people every single

day –- and that makes me more confident than ever about our country’s future.









opportunity, and tolerance, and a more hopeful future.




These are values that have guided our nation since its founding.

Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that leadership forward. I do so as a

Commander-in-Chief who could not be prouder of our men and women in uniform –-

pilots who bravely fly in the face of danger above the Middle East, and servicemembers

who support our partners on the ground.

When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped on a distant mountain, here’s

what one of them said: “We owe our American friends our lives. Our children will

always remember that there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey

to protect innocent people.”

That is the difference we make in the world. And our own safety, our own security,

depends upon our willingness to do what it takes to defend this nation and uphold the

values that we stand for –- timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only

hate and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.

May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.

96

Threat level from international terrorism raised: PM press statement

Good afternoon. Earlier today the Home Secretary confirmed that the Joint Terrorism

Analysis Centre has increased the threat level in the United Kingdom from ‘substantial’

to ‘severe’. This is the first time in 3 years that the threat to our country has been at this

level.


people safe. Today I want to set out the scale and nature of the threat we face and the

comprehensive approach that we are taking to combat it. We’ve all been shocked and

sickened by the barbaric murder of American journalist James Foley and by the voice of

what increasingly seems to have been a British terrorist recorded on that video.


conflict thousands of miles from home that we can hope to ignore. The ambition to create

an extremist caliphate in the heart of Iraq and Syria is a threat to our own security here in

the UK. And that is in addition to the many other al Qaeda inspired terrorist groups that

exist in that region.

The first ISIL inspired terrorist acts on the continent of Europe have already taken place.

We now believe that at least 500 people have travelled from Britain to fight in Syria, and

potentially Iraq. Let’s be clear about the source of the threat that we face. The terrorist

threat was not created by the Iraq war 10 years ago. It existed even before the horrific

attacks on 9/11, themselves some time before the Iraq war. This threat cannot be solved

simply by dealing with the perceived grievances over Western foreign policy. Nor can it

be dealt with by addressing poverty, dictatorship or instability in the region, as important

as these things are.

The root cause of this threat to our security is quite clear. It is a poisonous ideology of

Islamist extremism that is condemned by all faiths and by all faith leaders. It believes in

using the most brutal forms of terrorism to force people to accept a warped world view

and to live in an almost medieval state. A state in which its own citizens would suffer

unimaginable brutality, including barbaric beheadings of those who refuse to convert to

their warped version of Islam; the enslavement and raping of women; and the widespread

slaughter of Muslims by fellow Muslims. And, of course, the exporting of terrorism

abroad.




people. It is a source of spiritual guidance which daily inspires millions to countless acts

of kindness.

Islamist extremism is a poisonous political ideology supported by a minority. These

extremists often funded by fanatics living comfortably far away from the battlefields

pervert the Islamic faith as a way of justifying their warped and barbaric ideology.


country. We saw it with the sickening murder of Lee Rigby and we saw it too with the

home grown 7/7 bombers who blew up tube trains and buses. The links between what

happens overseas and what happens here has also always been there. Many of those who

sought to do us harm in the past have been foreign nationals living in Britain or even

97

British citizens who have returned from terrorist training camps in Pakistan or elsewhere

around the world.






Turkish border, we could be facing a terrorist state on the shores of the Mediterranean and

bordering a NATO member.

Now, we cannot appease this ideology. We have to confront it at home and abroad. To do

this we need a tough, intelligent, patient and comprehensive approach to defeat the

terrorist threat at its source. Tough, in that we need a firm security response whether that

is action to go after the terrorists, international cooperation on intelligence and counter

terrorism or uncompromising measures against terrorists here at home.


our disposal – aid, diplomacy, political influence, and our military. Learning the lessons

from the past doesn’t mean that there isn’t a place for our military; the military were vital

in driving Al Qaeda from Afghanistan, and we support the US air strikes against ISIL in

Iraq. The key point is that military force is just one element of what we can do. And we

need a much wider approach, working with neighbours in the region, and addressing not

just security but politics too.

We know that terrorist organisations thrive where there is political instability and weak or

dysfunctional political institutions. So we must support the building blocks of democracy,

the rule of law, the independence of the judiciary, the rights of minorities, free media, free

association, a proper place in society for the army, and we must show perseverance. Not

just because these building blocks take time to put in place, but because we are in the


believe we’ll be fighting for years and probably decades.



anywhere in the world. We will always act with urgency where needed, as we did with

the emergency data retention legislation which is already yielding results. And we’ve

already taken a whole range of measures to keep our people safe. We are stopping

suspects from travelling by seizing passports. We’re barring foreign nationals from re

entering the UK. We’re depriving people of citizenship and we are legislating so we can

prosecute people for all terrorist activity, even where that activity takes place overseas.






increase in referrals to our de radicalisation programme, called the Channel Project.

Now people are rightly concerned about so called foreign fighters who travel from Britain

to Syria and Iraq, taken part in terrorist acts and now come back to threaten our security

here at home. And the scale of this threat is growing. I said very clearly last week that

there will be no knee jerk reactions. We will respond calmly and with purpose. And we’ll

98

do so driven by the evidence and the importance of maintaining the liberty that is the

hallmark of the society that we defend. But we have to listen carefully to the security and

intelligence officers who do so much every day to keep us safe.








people’s passports away.

Now, as well as being tough, patient and intelligent, we also need to take a

comprehensive approach. Dealing with this threat is not just about new powers. It is about

how we combat extremism in all its forms. We need to tackle that ideology of Islamist

extremism head on at root before it takes the form of violence and terror. That means

challenging the thinking of extremist ideologues, identifying the groups in this country

that push an extremist agenda, and countering them by empowering the overwhelming

majority who believe in British values of democracy, the rule of law and respect for

minorities.




through my extremism task force. This has included stopping the funding of organisations

that promote extremism, banning hate preachers and ensuring that every part of

government and the state from schools and universities to prisons are all focused on

beating the scourge of extremism. And this task force will continue to meet regularly.








protect our way of life and keep all our people safe.

Thank you.

The use of lexicon and grammar in political speeches

Documents

Transcript of The use of lexicon and grammar in political speeches