This treatment is meant to look into the representation of terrorist act political orientation in Tony Blair ‘s declaration of war address in 2001. The address was an chance for Prime Minister Tony Blair to discourse a figure of issues he related to the war determination. These included the importance of publishing new ordinances and Torahs to battle terrorist act, globalisation, the European individual currency ( Euro ) , public services, and the modernisation of the Labor Party. This treatment is concerned with Blair ‘s political orientations refering terrorist act and globalisation. It is concerned with placing the tools Blair used to show his political orientations. In so making, the survey uses Jeffries ‘ ( 2010 ) lingual theoretical account of text analysis.
The treatment is in 5 parts. Part 1 is a treatment of the relationship between discourse and political orientation. Separate 2 is the research inquiry. Separate 3 is methodological analysis. Separate 4 is data description. Separate 5 is analysis. Separate 6 is decision.
Discourse & A ; Ideology
Jeffries ( 2010 ) argues that political orientation is “ an ineluctable fact of all discourse ” ( 2010:8 ) . The analysis of discourse therefore becomes an analysis and probe of the political orientation it expresses. This is supported by Stark ‘s ( 1996 ) statement that an person can recognize what he desires through many ways ; among them is rhetoric. He assumes that power is a “ rhetorical capacity to alter political world through bring oning others to move ” ( 1996:36 ) . He proceeds that there are other kinds of capacity that allow the talker to exert power over his addressees ; the fiscal and political standing provides the talker with a capacity he can utilize to alter the actions of his addressees. His discourse so becomes a ‘psychological force ‘ by which he threatens his addressees. This treatment is merely concerned with the power of rhetoric non the societal power.
The premise of ideological analysis, Dijk ( 1995 ) explains, is that “ political orientations of talkers or authors may be uncovered by close reading, understanding or systematic analysis, if linguistic communication users explicitly or inadvertently show their political orientations through linguistic communication and communicating ” .
One of the challenges many politicians face is the manner he can show his political orientations. This challenge becomes more complicated if the political orientation he supports is controversial. That was the instance with Tony Blair in his declaration of war address in 2001. In this address, Blair expressed his political orientations refering terrorist act and globalisation. The job is that in malice of the immense literature available on terrorist act and globalisation today, there is no internationally acknowledged definition of any of the two footings. Bing controversial issues and given the context that it is a declaration of war event, Blair did non like his positions to be challenged or declined. In this, he attempted to show his political orientations as facts that can non be challenged. The inquiries therefore are: how did Blair show his political orientations and what effects did he accomplish on his receivers?
To turn to the research inquiries above, this survey uses critical discourse analysis. CDA, Dijk ( 2001 ) defines, “ is a type of discourse analytical research that chiefly surveies the manner societal power maltreatment, laterality, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the societal and political context ” ( 2001: 352 ) . Wodak ( 2001 ) argues that “ the term CDA is used presents to mention more specifically to the critical lingual attack of bookmans who find the larger dianoetic unit of text to be the basic unit of communicating ” ( 2001:2 ) .
Fairclough ( 1992 ) points out that CDA was developed as a response to the traditional disciplinary divide between linguistics and other anthropological subjects such as sociology and political scientific discipline. He stresses that text analysis should non be done in isolation. That is, discourse analysis should look into many facets beyond the textual and lingual components. He sees that discourse should be seen in footings of power dealingss between talkers and receivers. In this, he offers a 3-dimensional attack to the survey of discourse. The theoretical account suggests that a text or discourse should be investigated at three degrees. The three dimensions are the textual characteristics, dianoetic patterns, and the societal patterns. He assumes that discourse analysis can non be done in isolation ; it must be overshadowed by contextual analysis: “ the tradition of close textual and lingual analysis within linguistics, the macrosociological tradition of analysing societal pattern in relation to societal constructions, and the interpretivist or microsociological tradition as seeing societal pattern as something people actively produce and make sense of on the footing of shared commonsense processs ” ( 1992: 72 ) .
The principle of utilizing CDA is that it investigates both formalized and contextual characteristics within discourse. Scholars about agree now that the function of context in understanding discourse and placing the intended significance of the talker is so permeant ( Dijk, 1993, Fairclough, 1992, Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, Jeffries, 2010, Schiffrin, 1987 ) . The thought is that the syntactician ‘s attempt to analyse individual, stray sentences requires a general apprehension which can be accomplished via the context of address. Schiffrin ( 1987 ) assumes that linguistic communication is potentially sensitive to all the contexts in which it occurs. She elucidates that linguistic communication reflects those contexts because it helps represent them. This means that ”understanding how linguistic communication is used and how it is structured depends on the consideration of how it is embedded in all of these contexts ” ( 1987:3 ) .
There are many ways by which CDA is carried out. This depends, nevertheless, on the nature and intent of analysis. Jeffries ( 2010 ) argues that the chief country of involvement for many bookmans working in CDA is “ the procedure of explicating how texts tantrum into socio-political landscape in which they are produced and read ” ( 2010: 11 ) . The purpose of this analysis, nevertheless, is to understand the ways in which the talker ‘s political orientations are conveyed to his hearers and receivers. In order to make this, this survey uses Jeffries ‘ ( 2010 ) lingual theoretical account of text analysis. This is a consistent theoretical account, with a figure of tools that address “ the inquiry what any text is making ” ( Jeffries, 2010: 15 ) .
The tools I ‘m utilizing herein are
Assuming and implying,
Showing the address and ideas of other participants
This analysis is based on Prime Minister Tony Blair ‘s ( Blair, 2001 ) address at the Labour conference in Brighton on Tuesday, 2 October 2001. The address came after the September 11 onslaughts and it was meant to declare war on terrorist act in Afghanistan. The address is described by many as the the gravest address of his political life ( Tempest, 2001 ) .
This portion is divided into two chief subdivisions. Section 1 is an analysis of the terrorist act representation. Section 2 is globalization representation.
In this address, Prime Minister Tony Blair had a serious job. He was trying to sell the English people the thought of the war on terrorist act ; nevertheless, really few were purchasing. In the face of this, Blair employed some schemes that help him accomplish his intent. These include describing, presuming and implying, contrast, and showing the address and ideas of other participants.
Blaire ‘s represents his political orientation refering terrorist act at subsequent phases.
Terrorism represents menaces and dangers for now and the hereafter
Tony Blair started his address with pulling the attending to the thought that Britain is in danger. He conveys this significance in an indirect manner so that his position is non challenged. This significance is expressed by agencies of alteration.
In retrospect the Millennium marked merely a minute in clip. It was the events of September 11 that marked a turning point in history, where we confront the dangers of the hereafter and measure the picks confronting world.
He uses the comparative clause [ that marked a turning point in history ] to depict the events of September 11. The comparative clause is a post-modifier that has the consequence of overstating the effects of the onslaughts. The adjectival clause is a presupposition that the September event is a turning point in history. Blair represents it as a fact. This is supplemented by the thought that it is represented as an event. Oppositions of Blair may see the September onslaughts as an accident. However, he sees it as a turning point in history. These ( alteration and the description of the onslaughts as an event ) have the consequence of pulling the attending of his receivers to the thought that he is turn toing a serious issue. Then he presupposes that the onslaughts have existent unsafe effects. This significance is embedded in the noun phrase [ where we confront the dangers of the hereafter ] . The noun phrase has the immediate components the which is a definite article, dangers which maps as the caput of the noun phrase, and the prepositional phrase of the hereafter which maps as a station qualifier. This nominal construction presupposes that there are existent future dangers. Blair uses the noun phrase to take for granted that there are future dangers he and his hearers are disputing. He no longer needs to asseverate them because these are assumed. This presupposition has the consequence of accomplishing understanding with his hearers. He assumes that they all agree that they are confronting dangers of the hereafter.
Then Blair moves to discourse the issue of September onslaughts. He is calling it as a calamity and an act of evil. Once once more, Blair represents the onslaughts as an event through the two noun phrases ( a calamity ) and ( an act of immorality ) . The two noun phrases here are of ideological significance. The noun calamity carries associations of intolerable anguishs done on the victims and the noun phrase ( an act of immorality ) has the ideological significance that the victims did nil wrong to have such an evil act. This significance is assumed in the prepositional phrase of immorality which is a post-modifier of the caput act. The ideological consequence of calling the onslaughts as a calamity and an act of immorality is that understanding for the victims and support for the American people are non challenged. And because his hearers or some of them may believe about the onslaughts as an American concern which is non required to be discussed at the Labour Party or domestic degree, Blair uses the adjectival British to stress the thought that it is a British concern as good: “ It was in many ways a really British juncture ” . The adjectival phrase ( really British ) is a pre-modifier of the caput juncture. The ideological consequence of the alteration here is that receivers need to understand that the onslaughts, in malice of being carried out in the United States, they touched the lives of the British people. Consequently, such an issue is required to be discussed at the domestic degree.
Terrorism is violent and barbarian
Then Blair comes to determine the barbarian and violent nature of terrorist act. This is achieved by agencies of alteration, presuppositions, and contrast.
It is that out of the shadow of this evil, should emerge enduring good: devastation of the machinery of terrorist act wherever it is found, hope amongst all states of a new beginning where we seek to decide differences in a composure and ordered manner, greater understanding between states and between religions and above all justness and prosperity for the hapless and homeless, so that people everyplace can see the opportunity of a better hereafter through the difficult work and originative power of the free citizen, non the force and savageness of the overzealous.
Blair does non state explicitly that terrorist act has to be confronted because it is bloody, barbarian, and violent. He implicitly assumes that. He is doing a contrast between good and evil. He uses the noun phrase ( this immorality ) to name and describe terrorist act. The NP so becomes a presupposition that can non be challenged. This is contrasted by the lasting good which is the devastation of this immorality. This evil is now named as the machinery of terrorist act which is an implicature that these are systematic groups. The consequence of the presupposition and deduction in the noun phrase ( the machinery of terrorist act ) is to overstate the dangers of terrorist act. While some people may believe of the panic attacks as single unorganised Acts of the Apostless, Blair describes it as a machinery of terrorist act with all the associations of the word. This is supported by the clause [ wherever it is found ] . This is an implicature that terrorist act is found in other parts beyond Afghanistan. It is besides an implicature that war can be extended to other parts. This is non explicitly said but implied in his address. It is deserving adverting that two old ages after, Tony Blair declared war in Iraq in his war against terrorist act. It can be claimed that Blair implied that he would establish war against terrorist act in Iraq in this address.
The ideological consequence of contrast here is to verify the evil nature of terrorist act. This significance is good supported by the structural correspondence at the terminal of the paragraph. There is a structural correspondence between the two nominal constructions ( the difficult work and originative power of the free citizen ) and ( the force and savageness of the overzealous ) . This structural correspondence emphasizes the great spread and contrast between the free citizens and the overzealous. Once once more, the two nominal constructions take it for granted ( by agencies of presupposition ) that the free citizen is characterized by difficult work and originative power and terrorists are characterized by force and savageness. The ideological consequence of presuppositions here is that they make the violent and barbarous nature of terrorist act. Blair does show this political orientation explicitly but he makes it assumed.
Terrorism must be confronted
After Blair has achieved his ends of pulling the attending of his hearers to the dangers his people are confronting because of terrorist act, he moves to reason about the urgency of confronting these dangers. However, he assumes from the get downing that they are dying and frightened.
I know that here in Britain people are dying, even a small scared. I understand that. Peoples know we must move but they worry what might follow.
This significance is good supported through presuppositions. The clause [ that here in Britain people are dying, even a small scared ] presupposes that people are frightened and a small scared. The clause is an object of the factive verb know. So he represents this significance as a world that can non be denied or challenged. This is supplemented by another presupposition embedded in [ I understand that ] . Both know and understand are factive verbs whose clausal complements have the presuppositions that in Britain people are dying, even a small scared. The presuppositions have the ideological consequence of doing his receivers frightened so that they should n’t dispute his positions. Then Blair assumes that they all agree on the issue of taking an act. This is achieved through the presupposition in we must move. Know is a factive verb and the clause [ we must move ] is an object of the verb know with the presupposition that taking act is assumed. This presupposition has the ideological consequence of doing the issue of moving against terrorist act nonnegotiable and unchallengeable from the really get downing. What is besides assumed is that people are disquieted about the effects of the act they are taking. However, he argues that these concerns about the effects should non stand against their determination to face it. This is assumed in stating:
Whatever the dangers of the action we take, the dangers of inactivity are far, far greater.
The comparative construction has the presupposition that there are existent dangers now. It becomes a nonnegotiable issue. Then he comes to name the grounds of war on terrorist act. The Taliban government is undemocratic. Founded on fright, and it is funded on the trade of drugs.
Blair links terrorist act with the job of drug dependence in the British streets. Because it seems as a unusual statement, Blair does non wish it to be challenged. He represented this political orientation as an statement that can non be challenged.
The weaponries the Taleban are purchasing today are paid for with the lives of immature British people purchasing their drugs on British streets.
The noun phrase ( the weaponries ) is an implicature that the Taliban is an armed group and that they have weaponries that they can utilize against others. These weaponries, Blair argues, come from the lives of immature British people. The participle phrase ( purchasing their drugs on British streets ) is a post-modifier of the noun immature British people. He makes the issue of drugs sold in British streets as a fact that can non be denied. The deduction is that the Taliban government is feeding on the lives of British immature people which has the consequence back uping his statement of the importance and urgency of war against terrorist act. He employs the frightening tactics as he argues that if there is no immediate action against al-Qaeda, there will be sedate effects to the immediate security of the United Kingdom.
Then Blair comes to rebut the statements of his oppositions or anyone who may dispute his positions. This is achieved through stand foring their address and ideas. Blair assumes that his point of view is the lone valid one and his people must follow him. He comes to reframe the opposing point of views and rebut them. He comes to reiterate the vocalizations that may be running in the heads of his oppositions.
Do n’t overreact some say. We are n’t. We have n’t lashed out. No missiles on the first dark merely for consequence.
Do n’t kill guiltless people. We are non the 1s who waged war on the inexperienced person. We seek the guilty.
Expression for a diplomatic solution. There is no diplomatic negotiations with Bin Laden or the Taliban government.
State an ultimatum and acquire their response. We stated the ultimatum ; they have n’t responded.
Understand the causes of panic. Yes, we should seek, but allow there be no moral ambiguity about this: nil could of all time warrant the events of September 11 and it is to turn justness on its caput to feign it could.
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .
Peoples say: we are merely moving because it ‘s the US that was attacked. Double criterions, they say.
But when Milosevic embarked on the cultural cleaning of Muslims in Kosovo, we acted. The skeptics said it was pointless, we ‘d do affairs worse, we ‘d do Milosevic stronger and look what happened, we won, the refugees went place, the policies of cultural cleaning were reversed and one of the great dictators of the last century will see justness in this century.
In the infusion above, Blair is utilizing other people ‘s words and ideas as a get downing point to back up his ain statement of the urgency of confronting terrorist act. Other people ‘s statements are Do n’t overreact, Do n’t kill guiltless people, Look for a diplomatic solution, State an ultimatum and acquire their response, Understand the causes of panic, We are merely moving because it ‘s the US that was attacked, and Double criterions
This representation of other people ‘s address and ideas achieves some ideological ends. First, Blair conveys to his audience the indicant that he has thought about all the available options. Second, he conveys his assurance in his policies ; hence, he should be followed and supported. Third, he represents his oppositions as straw work forces as their statements are invalid. In so making, Prime Minister Tony Blair tries to convert his audience that he is the lone 1 that must be trusted and followed. He tries to rule the scene. He displays himself as the lone 1 that can salvage their involvements. He attempts to convert them that they are powerless and that he is the lone 1 who has the power and strength to cover with that affair.
Blair defines globalisation as a fact of life that is driven by people and expresses itself in all facets of life: finance, communicating, engineering, civilization, and diversion.
But globalization is a fact and, by and big, it is driven by people.
The noun phrase ( a fact ) is a complement of the capable globalisation. Here Blair presents globalisation as an event. While oppositions may see it as a phenomenon, he thinks of it as a fact of life. As it is a fact of life, it can non be stopped. The consequence of the usage of this noun ( I mean fact ) is that people should non believe about ways of altering it. Rather, they need to believe of how to do usage of it. Otherwise, people will come to populate in isolation.
Because the option to globalization is isolation
Blair makes a contrast by giving two antonyms: globalisation and isolation. The ideological consequence of contrast here is forcing his receivers to believe approximately merely two options which are accepting globalisation as a fact or life in isolation. He asserts this significance by depicting it as a world in stating “ Confronted by this world ” . The pick of the noun world supplements the thought that globalisation is a fact. Globalization therefore becomes a fact and world. The ideological consequence of the two nouns fact and world is that receivers can non dispute them. So Blair argues that following the British guiding visible radiation will take to a successful planetary economic system. The nominal construction ( our steering visible radiation ) is a presupposition that such a thing is already at that place. This has the deduction that there is no job with globalisation itself. The job lies in the manner we apply and deal with it.
Blair ‘s political orientation or statement refering globalisation comes after he has mentioned the concerns about it.
I realise why people protest against globalization
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … .
But there ‘s a hazard that political leaders, faced with street presentations, pimp to the statement instead than reply it. The demonstrators are right to state there ‘s unfairness, poorness, environmental debasement.
Blair accepts the protests against globalisation as a world. This is assumed in the clause [ why people protest against globalisation ] . This is a noun clause that maps as the factive verb realize. The consequence of this presupposition is that Blair is stating them in an indirect manner that he is cognizant of their concerns and concerns. He emphasizes this premise through stand foring the demonstrators ‘ ideas and beliefs: “ The demonstrators are right to state there ‘s unfairness, poorness, environmental debasement ” . In so making, Blair established the thought that there is a job that needs to be resolved. Then he displayed himself as the 1 who can work out their job as he defined it and the manner it can be tackled as shown above.
It can be concluded so that Blair ‘s address belongs to important discourse. Pinto ( 2004 ) explains that important discourse, a type of political discourse, ”is a one-way transmittal instead than an unfastened agencies of communicating, a soliloquy from above that poses itself on the subsidiary ” ( 2004: 653 ) . It is a soliloquy in the strictest sense because it neither needs a response nor even allows it. In malice of the monologic nature of important discourse, talkers frequently attempt to make the semblance of duologue by agencies of some lingual devices, such as the usage of rhetorical inquiries ( frequently followed by immediate replies ) and the apposition of point of position.