Al Azhar University Faculty of Languages and Translation Postgraduate Studies English Department Linguistics Branch 2nd Year

A Pragmatic Analysis of President Obamas Speech After Mubarak's Stepping Down: A Conversational Implicature Study
(Term Paper)

Supervisor: Prof. Ahmed Shafik Elkhatib Professor of Linguistics

Submitted by Ahmed Sayed Ahmed Al-Gaisi 2011

A Pragmatic Analysis of President Obama's Speech After Mubarak's Stepping Down: A Conversational Implicature Analysis
1. Introduction

The paper tries to present a pragmatic perspective of the speech of Barak Obama on February 11th, 2011 commenting on the Egyptian exPresident's stepping down. Contextually, Obama's speech has been given on the same day after a few hours from Mubarak's Resignation Statement delivered by his Deputy, Omar Soliman. I choose this speech in particular as it linguistically represents a good piece of inferences that can be made in terms of direct/indirect pragmatic implicatures. Moreover, it can stand as an important reaction of world views regarding Egypt's recent events. Pragmatic interpretation depends most on what is being communicated not literally said; implicature (additional conveyed meaning which is intended in the context) is a prime example of communicating more than what is said, and it could be one of the best pragmatic tools to analyse such a speech as it depends on listeners to infer what is being communicated. Speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally co-operating with each other. In accepting speakers presuppositions or shared knowledge, listeners normally have to assume that a speaker who says, my car . does really have the car mentioned and is not misleading. Rather he is trying to be co-operative and intends to communicate something that must be more than just what words literally and actually mean. Therefore, implicature is one of the single most important ideas in pragmatics; it refers to the nature and power of pragmatic explanations and can be shown in some general principles of co-operation to offer significant functional explanations of linguistic phenomena. The theory of Grice H. P. (Conversational) Implicature is adopted as the analysis model. It is found in his books, Logic and Conversation (1975) and Further Notes on Logic and Conversation (1978. Though I have no access to them, I relied on the Reference books.
2

Considering just two types of conversational implicature when analysing Obama's speech, the paper will examine: Observing (Generalized or Standard), and Flouting (Particularized or Exploiting). Such a dividing is closely related to the directness concept as we will see in some detail when speaking about Kinds of Implicature on item no 3.1. This is a linguistic research. It has nothing to do with politics, But at the same time, it analyses a political speech delivered by President of the most important country in the world commenting on a stepping down of another counterpart due to the latter people's revolution. Such a situation inevitably involves some reference to political and social aspects in the country of the stepping down. A matter of politics but affects linguistic discourse, is USA policy in the region. It is supposed that it is a peacecaretaker country; facilities negotiations between Israel and Palestine. Big countries, like Egypt, take part in such happenings (due to weightiness in the region and its historical conflict with Israel). Accordingly USA holds mutual relations with Egypt and Egypt's (Ex) President Mubarak. It never happened that USA asked Mubarak to leave power. USA's situation, and Department of State's, Klenton, during the first few days were changeable, and said in accordance with the expected victor side. Little by little, it has been clear that people will definitely win. Therefore, spokesmen of the white House started to reveal out their final situation by saying "NOW" meaning 'O, Mubarak, step down now', then, by saying "NOW MEANS NOW". Language is the most important tool by which people can express their needs. By saying "NOW MEANS NOW", the spokesman attempts to put it to Mubarak frankly: 'O, Mubarak, USA has sold you; if you did not understand the first single "NOW", you must have understood the meaning of the next two ones plus the verb "MEANS" in between.

2.

Pragmatics Definition

Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning. It studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent
3

of the speaker, and so on. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics) Pragmatics has many definitions among linguists. Some observations have been made that pragmatics can be inferred as the study of language use, or the study of linguistic phenomena from the view point of their usage properties and processes. Some linguists consider that this definition does not provide the scope of the field enough because it does not introduce a strict boundary between pragmatics and some other areas in the field of linguistics, such as conversation analysis. Definitions try to designate the scope of pragmatics (S. C. Levinson Pragmatics 1983:1). The purpose is simply to sketch the sorts of concerns, and sorts of boundary issues with which pragmatists are implicitly concerned to observe what practitioners do. So, in his attempt to give a general view of pragmatics, he exposes so many variant definitions in order to designate the scope of pragmatics, and then comments on them. Such as, pragmatics is traditionally (like semantics and syntax) defined as the study of language usage is the study of language from a functional a perspective, i. e., that it attempts to explain facts of linguistic structure by reference to non-linguistic pressures and causes'; he comments saying such a definition will hardly to determine the scope of pragmatics Levinson (1983:5). He further explains that the study of pragmatics is attributable to the philosopher W. C. Morris (Foundations of the Theory of Signs 1938) who was concerned with defining the general form of the science of semiotics. Within semiotics, Morris distinguished three main branches: syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. While being less than fully satisfactory that it is said that Levinson (1983) dedicates some 50 pages of a series of failed definitions. But they at least serve to designate the rough scope of pragmatics as most of them assume a list of topics that declared pragmatics, like, presupposition, implicature, and so on. In principle, we can say that he considered a number of rather different delimitations of the field .some of these seem deficient: 1) the restriction of pragmatics to grammatically encoded aspects of context
4

2) or the notion that pragmatics should be built on the concept of appropriateness. 3) the most promising are the definitions that equate pragmatics with 'meaning minus semantics' 4) or with a theory of language understanding that takes context into account, in order to complement the contribution that semantics makes to meaning. To some extent, other conceptions of pragmatics may ultimately be consistent with these. For example, Levinson's (1983) definition of pragmatics as concerned with encoded aspects of context may less restriction than it seems at first sight: for (a) if principles of language usage have corollaries principles of interpretation. And (b) if principles of language usage are likely in the long run to impinge on grammar (and some empirical support can be found for both propositions), then theories about pragmatic aspects of meaning will be closely related to theories about the grammaticalisation of aspects of context. So the multiplicity of alternative definitions may well seem greater than it really is. D. Schiffrin views pragmatics as a linguistic branch that contains three concepts: meaning, context, and communication. In her view, she admits that the speaker's meaning is an important factor in pragmatics. This meaning not only allows a difference between two aspects of meanings, the semantic and pragmatic aspects, but it also shows a specific view of human communication that depends on intention. G. Yule, (Pragmatics 1998:3), as for his simplified definition, he submitted it as four areas of interest: speaker meaning, contextual meaning, communication, and relative distance. Thus, the definition of Yule (1998) included these areas: 1the study of language in a social context . 2the use of language in social contexts and communication 3meaning in context or meaning of the speaker intention. A definition, if, composed of the four areas could be: pragmatics is the study of speaker intended meaning in context and communication with respect to the concept of closeness/distance.

3.

Grice's Theory of Implicature (Conversational Implicature)

A semanticist has traditionally has taken two ways treating the so-called different meanings of, for example, 'and', as in:
5

1- yesterday , Mary was happy and ready to work addition or plus = static 2- she put on her clothes and went out. action related information = dynamic The first way: 'and' has two distinct senses = ambiguity. The second way: word meanings are in general versatile and are influenced by collocation. There is thus a big change if the sentence parts are reversed. Implicature offers a way out by saying that natural language expressions do tend to have simple, stable and unitary senses, but this stable semantic core often has an unstable, context specific pragmatic overlay namely a set of implicatures. Implicature seems to be simply essential if various basic facts about language are accounted for properly. For example, particles like 'well, anyway, by the way' require some meaning specification. We find ourselves referring to the pragmatic mechanisms that produce implicature in addition to: certain syntactic rules that are sensitive to implicature and implicature interesting constraints on what can be a possible lexical item. Unlike many other topics in pragmatics, implicature does not have an extended history. The key ideas have been outlined by Grice H. P. under the "Co-operative principle", or (CP) in his book titled (Presupposition and Conversational Implicature) published in1981. It is essentially a theory about how people use language. Grice believes in four fundamental maxims forming the CP. These rules (maxims) of communication allow to draw inferences and to go beyond what is stated as long as they are of the logical kind. They help us understand how sentences relate in sequence, how they are related at a deeper level even though they are unrelated on the surface. These principles that generate implicatures have thus a very general explanatory power providing a large number of apparently unrelated facts. In so doing, these inferences are called implicatures when applied. Speakers communicate meaning via implicature and listeners recognize them via inference. The four maxims that form the CP are as follows: 1) Relation: be relevant; make your contribution relevant to the ongoing conversation. 2) Quantity: be informative; make your contribution as informative as required.
6

Quality: be truthful; say things you think they are true or for which you have evidence. 4) Manner: do not make the message overly wordy, obscure, ambiguous, or disorganized. These principles are unstated assumptions in conversation; they are assumed in normal interaction and thus speakers rarely mention them.
3)

On first seeing this view may describe a philosopher paradise; no one actually speaks like that the whole time. Thus, drawing inferences via these principles may seem extremely messy and difficult as it is likely that a speaker violates one or more of them resulting in non cooperative interaction due to shared knowledge or knowledge of the world. They thus may be applicable for a culture and inapplicable for another. Before anyone else Grice (Levinson 1983:103) defended against critics; he admits that people follow these maxims to the letter but at the deeper level not the superficial one. He suggests that they are not arbitrary conventions; rather they conduct co-operative exchange and govern aspects of non-linguistic behavior as well. Accordingly, a set of non-verbal analogues of these verbal maxims are supposed that it can be said that these maxims do indeed derive from general considerations of rationality applicable to all kinds of co-operative exchanges. Generally speaking, all maxims should be observed, but in some cases there should be a maxim which is stronger or weaker according to the interlocutors state of knowledge, the domain, and the kind of interaction going o, etc. So, what better is to look at the whole environment and circumstances to trace meanings to utterances. Conversational implicatures are part of what is communicated and not said, so they are featured by some passive characteristics: 1) reinforceable / cancellable = deniable = defeasible, speakers can always deny that they intended to communicate such meanings. So, implicatures are cancellable. On the other side of the scale, they are reinforceable, such as, 'Some of the boys are intelligent, but not all' reinforcement in fact all' cancellation In this respect, implicatures are more like inductive inferences while deductive or logical inferences are thus not defeasible, such as, ' Ali beats small boys ' Ali is a male due to his proper name.
7

This cancellation and the like give a rise to a projection problem where the meaning of some implicatures as 'parts' does not survive to become the meaning of complex utterances as 'wholes'. 2) Nondetachable, attached to the semantic content of what is said, not to the linguistic form; implicatures can not be detached from, an utterance simply by changing the words for synonyms. There appear to be other kinds of pragmatic implication that are attached to form rather than the meaning like 'presupposition' and 'conventional implicature'. Therefore, detachability may serve to distinguish conversational implicature from other kinds of pragmatic inferences. 3) calculable, we can infer more than one inference or meaning to the same implicature. 4) nonconventional, they are not part of the conventional meaning of linguistic expression; they can not be part of literal meaning. 5) variable, for example, an utterance with a single implicature John is a machine can give rise to different implicatures on different occasions due to contexts. That example can convey that John is cold efficient, never stops working, etc. 6) Universal, more or less natural occurring languages would be expected to have equivalent utterances to, say, a sentence like, 'This man has only 3 children' ( though such equivalents are not necessarily identical ) on the assumption that the maxims are derived from rational co-operation values. Although Levinson (1983) followed Grice's Theory of Implicature (1981) and he is going to follow him in the next concepts as well, he considers that "Grice has provided more than a sketch of the larger area that might be" enriched by much work (Levinson 1983:118). He refers to the need for more modification and application as the area is of such broad scope with so many ramifications. He deprived Grice a little bit.

3.1. Kinds of Implicature

It terms of directness or in terms of Observing / Flouting the maxims of Co-operative principles (the paper will analyse through it):
A)

1- Observing (Generalized or Standard), derived from a simple assumption that the speaker is observing the maxims in a fairly direct way where implicatures arise relying on that the addressee makes

straightforward inferences without any particular context or special scenario. 2- Flouting (Particularized or Exploiting), derived from the more complex assumption that the speaker is opposing the maxims overtly and deliberately where implicatures or inferences require such specific contexts and exerting more effort depending most on shared knowledge. B) In terms of conversation and convention: 1- Conversational, (the previous 1and 2 Observing and Flouting). 2- Conventional, Grice envisaged an entirely different kind of non-truth conditional inferences (Levinson 1983:127). They just unlike conversational ones; neither are based on the co-operative principle, nor derived from subordinate pragmatic rules like the maxims. They do not depend on special contexts for interpretation, but they are associated by convention, with specific lexical terms or expressions, and also result in additional conveyed meaning. Such as, discourse and social deixis, and English conjunctions 'but, even, therefore, yet' etc. For example, 'Mary suggests black but I take white', the implicature here suggests only one grammaticalthenfunctional inference which is of contrary expectation. Conventional implicatures can contrast with conversational ones on all the distinctive properties. They are non-cancellable, detachable, noncalculated referring to a relatively determine meaning. They, unlike conversational, can not express life variability, and there will be no universality in them. They are rather an admission of the failure of truth conditional semantics to capture all the conventional meaning; that is why attempts have been made to reduce alleged cases of entailment, conversational implicature or presupposition. This type is closely related to structure where syntactic rules seem to be sensitive to such elements of meaning.

4.

Obamas Speech Analysis

I am going to divide the whole speech into separate sentences. Then I will try to explicate the implicature carried whether direct or indirect. Finally, I will give my account why I consider certain utterances to be

having indirect implicatures and what maxims of those of Grice's CP (as cited in Levinson 1983:102,102) the speaker flouts or opposes. Having 'indirect' implicatures in a piece of text or a stretch of conversation does not necessarily imply that there is something wrong. Moreover, we can find a speaker violates a maxim because only of shared knowledge. A writer or a speaker finds that it is in the best of his interests to put certain implicatures explicitly and other certain ones implicitly. What I am going to do is to refer to this putting simply. I have divided the whole speech into 43 utterances. I have found that: Direct implicatures are found in utterances numbers: {4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 24 together, 25, 26 together, 28, 29, 30 together, 31, 32, 33 together, 37, 38 together, 39, 40, and 43}. Indirect implicatures do not occur alone of course but beyond direct ones. They are found in utterances numbers: {1, 2 together (Manner), 3 (Quality), 8 (Manner), 10, 11 together (Manner, Quantity and Relation), 13, 14, together (Manner), 18, 19, 20 together (Manner), 22 (Quantity), 27(Quality), 34(Manner), 35(Manner, Quantity and Quantity), 36(Manner), 41, 42 together (Manner)}. The number of the direct and indirect implicatures are not the same. Direct ones are 25 while the indirect ones are 18. This means that the speech is more direct; what the speech states is more than what it implies. On the other hand, although the direct implicatures are much more in number, messages carried by the indirect implicatures are more important and of heavy weight as we will see.

4.1. The Speech Text numbered:

The speech source : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41534662/ns/politics/t/obama-says-egyptwill-never-be-same/ (I have copied it without change; just I added numbers) 4:09 P.M. / President Barack Obama gave these remarks on February 11, 2011 a few hours after Hosni Mubarak stepped down from the presidency in Egypt

10

" 1 There are very few moments in our lives where we have the privilege to witness history taking place. 2This is one of those moments; this is one of those times. 3The people of Egypt have spoken. 4Their voices have been heard and Egypt will never be the same. 5By stepping down, President Mubarak responded to the Egyptian peoples hunger for change. 6 But this is not the end of the transition, its the beginning. 7Im sure there will be many difficult days ahead and many questions remain unanswered. 8 But I am confident that the people of Egypt can find the answers, and do so peacefully, constructively and in the spirit of unity that has defined these last few weeks. 9For Egyptians have made it clear that nothing less than genuine democracy will carry the day. 10 The military has served patriotically and responsibly as a caretaker to the state and will now have to ensure a transition that is credible in the eyes of the Egyptian people. 11That means protecting the rights of Egypts citizens, lifting the emergency law, revising the constitution and other laws to make this change irreversible, and laying out a clear path to elections that are fair and free. 12Above all, this transition must bring all of Egypts voices to the table, with spirit of peaceful protest and perseverance that the Egyptian people have shown can serve as a powerful wind at the back of this change. 13 The United States will continue to be a friend and partner to Egypt. 14 We stand ready to provide whatever assistance is necessary and asked for to pursue a credible transition to a democracy. 15Im also confident that the same ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit that the young people of Egypt have shown in recent days can be harnessed to create new opportunity, jobs, and businesses that allow the extraordinary potential of this generation to take flight. 16And I know that a democratic Egypt can advance its role of responsible leadership not only in the region but around the world. 17 Egypt has played a pivotal role in human history for over 6,000 years, but over the last few weeks the wheel of history turned at a blinding pace, as Egyptian people demanded their universal rights. 18We saw mothers and fathers carrying their children on their shoulders to show them what true freedom might look like. 19We saw a young Egyptian saying, for the first time in my life I really count, my voice is heard. 20 Even though I am only one person this is the way real democracy works. 21 We heard protesters change Salmeai Salmeai we are peaceful again and again. 22 We saw a military that would not fire bullets at the people they were sworn to protect. 23We saw doctors and nurses rushing into the streets to care for the people that were wounded. 24Volunteers checking protesters
11

to make sure they were unarmed. 25We saw people of faith praying together and chanting Muslims, Christians chanting we are one. 26And though we know the strains between faiths still divided too many in this world, no single event will close that chasm immediately. 27These scenes remind us that we need not be defined by our differences; we can be defined by the common humanity that we share. 28 And above all, we saw a new generation emerge. 29A generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears. 30A government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. 31One Egyptian put it simply most people have discovered in the last few days that they are worth something. And that can not be taken away from them anymore. 32Ever. 33This is power of human dignity. And it can never be denied. 34Egyptians have inspired us and theyve done so by putting the lie of the idea that justice is best gained through violence. 35For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence, not terrorism, not mindless killing, but nonviolence, the moral force that bent the arc of history to moral justice once more. 36 And while all of the sights and sounds we heard were entirely Egyptian, we cant help but hear the echoes of history. 37Echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets. 38 Ghandi leading his people down the path of justice. 39As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana, while trying to perfect his own There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom. Those were the cries that came from Tarhir Square and the entire world has taken note. 40Today belongs to the people of Egypt and the American people are moved by these scenes in Cairo and across Egypt because of who we are as a people and the kind of world we want our children to grow up in. 41The word Tahrir means liberation. 42It's a word that speaks to that something in our souls that cries out for freedom. 43Forever more it will remind us of the Egyptian people, of what they did, of the things that they stood for, and how they changed their country and in doing so changed the world. Thank you."

4.2. The Speech Analysis

1, 2) Governed by national interest only, Obama delivers his speech. Obama asserts that the event is fundamental that it calls upon history to take place. Direct implicature: the importance of the event.

12

Indirect implicature: the event itself; Mubarak's stepping down and the victory gained by the Egyptian people. Obama opposes the maxim of Manner as he does not determine why we have such a privilege, although he will put it explicitly in utterance no. (5). 3, 4) the people of Egypt have made the world hear their voices and Egypt thus has changed. Direct: the revolution succeeded. Indirect: the word "never" implies that USA is on the people not the regime side. USA approves this revolt and condemns the previous Mubarak's regime as it was not good enough for the Egyptians. Accordingly, it was better if Egypt would never be the same. At the same time, when we examine the source of tear-gas canisters, we find they are USA made. Thus, does Obama also flouts the Quality maxim by saying thing he knows they are untrue? As we will see in no. (13). 5) the cause of all that happens is Mubarak's stepping down . Direct: stepping down meets the demands of the people of Egypt. The word "hunger" implies that the Egyptians had spent very long time longing for a change that they deserve. Only now ( EX - ) President reacted to their rights for such a change . 6, 7) This stepping down is just the beginning of transition towards democracy; it is supposedly the end of the peaceful protest and the start of freedom and hard work. This hard work will act against the difficulties faced, like the kind of the new government and rule, Parliament, police forces, etc. Direct: Egyptians will come over any blocks in the way. 8) Egyptians will deal with, answer and manipulate such difficulties in the spirit of unity of the recent 18 days characterised by peace and construction on the side of demonstrators, and opposed by violence and killing on the side of the regime as it might be inferred from the utterance opposing Manner. 9) these potentials and faculties inside the Egyptian people showed to all the world that next days will bring nothing but true democracy that Egypt deserves . Direct: the outcomes of the revolution will soon take place, and at the same way as the Egyptians like. 10) "The military has served patriotically and responsibly as a caretaker to the state" such an utterance observes the maxims of CP of Relevance, Quantity, Quality, and Manner. It implicates clearly that Obama speaks in praise of the Egyptian Armed Forces who protected the 25th Revolution and did not fire a bullet towards a revolutionist.
13

'have to ensure . ", though this utterance goes with the maxim of Quality, it opposes the maxim of Manner (the sub-maxim of avoiding Ambiguity) where it implies that USA will not advocate another military regime that will practice the same previous deeds towards the Egyptian people. Moreover, the maxims of Quantity and Relation are violated as he is imposing his conditions on the Supreme Council of the Egyptian Armed Forces but in terms of a friendship and partnership offer as we will see in (13,14). 11) the transition will be credible when it protects the citizens' rights , ends the emergency law , etc . Direct: USA stands side by side in support of the Egyptian people. Indirect for both 10 and 11) these demands and others the Egyptian people have revolted to obtain them on the one hand. On the other hand, USA asks the ruling entity in Egypt to adopt these needs and supervise achieving them. For USA is the biggest country in the world, it assumes itself to take care of changes taking place in the world under the pretext of achieving democracy. It gives itself the right thus to impose the frame of transition to pursue what falls in its best interests. In so doing, USA tries to speak on behalf of the revolutionists; it goes up the wave of the revolt. Obama, though he praised the army in general, he does not refer explicitly to the role played by the army to bring resignation very early without confronting the people. 12) the most important thing the transition will bring about is getting Egypt's voices to the table (of national dialogue) without excluding any single entity. This will happen with the spirit of peaceful protest as a pushing power behind this change. 13, 14) we and Egypt have been (and will be) friends and partners. Accordingly, we are ready to provide whatever aid to help establish a democratic Egypt. Direct: the offer of friendship is on the condition that the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces has to assure a democratic change. Indirect: He flouts the maxim of Manner; the offer (deal) is not openly made. USA and Egypt have mutual interest. According to this view, we, USA, will take the advantage of the revolt and be on the victor side. For the Obama's administration, it had a changeable situation towards the revolution during the first early days. None can have predicted that these protests would overthrow that deeply rooted system. Anew, Obama mentions "credible transition": if you, the Egyptians, have anything in the way of democracy, we can help you to keep our friendship/partnership as it is. So, to help you and to make our help last as before you will continue
14

keeping silence regarding any act (of war / killing) done by USA or its lovely Israel. 15) Speaking in praise of this generation of the Egyptian youth , Obama says that they have possibilities that are beyond what is usual or ordinary . This power can be used successfully for taking the opportunity to create new jobs and businesses. 16) Obama predicts that Egypt, if characterized by genuine democracy, will not take charge of wise leadership in the region but and in the world as well. 17) historically, Egypt has a great place in human history . But this history ran at a sightless speed because of demanding the Egyptians their common and exhaustive rights through legitimate and peaceful protest. the word "right" implies that these protests are legitimate. 18, 19 and 20) Repeatedly Obama expresses his admiration of some aspects witnessed during the 18-day revolt. Such as, parents who were carrying their children on shoulders to take part in the revolution, and the quotation said by a young Egyptian talking about esteem and considering himself thus worthy even thought he was only one person not a group. Indirect: revolution has succeeded in changing old Egypt and getting it to be a new one. He here opposes the maxim Manner as he spoke about events referring to the outcome. 21) one of the most important aspects of Egypt's recent revolution is being "Peaceful" that Obama transliterates the Arabic phrase " " into "Salmeai Salmeai". He does not translate it expressing his appealing of the Egyptian behavior. This "Salmeai Salmeai" was always said especially on Tuesday 25th, the first day of demonstration. Implying the most hazardous event of all the revolution's, and deserving looking at it admirably, it is the day when the youth demonstrated in front of the Republican Palace of Mubarak in the last few days of the revolt. Expecting violent confrontation and massacres that would be committed by the Republican Guard, many Arab channels made us, as Egyptians, full of terror due to the thousands that would be killed. But as before on 25/1, when the young people of Egypt initiated the police forces with bunches of flowers congratulating them on their Police Day. And as they did the same on 28/1; Friday of Anger. The Republican Guard found themselves confronted by flowers, not violence. In turn , the Guards officers can not help but turn their tanks to the other side instead of being facing the demonstrators . These situations and the like is the thing that made Obama transliterate not translate " " and repeatedly talk about the Egyptians deeds during the revolt.
15

22) He speaks again in praise of the Armed Forces of Egypt as they were fully honest and did not engage in clashes, like police forces, with demonstrations. Indirect: it could be inferred that there is an indirect reference to some Arab countries that used military forces to suppress demonstrators like Yemen. And now like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Bahrain, and so on. Obama flouts the maxim of Quantity by repetition. 23, 24) Here, he gives an integrated image drawn by the unity that emerged during the revolt. So he speaks praising the curative and medical crews and the volunteers as well. 25, 26) Obama puts it simply: the revolution of the 18 days has done the thing that the whole world hopes for and wants to. He speaks about the sectarian religious unity between Muslims and Christians. Although there have been sectarian strifes that still tear whole countries, like Sudan, no stone was thrown towards a church or a Christian. 27) Obama reaches the upper bird's view while seeking about people definition; people can not be, according to what takes place in such a revolt, defined by religion, race or whatever class, only by the one thing they all share, i.e., humanity. Indirect: A question that masters me, the researcher, can that HUMANITY be applied only to the 'free world' or every nation can share such a privilege as the Arabs, Palestinians, Iraqis, Sudanese, Lebanese, Iranians, and Muslims? Does Obama flout the Quality maxim as he says things he knows they are not true and has no evidence for? 28, 29, and 30) Directly USAs President considers the most important thing in the revolution is the emerging of the new generation of the young people harnessing their creativity , talent and technology available to change the situation and get a regime which is in their benefit as one people. Obama implies the very important role of IT and Communication Revolutions. 31, 32, and 33) For the second time Obama also extracted a say of an Egyptian referring to a new thing that has been appeared on the surface; potentials turned into acts and deeds. There is no anyone that can deprive the Egyptians their right or degrade them as before. This new thing is their "human dignity" that was taken away and denied by the previous system. 28, 29, 30, and 31, 32, and 33) The total implicature: Directly speaking, USA praises the Egyptian revolution, will support Egypt fully in order the previous regime not to come back again. USA is aligned to democracy and people rights to the letter. 34) Egyptians put uplifting thought, ideas and aims into.
16

Indirect: Everyone wants to change should act as the Egyptians have acted. they have proved that it is just a lie the idea that justice is best gained by violence. Obama opposes the maxim of Manner as he does not state it openly. 35) Indirect: this sentence is highly implicating the ideas that oppose Osama Ibn Ladin's and his organization's. The latter has faced (neither I am commenting on this conflict, nor I am aligning myself to any, I am just speaking about it as an implicature in Obama's speech) USA and other countries the world round threatening them by destruction in order to end USA's hegemony and change corrupted rulers that help USA. But Obama asserts that there is another view for change different from this bloody one. It is to adopt " the moral force (three times) of nonviolence (twice) terrorism, mindless killing", "nonviolence" (3 times). This view is so sublime that the arc of history was bent once more to this "moral justice". Obama once again violates the maxim of Quality; he says things that are not true; what about the "moral justice" of USA in, at least, Iraq and Aphganistan. What about the Creative Chaos of Bush & Rice that would result in a new Middle East. How for is this power of change of USA different from that of Ibn Ladin's. He uses two scales when dealing with Arab/Israeli issues. This Creative Chaos has left millions of orphans and widowed by the war in Iraq alone. Obama violated the maxim of Manner as he did not designate the entity compared with the Egyptian one. He opposes the maxim of Quantity by repetition. 36) actions and sounds taking place in Egypt's revolution are all Egyptian made. There is no foreign or neighbor country moved the pass of these events; they are fully Egyptian that history is awoken again to take place in a free modern Egypt. Indirect: Obama blocks it in front of anyone who says that his revolt is USA made or a foreign-country made opposing the Manner and Quantity maxims as he does not name his argument and repeats "history". 37, 38) Obama compares what has been in Egypt with that in German and Indonesia to confirm its grandeur. 39) After that he increases his stress by means of quoting Martin Luther King's word and linking it by the cries of Tahrir Square to say that they are deeply-rooted inside the souls that seek for freedom and dignity to inform the entire world. 40) Obama reaches a high level of praising the Egyptians; the American were deeply affected by Egypt's revolution scenes. They hope to build a world like that of Egypt's revolt for their children to bring them up in. He does not violate the maxim of Quality by exaggeration; because he describes
17

not exaggerates. For in Egypt, the scenes have astonished the whole world not only Obama. 41, 42) the event in Egypt is a universal one in terms of referring to Martin Luther King's saying. He makes a connection between the events and the meaning of the word "Tahrir". This meaning "liberation" is addressing our freedomseeking souls. Indirect: "Tahrir Square" became a symbol and stands for "freedom". Obama flouts the maxim of Manner as he does not put it openly but it is an additional inferred meaning. 43) As history has been called upon, what it is going to be recorded will be immortal as long as humans have been still alive. Egyptians got an immortal fame. They in so doing did not change their country but the world as well.

5.

Conclusion

Hearing such a speech, it is supposed that most of the Egyptian people are to know well that Obama and USA stand on demand to help Egypt as far as they can in order to get Egypt in position. Moreover, in this speech, direct implicates are concerned with stressing the concept that USA is a lovingdemocracy country, praises the whole society taking part in the revolt including the youth , medical crews , volunteers and the military. Obama violated the CP 17 times in 19 utterances: 1- Manner 9 2- Quantity 4 3- Quality 3 4- Relation 1 This means that Obama's indirect implicatures are whether ambiguous and obscure, repeated, may be untrue, and irrelative. Whereas direct ones are vice-versa; clear, informative, truthful and relative. But in fact, most violations are due to shared knowledge (Manner), and repetition (Quantity). Indirect implicatures are concerned mainly with political affairs. There are some indirect implicatures about the way in which security forces dealt with the disarmed civilians as in (8). Another thing which is important in the indirect implicatures is that Obama postulates the army not to keep in power, but to transit it peacefully to a civil government as
18

calls have claimed that at the Tahrir Square chanting " ," i. e., protestors say we want our new changed country not to be military as before, or religious but a 'civil' one. If these conditions are met, we (USA) will still friends and partners to Egypt as we have. Accordingly, our financial and military aids and other kinds of support will last. He covers his offer by the postulating of the "credible transition", the offer is in between: "credible help offer credible". Otherwise, USA will stop such supports and aids, neither it will be a friend, non a partner. Such an implicature is a crystal clear proof for USA's interference in Egypt's private affairs. Obama's sentences are expressive and relatively short, although there are long ones to serve the ideas they represent. Repetition is an aspect of this speech. Obama repeats some certain phrases or utterances in the same context to affirm the concept he wants to make it clear, Repeatedly Obama talks in praise of the Egyptians to assure them that USA stands on the people not the ruler side. Throughout his speech, he tries to elevate and increase the importance of the Egyptian revolt serving its main aim : USA stands on the side of the people. He calls upon history to take place more than one time (1, 17, and 36) explicitly and (44) implicitly. He refers to the army's role twice (10, 11) and (22). In the first one he puts his conditions for the friendship offer. In the second time, he just refers to it as a social member like doctors, nurses, etc. He could have referred to this role once, but repeating "the military" serves hearers to feel how far Obama was interested in the military deeds. A thing that supports this view, on the running May 9th, a spokesman of the Administration praised the role played by the army during the revolution time. This role can be clear if compared with those of other countries dealing with their peoples violently and furiously. Transliterating " "into "Salmeai Salmeai", Obama implicates the most important aspect of Egypt's revolution, which is, 'peacefulness'. Obama extracted two words of two different Egyptians. This reflects Obama's interest in what the young people of Egypt or the Egyptians in effect say. For by their voices, the change of their country and thus the world has taken place. Obama also cited a say of a universal freedom-fighter, i. e., Martin Luther king and linked it to by Tahrir cries implicating the universality of what the Egyptians have done as an example of a peaceful miracle. A miracle which most of the world has to learn from it like other nations that overcame beatings peacefully and successfully. It is very suitable for
19

Obama to take the opportunity comparing between Osama Ibn Ladin's policy of change and the peaceful change of Egypt (and Tunisia) through repetition in (34 and 35). Avoiding more repetition, it is very suitable for me too to ask about the validity of such a comparison with reference to (at least) the Israelioriented policy of USA in the Arab and Islamic worlds. By analysing this speech through implicature, it became clear the importance of such pragmatic tool as a prime example of communicating more than what is said. It has also been clear that the maxims of the CP are very useful in tying inferences to the deeper levels. But at the same time, they are vulnerable due to shared knowledge or knowledge of the world.

20

REFERENCES
Leech, G. N. 1983 . Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman. Levinson, S. C. 1983. Pragmatics. Great Britain: University Press, Cambridge. Widdowson, H. G. 1983. Learning Purpose and Language Use. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Widdowson, H. G. 1978. Teaching Language as Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41534662/ns/politics/t/obama-saysegypt-will-never-be-same/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics (and many other sites).

21