Discourse & Society - Politics - Communicative Intention of George Bush PDF

A RT I C L E 299
Communicative intention in George W.

Bushs presidential speeches and
statements from 11 September 2001
to 11 September 2003 Discourse & Society
Copyright 2006
SAGE Publications
(London, Thousand Oaks,
CA and New Delhi)
http://das.sagepub.com
Vol 17(3): 299330
ANNA AZUKA 10.1177/
0957926506062363
UNIVERSITY OF ULSTER
A B S T R A C T . The
purpose of this article is a pragmatic interpretation of
utterances. In particular, the analysis aims at apprehending illocutionary
intention, as understood by Bach and Harnish (1979), in George W. Bushs
speeches and statements. I also investigate how the speaker carries his
discourse during the time period analysed. Here, I point to Scollon and
Scollons (2000) discussion of the theory of anticipatory discourse (the four
variables rapport with the audience, hostility towards the enemy, positive
self-presentation of the government and the speaker and rapport with the
people of Iraq measured in the course of the analysis and illustrated in the
figures make the problem in question clear). Additional comments are also
made concerning some distinctive features of the speakers discourse strategies
which belong to the area of rhetoric as broadly understood. The time period
chosen, covering Bushs principal speeches and statements, enabled me to
investigate the communicative action of the speaker during the recent conflict
between Iraq and the US. I analysed altogether some 44 speeches and
statements delivered during the given time period. That makes up for the
2,229 communicative acts identified for the total of 2,203 sentences analysed.
The framework used for the analysis is the one proposed by Bach and Harnish
(1979), i.e. the intention and inference approach, according to which
communicative acts are classified in terms of the kind of attitude each act
expresses. Thus, each utterance was classified as a particular subtype of the
four broad types of communicative illocutionary acts. Finally, I conclude by
trying to gather and comment on the crucial entities found in Bushs speeches
and statements.
KEY WORDS: communicative illocutionary act, communicative intention,

intentionality, intention-and-inference approach, legitimation discourse
300 Discourse & Society 17(3)
1. Introduction
In this article I wish to analyze, employing the terminology of Bach and Harnish
(1979), communicative intention in George W. Bushs speeches and statements
during the period from 11 September 2001 to 11 September 2003. The key
theoretical concept of the present analysis is intentionality. However, before I
proceed with presenting the concept in question and the methodological frame-
work, my use of the term pragmatic analysis requires some clarification. Its use is
strictly connected with my understanding of pragmatics. Thus, I take it with
Kryk-Kastovsky (2002) who in her Synchronic and Diachronic Investigations in
Pragmatics consistently and convincingly accounts for Verschuerns view on
pragmatics: Pragmatics is understood . . . not as a separate language
component/module, but . . . as a perspective extending like an umbrella over the
entire language, so that phonological, lexical, or syntactic choices always have
particular pragmatic consequences (2002: 8). Thus, the present analysis can be
claimed to be pragmatic, insofar as it seeks the pragmatic consequences of a
particular choice of speech acts, finally arriving at the speakers communicative
intention. Obviously, final apprehension of the communicative intention is only
possible when the socio-political context is taken into account. In the course of
this analysis, while employing Bach and Harnishs intention-and-inference
approach, each utterance found in Bushs speeches and statements was classified
as a particular instance of a communicative act. The whole set of acts chosen by
the speaker, when judged also against its semantic content and socio-political
context the recent conflict with Iraq enabled me to arrive at conclusions of
pragmatic importance final apprehension of the speakers communicative
intention. As for the classifying process itself, it has to be said that final choices,
though made according to the schema, were in many cases intuitive a fact
explained later in the article.
INTENTIONALITY
Marmaridou (2000: 186) refers to intentionalism as one of the views, as distinct
from conventionalism and interactionalism, which can be applied to the analysis
of speech acts. Moreover, it specifically emphasizes the role of the speaker. She
further points to the concept of intentionality, as discussed in Searles work,
where it actually constitutes a powerful hypothesis concerning meaning in
language and the functioning of the human mind (2000: 193). Meaning within
this framework results from the addressee recognizing the speakers intention in
producing an utterance, which is identical to performing an action. Searle
further discusses such psychological states as belief, desire and intention, in
terms of which he then analyses intentionality. The five illocutionary categories
are said to be derivative of the basic aspects of the mind and are further analyzed
in the same mentalist terms. The following insights from intentionalism, as
adopted from Jaszczolt (1999) and Marmaridou (2000), are of relevance to the
azuka: Communicative intention 301
further discussion of an intention and inference approach used as the analytic

basis of the subsequent analysis which will become clear from the following
extracts:
Intentionality means . . . the property of mental acts of having content being about
something . . .. Mental acts include such attitudes as belief, desire, want, need,
expectation. (Jaszczolt, 1999: 88; emphasis added)
Intentionality of mental states subsumes intentionality of speech act because language
constitutes one of the possible vehicles of thought. (Jaszczolt, 1999: 120; emphasis
added)
Intentions in communication cannot be separated from the intentionality of cognitive
processes. (Jaszczolt, 1999: 96; emphasis added)
For an intention to be fulfilled, an action has to performed, thus an action is the
condition of satisfaction of an intention. (Marmaridou, 2000: 193; emphasis added)
Significance of the fact/process of recognition by the addressee of the speakers
intention in producing an utterance. (Marmaridou, 2000: 193; emphasis added)
Intentionality presupposes a considerable degree of regularity and consistency with
respect to speakers plans and addressees expectations. (Marmaridou, 2000: 193;
emphasis added)
THE INTENTION AND INFERENCE APPROACH

The inferential theory of speech acts developed out of proposals originally made
by Searle (1975). Subsequently, it was elaborated on and refined in the speech act
schema, as described by Bach and Harnish (1979) and Allan (1986). The present
analysis makes use of the schema laid down by these authors.
In their preface Bach and Harnish (1979: xii) state: Although our approach
is primarily philosophical and linguistic it intersects with cognitive and social
psychology by exploring psychological and social factors that contribute to
successful linguistic communication. Pertaining to this claim is the particular
attention they pay to the speakers intention and the hearers recognition of this.
Structure and meaning should not be overvalued at the expense of the speakers
intention and the hearers recognition. As Bach and Harnish further state, the
condition of satisfaction of a communicative intention is its recognition by the
hearer a view, it should be noted, that concurs with the earlier claim of Fodor
(1975: 103 quoted in Bach and Harnish (1979: xiv)). They affirm that
communication is successful only when the hearer infers the speakers
intentions from the character of the utterance he produces.
Defining intentions
Before going into the details of Bach and Harnishs approach, it seems reasonable
at this point to make reference to other definitions of intention. Let us first look
at Moravcsik (1975) and his definition of linguistic intention, which attempts to
make clear the difference between communicative and linguistic intentions, and
argues why the former are of special note. In Moravcsiks (1975: 53) words, the
mastery of the referential apparatus of a language as well as its meaning

relations enables the competent speaker to form intentions of using an
expression E to refer to something and to mean by a certain sequence of
expressions E. . . E, e.g. a certain proposition. And this is how Aijmer (1977),
Levelt (1989) and Brown (1995) define communicative intention. Aijmer (1977:
1) states that the speaker has certain intentions and beliefs that he wants the
hearer to recognize and act upon. In addition the speaker wants to express his
social role and establish a certain relation to the hearer. Although the concept
of intention accompanies each speech act at its beginning, intentions peculiar to
speech acts, according to Levelt (1989: 59), are specific in kind, a point also made
by Grice (1957/1971) and further developed, in particular, by Recanati (1986)
and Sperber and Wilson (1986). In the case of communicative intentions, as
Levelt calls them, the speaker does not only intend to convey some thought.
Apart from that, he/she also intends for the utterance to make it possible for the
addressee to recognize the speakers purpose in conveying this thought or wish.
A speech acts effectiveness will thus depend on the addressees recognition of the
speakers intention in communicating this information. Brown (1995: 22733)
points to Grices Meaning (1957/1971) as the origin of intention-oriented
approaches the theoretical orientation adopted by such scholars as Bennet
(1976), Dennet (1990), Fodor (1988) and Evans (1982). When defining
intention, Brown (1995: 229) emphasizes the necessity for the speakers
intentions to be recognized by the addressee. Not only should the addressee
understand the meaning of the words uttered but he/she should be able to
recognize the illocutionary force with which the speaker is performing his/her
act. According to Strawsons (1974/1991) account (as discussed in Brown,
1995: 22930) the speaker may have a number of intentions simultaneously.
The most relevant for the present discussion are the following:
the speaker intends to address a given addressee and intends that the
addressee should recognize this intention;
the speaker intends to inform or to instruct the addressee, or emphasize (e.g.
by repeating), or question a belief or attitude of the speaker or of the
addressee and intends that the addressee should recognize this intention;
the speaker intends to construct an utterance which will appropriately take
account of the existing knowledge, beliefs or attitudes which the speaker
attributes to the hearer; and
the speaker may intend to arouse a particular emotion in the addressee and
may, or may not, intend that these intentions are recognized by the addressee.
From the above definitions one can see that the main distinction and specificity
of communicative intentions consists in their effectiveness, which is determined
by the recognition of the speakers intentions by the addressee.
Communicative intention and inference on the part of the hearer are what
occupy the central place in Bach and Harnishs theoretical approach. They list
the three factors that influence the hearers recognition of the utterances point
content, context, and the point intended to be recognized with the emphasis
on the third. The connection between structure and speech acts, they further
suggest, is inferential and not semantic (see Sadock, 1974 and Searle, 1969 for
the opposite view). According to Bach and Harnish, communicative illocution-
ary intentions are reflexive intentions in Grices (1957/1971) sense; in Bach and
Harnishs (1979: xivxv) words, a reflexive intention is an intention that is
intended to be recognized as intended to be recognized.
One identifies what that intention is on the basis of what is said together with
mutual contextual beliefs (MCBs). What is said depends on the expression
uttered, its meaning in the language, what the speaker means by it and what
things are being referred to. MCBs are understood here in terms of beliefs rather
than knowledge because they need not be true in order to figure in the
speakers intention and the hearers inference (Bach and Harnish 1979: 5).
A taxonomy of communicative illocutionary acts

With regard to their classificatory schema Bach and Harnish (1979: xv) state:
We attempt to sharpen and systematize Austins detailed classification of
illocutionary acts in order to make explicit the full range of communicative acts
to which our account is meant to apply. These communicative acts are
categorized in terms of the kind of attitude each communicative act expresses.
The satisfaction of the acts resides in the hearer identifying the attitude expressed
in the way the speaker intends him/her to identify it. This, in turn, requires an
inference on the part of the hearer (inferential analysis as discussed below). To
express an attitude is, in the authors view, to R-intend that the hearer takes the
speakers utterance as a reason to believe the speaker has the attitude. As for the
concept of attitude, it seems relevant to point to Motschs (1980) idea of the
situational context that the speaker has to take into account when he/she draws
up a plan for an utterance. By representation of the information concerning
situational context, Motsch means a representation of the mental state of a
speaker. The speakers mental state is further structured into elements Motsch
terms attitudes. He calls the whole structure a configuration of attitudes.
Among the four kinds of attitudes are the epistemic and doxastic, motivational,
normative and intentional attitudes, which are expressed with general formulas,
as exemplified below in the formula for intentional attitudes (Motsch, 1980: 160):
(F1) Pi INTEND A Pi DESIRE A Pi ASSUME (Pj DESIRE A)
(F1) Pi INTEND -A Pi DESIRE -A Pi ASSUME (Pj DESIRE -A)
Note: Pi certain person, A performance of an action by an actor, -A omission of an
action, P a variable for an actor with different qualifications.
These attitude configurations can be used to represent the future actions of the
hearer, as well as the future actions of the speaker. Although Motsch (1980:
167) concludes that the apparatus sketched . . . is merely a tentative theoretical
basis for an analysis of empirical material, it seems that it would undoubtedly
contribute to making the framework for the study of speech acts more structured
and explicit, which is what Bach and Harnish advocate in their study. Motschs
investigation is limited to directives and commisives (to adopt Searles terms) but,
as he suggests, if extended, the same apparatus could be used to characterize
representatives and expressives.
According to Bach and Harnishs classification, there are four types of
communicative illocutionary act, with every act type being further differentiated
in terms of the reasons for or the strengths of the attitudes expressed. Constatives
express the speakers belief and his/her intention that the hearer has or forms a
like belief. Directives express the speakers attitude towards a future action by the
hearer and his/her intention that the utterance be taken as a reason for the
hearers action. Commisives express the speakers intention that the utterance
obligates the hearer to do something. And finally, acknowledgements express the
feeling towards the hearer, or in the case of formal utterances, the speakers
intention that his/her utterances satisfy certain social expectations regarding the
expression of certain feelings.
Bach and Harnish (1979: 40) comment on their taxonomy as follows, which
will at the same time serve as a transition into another central concept of their
approach the speech act schema (SAS):
The fundamental idea behind our taxonomy is that . . . expressed attitudes . . . are all
homogenous with the speech act schema. That is the SAS represents the general form
of illocutionary intention and inference, and the entries in the taxonomy provide
the content, as is evident in the concluding step of the SAS: the identification of the
illocutionary act being performed. Since such acts are identified by their intents, the
distinguishing features of each illocutionary act type specify the very thing H must
identify in the last step of the SAS.
Speech act schema

The following is how Bach and Harnish (1979: 3) illustrate the main
constituents of a speech act (where S is the speaker, H is the hearer, e is an
expression in language L, C is the context of utterance):
Utterance Act: S utters e from L to H in C
Locutionary Act: S says to H in C that so-and-so
Illocutionary Act: S does such-and-such in C
Perlocutionary Act: S affects H in a certain way
To make an inference the hearer relies on, apart from MCBs, the following three
presumptions, which are shared between the hearer and the speaker as well as
members of the linguistic community:
Linguistic Presumption (LP): The mutual belief in the linguistic community CL to
the effect that (i) the members of CL share L, and (ii) whenever any member S
utters any e in L to any other member H, H can identify what S is saying, given
that H knows the meanings of e in L and is aware of appropriate background
information.
Communicative Presumption (CP): The mutual belief in the linguistic community

CL to the effect that whenever a member S says something to another member H,
S is doing so with some recognizable illocutionary intent.
Presumption of Literalness (PL): The mutual belief in the linguistic community CL
to the effect that if in uttering e, S could (under the circumstances) be speaking
literally, then S is speaking literally.
The authors divide illocutionary acts into four general categories which are
further subdivided into many subcategories (see Table 1 below):
For every subcategory one can further provide specific R-intentions and, in
dubious cases, the correlative perlocutionay intentions ((i)) as may be illustrated
with an example of the subcategory of assertives (as adapted from Bach and
Harnish, 1979):
Assertives (simple): (affirm, allege, assert, aver, avow, claim, declare, deny (assert . . .
not), indicate, maintain, propound, say, state, submit)
In uttering e, S asserts that P if S expresses
(i) the belief P, and
(ii) the intention that H believe P.
Generally, the categories used do not overlap, with the entries in each category
satisfying the criteria for belonging to that category. Still, the authors are aware of
certain shortcomings in the classification. To make the schema even more explicit,
the subcategories could be further subdivided. One could, moreover, specify a
greater number of verbs falling under each subcategory. Furthermore, they point
to certain verbs occurring under more than one heading, as with the
TA B L E 1 . Classification of communicative acts (as adopted from Bach and Marnish, 1979)
Communicative illocutionary acts

I II III IV
Constatives Directives Commissives Acknowledgements
Assertives Requestives Promises Apologize

Predictives Questions Offers Condole
Retrodictives Requirements Congratulate
Descriptives Prohibitives Greet
Ascriptives Premissives Thank
Informatives Advisories Bid
Confirmatives Accept
Retractives Reject
Assentives
Dissentives
Disputatives
Responsives
Suggestives
Suppositives
subcategories of constatives. This is, however, unavoidable as some verbs name

more than subtype of communicative act, and also because some utterances can
themselves be of more than one type of communicative act. What is also
characteristic of this taxonomy, as mentioned above, is the main idea behind it,
namely that the types of intent it specifies are all homogenous with the speech act
schema. The schema itself provides an abstract model of Hs reasoning, specifying
each step taken to apprehend Ss illocutionary point in uttering U and thus in
performing an action. The schema organizes and orders all the information
considered by the hearer. Allan (1986: 462), whilst acknowledging the rationality
of the model, nonetheless considers it misleading, because it mistakenly assumes
that each step is completed before the next one is begun. It seems, however, that
Bach and Harnish have anticipated this criticism. They are aware that the hearer
often works holistically, both looking ahead and backtracking as he goes along
(Bach and Harnish 1979: 18). Furthermore, they claim that the schema presents
the pattern of inference without representing how the inference is made. A precise
prediction of how an utterance will be taken is also impossible, as it is impossible
to predict which MCBs will be activated. Still, it is assumed that by adopting so
analytical an approach the inferential analysis nonetheless may provide quite
precise specifications of communicative intention.
2. Analysis of the data

THE AIMS AND THE DATA
The general aim of the present article is to present a pragmatic interpretation of
utterances. In particular, the analysis aims at apprehending illocutionary
intention, as understood by Bach and Harnish (1979), in George W. Bushs
speeches and statements. Before doing so, however, I would like to investigate
how the speaker carried his discourse during the time period analysed. At the end
of the article I would also like to make additional comments on some distinctive
features of the speakers discourse strategies which belong to what is broadly
understood as rhetorics.
The data under analysis consist of Bushs principal speeches and statements
covering the period from 11 September 2001 to 11 September 2003. The time
period chosen seems relevant as it enables me to investigate the communicative
action of the speaker during the recent conflict between Iraq and the USA. The
first of the speeches/statements analysed was delivered on 11 September 2001,
the day when the attacks on the World Trade Center took place; the last was on
11 September 2003, the second anniversary of the attacks. This period also
covers the US military operations in Iraq, which started on 20 March 2003 and
officially finished on 14 April 2003. I analysed altogether some 44 speeches and
statements (18 in 2001, 7 in 2002 and 19 in 2003). The exact dates and titles of
the speeches/statements are included in the bibliography. The speeches chosen
for the analysis are comprised of those delivered as a monologue and those
addressed to the nation, or which could be said to be of some importance for the
nation. I did not include any joint statements or speeches addressed to some
particular social/ professional group (e.g. the FBI employees). I also excluded
interviews in which the speaker was asked questions and gave answers; the
speakers answer would have to be interpreted on the basis of the question asked,
which is not within the parameters of the present study. Moreover, when a
speech was accessible only in the form of an excerpt and not in its full form I did
not include it. The data included were all taken from the governmental web pages
to ensure their authenticity and accuracy.
METHOD OF ANALYSIS
The framework used for the analysis is the one proposed by Bach and Harnish
(1979), i.e. the intention and inference approach, according to which
communicative acts are classified in terms of the kind of attitude each act
expresses. Thus, every single utterance was treated as an instance of
communicative action. I then tried to apprehend what sort of attitude each
utterance expressed, classifying it as a particular subtype of the four broad types
of communicative illocutionary acts (see Figure 1 and the example of assertives
above). As mentioned and explained above, the analysis was pragmatic I was
looking for the pragmatic consequences of the speakers choice of speech acts. In
doing so I took into account semantics and structure as well as socio-political
context. The combination of all these enabled me to arrive at a result of
pragmatic importance. This approach accords with that of Bach and Harnish.
They provide quite a detailed description of each subtype, specifying verbs that
fall under each subtype (see the example of assertives above). This, however, only
serves as a clue to interpretation. The connection between linguistic structure
and speech acts is inferential. Every time an inference is made it necessarily
FIGURE 1 . Rapport with the audience

involves content, context and communicative intention (Bach and Harnish

1979: xi).
Almost all of the communicative acts identified were literal and direct (LD), i.e.
S is F-ing that p. Only three times does the speaker use a direct but non-literal
communicative act (ND), i.e. S is F-ing that P, and that is when he uses a metaphor.
Apart from identifying an utterance as a particular kind of communicative
illocutionary act I also marked it as expressing an attitude towards/concerning
somebody/something. Thus, I put beside each act an additional category marked
with a capital letter, e.g. (S) for speaker. This is used when he comments on his own
actions, expresses his personal opinions, religious beliefs, etc., such that (S+G)
indicates activities of both the speaker and the government; (G) for the
government alone; (A) for the audience, i.e. the American people; (E) for the
enemy; (PI) for the people of Iraq; and finally, (ON) for other nations, i.e. allies of
the USA (Middle East allies included). Additional categories were also added: (W)
marking all the acts in which a pronoun we was used both with reference to
the activities of S+ G and A; (+) marking highly positive depiction only of any of
the categories (eg A, S, S+G, E etc) and (-) marking derogatory depiction of any
of the categories respectively; and finally (F) marking emotionally loaded
communicative acts. Acknowledgements, such as thanking, greeting or bidding
were considered as illocutionary acts and not conventional ones a claim
made and accounted for by Bach and Harnish (1979: 1257). In the course of
categorization, one sentence unit marked with a capital letter at the beginning
and a period at the end did not always correspond to one single communicative
act identified. Sometimes two illocutionary acts were identified within one
sentence unit. Also, among the sentences analysed four acts of proclaiming were
found (two acts in the speech on 13 September 2001 and two acts in the speech
on 4 September 2003) which are not considered because of their status as
conventional communicative acts. As a result, 2,229 communicative acts were
identified for the total of 2,203 sentences analysed.
During the classifying process the schema revealed certain deficiencies. First
some utterances proved to be of double or even triple identity. For instance, the
sentence, The danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his weapons cannot be
ignored or wished away (sentence number 36, paragraph 8, 26 February 2003)
lent itself to three possible classifications: LD advisory /warn, urge/ (A), i.e. literal
and direct act, subtype: advisory (S expresses the intention that H take Ss belief
as sufficient reason for him to do A) directed at A; or LD confirmative /diagnose,
conclude/(E), i.e. literal and direct act, subtype: confirmative (S expresses the
intention that H believe P because S has support for P) with reference to E; or LD
assertive /allege/(E) i.e. literal and direct act, subtype: assertive (S expresses the
intention that H believe P) in which S expresses a certain claim with respect to E.
Second, there is a lack of clear-cut categories for acts of admiration, respect,
appreciation and expressions of declaring that one is proud of some other
person. I have decided to classify all these acts as LD descriptive/evaluate/
(category) (+), i.e. literal and direct act, subtype: descriptive in which S expresses
positive evaluation with respect to a particular category. Moreover, the utterance

I hope that . . . posed some classification problems. Ultimately, I decided to
classify it as LD assertive. While it does express Ss attitude towards some
prospective action by H, it does not express Ss intention that his utterance will be
taken as a reason for H to act as would be the case with directives; thus, it is a
constative in which a prospective action is ascribed to H. The fact that certain
verbs occur under more that one subtype, a point emphasized by the Bach and
Harnish, did not pose many difficulties. The point should only be made regarding
the category of informative and retrodictive, two of the most frequently
occurring categories. Although the verb report came under these two subtypes,
I differentiated between LD informative /report/ and LD retrodictive /report/. The
former refers to purely reporting the most recent facts, while the latter refers to
recounting and reporting facts from a more distant time perspective.
Considering the above-mentioned difficulties encountered during the
classification, we can see that categories ascribed to the utterances should not be
considered as absolute. Final choices, though made according to the schema,
were in many cases intuitive. Nevertheless, I hope that the analysis will prove
instructive and valuable.
ANALYSIS
How does the speaker carry his discourse?
In the present section I investigate how the speaker carries his discourse. Scollon
and Scollon (2000) point to a theory of human agency which itself is included in
a theory of anticipatory discourse. The theory of human agency assumes an
analysis in terms of different stances as regards feasibility and efficiency of ones
actions with respect to the future, which range from agentive to fatalistic. In
other words, the question becomes to what extent we believe that an action
(communicative action in this case) can effectively be taken to influence possible
outcomes. Pertaining to this claim is also Scollons (2001: 2) argument that in
times of political crisis we attempt to carry political discourses more consciously
through anticipation of possible social friction. Van Dijk (1998: 2568)
expresses a similar opinion when he talks about legitimation discourse:
Legitimation may not be necessary in normal course of events and when no
challenges to institutional power or authority are imminent. They become
imperative, however, in moment of crisis, when the legitimacy of the state, an
institution . . . is at stake. Legitimation, then becomes part of the strategies of crisis
management, in which in-groups and their institutions need self-legitimation and
out-groups must be delegitimated.
Moreover, according to Wodak et al. (1999; cited in Scollon, 2001) the degree of
conscious intention is the function of the texts fixedness. Thus, one may expect
its highest degree in fixed texts, e.g. political speeches, which is the case in the
present analysis. I will try to find whether S indeed carried his discourse
consciously during the period analysed. If it proves correct it will mean, in turn,
FIGURE 1 A . Rapport with the audience yearly trend
that he assumed an agentive stance. We could, then, call Ss discourse both

conscious discourse and legitimation discourse, i.e. a discourse carried
consciously in order to influence self-projected outcomes and to secure the
legitimacy in the face of an imminent crisis.
That the above assumptions prove true in the present analysis should become
clear from the diagrams below. They represent rapport with the audience,
hostility towards the enemy, positive self-presentation of the speaker and
government and rapport with the people of Iraq. Communicative acts used to
measure the four variables were chosen according to what we may call
common expectations. Thus, we would normally expect that to establish a
rapport with the audience S would use wishes, highly positive descriptives, polite
requests, etc. A high number of positive descriptives and acts informing the
audience of the positive moves of the speaker and the government would in turn
contribute to their positive self-presentation. Thus, among all the communicative
acts identified, only those relevant to a particular variable were chosen for the
diagrams which follow, for example such communicative acts as LD assertive
/claim/(A)(W)(+), LDdescriptive/evaluate,assess/(A)(W)(+) or LD retrodictive/
recount/(A)(W)(+), among others. These make the variable rapport with the
audience. All the figures were created on the basis of the daily occurrence of
communicative acts relevant to a variable in question. The bar graphs provide
only a more general illustration of the same problem shown in the line graphs,
showing the trend of a particular variable in each year.
As we might expect, S tries to establish rapport in 2001. We assume that S
predicts the future course of events and, thus, wants to ensure that he will have
A on his side when conflict occurs. Increase in the level of rapport is significant,
FIGURE 2 . Hostility towards the enemy
FIGURE 2 A . Hostility towards the enemy yearly trend
as can be seen in Figure 1A. The increase here is noted, on average, every second
day, reaching its peak in November 2001 (Figure 1) Then, it systematically
decreases, and only a slight increase is observable in 2003. This seems strange as
we might expect that it would reach its highest level in 2003. It might have
possibly helped Bush to have A support his war ventures. In this respect, Ss
communicative behaviour deviated from what I expected.
As can be seen from Figures 2 and 2A the level of hostility towards E remains
high throughout the entire three years, which serves to promote and finally
establish the negative picture of E. In 2001 we observe an increase of hostility in
the days right after the attack. In 2002 the level of hostility remains constant
FIGURE 3 . Positive self-presentation of the government and the speaker
FIGURE 3 A . Positive self-presentation of the government and the speaker yearly trend
but rather low with a sudden increase in early October the period marking the
first anniversary of the attacks and immediately prior to the full-scale military
conflict, which started on 20 March 2003. In 2003 we note quite a high level
just before the war starts; it remains quite high in March (the first month of the
war) and then steadily decreases. The subsequent observable increase occurs just
before the second anniversary of the attacks.
As can be seen in Figure 3A, the level of positive self-presentation remains
high throughout 2001 and 2003. A decrease is observable in 2002. Figure 3
shows that the level of positive self-presentation remains quite high from
February until March 2003 with a sudden increase in April right after the war
FIGURE 4 . Rapport with the people of Iraq
FIGURE 4 A . Rapport with the people of Iraq yearly trend
finishes. Then it slowly decreases before rising again before the second
anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center.
As one might have expected in this case, the level of rapport suddenly
increases in 2003 when the USA starts its military operations in Iraq, as seen in
Figures 4 and 4a. It suddenly increases in February before the war starts, which
may serve as preparation of PI for the imminent conflict. It remains quite high in
March and April before then decreasing. Only in August and September before
the second anniversary of the attacks does S increase the level of rapport,
renewing promises addressed to PI.
We have seen from the figures above that in the majority of cases S carries out
his discourse in a manner that would be, by any reasonable judgement,
predictable: he conducts his discourse more consciously when certain challenges
to his authority are anticipated. On certain occasions, however, he deviates from
what we might have commonly expected. For instance, contrary to expectations,
S does not keep the level of rapport with A high in 2003 when the war is taking
place. This does not in any way mean that he stopped strategizing his discourse.
He continues to do so, but rather in quite a different way. It turns out that in order
to add to the negative depiction of the enemy, Ss discourse does not have to be
rich in negative descriptives. Quite the contrary: negative informatives (i.e.
informative ((E)(-))) seem more convincing and, more importantly, objective. This
becomes clear as the detailed interpretation below makes evident.
Identification of the communicative intention

In this section an attempt will be made to identify Bushs communicative
intention. As van Dijk (1998: 2168) states, communicative acts are, like all
forms of action, intentional. To account for actions we need their cognitive
counterpart intentions. If actions are combinations of intentions and doings
(the actual realization of the intentions), then to understand an action means
. . . the tentative reconstruction of an intended model, as inferred from
observable doings in some context of interaction . . . (Van Dijk, 1998: 217).
Intentions extend to specific discourse properties, such as syntactic choices or
lexical selection.
My analysis will concern the selection of speech acts. In the following
sections I will try to elicit communicative intention on the basis of the data which
consist of the full collection of speech act types arrived at on the basis of a
detailed and extensive analysis of the presidential speeches and statements. The
data (as given below) have been put in the three tables, each corresponding to a
particular category which I generally labelled as (S) speaker, (A) audience and
(E) enemy. Each table is divided into three sections, accounting for three periods
from which the data were collected. The overall number of occurrences of a
particular communicative act type in each period has been given (see the number
next to a particular type of the communicative act) together with the detailed
differentiation between the narrower categories. There is no rule behind the
arrangement of the entries in the tables. They simply consist of the list of the
communicative acts used with respect to the category in question. One additional
table has been given (see Table 3) containing the overall numbers for the three
categories comprising the three periods taken into analysis.
As can be seen from Table 2, the prevalent mode of speaking for the category
of (S) is informative. Informatives occur most frequently in 2001 and 2003, the
times when two significant events take place the attack on the World Trade
Center (11 September 2001) and the war in Iraq (20 March14 April 2003). The
speaker uses informatives most frequently in September 2001, immediately after
the attack, but also in February, March and April 2003, the period immediately
2. General specification of the communicative acts used with categories (S) (S+G),
TA B L E
(M), (ON) ), (A) and (E)
(S), (S+G),
20012003 (A) 20012003 (E) 20012003 (M), (ON)
LD requestive 47 LD requestive LD requestive 13

LD informative 55 LD informative 95 LD informative 447
LD assertive 151 LD assertive 73 LD assertive 209
LD bid /wish/ 25 LD bid /wish/ LD bid /wish/
LD greet 28 LD greet LD greet 1
LD retrodictive 82 LD retrodictive 72 LD retrodictive 89
LD descriptive 46 LD descriptive 40 LD descriptive 52
LD predictive 59 LD predictive 11 LD predictive 87
LD thank 60 LD thank LD thank 38
LD confirmative 69 LD confirmative 68 LD confirmative 55
LD condole 16 LD condole LD condole 5
LD promise 26 LD promise LD promise 8
LD suppositive 8 LD suppositive 22 LD suppositive 5
LD congratulate 1 LD congratulate LD congratulate 2
LD ascriptive 1 LD ascriptive 3 LD ascriptive 10
LD advisory 15 LD advisory 5 LD advisory 7
LD requirement 3 LD requirement 28 LD requirement 29
LD offers 10 LD offers LD offers
LD disputative 2 LD disputative 1 LD disputative
LD concessive 1 LD concessive LD concessive
LD permissive LD permissive LD permissive 2
LD question LD question LD question 2
before and at the beginning of the war itself. It seems that the speaker is trying to
provide the nation with much information before the upcoming conflict with a
view to making citizens feel suitably informed. Informatives remain the prevalent
mode of speaking until the official end of the war. In 2002 the number of
informatives used decreases, which may indicate a degree of stabilization in the
year between the two critical points. There seems to have been no need to
bombard people with information during this period, though informatives still
prevail, albeit to a lesser extent. When informing, the speaker most often refers to
the activities of himself and the government (S+G) and the government alone (G),
as, for example, in this utterance: And members of Congress are working together,
regardless of party, in the best American spirit, to help get our economy moving
again (informative (G)(+)), (22.09.2001). Simultaneously, the speaker uses
positive terms with respect to the categories mentioned, trying to ensure their
positive portrayal and to present their activities as beneficial to the people. Rarely
does the speaker refer to himself and his activities alone (S), with the exception of
2001 when he not only refers to his own activities but describes them in positive
terms, as in Im asking Congress for new law enforcement authority, to better
TA B L E 3 . Specification of the communicative acts used with respect to category (S) (and also
(S+G), (M) and (ON))
2001 (S) 2002 (S) 2003 (S)

LD thank 24 LD thank 13 LD thank 1
LD confirmative 25 LD confirmative 20 LD confirmative
LD request 4 LD request 6 LD request 3
LD greet 1 LD greet LD greet
LD permissive 2 LD permissive LD permissive
LD condole 1 LD condole 4 LD condole
LD promise 8 LD promise LD promise
LD ascriptive 1 LD ascriptive 9 LD ascriptive
LD suppositive LD suppositive LD suppositive 5
LD advisory LD advisory 7 LD advisory
LD congratulate LD congratulate 2 LD congratulate
track the communications of terrorists, and detain suspected terrorists until the
moment they are deported (informative (S)(+)), (29.09.2001). It is also
characteristic that in 2003 (the year of the Iraq conflict) the speaker starts
referring to the military (M), informing of its actions and portraying it as
beneficial for the nation, as, for example, in the following utterance: Even before
the fighting began in Iraq, Special Operations forces were inside the country,
moving in to protect key infrastructure, protect the oil fields owned by the Iraqi
people, secure vital bridges (informative (M)(+), (16.04.2003). Only in 2003, as
well, does the speaker refer to allies/potential allies of the USA. He often does so in
positive terms and, thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that he is trying to win
them over to the US cause and gain their good will.
The assertive is the second most frequently used subtype of communicative
act. Its use increases in 2001, then decreases in 2002, only to rise again in 2003.
The speaker uses this mode again when referring to his own actions, the actions
of the government, or both, often depicting them or their actions in such positive
terms as: We care for the innocent people of Afghanistan, so we continue to
provide humanitarian aid, even while their government tries to steal the food we
send (assertive (S+G)(W)(+)), (08.11.2001). In so doing, the speaker affirms,
maintains and declares, as if stating the obvious. This adds to the picture of the
speaker as self-confident and convinced of the righteousness of his position and
actions. He wants the audience to accept his statements as a matter of fact
something which is obvious and should not be questioned but taken for granted,
even when the issues he touches upon are controversial and likely to be challenged.
The increase in use of retrodictives, used mainly with reference to the

military, is noted in 2003. The speaker reports on the actions of the military,
pointing to their beneficial consequences: For all the contributions of
technology, however, the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan were won by the skill
and courage of well-trained, highly motivated men and women (retrodictive
(M)(+)), (17.05.2003). This happens in the year of military conflict when the
positive portrayal of the military seemed especially desirable in order, for
instance, to justify possible reprehensible actions.
The increased use of predictives can be seen in 2001. The speaker uses them
most often with respect to both the government and the speaker, pointing to
positive aspects of their future activities, for example, We will starve terrorists of
funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until
there is no refuge or no rest (predictive (S+G)(+)), (20.09.2001).
Furthermore, the speaker quite frequently uses confirmatives and
descriptives. The use of the former increases in 2001, when they refer mainly to
other nations, the military and the government, and in 2003, when they are
used mainly with respect to the military. In these, the speaker appraises and
diagnoses the actions of agents represented by the categories mentioned as
positive. Indicative of the speakers communicative intention seems to be the
increased use of confirmatives in the year of conflict when he assesses the
military and the governments actions as positive: Since the 11th of September,
the men and women of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been
relentless in their work (confirmative (G)(+)),(27.10.2001). Pertaining to this
tendency seems the increased use of descriptives. In the year of the conflict the
speaker characterizes the military by using positive terms or evaluates their
actions as beneficial. This is especially true in April 2003, one of the months
when the conflict took place: These are the kind of people who when they are
wounded themselves ask to rejoin their comrades in battle (descriptive
(M)(+)),(16.04.2003).
The frequent use of requirements with respect to the government, or both the
government and the speaker, is noteworthy. Here, the speaker, by virtue of his
authority, sets certain requirements on the government and himself. This ten-
dency is mostly apparent in 2002 when it seems necessary to ensure a positive
public image before starting to air sometimes unpopular opinions concerning the
imminent military operations. This may be perceived as one further self-serving
strategy of the speaker. Thus, both the speaker and the government are perceived
not only as the authoritative bodies, but also as entities which are responsible to
the nation and on which certain requirements are set as well.
As can be seen from Table 4, the overt characteristic of the mode of referring
to the audience is the speakers extensive use of assertives. This sudden increase
is observable in 2001, especially in September. The speaker uses assertives
referring mainly to the following narrow categories: (A)(W)(+), (A)(+) or
(A)(W). For example, These acts shattered steel, but they cannot dent the steel of
American resolve (assertive (A)(+)), (11.09.2001), There are prayers that help
TA B L E 4 . Specification of the communicative acts used with category (A)
2001 (A) 2002 (A) 2003 (A)
LD requestive 25 LD requestive 3 LD requestive 19

LD bid /wish/ 15 LD bid /wish/ 4 LD bid /wish/ 6
LD greet 13 LD greet 5 LD greet 10
LD thank 26 LD thank 9 LD thank 25
LD condole 12 LD condole LD condole 4
LD promise 2 LD promise 5 LD promise 19
LD suppositive 6 LD suppositive LD suppositive 2
LD congratulate 1 LD congratulate LD congratulate
Ld ascriptive 1 Ld ascriptive Ld ascriptive
LD advisory 1 LD advisory LD advisory 14
LD requirements 3 LD requirements LD requirements
LD offers LD offers LD offers 10
LD disputative LD disputative LD disputative 2
LD concessive LD concessive LD concessive 1
us last through the day or endure the night (assertive (A)(W)),(14.09.2001)

and This is a day when all Americans from every walk of life unite in our resolve
for justice and peace (assertive (A)(W)(+)), (11.09.2001). In these he points to
the positive characteristics of the American people. What is also characteristic is
his use of the pronoun we. Although the speaker is not inclined to portray
himself or his actions as positive when referring to himself (S), he actually
includes himself by means of the pronoun we.
In the year 2001 especially in September we further note a proliferation of
retrodictives. He mainly refers to the categories (A)(+), for example: A beloved
priest died giving the last rites to a firefighter (14.09.2001) and (A)(W)(+), for
example: And we responded with the best of America with the daring of our
rescue workers, with the caring for strangers and neighbors who came to give
blood and help in any way they could (11.09.2001). In the former the speaker
uses so called observational images (Cap, 1998: 154). He reports on the past
actions of the people, portraying them as examples to be followed by others. The
use of the pronoun we in the latter utterance serves to indicate solidarity with
the American people in their fight for the right cause, as he sees it. This subtype
of communicative act prevails in September 2001, immediately after the attack
on the World Trade Centre. In this way the speaker tries to encourage the
Americans to cooperate and stand together against a common enemy.
Confirmatives of the types (A)(+) and (A)(W)(+) are communicative acts used
frequently by the speaker, e.g. And we have seen our national character in
eloquent acts of sacrifice (A)(W)(+), (14.09.2001). The communicative
intention here is similar to that of retrodictives, as mentioned above. The speaker
positively assesses/bears witness to the admirable deeds of the Americans, thus
encouraging his audience to believe in American strengths and values.
Thanks, predictives and informatives are other frequently occurring subtypes
of communicative acts. Acts expressing gratitude, the category of thank,
prevail in September 2001 and February, March and April 2003. Although it
generally occurs at the end of a speech/statement as thank you or thank you
for listening, it is also encountered in the acts expressing gratitude for particular
things done by the addressee, as in I want to say thanks for the hundreds of
thousands of Americans who pray for the victims and their families
(12.09.2001). Such actions serve to both establish rapport with the audience
and add positively to the speakers overall self-presentation. Predictives of the
type (A)(W)(+), as in We will not tire, we will not falter and we will not fail
(20.09.2001), prevail in 2001. In these the speaker usually unfolds consolatory
visions, aimed at arousing the people to action and predicts future events of
which the audience will be the agent or beneficiary. He wants the audience to
believe that this indeed will be the case, thus encouraging them to act, while at
the same time raising their spirits in the face of future threats. The use of
informatives increases in 2001, mainly in November and with respect to the
audience; and in 2003, mainly with respect to the people of Iraq. Information
concerning the audience is mostly of the observational kind, for example: Since
September the 11th, many Americans, especially young Americans, are
rethinking their career choices (08.11.2001). Such observational images may
in these cases serve to establish a common ground of experience between the
audience and the speaker. Frequent references to the audience may enable the
speaker to foster closer bonds with common Americans. Information concerning
the people of Iraq conveyed mainly in April the time of the war usually has
exemplary value. The speaker informs the audience of Iraqi activities that are
consistent with the expectations of the US authorities.
Furthermore, the speaker frequently uses requestives and descriptives. The
former, used mainly in September 2001 right after the attack, usually serve to
give the people notice of possible inconveniences and ask for their forbearance in
a polite requestive form, as in I ask for your patience, with the delays and
inconveniences that may accompany tighter security; and for your patience in
what will be a long struggle (20.09.2001). The increased use of descriptives in
2001 especially in September and November serves to create a positive
representation of the American people, enhancing their self-confidence and self-
satisfaction, as in America is a nation full of good fortune; with so much to be
grateful for (14.09.2001). This effect is enhanced further when the pronoun
we is used, which additionally intensifies solidarity, as in We are a different
country from what we were on September the 10th sadder and less innocent;
stronger and more united; and in the face of ongoing threats, determined and
courageous (08.11.2001).The speaker thus wants to raise public morale in the
face of recent threatening incidents.
Also characteristic and self-explanatory is the speakers use of promises
addressed to the people of Iraq during the war, such as The people of Iraq can
know that every effort will be made to spare innocent life, and to help Iraq
recover from three decades of totalitarian rule (15.03.2003). Indicative is also
the speakers use of promises addressed to the American people in September
2003. It seems that by employing this strategy the speaker tries to ensure a
positive image of himself and his government, renewing their commitment
towards the American people: As libertys home and defender, America will not
tire, will not falter, and will not fail in fighting for the safety and security of the
American people and a world free from terrorism (04.09.2003).
As for the mode of communicative action concerning (E) (see table 5 below)
what may at first seem strange is the distinctive prevalence of informatives with
reference to the category (E). The number of informatives here increases steadily
from 2001 through 2002, and reaches its peak in 2003. The majority of
informatives used concerns what S considers the patently deplorable activities of
the enemy. These seek to elicit immediate response and condemnation by the
audience, as in The network runs a poison and explosive training center in north-
east Iraq and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad (06.02.2003). The
rhetorical weakness of informatives in comparison, for instance, with overtly
negative descriptions is only apparent. The informative mode of speaking suggests
maximum objectivity, which stems from the force of the facts. The speaker does
nothing but state the facts. The communicative intention is, however, clear: to add
to the negative portrayal of the enemy without being accused of biased evaluation.
Assertives and retrodictives belong to the second group of acts used most
frequently. The former are used mostly in 2001 and 2003, with a sudden
TA B L E 5 . Specification of the communicative acts used category (E)
2001 (E) 2002 (E) 2003 (E)

LD/DN predictive 4 LD/DN predictive LD/DN predictive 7
LD ascriptive 1 LD ascriptive LD ascriptive 2
LD descriptive 30 LD descriptive 5 LD descriptive
LD disputative 1 LD disputative LD disputative
LD suppositive LD suppositive 15 LD suppositive 7
LD advisory LD advisory 1 LD advisory 4
LD suggestive LD suggestive LD suggestive 3
decrease in 2002, to portray the enemy in an overtly negative way, as in Behind

them is a cult of evil which seeks to harm the innocent and thrives on human
suffering (11.10.2001). The assertive mode of speaking again suggests the
certainty of the speaker as for the expressed opinions it is nothing at all
controversial. With retrodictives used consistently in each year the speaker
reports on the enemys past activities, negative consequences of which have been
already experienced by the audience, as in On Tuesday morning, September 11,
2001 terrorists attacked America in a series of despicable acts of war
(13.09.2001b). The use of this sort of communicative act has not only a purely
informative value; it also serves to constantly remind the audience of the
contemptible acts of the enemy.
We may further note a steady increase in the use of confirmatives from 2001
on. Using this sort of act, the speaker informs the audience of the enemy, which
is acting against the American nation. To make the audience believe this, he
supports his findings with what he considers to be incriminating evidence in the
form of specified examples, as in The same network has plotted terrorism against
France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Republic of Georgia, and Russia, and was
caught producing poison in London (06.02.2003).
A high occurrence of descriptives takes place in 2001, with a sudden decrease
in 2002 and 2003. The speaker characterizes the enemy in negative terms, which
contributes to the overall negative portrayal of the enemy, e.g. The terrorists are
traitors to their own faith, trying, in effect, to hijack Islam itself (20.09.2001).
We also note an increase in the use of requirements in 2002, with a sudden
decrease in 2003. All of these take the form of orders, as in In addition to
declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its
support for terrorism (07.10.2002). It seems that the speaker wants to secure
the US authorities against any possible accusations with respect to the
justification of the forthcoming military operations in Iraq. The USA make its
requirements clear so that it will be in a position to justify its military operations
with an enemy not prepared to comply with their demands.
We also notice a sudden appearance of suppositives in 2002, with a sudden
decrease in 2003. In these the speaker wants the audience to consider some facts
concerning the enemy and their negative consequences for the audience, e.g.
Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear
weapon within a year (14.09.2002). The use of suppositives in the year prior to
the conflict seems indicative of the speakers overall strategy. A message
constructed in this way could be considered as a sort of fear appeal. It serves to
build up tension and intensify negative associations with respect to the enemy.
The speakers intention in this case might be to prepare the people for the
forthcoming conflict and justify it should any objections occur. In 2003 the use
of suppositives decreases. The speaker stops supposing and resorts to simple facts
contained in the informative type of communicative act, which help to propagate
the sensibility of the ongoing war (recall the sudden increase in the use of
informatives in 2003).
Rhetorical strength of the speakers communicative acts

In the following subsection I would like to point to certain distinctive phenomena
occurring in the speakers discourse. They may, in my opinion, significantly influ-
ence the rhetorical strength of the communicative acts selected by the speaker.
Characteristic of the speakers discursive strategy is the pronominal pattern
he uses, in particular the use of the pronoun we, the meaning of which
fluctuates depending on the category it refers to. When referring to A, it implies
Ss solidarity, as in retrodictives of the type (A)(W)(+): Over the past few days, we
have learned much about American courage the courage of firefighters and
police officers who suffered so great a loss . . . (15.09.2001). It also enables the
speaker to include himself within the positively portrayed group of American
people, as in the utterance: And in this struggle our greatest advantages are the
patience and resolve of the American people (descriptive (A)(W)(+)),
(29.09.2001). When referring to the activities of the speaker and the govern-
ment, it seems that with the pronoun we the elite power have assumed the right
to speak for the entire American people, as in: We defend not only our precious
freedoms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their
children (assertive (S+G)(W)(+)F) spoken after the previously mentioned
planned military operation. This concurs with a point made by Seidel (1975).
When discussing the issue of ambiguity in political discourse, she refers to the
different pronominal patterns built on a solidarity/hierarchy axis, pointing in
particular to the example when, by using the we pronoun, the power elite
assumes the right to speak for the entire nation by emphasizing common values
in the community (Seidel, 1975: 223). The point made by Seidel can be
illustrated by the following utterance: We defend not only our precious free-
doms, but also the freedom of people everywhere to live and raise their children
(assertive, (S+G)(W)(+)F) spoken after the previously mentioned planned
military operation. When we, in turn, is used with reference to the USA and its
allies it implies all civilized people, who stand together against absent Them as
in America and our friends and allies join with all those who want peace and
security in the world, and we stand together to win the war against terrorism
(assertive (A)(W)(+)), (11.09.2001). Inclusive and exclusive pronouns are in
fact most indicative of the boundaries between Us and Them, Self and Other a
point made by, among others, Riggins (1997: 8) Such polarized representation
introduced by pronominal variation implies mutual ill-will and hostility. It
suggests a struggle in which We fight to defend Our values and norms, to
which They pose a grave and explicit threat. It is also noticeable that whenever
the speaker refers to the enemy, in all types of communicative act, the enemy is
almost always identified anonymously. Members of a we-group are, in turn,
very often identified by personal names, proper nouns of countries, etc. More
specific identification suggests familiarity, while the unspecific and anonymous
They implies an unfamiliarity We should be afraid of.
Also characteristic is the speakers use of the pronoun I occuring mostly in
informatives and assertives when he refers to his actions and beliefs. In this way
the speaker reinforces the image of his own competency. It may also suggest self-
reliance and infallibility, as in Grief and tragedy and hatred are only for a time
(assertive (S)(+)), (14.09.2001).
Apart from differentiating between Us and Them, the speaker distinctively
frames his discourse through the employment of negative other-presentation
and positive self-presentation. This strategy is reflected mainly in negative
descriptions used with reference to the enemy and positive ones used with
reference to the members of the we-group. Lexicalization plays the principal role
here, i.e. derogatory and negative terms used with respect to the enemy and
neutral or squarely positive ones used with respect to the we-group. Moreover,
negative other-presentations are usually organized around the concepts of
difference, deviance and violation of the we-group norms. As Van Dijk (1998:
267) points out, the strategy of negative other-presentation and positive self-
presentation indicates the existence of the so-called ideological square, which
plays an important role in the above-mentioned two strategies. It consists of the
four moves by means of which positive information about Us and negative
information about Them is emphasized, while negative information about Us and
positive information about Them is suppressed. Negative other-presentation and
positive self-presentation is further emphasized by metaphors, though S uses
very few of them. They are used to highlight the negative character of the enemy,
as in And they will follow that path all the way, to where it ends: in historys
unmarked grave of discarded lies (predictive (E)(-)), (20 September 2001) or to
emphasize the positive character of the audience, as in Our nation this
generation will lift a dark threat of violence from our people and our future
(predictive (A)(W)(+)), (20 September 2001).
It also seems that communicative act patterns are shaped by some of the
persuasive strategies discussed by Cap (1998). In his discussion of the rhetoric of
the American presidential inaugurals against the background of research into
the nature of socio-psychologically grounded persuasion, Cap points to different
persuasion strategies or models of persuasion which when applied to presidential
discourse lead to the emergence of four types of presidential persuasion (for the
detailed discussion of these see Cap, 1998). As Cap notes, presidential
persuasion will not be treated merely in terms of a set of relevant performatives
(. . .); it should be understood as a helpful device for the realization of leadership
enactment, taking thus various linguistic forms (1998: 148). And so in the
present analysis there is not a direct relation between persuasion and
communicative acts; persuasive strategies present in the speakers discourse were
not arrived at on the basis of assigning communicative acts at the micro-level.
Persuasive models are here a superior category underlying the tone of the
speakers statements, which may only get strengthened by a particular choice of
communicative act. Still, the persuasive strategies in question seem worth
mentioning as they considerably add to the overall rhetorical strength of the
speakers discourse. The following strategies could be traced in the speeches
analysed: (1) American self-perception, as exemplified in A great people has been
moved to defend a great nation (retrodictive (A)(+)), (11 September 2001a); 2)

a problem/solution-based agenda, which can be found in the communicative acts of
the type (informative (S+G)(+)), as in We have taken all appropriate security
precautions to protect American people (11 September 2001b), where he points
to the past or future activities of the authorities concerning issues most likely to
gain support and favourable opinions from the audience. Polarized represen-
tation based on juxtapositions in the form of We versus They introduces 3) a
black-and-white vision of the world. In a dichotomized world all that is Ours is
good, long-established and ordered according to our normative values. What is
Theirs is inherently bad, chaotic and unaccountable. Moreover, some of the
speakers messages are characterized by 4) political low-balling, where the idea of
military campaign or war is spirited into a context of the nobility of American
actions, for example: But our responsibility to history is already clear: to answer
these attacks and rid the world of evil (assertive (A)), (14 September 2001). One
further persuasive strategy is 5) instructive agenda, found mainly in the form of
didactic quotations, for example: Scripture says: Blessed are those who mourn for
they shall be comforted (assertive (A)), (13 September 2001), where the speaker
is referring to the victims of the attack, or exemplifications, as in Citizens have come
together to play, to give blood, to fly our countrys flag (LD retrodictive (A)(+)),
(15 September 2001, which aims at encouraging observational learning.
It can be seen that all the phenomena in the communicative acts selected by
the speaker were intended to reinforce the rhetorical effectiveness of his
utterances. Moreover, the selection of speech acts reflects the relations between
speech participants (van Dijk, 1998: 208). We may conclude from the existence
of the ideological square that in our case these relations have an ideological
grounding; it is the forces of superiority versus inferiority, dominance versus
inequality, that shape them.
3. Conclusions: Presentation of crucial entities in Bushs speeches

AUTHORITIES : PRESERVING THE STATE LEGITIMACY
As can be seen in the figures, the communicative action of the speaker with
reference to the authorities took place mostly in 2001 and 2002. This could be
easily predicted, given the fact that in these two years two significant events took
place: the attack on the World Trade Center and the war in Iraq. All the acts used
with reference to the categories S, S+G, G, M and ON indicate the speakers desire
to present their actions in a positive light. To do so, in 2001, from September 11
onwards, the speaker predominantly uses informatives when referring to the
positive actions of the government and joint actions of the speaker and the
government, sometimes also pointing to the positive actions of the speaker alone.
The informative mode of speaking implies objectivity. Simple facts seek to affirm
the positive self-presentation of the authorities. Frequently used assertions with
respect to the categories mentioned give the impression of the speaker as a self-
confident individual. They are also used to ensure a positive portrayal of the
authorities. When making assertive statements, it is as though the speaker is

stating the obvious. Thus, positive opinions concerning the authorities, which
are expressed in this way, are not supposed to be questioned. Indicative of the
speakers intention is his use of predictives in 2001 (from 11 September on). In
these he predicts positive actions to be taken by the authorities in the near future.
It would appear that in a critical period when the states legitimacy could have
been challenged, the speaker wants to ensure that the audience will not lose faith
in the state and its authority. Using confirmatives with reference to ON, M and G,
in which he evaluates their actions as right or beneficial for the audience, the
speaker thus adds to their positive presentation. In 2002, the only
communicative action taken by the speaker is in the form of requirements
addressed to the members of government and the speaker, or the government
alone. Through such means, the speaker contributes to the positive image of the
authorities as the body that is responsible and answerable to the American
people. From February 2003, a month before the war, until April 2003, the
month when the war officially finishes, the speaker systematically conveys
positive information concerning the activities of S, G, S+G, M and ON. It seems
that the speaker wishes to ensure a positive image and reinforce the legitimacy of
the authorities in the event that their legitimacy is challenged by the people and
international public opinion on account of the US military actions in Iraq.
Assertions used with respect to S, G, S+G serve the same purpose. The use of
positive confirmatives, retrodictives and descriptives with reference to the
military, especially during the time of war, contributes to its positive image. It
would appear that the speaker seeks to protect the state military against any
unfavourable opinions, or to justify any potential failures, should they occur.
AUDIENCE : ASSERTING AMERICAN POSITIVE SELF - PERCEPTION

What is characteristic of the speakers communicative acts with reference to the
audience is that they are observable almost exclusively in 2001, with a few
exceptions in 2003 when he addresses the people of Iraq and, to a lesser extent,
the American people. It is to be expected that the speaker would attempt to
establish a rapport with his audience throughout all the three years in order to
reinforce the states legitimacy. The establishment of this rapport mainly takes
the form of assertions with which the speaker intends to propagate and preserve
Americas positive self-perception. In retrodictives, used mainly after the attack
on the World Trade Center, the speaker evokes images of common American
citizens as exemplary and who are to be emulated. As such, the speaker wants to
encourage people to stand together in the face of a common threat and to raise
public morale and solidarity. Confirmatives, in which the speaker bears witness
to some admirable deeds of common Americans, serve to affirm faith in
Americas strength and ability to cooperate. The expression of thanks, both in
terms of gratitude and politeness, helps establish the speakers positive image. In
predictives the speaker unfolds consolatory visions concerning the American
nation, which are intended to raise the spirits of a people discouraged and
threatened by recent events. By means of informatives, which contain

observations of common Americans, the speaker positions himself closer to the
people and establishes a common ground of experience. In September 2001,
immediately after the attack, the speaker uses requestives to give Americans
notice of possible inconveniences and ask for their forbearance. In descriptives,
used mainly in September and November 2001, he portrays America as a nation
which prides itself on long-established values and whose prosperity cannot be
allowed to be threatened in any way, thus raising the American spirit and self-
confidence. The only communicative action addressed at the American people in
the year 2003 takes place when the speaker expresses thanks before the war
conflict starts (February 2003) and during its course. In September 2003, the
speaker also addresses promises to his audience, thereby trying to reassure them
of the states perseverance in its fight against the enemy. As can be seen in the
figures, the speaker aims at establishing rapport with the people of Iraq mainly in
2003. In April, when the last military actions occurred, the speaker conveys
informatives concerning the course of events in Iraq which are aimed at
consolation and raising the spirits of the Iraqi people. The speaker also refers to
those actions of the people of Iraq that are consistent with the US expectations
and which should serve as an example to be followed by other Iraqi people. In
April 2003, the speaker also uses promises with reference to the people of Iraq.
He wants to gain their support and thus promises that the USA will do its best to
restore peace and order in their country.
ENEMY: NEGATIVE OTHER - PRESENTATION AND THE POWER OF FACTS

Through the entire three years the speaker strategizes his selection of speech acts
in a way that puts the enemy squarely in a negative light. Using retrodictives in
2001, he constantly reminds the people of the harm done to them by the enemy.
Assertions containing a negative portrayal of the enemy conveyed during the
same period imply the speakers certainty of these expressed opinions. Negative
descriptives only add to the intensification of negative associations with the
enemy. In 2002, we can observe a change in the mode of speaking. The speaker
mainly informs the audience of the threatening incidents provoked, precipitated
and/or undertaken by the enemy. The speaker does not so much concentrate on
negative description, but rather resorts to the informative mode of speaking,
which implies objectivity. Retrodictives referring to the enemy serve a similar
purpose. What is especially noteworthy is the speakers use of requirements and
suppositives during the period that precedes the military conflict. The former
serve to protect the authorities against any accusations regarding the legitimacy
of future US actions in Iraq. They justify such actions by referring to the enemys
failure to comply with US orders. The latter may serve the purpose of fear
appeals which intensify negative associations with regard to the enemy. The
speaker consistently reiterates a representation of the enemy as a potential
victimizer and the direct originator of the harm done to the American people,
and indeed the entire civilized world. In 2003 he assumes a predominantly
informative mode of speaking. The consistent dissemination of certain

information seeks to enforce the negative image of the enemy, thereby justifying
the ongoing conflict.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The main aim of the analysis presented above was the apprehension of
communicative intention in George W. Bushs speeches and statements. The
theoretical framework employed was that laid out by Bach and Harnish the
intention and inference approach. Within that approach, Bach and Harnish
propose a very integrative explanation of the whole concept of linguistic com-
munication. Their major point in this respect is that linguistic communication
essentially involves the speakers having a special sort of intention (an intention
that the hearer make a certain sort of inference) and the hearers actually
making that inference (1979: xvii). The point of the speakers utterance ought
to be recognized both through content and context but also because the point is
intended to be recognized. Thus, Bach and Harnishs approach takes into
account the three factors mentioned. In this it differs (to its advantage) from two
other major theories, that of Searle (1969) and Sadock (1974), both of whom
claimed that the connection between speech acts and structure was semantic.
For Bach and Harnish it is inferential, always involving content, context and
communicative intention. The nature of these three factors is characterized and
systematized in detail (and I encourage anyone interested in this topic to return
to Bach and Harnishs original text ). Within their framework Bach and Harnish
also provide a detailed classification of speech acts, which served as a tool for the
present analysis. As mentioned above, in the course of analysis the schema
revealed certain deficiencies concerning the classifying process, such as a lack of
clear-cut categories for certain kind of acts or the fact that according to the
schema certain utterances proved to be of a double or triple identity. These
should not however be treated as a major flaw in the whole schema difficulties
with the classification mentioned above could have been predicted, taking into
account the fact of the classification being based on verbs. All in all, it did not
pose a major obstacle for the analysis, the results of which have hopefully proved
sound and of interest.
As for the results of the detailed analysis above, it can be seen that the
speakers selection of speech acts is indicative of his communicative intention.
When carrying his discourse, the speaker assumes the agentive stance. Thus, we
can assume that the speaker believes that by strategizing his discourse in a
particular way in this case through the selection of appropriate speech acts
he may influence some self-projected outcomes in the future. During the time
period analysed, the speaker carries his discourse consciously, anticipating
possible challenges to the legitimacy of the authorities decisions. On the basis of
the speech acts analysed and the rhetorical phenomena and the strategies they
contain, I have made conclusions regarding the speakers communicative
intention. To reiterate: the speaker (George W. Bush) deliberately seeks to
establish rapport with both the audience and Iraqi people, while simultaneously
asserting positive American self-perception. Furthermore, he attempts to present
the authorities in a positive manner and preserve their legitimacy. Finally, he
seeks to portray the Other the enemy in a squarely negative way.
REFERENCES
Primary sources:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/response/text/resources2.html
(11 September 2001a) Remarks by the President upon arrival at Barksdale Air Force Base.
(11 September 2001b) Statement by the President in his address to the nation.
(12 September 2001) Remarks by the President while touring damage at the Pentagon.
(13 September 2001a) Remarks by the President to the travel pool after visiting
Washington Hospital.
(13 September 2001b) National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the victims of the
terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.
(14 September 2001) Presidents remarks at National Day of Prayer and Remembrance.
(15 September 2001) Radio address of the President to the nation.
(20 September 2001) Address to a joint session of Congress and the American people.
(22 September 2001) Radio address: Despite challenges, economy fundamentally strong.
(29 September 2001) Radio address of the President to the nation.
(7 October 2001) Presidential address to the nation.
(11 October 2001) President pays tribute at Pentagon memorial.
(20 October 2001) Presidents radio address from Shanghai, China.
(27 October 2001) Radio address of the President to the nation.
(8 November 2001) President discusses war on terrorism.
(9 November 2001) President Bush acts to make holiday travel safer.
(11 December 2001) President: the world will always remember September 11.
(29 December 2001) Radio address by the President to the nation.
(11 September 2002) Presidents remarks at the Pentagon.
(14 September 2002) President discusses growing danger posed by Saddam Husseins
regime.
(5 October 2002) President: Iraqi regime danger to America is grave and growing.
(7 October 2002) President Bush outlines Iraqi threat.
(9 November 2002) President Bush recaps important week in weekly radio address.
(7 December 2002) Radio address of the President to the nation.
(28 December 2002) Presidents weekly radio address.
(6 February 2003) President Bush: World can rise to this moment.
(15 February 2003) Presidents weekly radio address.
(26 February 2003) President discusses the future of Iraq.
(8 March 2003) War on terror.
(15 March 2003) President discusses Iraq in radio address.
(17 March 2003) President says Saddam Hussein must leave Iraq within 48 hours.
(22 March 2003) President discusses beginning of operation Iraqi Freedom.
(29 March 2003) President discusses Iraqi Freedom progress in radio address.
(12 April 2003) Operation Iraqi Freedom.
(16 April 2003) President Bush outlines progress in operation Iraqi Freedom.
(17 May 2003) President Bush honors military in weekly radio address.
(26 May 2003) President Bush honors the brave and fallen defenders of freedom.
(11 June 2003) President Bush condemns terrorist attacks.

(24 July 2003) Statement on September 11 Report.
(19 August 2003) President condemns bombing in Baghdad, Iraq.
(29 August 2003) President condemns bombing outside Imam Ali Mosque in Iraq.
(4 September 2003) Patriot Day, 2003.
(7 September 2003) President addresses the nation.
(11 September 2003) President reflects on September 11.
Secondary sources:
Aijmer, K. (1977) Acts of Deference and Authority, Gothenburg Papers in Theoretical
Linguistics, University of Gothenburg.
Allan, K. (1986) Linguistic Meaning, Vol 2. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bach, K. and Harnish, R. M. (1979) Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Cambridge:
The MIT Press.
Bennet, J. (1976) Linguistic Behaviour. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bloch, M. (ed.) (1975) Political Language and Oratory in Traditional Society. London:
Academic Press.
Brown, G. (1995) Speakers, Listeners and Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Cap, P. (1998) Presidential Persuasion: Sociopsychological Awareness, Folia Linguistca
Anglica 1(1): 14357.
Cole, P. and Morgan, J. L. (eds) (1975) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York:
Academic Press.
Davis, S. (ed.) (1991) Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dennet, D. C. (1990) Making Sense of Ourselves, in W. G. Lycan (ed.) Mind and Cognition.
A Reader, pp. 18499. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Evans, G. (1982) The Varieties of Reference (edited by J. McDowell), Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Fodor, J. A. (1975) The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.
Fodor, J. A. (1988) Psychosemantics. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
Grice, P. (1957/1971) Meaning, in D. Steinberg and L. Jakobovits (eds) Semantics: An
Interdisciplinary Reader in Philosophy, Linguistics and Psychology, pp. 539. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Jaszczolt, K. M. (1999) Discourse, Beliefs and Intentions: Semantic Defaults and Propositional
Attitude Ascription. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2002) Synchronic and Diachronic Investigations in Pragmatics. Poznan
Motivex.
Levelt, W. J. M. (1989) Speaking: From Intention to Articulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Lindsey, G. and Aronson, E. (eds) (1985) Handbook of Social Psychology. New York:
Random House.
Lycan, W. G. (ed.) (1990) Mind and Cognition. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Marmaridou, S. S. A. (2000) Pragmatic Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam and
Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Moravcsik, J. M. E. (1975) Understanding Language: A Study of Theories of Language in
Linguistics and in Philosophy. The Hague, Paris: Mouton.
Motsch, W. (1980) Situational Context and Illocutionary Force, in J. R. Searle, F. Kiefer
and M. Bierwisch (eds) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, pp. 15568. Dordrecht: Reidel
Publishing Company.
Recanati, F. (1986) On Defining Communicative Intentions. In Mind and Language 1:

213242.
Riggins, S. H. (1997) The Rhetoric of Othering, in S. H. Riggins (ed.) The Language and
Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, pp. 130. London: Sage Publications.
Sadock, J. (1974) Towards a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
Scollon, S. (2001) Habitus, Consciousness, Agency and the Problem of Intention: How
We Carry and Are Carried by Political Discourses, Folia Linguistica XXXV: 97129.
Scollon, S. and Scollon, R. (2000) The Construction of Agency and Action in
Anticipatory Discourse: Positioning Ourselves against Neo-liberalism, paper presented
at III Conference for Sociocultural Research, UNICAMP, Campinas, Sao Paulo, Brazil,
July.
Searle, J. R. (1969)Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975) Indirect Speech Acts, in P. Cole and J. L. Morgan (eds) Syntax and
Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 5982. New York: Academic Press.
Searle, J, R., Kiefer, F. and Bierwisch, M. (eds) (1980) Speech Act Theory and Pragmatics, Vol.
8. Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
Seidel, G. (1975) Ambiguity in Political Discourse, in M. Bloch (ed.) Political Language and
Oratory in Traditional Society, pp. 20526. London: Academic Press.
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. (1986) Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford:
Blackwell.
Strawson, P. F. (1974/1991) Intention and Convention in Speech Acts, in S. Davis (ed.)
Pragmatics: A Reader, pp. 290305. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage Publications.
Verschueren, J. (1986) Pragmatics as a Theory of Linguistic Adaptation. IPrA Working
Document 1. Antwerp: University of Antwerp.
Verschueren, J. (1998) Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold.
Wodak, R., de Cillia, R., Reisigl, M. and Liebhart, K. (1999) The Discursive Construction of
National Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
A N N A A Z U K A completed an MA in English philology at Adam Mickiewicz University

(School of English) in Poznan, Poland in 2004, and a BA in Cultural Studies at Adam
Mickiewicz University (Department of Social Sciences), Poznan, Poland in 2005. She
is currently a PhD student at the Postgraduate Research School, Faculty of Social
Sciences at Ulster University, Northern Ireland. A D D R E S S : Faculty of Social Sciences,
University of Ulster, Shore Road, Newtonabbey, Co. Antrim BT37 0QB, UK. [email:
annalazuka@hotmail.com]

Discourse & Society - Politics - Communicative Intention of George Bush PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discourse & Society - Politics - Communicative Intention of George Bush PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A RT I C L E 299

Communicative intention in George W.

KEY WORDS: communicative illocutionary act, communicative intention,

further discussion of an intention and inference approach used as the analytic

THE INTENTION AND INFERENCE APPROACH

mastery of the referential apparatus of a language as well as its meaning

A taxonomy of communicative illocutionary acts

Speech act schema

Communicative Presumption (CP): The mutual belief in the linguistic community

Communicative illocutionary acts

Assertives Requestives Promises Apologize

subcategories of constatives. This is, however, unavoidable as some verbs name

2. Analysis of the data

FIGURE 1 . Rapport with the audience

involves content, context and communicative intention (Bach and Harnish

positive evaluation with respect to a particular category. Moreover, the utterance

FIGURE 1 A . Rapport with the audience yearly trend

that he assumed an agentive stance. We could, then, call Ss discourse both

FIGURE 2 . Hostility towards the enemy

FIGURE 2 A . Hostility towards the enemy yearly trend

FIGURE 3 . Positive self-presentation of the government and the speaker

FIGURE 4 . Rapport with the people of Iraq

FIGURE 4 A . Rapport with the people of Iraq yearly trend

Identification of the communicative intention

LD requestive 47 LD requestive LD requestive 13

2001 (S) 2002 (S) 2003 (S)

LD informative 201 LD informative 179 LD informative 67

The increase in use of retrodictives, used mainly with reference to the

TA B L E 4 . Specification of the communicative acts used with category (A)

2001 (A) 2002 (A) 2003 (A)

LD requestive 25 LD requestive 3 LD requestive 19

us last through the day or endure the night (assertive (A)(W)),(14.09.2001)

TA B L E 5 . Specification of the communicative acts used category (E)

2001 (E) 2002 (E) 2003 (E)

LD assertive 32 LD assertive 5 LD assertive 36

decrease in 2002, to portray the enemy in an overtly negative way, as in Behind

Rhetorical strength of the speakers communicative acts

moved to defend a great nation (retrodictive (A)(+)), (11 September 2001a); 2)

3. Conclusions: Presentation of crucial entities in Bushs speeches

authorities. When making assertive statements, it is as though the speaker is

AUDIENCE : ASSERTING AMERICAN POSITIVE SELF - PERCEPTION

threatened by recent events. By means of informatives, which contain

ENEMY: NEGATIVE OTHER - PRESENTATION AND THE POWER OF FACTS

informative mode of speaking. The consistent dissemination of certain

(11 June 2003) President Bush condemns terrorist attacks.

Recanati, F. (1986) On Defining Communicative Intentions. In Mind and Language 1:

A N N A A Z U K A completed an MA in English philology at Adam Mickiewicz University

You might also like