خطاب الرئيس بايدن حول انسحاب الولايات المتحدة من أفغانستان:  تحليل خطاب نقدي

. نداء حسين فهمي الخزرجي

doi:10.31185/eduj.Vol49.Iss2.3343

Authors

Nidaa Hussain Fahmi University of Kerbala College of Education for Human Sciences

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol49.Iss2.3343

Keywords:

Biden’ speech, Afghanistan, CDA, NegativeLexicalization, Ideological Square, Rhetorical strategies

Abstract

President Biden gave a speech on August 16, 2021 regarding the status of the withdrawal of the United States military from Afghanistan, which was to be concluded by the end of August. This speech was laced with several critical linguistic strategies that communicated the perspective of the American government and its citizenry towards the military presence in Afghanistan and the longstanding war against terror. This paper aims to investigate the concepts of negative lexicalization, ideological square and rhetorical strategies, which are employed in the speech by President Biden. A critical discourse analysis (CDA) is the research tool that is used in this paper to examine the use of language in President Biden’s speech. To examine the ideology underline Biden’s speech, van Dijk's Ideological Square (1998) is adopted as a framework in this study. Data sets is extracted from the White House's website on the internet. The findings from President Biden’s Speech exhibit various aspects of discourse, which are discussed along the themes of textual structure, social structure and social cognition. The three dimensions of discourse contain the various linguistic strategies described in the results. However, using these themes contextualizes the application of diverse linguistic devices in a national and global society that is witnessing the unfolding of a political and humanitarian crisis following the withdrawal of foreign military personnel from a global hegemony and the resurgence of an insurgent group considered to have terrorist tendencies and extremist Islamic ideologies.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Allan, K., & Burridge, K. (1991). Euphemism and dysphemism: Language used as shield and weapon. New York: Oxford University Press.

Amoussou, F., & Allagbe, A. A. (2018). Principles, theories and approaches to critical discourse analysis. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, 6(1), 11-18.

Desch, M. C. (2007). America’s Liberal Illiberalism: The Ideological Origins of Overreaction in U.S. Foreign Policy. International Security, 32(3), 7–43.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/30130517

Felt, C., & Riloff, E. (2020, July). Recognizing euphemisms and dysphemisms using sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Figurative Language Processing (pp. 136-145).

Flowerdew, J., & Richardson, J. E. (Eds.). (2018). The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies (pp. 2-62). London: Routledge.

Freeden, M. (2006). Ideology and political theory. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11:1, 3-22, DOI: 10.1080/13569310500395834.

Graham, P. (2018). Ethics in critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(2), 186-203.

Jasim, R. M., & Mustafa, S. S. (2020). A semantic and rhetorical study of manipulation in two English and Arabic political speeches. Arab World English Journal, 11(4), 426-444. https://doi.org/10.24093/awej/vol11no4.27

Liu, K., & Guo, F. (2016). A review on critical discourse analysis. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 6(5), 1076-1084. http://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.0605.23

Maley, William. (2002). The Afghanistan Wars. New York: Palgrave.

__________, ed. (2001). Fundamentalism Reborn? Afghanistan and the Taliban. London: Hurst and Company.

Najarzadegan, S., Dabaghi, A., & Eslami-Rasekh, A. (2017). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Iran and US Presidential Speeches at the UN: The socio-pragmatic functions. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 7(9), 764-774.

Rawson, H. (1981) A Dictionary of Euphemisms and other Doubletalk. New York: Crown

Publishers, Inc.

Ren, C. & Yu, H. (2013). Euphemism from Sociolinguistics Perspective. Studies in Sociology

of Science, 4(4), 45-48.

Tirman, J. (2011). The Vietnam War: The High Cost of Credibility', The Deaths of Others: The Fate of Civilians in America's Wars. OUP. (2011; online edn, Oxford Academic, 19 Jan. 2015), https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780195381214.003.0005, accessed 4 October. 2022.

Unvar, S., & Rahimi, A. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of discursive structures in a political text. International Journal of Science and Advanced Technology, 3(3), 12-20.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(3), 359-383.

Van Dijk, T. (1998). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.

Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.

Waugh, L. R., Catalano, T., Al Masaeed, K., Do, T. H., & Renigar, P. G. (2016). Critical discourse analysis: Definition, approaches, relation to pragmatics, critique, and trends. In Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 71-135). Springer, Cham.

The Data

President Biden’s speech on Monday about the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/08/16/remarks-by-president-biden-on-afghanistan/