Analyzing Ideology Of The ’War On Terror’ Discourse: Description And Interpretation From A Socio-Constructivist Perspective

In the aftermath of the events of “9/11”, public discourse across the world turned tothe “war on terror” narration. Scholars interpret the events of “9/11”, the “war on terror”and the “war on terror” discourse from different perspectives. Nowadays, although BinLaden, al Qaeda’s spiritual leader, has been killed, his death does not mark the end of the“war on terror”. The studies of the nature of the ‘war on terror’ are still the focus of theresearch in social science. This dissertation provides a comprehensive treatment of the“war on terror” discourse from the perspective of critical discourse analysis (CDA), asocio-constructivist perspective in particular, trying to reveal the interactions between the“war on terror” discourse, power and ideology, and how the discourse functionsideologically in the construction of social reality, social power identity and, system ofknowledge and belief.CDA first appeared in the book Language and Control published by R. Fowler in1979. With several decades of development, it is becoming more important in socialscientific research. CDA, as an umbrella term, is used for a variety of overlappingmethodologies associated with somewhat different approaches to discourse, such asCritical Linguistics (CL), Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach (SCA), Ruth Wodak’sDiscourse-Historical Approach (DHA), Van Leeuwen’s Social Actors’Approach (SAA),and Norman Fairclough’s Dialectical-Relational Approach (DRA), etc. Although CDAdoes not constitute a well-defined empirical methodology, it is characterized by thecommon interests in investigating the relationships between language, power andideology. Fairclough (1989,1992,1995) argues that discourse is social practice. As a siteof ideological struggle and investment, discourse contributes to “the constructions ofsocial identities,‘subject positions’, the types of ‘self’, systems of knowledge and belief”(Fairclough,1992a:64), and contributes to wider process of social change. Faircloughasserts that the aim of CDA is to not only study the relationships between language,power and ideology, but also investigate the functions of language in the social andcultural change. Fairclough’s “socio-cultural change theory” makes him therepresentative of Lancaster School. Fairlcough’s three-dimensional concept of discourse and analytical framework is widely applied in analyzing political discourses.With the inspiration from Faircough’s constructivist view of discourse, the presentstudy proposes the necessity and possibility of the research of the “war on terror”discourse from a socio-constructivist perspective. We assume that “terror”,“the events of9/11” and “American social power identity”, etc. are not independent from discourse,they are constructed ideologically through discourse. This dissertation makes an analysisof the dynamic social practice of the most representative data from the speeches ofex-Present George W. Bush and President Obama on the “war on terror”, trying toexplore how the “war on terror” discourses are used to construct ideology. The study iscarried out from multidimensional perspectives, in the light of the assertion fromFairclough that “ideology invests language in various ways at various levels”(Faircough,1992a:48). On the lexical level, wording, re-wording, metaphor and over-wording areexamined; on the grammatical level, transitivity, modality and mood are explored; on thetextual level, lexical cohesion is discussed; and on the pragmatic level, speech acts,im/politeness and intertextuality (including discourse representation, presupposition,interdiscursivity) are investigated.The main findings of this dissertation are as follows:1. Based on a critical appraisal of the previous theories and research methods ofCDA and Fairclough, we may find their features and limitations. Firstly, CDA, associally-oriented study of language, has made contributions to a range of academic fieldsdue to its multidisciplinary approach. However, within CDA, there is no any guidingtheoretical viewpoint that is used coherently and consistently. Secondly, CDA tries todemystify the hidden ideology, social inequality and power abuses in different socialgroups, paying less attention to the study of dynamic constructive properties of discourse.Thirdly, Fairclough’s constructivist view of discourse has not been explicitly shown inhis three-dimensional model although it has been illustrated theoretically in his books.Thereof, the study of the social constructive functions of discourse has not been drawnmore attention from scholars. The present study proposes a socio-constructivist approachto the “war on terror” discourse, and sets up a socio-constructivist model of ideologicaldiscourse and an analytical framework in which the dynamic, interactional relationshipsbetween discourse, ideology and power are demonstrated. The study analyzes the ideological constructive functions of the ‘war on terror’ discourse by applying the newmodel.2. The findings of the practical data analysis are as follows:(1) On the lexical level, the discursive construction of “Us/Them” polarizationssuch as “value conflict”,“civilization conflict” and “pre-/post9/11world” divide, etc. areachieved through wording, rewording and over-wording (in the speeches,“Us” are thosewho are allies or share the same values and commitments with America or at leastcooperate with it,“Them” are terrorists including al Qaeda, bin Laden, the Talibangovernment). The “war frame” is discursively constructed by the use of metaphor in thePresidents’ characterization of the9/11. In addition, the metaphorical mappings takeplace from the source domains: World War II and the Cold War onto the target domain:the9/11, and from fascism, etc. onto the9/11attackers. The “9/11attacks” areconstructed as the “9/11war”. The America identity and social position, such as “globalpoliceman” and “above the law” are also discursively constructed by deliberate choicesof words.(2) On the grammatical level, the choices of goal-orientated process andmeans-orientated process are ideologically significant. While “Our” actions are presentedmostly with goal-orientated ones, indicating “We” as Actor acts upon the goal showing“Our” power.“Their” actions are presented with means-orientated ones, constructingpowerless identities. Transformations are of great importance in the ‘war on terror’discourse. The nominalizations of “attack” and “threat” serve as “the strategy of fear” forthe legitimacy of the “war on terror”. In passivizations, American identities areconstructed as being “victims” in the attacks. Modality and mood are also used todiscursively construct the social power identity of America.(3) On the textual level, lexical cohesions help to construct American strengthand unity in the struggle against terrorism.(4) On the pragmatic level, the strategic choices of speech acts to enforce thepositive/negative image of “Us/Them” help to justify the military actions of the “war onterror”. In performing representatives, for instance, the informative and assertive modesof speaking with low modality help to construct objectivity of social facts. Expressivesare used to establish rapport with “Us”, trying to get support against terrorism. The constructions of “American social power identity”,“system of knowledge and belief” arealso ideologically achieved by the following pragmatic strategies: im/politenessstrategies, discourse representation and presupposition. Finally, the study ofinterdiscursivity has demonstrated that the speeches are the mixture of overt narrative,covert argumentative and conversational styles. The new order of discourse of thespeeches helps to create particular interests and ideologies in a particular society.The findings show that both President G. W. Bush and Obama use the samediscursive strategies and hold the same ideology on the issue of the “war on terror”. Theirspeeches construct a world of conflict between “Us” and “Them”, which helps tolegitimate the military actions of the “war on terror”. The presidential speeches playimportant roles in the construction and transformation of the world.The present study is significant both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, thepresent study conducts a critical appraisal of existing research, points out the limitationsof CDA in its methodology and the explanations of some concepts, and further constructsa multi-perspective and dynamic CDA model for analyzing the “war on terror” discourse.Hopefully, the study serves as a supplementary attempt to further develop CDA theories.Practically, the tentative description and interpretation of ideology of the “war on terror”discourse from a socio-constructivist perspective enriches the explanations of the ‘war onterror’ discourse, and will be of help for the study of the structures and social functions ofpolitical discourses.