Masaryk university faculty of education
Download 0.63 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Well
30. Nixon’s speech
Nixon’s speech is 4,583 words long, the second longest after Lincoln’s, with 227 sentences and 20 words on average per sentence. In terms of syntax, the speech is more similar with Truman’s than with Kennedy’s, as there is an ample number of short sentences (less than 10 words), and the sentence structure uses coordination rather than subordination. Often, it is these sharp, short sentences, which appeal to the audience. Ultimately, this would cost more lives. It would not bring peace; it would bring more war. As for the syntactic strengths, if Roosevelt’s speech with 700 words had no words to spare or to add as their precise use gave them strength, then Nixon needs every word in his speech, be it over four thousand, as that is where his strength comes from. Nixon explains, confirms and justifies over and over rendering futile any counter arguments and hammering it home in filibuster-like fashion. Nixon describes briefly the issue (9%) and moves onto more important topics such as steps that failed (20%), our plan (21%) and finally justification taking up 25% of his speech. Chart 8.25 also shows him allotting 16% of his speech to appeal to an American values, using short paragraphs or sentences of motivational talk between the topics of justification or plans, to keep reminding the audience of the ‘big picture.’ Chart 8.25 There is very little of passive voice as Nixon is not afraid to point fingers and use agents in almost every sentence. The organization of the discourse is for the most part logical, governed by diachronic approach, sometimes going back in time but in an organized manner. Irritating are the length of the speech and the topics covered as they do not always pertain to the issue at hand. Nixon uses this speech as an opportunity to announce in great detail the elements of the Nixon doctrine including its success, to cite letters to or from presidents or to disclose earlier personal initiatives on the Vietnam War, all in order to provide justification for staying in Vietnam.
If Roosevelt’s speech was precise, Kennedy’s speech was traditional and Truman’s speech was informal, then Nixon’s speech is friendly and frank. He is the first president to use well as a discourse marker and also to use a question-answer approach, giving the speech an impression of a dialogue, such as in the example below. Well, let us turn now to the fundamental issue. Why and how did the United States become involved in Vietnam in the first place? The use of binary conceptualizations and juxtaposition is weak, as Nixon focuses on the size of the content rather than its depth. Even when he gets angry at the Hanoi politicians for being an obstacle in peace negotiations, it is rather a frustration that is visible in the text. The obstacle is the other side's absolute refusal to show the least willingness to join us in seeking a just peace. And it will not do so while it is convinced that all it has to do is to wait for our next concession, and our next concession after that one, until it gets everything it wants. In a very simple manner, Nixon uses the other side as a pointer for the enemy and consequently minimizes this other site to an it, emphasizing it lifelessness and its distance. Table 8.26 shows the top twelve nouns, among which are the expected ones like Vietnam, war, peace, people or nation, but also some particular ones, demonstrating that Nixon had more in mind than to just announce the continuation of the war in Vietnam. Table 8.26
For example the word policy only confirms his opportunistic introduction of changes to foreign policy, world, being in sync with the appeal to American values (below) and also years, often appearing in collocation with events in history. As noted in the syntactic section, Nixon uses diachronic features to list various events clearly to his advantage, strengthening them by a smart repetition of next election and next generation, appealing to the audience as a valiant leader, having the interests of people, rather than his own, in mind. But I had a greater obligation than to think only of the years of my administration and of the next election. I had to think of the effect of my decision on the next generation and on the future of peace and freedom in America and in the world. Hand in hand with Nixon’s hidden agenda is the use of occasional presupposition, employed when talking mainly about political status. This would spark violence wherever our commitments help maintain the peace-in the Middle East, in Berlin, eventually even in the Western Hemisphere. The audience is expected to know the situations in the Middle East, Berlin or even the entire Western Hemisphere to be able to correctly interpret Nixon’s statement. Unlike Lincoln, who would explain every little detail of these relations, Nixon just leaves the audience to infer. Nixon’s favorite word years also appears in his occasional metaphors, and his speech also contains some metonymies as well. I realize that it is difficult to communicate meaningfully across the gulf of four years of war. As for conceptual metaphor appearing in Kennedy’s and Truman’s speeches, Nixon also continues this, now, tradition. However, while his predecessors focused on reasoning through appeal to humanity (Truman) or the proximity of the conflict (Kennedy), Nixon does not really reason why to get involved in Vietnam as the war is already under way and he is only deciding whether to stay or not. As justification for staying, he at first speaks of the atrocities of the Communist regime in South Vietnam. For the South Vietnamese, our precipitate withdrawal would inevitably allow the Communists to repeat the massacres which followed their takeover in the North 15 years before. He, however, connects this idea with an idea in the following paragraph where he speaks of a different kind of justification – interestingly – the implausible first defeat of the USA, which would be devastating not just for the USA but for the entire world. For the United States, this first defeat in our Nation's history would result in a collapse of confidence in American leadership, not only in Asia but throughout the world. He finishes by a strong appeal to morals, as he compares quitting in Vietnam to a betrayal of all American allies. A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its friends. He relates the concept of helping the Vietnamese overcome the Communist forces to another concept of remaining a great nation, which he later uses interchangeably as one.
Chart 8.26 yields interesting results, showing a balanced distribution of 1st person singular and plural, suggesting a tension between including and excluding the audience. Indeed, Nixon uses I almost a hundred times and we only 64 times, often judging issues from his point of view or stating all the actions he himself initiated. Chart 8.26 While Nixon’s use of pronouns is inconclusive, the abundant use of audience involvement strategies is unmistakable as there are nine rhetorical questions posed and twelve instances of let us, making him the most effective user of audience involvement strategies so far. In the following example A, and throughout the speech, Nixon uses pronouns to make sure to disassociate himself from the failures of the Vietnam War up to his point of intervention. He makes certain to portray himself as active, I did not wait, and honorable, my quest for peace.
In example B, he is clever to state that he has no timetable for our program, suddenly splitting the responsibility with the audience, following with a frank I am sure you will understand. He navigates throughout the speech, sharing responsibility with the audience when needed and claiming victories and successes alone. Very clever is his way of dealing with demonstrators on the street opposing the continuous involvement of the US in the Vietnam war by holding a sign ‘Lose in Vietnam, bring the boys home.’ Well, one of the strengths of our free society is that any American has a right to reach that conclusion and to advocate that point of view. But as President of the United States, I would be untrue to my oath of office if I allowed the policy of this Nation to be dictated by the minority who hold that point of view and who try to impose it on the Nation by mounting demonstrations in the street. He starts with a friendly well, and instead of saying the positive all Americans, he chooses any (a negation) since it is intended for Americans that would want to reach that (unwanted) conclusion and that point of view (deictic distancing). He immediately opposes with a concessive conjunct but, while hiding behind his title of the President, stating diplomatically he would be untrue (instead of false) to the policies of this nation to listen to a minority, deictically pointing here. Chart 8.27 Indeed, chart 8.27 on Nixon’s deictic pointers is convincingly depicts Nixon bringing the conflict in Vietnam into American homes, in almost 80% of the cases, emphasizing the need to stay involved, as in the following sentence. But the question facing us today is: Now that we are in the war, what is the best way to end it? Though the speech is not sophisticated in terms of vocabulary or syntax, it is very effective in navigating the audience’s perception of reality and planned actions. As his speech is televised, he skillfully employs various techniques suitable for such an occasion, such as repetition, short sentences or 3 part statements as in the following example. ... the United States furnished most of the money, most of the arms, and most of the men to help the people of ... His language is simple, and therefore suitable for all audiences, using many references to great American presidents, such as Wilson, Kennedy, Eisenhower and Johnson to support his arguments. Finally, he makes his famous appeal to the silent majority, using historical, political, moral and ethical reasoning to successfully promote his plans. The following day, Nixon’s approval ratings were the highest since his election in office. Download 0.63 Mb. Share with your friends:
|