Masaryk university faculty of education
Download 0.63 Mb.
|
33.Obama’s speech
Obama’s speech is 3,398 words long, contains 159 sentences with 21 words per sentence on average. This average is higher than Bush’s, mainly due to Obama’s ample use of dashes within a sentence, making the sentences syntactically longer, but still enabling him to divide them when speaking. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all - even in limited ways - in this distant land. Syntactic structure is evenly distributed between coordinated and subordinated sentences, with simple conjunctions like and, but or because, verbless clauses or non-finite clauses, mainly using active voice. Chart 8.36 As Obama’s speech is given in retrospect, after the attack on Libya took place, there are certain topics completely omitted, such as steps that failed, ultimatum or declaration and our plan. Obama focuses on justification the most (28%), making sure his actions are understood, approved and also disassociated from his predecessor, President Bush, by openly criticizing his decisions on Iraq. To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. ... That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya. Further, Obama explains why the attack involves air strikes only and why supervising the Libyan “regime change would be a mistake.” Obama’s justification of the attack goes hand in hand with a strong appeal to American values and abundant talk about the future, which will be discussed later. Obama also focuses on an agenda not directly related to the attack on Libya but clearly important to him. He revisits the rules of engagement for the United States, assuring the audience of sharing the costs and risks with the international community. Overall, considering the swiftness of the physical attack on Libya itself, the length of the speech is inadequately long, showing Obama’s potential uncertainty about the audience’s reception.
The effectiveness of semantics in Obama’s speech can be compared with that of syntax. While neither is Obama’s strongest point, both are well thought through, focusing on the audience. Obama’s vocabulary is not nearly as emotional as Bush’s. To the contrary, it is very controlled and politically correct, using sophisticated expressions like reverberated, eclipse or splinter, elevating the discourse to a presidential level. Table 8.37 documents the top ten words, showing some expected expressions as well some new ones such as allies, change and coalition, perhaps also indicative of changes in the American military policies. Table 8.37
Obama works with frames and binary conceptualizations, using them mainly within paragraphs, but not always effectively. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and common security - responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. The example uses humanitarian frames to describe times when “the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help,” mixing natural disasters with genocide or the flow of commerce. While the audience will probably infer correctly that America helps every time there is a need, the chosen examples do not fit well together, making the sentence contrived. The majority of Obama’s discourse is, however, managed successfully, like in the example below. For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That is what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks In this example, Obama uses emotional, patriotic and moral frames, starting with praising America’s uniqueness, stability and support, implying America’s calm and composed nature in times of crises, using a well-chosen adverb to introduce his proposal, mindful. Only then does he mention the risks and cost and the use of force, using another fitting adverb, reluctant. The breaking point comes when Obama brings the entire proposal home, stressing our interests and values, connecting them immediately with a responsibility to act. As a last point, Obama applies these values and interests to the situation in Libya, using it as justification. Further, the above paragraph also uses a conceptual metaphor. Obama appeals to the responsibility towards our interests and values, and then extends this concept to the involvement in the Libyan Civil War. Later in the speech, he builds on this argument, adding a new dimension of a possible Benghazi massacre and the conscience of the world as also being of interest to America, making a strong public and personal stand about the refusal to let that happen.
The final part of his argument is also presented through another conceptual metaphor, simply stating that in these circumstances, these problems are important to America and worth solving, calling America the most powerful nation in the world. These may not be America's problems alone, but they are important to us, and they are problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world's most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help. Whether or not Obama’s arguments are ultimately effective is hard to judge, but he certainly uses a combination of appeal to America values, metaphors as well as conceptual metaphors to successfully connect issues that seemingly have nothing to do with one another.
While Obama’s syntax and semantics were average, Obama’s narrative and reference abilities make the speech shine. The use of pronouns, shown in chart 8.37, confirms his ability to work the audience effectively. His use of 1st person plural (70%) is more than strong, adding occasional vocatives (Yes), and also six instances of either let me or let us, making him an excellent user of audience involvement strategies. That said, his use of 1st person singular does not always come across as responsible or strong, like that of a valiant leader, but rather prescribed and even self-centered, considering the verbs following the pronoun. It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. I authorized military action to stop the killing… The task that I assigned our forces - to protect the Libyan people That said, Obama maximized the appeal to American values, alluding to the white man’s burden: “we should not be afraid to act - but the burden of action should not be America's alone”; slavery: “born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free”; Frederic Douglas: “that must always be our North Star” or Winthrop’s beacon of light: “more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.” Chart 8.37 Three part statements, repetition and the rule of three are used effectively, often in combination (in bold) but in moderation. I have made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests. Finally, Obama’s use of deictic pointers is very interesting considering his surprising use of the adverb that, altogether 20 times, especially in initial position. That's the kind of leadership we have shown in Libya. That is why we are going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan… In reality, Obama could very well use this, in all three instances above, without changing the meaning of the sentences but chooses that, to literally distance himself. Chart 8.38 Chart 8.38 confirms that the overall use of deictic pointers for pointing here is stronger than pointing away. That said, if both pronouns I and you are removed from that calculation, I being very strong with 21 instances of use, we arrive at a reversed picture, where pointing away is stronger, mainly due to the pervasive use of that and those. Chart 8.39 Overall, Obama presents a very well built argument, using references, conceptual metaphors and the appeal to American values to his advantage. That said, his insecurity shows when he uses I to build his own confidence or that to distance himself from the conflict he is proposing to solve. As for the style of the speech, while no specific features can be critiqued as incorrect or unsuitable, it is difficult to characterize his style. Nonetheless, the speech gives the impression of being politically correct but lacking genuineness.
|