x.v)Topics Discussed, Setting and Function of the Interviews

x.v)Topics Discussed, Setting and Function of the Interviews

The topics discussed are also connected with the international position of both countries, especially the role of the USA. Both countries are actively engaged in the Middle East conflicts and in the Iraq War, which raises many problems, fears, and uncertainty, and that is why these issues are debated so frequently.

From that it follows that the main function of these interviews is to inform the public about the issues in question - about internal problems of the country, the political situation before elections, about the attitude of the country to international politics. The politicians present their arguments and apart from informing the audience, they also attempt to gain more voters for their parties. This aim to persuade and obtain voters is achieved by the use of various linguistic means which show a high degree of speaker’s involvement. These means are analysed in the present thesis.

x.vi)Subject of the Analysis

The following examples were taken from three interviews. For a better orientation, the utterances of interviewers are in italics. Linguistic means of speaker’s involvement are highlighted both by interviewers and by politicians. As is apparent, interviewers’ parts show a very low degree of involvement:

Example

Frei: Your administration has given $15bn to treat Aids in Africa?

Mr Bush: Yeah.

Frei: Which is an unprecedented amount of money, and you want to double that amount yet again?

Mr Bush: Yeah.

Frei: This is a huge commitment. And, yet, the administration and you, personally, don't seem to be getting a lot of credit for it.

Mr Bush: Yeah - you know, this is kind of tied to your first question about polls. Polls are nothing more than just, like, a puff of air. What matters is results. And, ultimately, people will be able to make, you know, an objective judgment of a president and his administration and, in this case, a country's commitment. And so what I care really about is the results of the programmes. I hope by now people have learned that I'm not one of these guys that - really gives a darn about elite opinion. What I really care about is, are we saving lives? And in this case, we are. As I mentioned in my speech that you kindly listened to - when I first went to Sub-Saharan Africa, 50,000 were receiving antiretrovirals. Today, 1.3 million. And that's a lot in a very quick period of time. But, there's so much more suffering. And that's why I've called for a doubling of aid. The good news is, it's not just America. As I mentioned in my speech, the G8 nations also are supporting this very important initiative. And, you know, it's... like an effort of mercy.

Frei: But, it has made a huge difference, hasn't it? So...

Mr Bush: Yeah.

Frei: Why not take some credit for it?

Mr Bush: Because it's just not my nature, you know? You just gotta understand about me, I'm more interested in seeing results and sharing the credit with the American people. I mean, this is not a George Bush effort. I just happened to be the leader of a nation that's willing to fund this kind of money. And so, I praised Congress in my speech. I praised the American [people] in my speech. After all, they're the ones who funded the effort.

Frei: You were very tough in your speech about Darfur. And, yet again, you called what's happening there genocide?

Mr Bush: Yeah.

Frei: Is enough being done by your administration to stop that?

Mr Bush: I think we are. You know, I had to make a seminal decision. And that is whether or not I would commit US troops into Darfur. And I was pretty well backed off of it by - you know, a lot of folks - here in America that care deeply about the issue. And so, once you make that decision, then you have to rely upon an international organisation like the United Nations to provide the oomph - necessary manpower... You know, I read - did call it (SOUND GLITCH) genocide, and I think we're the only nation that has done so. Secondly, I did remind people that we're sanctioning leaders. That we have targeted [Sudanese] companies and individuals, including a rebel leader, who have yet to be constructive in the peace process. We [are] beginning to get a sense of these things as they're affecting behaviour. We're trying to ask others, by the way, to do the same thing. Some of who are reluctant; some who aren't. And then, finally, I pledged that we'll help move troops in. And yeah, and as I also said, you might remind your listeners, that I'm frustrated by the pace.

Frei: I'll get on to that in a minute. But, I mean, genocide is just a loaded - it's such an important word. And you have committed troops - American troops around the world in other cases throughout... Afghanistan. Why not in this case?

Mr Bush: Well, that's a good question. I mean, we're committing equipment, you know? Training, help, movement. I think a lot of the folks who are concerned about America into another Muslim country. Some of the relief groups here just didn't think the strategy would be as effective as it was. I mean, actually, believe it or not, listen to people's opinions. And chose to make this decision. It's a decision that I'm now living with. And it's a decision that requires us to continue to rally the conscience of the world and get people to focus on the issue. You know, you're right. I mean, we sent marines into Liberia, for example, to help stabilise the country there. And Liberia's on my itinerary where I'll meet with the first woman, you know, elected president in Africa - history. And - but, I just made the decision I made.

(App., pp. 111-112, George W. Bush, 2008-02-14, ll. 25-86)

Example

BLITZER: Let's get on to some other issues. The president says this week he will veto legislation passed by the House and Senate that would issue some timelines for a U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq, pull funding for the troops in Iraq. What happens after the president vetoes? Is there a compromise in the works that the White House and the Democrats and some Republicans in Congress can finesse?

RICE: Well, clearly the president is going to veto this because he does not want to set timelines and timetables for a withdrawal of our forces, which would send the wrong message to the Iraqis, the wrong message to the neighborhood and the wrong message to Iraq's enemies.

But the president has said that after that veto, he plans to have people down to the White House to find a way to move forward together. We do need to move forward together. And the benchmarks that are anticipated here, of course, benchmarks that the Iraqis themselves have adopted, they are benchmarks that they need to meet.

We are telling them all of the time that their national reconciliation is moving too slowly, needs to move more quickly. But the problem is that we shouldn't tie our own hands, shouldn't tie the hands of General Petraeus, tie the hands of Ambassador Crocker in how we use the tools that we have to get the right result in Iraq.

And that's what benchmarks tied to withdrawal or benchmarks tied to withholding economic assistance would do.

BLITZER: Because there's a lot of concern right now that the Iraqis themselves aren't taking all of these benchmarks, all of these requirements that seriously. Supposedly, they're about to go on vacation, the Iraqi parliament, for two months, July and August, in the midst of their failure so far to disarm, disband the militias, deal with the oil resources, the revenue from that, deal with some other critical issues that you want them to deal with.

RICE: Well, certainly they need to keep working. And we've made that very clear to them. I think that they will make some progress on the oil law. They have made a lot of progress on it. They need to close that and finish it. They need to get the provincial elections set up. And we're continuing to tell them that our patience isn't limitless, but neither is the patience of the Iraqi people limitless on this issue -- these reconciliation issues. But again, it doesn't help us to help them if our hands are tied in the way that we can use our own tools to try to bring about the right effects.

BLITZER: You're heading off to Sharm el-Sheikh for a conference, a regional conference to deal with Iraq this week in the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. The Iranians today announced their foreign minister will be there as well, together with other regional leaders. Will you meet with the Iranian foreign minister when you are at Sharm el-Sheikh?

RICE: I don't rule out that we'll encounter each other. But this isn't a U.S.-Iranian issue. This isn't an opportunity to talk about U.S.-Iran issues. This is really an opportunity for all of Iraq's neighbors to talk about how to stabilize Iraq.

And I look forward to this because everyone has said that they believe a stable Iraq is in their interests. Not everyone is acting as if a stable Iraq is in their interests, and I think we want to talk about how we can all take actions and Iraq's neighbors can take actions to help the Iraqis secure themselves.

(App., pp. 212-213, Condoleezza Rice, 2007-04-29, ll. 201-244)

Example

QUESTION: President Bush, the White House has said the president's going to announce the strategy sometime before Christmas. Are you convinced the proper pieces are in place?

BLAIR: I'm convinced the elements are there, yes. And what I'm also convinced of is that the tough challenge is doing it, making it happen. Identifying what needs to happen is -- I don't say it's easy, but I think it is relatively straightforward. Getting it done requires immense focus and attention.

QUESTION: President Bush also said that history will judge the United States and aim it harshly if these choices aren't made. When his new secretary of defense was asked just the other day if going to Iraq was the right decision, he said, "Only time will tell." Are you still convinced that the history is going to bear out that decision?

BLAIR: I do believe that, but, you know, I don't make the judgment of history. Other people will make that.

But I think that if Saddam was still running around with his sons, I think you'd just have a different range of…

QUESTION: But that wasn't the choice in March of 2003, was it? The inspectors were there. He was contained. He was in a box. Your own former ambassador said that you personally didn't use enough leverage with President Bush to make sure that the right plans were in place for the post-war and perhaps to extend the timeline, put off the invasion while the inspectors were there.

BLAIR: You know, I think the inspectors could have stayed there a very long time and it wouldn't have made the difference.

Saddam was not going to…

QUESTION: Wouldn't it be better than what we have right now?

BLAIR: Well, you see, you can ask why is it that we have the problem now and we have the problem now because people are giving us this problem. People are deliberately creating a situation of destabilization in Iraq.

And my point, as I said, with President Bush, is why should people in Iraq be given a choice between a brutal secular dictator and a sectarian government that is also dictatorial? Why should they be given that choice? Why can't they have the choice of deciding who their government is and participating in free elections?

QUESTION: But if he could have been isolated with the inspectors there, if he could have been surrounded by 250,000 troops, the entire world, he wouldn't have been able to hold on forever.

BLAIR: Yes, but you couldn't have kept -- we can go over this again and again, but, I mean, you couldn't actually, frankly, have kept quarter of a million troops down there. It's very long.

At some point, you had to come to a situation where he had a chance of heart or there was a change of regime, and I think what is interesting is that actually removing Saddam took two or three months.

(App., pp. 34-35, Tony Blair, 2006-12-10, ll. 170-208)

As one can see, the interviewers’ parts are much shorter and the means of involvement are very scarce compared to the number of these means used by politicians. I have found out that the total number of boosting and hedging devices is 5,043 and out of this number, only 274 expressions were uttered by the interviewers, which is an insignificant number compared to the extent of the corpus. Because of this fact and because of the reasons mentioned above, I decided not to include interviewers in the analysis.