Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Discourse & Society
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Butt, D. G.
Right arrow Articles by Matthiessen, C. M. I. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Grammar–The First Covert Operation of War

David G. Butt

Annabelle Lukin

Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY

The cultural perturbations created by 11 September (9/11) have produced a layering of discourses. These layers offer a remarkable opportunity for interpreting ideology in relation to text construction. We examine two degrees of this textual dispersion: first, the motivated selection in the crafting of President Bush’s first speech after 9/11; and second, the speech by British Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins as he exhorts his troops before engagement in the war against Iraq of 2003. The texts are remarkable for their similarities and their differences – two different contexts in which humans are called to enact policy which involves behaviour that should be abhorrent. Bush presents an asymmetrical world (in moral, not economic, terms); and this asymmetry is mainly expressed in the consistent allocation of grammatical roles. Collins presents the regiment’s task as a family mission, with dramatic switching between positive constructions of an Old Testament Iraq and the regiment (‘family’) on the one hand, and the ‘rightful destruction’ of the enemy, on the other hand. Again, but in more varied ways, it is the grammar which carries the burden of discriminating between those to be protected and those to be targeted. Ideology in language follows from the fact that we can construct multiple versions of the ‘same’ physical, biological, social and semiotic events.

Key Words: 9/11 • grammar • ideology • systemic functional linguistics

Discourse & Society, Vol. 15, No. 2-3, 267-290 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/0957926504041020


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Discourse SocietyHome page
G. C. Chang and H. B. Mehan
Why we must attack Iraq: Bush's reasoning practices and argumentation system
Discourse Society, July 1, 2008; 19(4): 453 - 482.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
JournalismHome page
V. Rupar
Newspapers' production of common sense: The `greenie madness' or why should we read editorials?
Journalism, October 1, 2007; 8(5): 591 - 610.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Discourse SocietyHome page
Z. Bar-Lev
Mrs Goldberg's rebuttal of Butt et al.
Discourse Society, March 1, 2007; 18(2): 183 - 196.
[Abstract] [PDF]