Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 16

The Analysis of Political Discourse Applied to Bushs and Kerrys Speeches Jos Manuel Durn

Abstract Politicians design their discourse as directed to a heterogeneous audience consisting of three different kinds of interlocutors, namely the pro-addressee, the para-addressee and the counter-addressee (Vern, 1987: 14-26). In general, these categories correspond to the partisan, the indecisive voter and the opponent respectively. In this article, I have applied systemic functional theory to conduct a contrastive study of the acceptance speeches delivered by President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions respectively before the 2004 Presidential Elections in the United States. First, I have concentrated on the examination of the introductions to both speeches, then on one segment designed in terms of the counter-addressee, and finally on a quantitative analysis of the selection of both the participants in subject position and the processes in the candidates speeches.

1. Introduction The most immediate problem to be solved in the attack on sociolinguistic structure is the quantification of the dimension of style. (Labov, 1972) Linguists have extensively done research on discourse analysis and particularly in the field of political discourse for many decades. The most antique orator whose speech was scrutinised seems to have been Demosthenes, who delivered On the Crown in 330 B.C. (Adams: 1927). In the last two decades the theory of audience design has offered further potential for exploration into political discourse. This expression was coined by Bell in 1984 when he proposed it as an alternative explanation for the style shift of speakers in response to the accommodation theory designed by Giles and Powesland in 1975 (Giles & Powesland 1997). Bell suggests that the basic tenet of audience design is that style is oriented to people rather than to mechanisms such as attention. (Coupland & Jaworski 1997: 243) According to Eliseo Vern (1987: 14-26), politicians design their discourse as directed to a heterogeneous audience consisting of three different kinds of interlocutors1 that he names pro-addressee, para-addressee and counter-addressee. The pro-addressee is the partisan who adheres to the ideals and principles of the party and who will vote for the candidate blindfold irrespective of their past actions or promises because they identify with the
Nina Nrgaard (ed.) 2008. Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication vol. 29 (ISSN 0906-7612, ISBN: 978-87-90923-47-1)

candidate or the party. The counter-addressee is the supporter of the opponent. Regardless of the speakers words or proposals, they will always draw vehement criticism from the counteraddressee. Finally, the para-addressee is the undecided voter who has not been convinced by either candidate in an election and remains irresolute until the last day. Correspondingly, in a political discourse different strategies must be applied in order to reach effectively the diverse segments of an audience. The aim of this paper is to conduct a contrastive study of the acceptance speeches delivered by President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry to the Republican and Democratic National Conventions respectively before the 2004 presidential election in the United States. I will concentrate first on the examination of the introductions to their speeches, second on one segment designed in terms of the counter-addressee, and finally on a quantitative analysis of both the participants and the processes chosen in their speeches.

2. Methodology The speeches were first downloaded from the Internet and then divided into clauses. I have carried out first a qualitative analysis of the introductions to both speeches and of one segment designed in terms of the counter-addressee of each speech. I have also conducted a qualitative analysis of both the interpersonal and the experiential metafunctions in both speeches. I have analysed the interpersonal metafunction in terms of the proportion of personal pronouns and noun phrases in both speeches. Table 1 and Figure 1 show the results obtained. Then, the noun phrases in subject position have been classified for both speeches and listed in Figures 2 and 3 respectively. Subsequent tables and figures have been included for the analysis of personal pronouns in the mood box of the interpersonal metafunction. Finally, the experiential metafunction has been analysed in terms of the processes used by both candidates in their speeches. An appendix shows only the introductions to Bushs and Kerrys speeches, which are in all, 5425 and 5621 words long, respectively.

3. Results and discussion 3.1 Analysis of the introduction to speeches To begin with, President Bushs introduction puts the pro-addressee at the centre of attention, since he starts his speech2 by thanking his audience Mr. Chairman, delegates, fellow citizens. Only after this, does he resort to I as the subject of the following three sentences. He immediately passes on to give a short summary of the events that took place in the past

268

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

four years, in which he uses mental processes, namely the verb of perception see and the verb of cognition learn. The subject of these processes, which run from sentences 7 to 11, is inclusive we and it is also interesting to notice that the other participants, the phenomena perceived are nominalised. Hence, it is not terrorists attacking what Americans saw, but the arrival of tragedy on a quiet morning; not fire fighters rescuing victims, but the bravery of rescuers; not of planes crashing that they learned, but of passengers on a doomed plane who died with a courage that frightened their killers. Subsequent to the mention of these ordeals, Bush refers to positive experiences. Nevertheless, this time the phenomena involved are disclosed as material processes with their agentive participants present: a shaken economy [has] rise[n] and Americans in uniform [have] charg[ed] through sandstorms and liberat[ed] millions. The link with the present is established by means of the connector now followed by two causal relationships, the first of them metaphorical (because we have made that journey, we can see the valley below), and the other appealing to abstract nouns (because we have faced challenges with resolve, we have historic goals within our reach and greatness in our future). The final two sentences of Bushs introduction are assertions in the future, paving the way for the enunciation of his platform. Contrastively, the introduction in Kerrys speech begins with a causal relationship in the first person, the first clause of which consists of a relational attributive process whose token is inclusive we and whose value is here, followed by the reason in the form of a mental process whose senser is we and whose phenomenon is our country. The following two sentences also take we as their subject and America as their object. Only in the fifth sentence does the speaker resort to a vocative, which has the same adjective as his opponent has used in his opening phrase, fellow, but which has the more general noun Americans rather than the more specific citizens, not to mention the insertion of the possessive adjective my. Then, Senator Kerry continues to tell an anecdote of what a great American novelist wrote about the impossibility of returning home. By means of repetitions he interprets the meaning of home for him as the origin of his political career, as the beginning of their nations history and as the cradle of values such as family, faith, and country.

3.2 Segments designed in terms of the counter-addressee As regards the parts of the political discourse designed in terms of the counter-addressee, we can see in Bushs speech that he differentiates his policies from those of the Democrat candidate by highlighting the number of reforms his adversary opposed. In doing this, he uses

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

269

either material or verbal processes. In actual fact, the verb oppose is within the twenty words most frequently pronounced by Bush and the verb say is within the top ten. Besides, the Republican candidate emphasises his rivals contradictions concerning two main points, namely the educational reforms, which Kerry first supported and now wants to dilute; and especially the passing of funds needed by [American] troops doing battle in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush reports Senator Kerry as voting against that money first, explaining his vote then, changing it later, taking pride in his shift, and finally considering it a complicated matter. He further ridicules his adversary by equating his policies with the politics of the past. In his turn, the Democrat candidate unfolds a negative perspective of the current situation: wages are falling, health care costs are rising, the middle class is shrinking, people are working [] two jobs, three jobs, and they are still not getting ahead. Let us notice the use of the present continuous tense because Kerry portrays those events as momentary conditions that eventually will change if he reaches the presidency. Moreover, Senator Kerry uses a number of presuppositions aiming at disparaging his adversary. He says: we are told that outsourcing jobs is good for America, implying that they are not good. He continues, we are told that new jobs that pay $9000 less than the jobs that have been lost is the best we can do, signalling both that jobs have been lost and that new jobs pay less.

3.3 Quantitative analysis of participants and processes As for the interpersonal metafunction in both speeches, it can be seen that while Bush uses personal pronouns in half of the clauses, Kerry uses them in 65% of the sentences3. This can be explained because whereas Bush includes a very rich system of different participants (see Figures 2 and 3 for the classification of participants mentioned in both speeches), Kerry not only makes reference to only a few of these and then he uses a number of anaphoric references, but also he elaborates further on each of the points he makes. For example, when he talks of his dad, he continues to talk about him and his values in the subsequent twenty sentences by using personal pronouns, and when he speaks of his mother, he does so for thirteen sentences. We can also see that Bushs list adds to that of Kerrys a number of countries, genitives and entities relating to his foreign policy (categories a, b and p); and a number of groups associated with the para-addressee and the counter-addressee (categories c and d). Moreover, while the Republican candidate frequently resorts to fractions and percentages (category j) with the aim of giving statistical support to his remarks, this category is not present in the subject position in Kerrys discourse.

270

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Subject Pronoun Noun Phrase

Bush % 49 51

Kerry % 65 35

Table 1: Noun Phrases and Personal Pronouns in Subject Position

Subjects in Bush's Speech

Noun Phrase 51%

Pronoun 49%

Pronoun Noun Phrase

Subjects in Kerry's Speech

Noun Phrase 35% Pronoun 65%

Pronoun Noun Phrase

Figure 1

It is also interesting to notice that none of the speeches resort to nominalised forms4 in subject position, although they do appear in complement position. In addition, it is remarkable that the only collective of identity5 that both orators use is Americans. On no occasion do they exploit We Republicans or We Democrats because they prefer to resort to a more general expression, paying more heed to the para-addressee than to the pro-addressee. Besides, categories c and e6 are more richly exploited in Bushs speech, since he uses eight different nouns to reach the para-addressee and five different expressions designating big entities, whereas Kerry uses none and two respectively.

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

271

Classification of Participants in Bushs Speech a) Countries: America, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Germany. b) Genitives: Americans, Palestinians. c) Groups of people generally associated with the para-addressee: voters, workers, seniors, citizens, families, reformers, generations, children. d) Groups of people generally associated with the counter-addressee: doubters, terrorists. e) Definite entities designating big groups: the world, the country, the nation, the people, (the) government. f) A definite person: my father, the principal, my opponent, Senator Kerry, the Senator. g) Indefinite persons: anyone, a fellow, one Army specialist, 7 Iraqi men, one Iraqi man, a journalist. h) Abstract nouns designating values: his spirit, ownership, freedom, democracy, progress. i) Collectives that identify with the pro-addressee: Americas schools, our economy, our nations founding commitment, the American people, our laws, Americas children, our society, our government, the lives of our citizens, our nation, our mission, our troops, we soldiers of yours, our men and women, our allies, our tested and confident nation. j) Fractions or percentages and numbers of people or other entities: two-thirds of all moms, more than half of the uninsured, 90 percent of its students, only about one in four students, more than three-quarters of Al Qaidas key members and associates, more than 50 million people, more than 10 million citizens, about 40 nations, some 30. k) Generalisations: every senior, all citizens. l) Definite items: the web address, this election, these accounts, this progress, that generation of Americans, that power, that noble story, this moment in the life of our country, that strength, these four years, this young century, that dream. m) Items that identify with the pro-addressee: my plan, our strategy, another priority, the path. n) Items that identify with the counter-addressee: my opponents policies, his policies of tax and spend, others. o) Negative entities: none of us, nothing, nothing complicated. p) Other entities relating to the foreign policy: Al Qaida, the government of a free Afghanistan, the army of a free Iraq, leaders in the Middle East, the murderous regimes of Saddam Hussein, free societies in the Middle East, free governments in the Middle East, women in Afghanistan, the people of Iraq, the people weve freed, peace with our good friend Israel, the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq, young women across the Middle East. q) Other entities relating to the internal affairs: another drag on our economy, opportunity in some communities, most new jobs, workers in hard hats. r) Other entities: a caring society, religious charities, the union of a man and a woman.

Figure 2

272

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Classification of Participants in Kerrys Speech a) b) e) f) Countries: America, the United States of America. Genitives: Americans. Definite entities designating big groups: the world tonight, people. A definite person: my dad, my mother, my parents, John Kennedy, his wonderful wife Elizabeth, this son of a mill worker, Mary Ann Knowles, Abraham Lincoln. Indefinite persons: a great American novelist, workers Ive met, two young bicycle mechanics from Dayton, a young president. Abstract nouns designating values: help, strength, faith, values. Collectives that identify with the pro-addressee: our great middle class, our band of brothers, our economic and military, our national security, the conscience of our country. Generalisations: every child, every parent, every worker, all Americans. Definite items: the journey, the march, the promise, the reality, the future, the front lines, the stars and stripes, that flag, the high road, the outcome, the hope, the sun. Items that identify with the pro-addressee: our answer, our purpose now, our economic plan, our plan, our health care plan, our energy plan, our best days. Items that identify with the counter-addressee: others, that bigotry and hatred. Negative entities: nothing more pessimistic, no Democrats, no Republicans, no mistake, no young American in uniform, no one. Other entities relating to internal affairs: wages, new incentives, investment, doctors and patients, Medicare. Other entities: the men and women on flight 93.

g) h) i)

k) l)

m) n) o) q) r)

Figure 3 As regards the personal pronouns present in the interpersonal metafunction, we can see that the most frequently used by both candidates is inclusive we, appealing to the pro-addressee in the first place. This is understood because the speeches analysed are the ones that each of them gave to their own National Convention, which were mainly crowded with partisans. Yet, it must be mentioned that both speeches received extensive coverage on national and international media, which makes both candidates find the way to resort also to the paraaddressee and avoid expressions such as We Republicans and We Democrats, as mentioned in the previous paragraph. Nevertheless, the percentages with which both candidates resort to we in subject position differ strikingly. While Bush pronounces we in subject position more than half of the times; Kerry does so only in 37% of the sentences. Instead, he uses it as an anaphoric reference to that flag (7 times), to the conscience of

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

273

our country (4 times), to our education plan (3 times), to the episode of 9/11 (twice), and to our purpose (once). The rest of the sentences that contain it as subject make a cataphoric reference, e.g. in It is time to reach for the next dream. It is striking that while Bush mentions no she in subject position, this pronoun appears in 5% of the clauses in Kerrys discourse, making an interesting appeal to the female vote.

Pronoun I You he she it we they total

Bush Frequency % 61 33 11 6 10 5 0 0 3 2 97 52 4 2 186 100

Kerry Frequency % 90 31 19 7 6 2 13 5 37 13 107 37 15 5 287 100

Table 2: Personal Pronouns in Subject Position

Personal Pronouns in Bush's Speech


they 2%

I 33%

we 52% it 2%

You 6% he 5%

I You he it we they

Personal Pronouns in Kerrys Speech


they 5% we 37% it 13% I I 31% You 7% he 2% You he she it we they

she 5%

Figure 4

274

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Person Number 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person Total

Bush Frequency 158 11 17 186

% 85 6 9 100

Kerry Frequency 197 19 71 287

% 69 7 25 100

Table 3: Person Number in Subject Position

Person Number in Bush's Speech


3rd Person 9% 2nd Person 6%

1st Person 85%

1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

Person Number in Kerry's Speech


3rd Person 25% 2nd Person 7% 1st Person 2nd Person 3rd Person

1st Person 68%

Figure 5

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

275

If we further examine the personal pronouns used by both orators, we can see that they differ strikingly in the selection of the person number. Bush uses 85% of first person pronouns and only 9% of 3rd persons. Conversely, his opponents percentages amount to 69% and 25% respectively. A more thorough investigation reveals that while both candidates resort to similar distributions among the first person pronouns, their third person pronouns show an outstanding contrast. Bush uses almost 60% of the instances the pronoun he, referring nearly every time to my opponent, while Kerry mentions he only 6% of the times, making reference mainly to my father.

Bush 1st Person I We Total Freq 61 97 158 % 39 61 100 Freq 90 107 197

Kerry % 46 54 100

Table 4: Distribution of 1st Person Pronouns in Subject Position

Pronoun he she it they total

Bush Frequency % 10 59 0 0 3 18 4 24 17 100

Kerry Frequency 6 13 37 15 71

% 8 18 52 21 100

Table 5: Distribution of 3rd Person Pronouns in Subject Position Finally, as regards the experiential metafunction, I will analyse the processes used by both candidates in their entire speeches, following Hallidays classification7. Bush % 45 29 19 4 2 2 Kerry % 38 39 13 6 2 1

Process Material Relational Mental Verbal Existential Behavioural

Table 6: Processes in Speeches

276

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Processes in Speeches
180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Frequency

Bush Kerry

M at er ia l Re la tio na l M en ta l

Process

Figure 6 We can conclude from the data analysed that both candidates use mainly material and relational processes. However, while the percentage of material processes is higher in Bushs speech (45%) than in Kerrys (38%), the percentage of relational processes shows a reversed pattern: 29% in Bushs discourse and 39% in Kerrys. What is more, the distribution of relational processes is far more uniform in Kerrys discourse than in Bushs, since while the former uses a frequency of at least a relational process in every three sentences throughout his discourse, the latter uses them primarily in the parts of his speech devoted to his foreign policy and then as an immediate consequence of a material process. While 42 out of the 69 relational processes mentioned by Bush are found in the segment of his discourse in which he deals with his foreign policy, the rest are not only fairly separated from each other, they also always follow a material process, for example: 158. because we have faced challenges with resolve, 16. we have historic goals within our reach and greatness in our future. 30. My father served eight years at the side of [] Ronald Reagan. 31. His spirit of optimism and good will [] are in our hearts. 38. Because we acted, 39. Americas schools are better. 157. Hes proposed more than $2 trillion in new federal spending so far, 158. and thats a lot, even for a senator from Massachusetts.

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Ex ist en tia Be l ha vi ou ra l

er ba l

277

179. If you voted against the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act, [] 180. you are not the candidate of conservative values. 384. Now we have reached a time for hope, 385. this young century will be libertys century.

Contrastively, the only section in Bushs speech in which a succession of relational processes can be found is in his explanation of the past situation in the Middle East. This time, however, the pattern is reversed, since the material processes are subsequent to the relational ones: 203. 204. 205. 206. 207. 208. 210. 211. 212. 213. 214. 215. Four years ago, Afghanistan was the home base of Al Qaida. Pakistan was a transit point for terrorist groups. Saudi Arabia was fertile ground for terrorist fund-raising. Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons, Iraq was a gathering threat. And Al Qaida was largely unchallenged.

Today, the government of a free Afghanistan is fighting terror. Pakistan is capturing terrorist leaders. Saudi Arabia is making raids and arrests. Libya is dismantling its weapons programs. The army of a free Iraq is fighting for freedom. And more than three-quarters of Al Qaida's key members and associates have been detained or killed. 216. We have led, 217. many have joined, 218. and America and the world are safer.

Therefore, while Senator Kerry centres his discourse on a string of explanations of who he is, where he comes from, who his parents are, what his values are, what the current political situation is like and what his policies will be, President Bush explains the current situation as a consequence of their actions, which in the case of foreign affairs, result from the widespread chaos reigning in the Middle East. It is interesting to notice that when the deeds are questionable, the agent of the process is changed, as I have already mentioned in the analysis of Bushs introduction. Hence, it is not we that are fighting terror, but the government of a free Afghanistan, it is not we that are capturing terrorist leaders but Pakistan, it is not we that are making raids and arrests but Saudi Arabia, it is not we that are dismantling weapons programs but Libya. In the case of sentence 215, the agent is hidden by means of passivisation.

278

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

4. Conclusion All in all, we can see that both candidates appeal in their introductions to the pro-addressee by resorting to inclusive we and with expressions of gratitude to their audiences, only differing in the positions of such expressions, since while Bush begins with it, Kerry places it at the end of his introduction. However, they differ strikingly in the contents of their introductions and then in the rest of their discourse. While Bush renders himself the candidate of actions that have healed the world and will continue to do so, Kerry considers himself the interpreter of the current situation that assigns attributes to the participants involved. Whereas Bush portrays himself as a more active participant, Kerry regards himself as an analyst who cherishes his own values and will be guided by them. Later, while Bush ridicules his opponent by highlighting his contradictions and his indecision, Kerry points to the negative consequences of his adversarys deeds by resorting to presuppositions. The analysis of the participants and processes involved are in accord with these considerations, since while Bush names a great variety of noun phrases as a way of justifying his actions, Kerry mentions only a few of them and develops a richer system of personal pronouns. Finally, whereas Bush resorts to more material processes, Kerry utilizes more relational ones.

Jos Manuel Durn, Associate Professor Facultad de Lenguas y Estudios Extranjeros Universidad de Belgrano, Buenos Aires, Argentina joseduranlinguist@yahoo.com.ar

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

279

Notes
1 2

See also the three-class taxonomy of addressees in political discourse designed by Raiter (1999: 70). Raiter (2003: 170) discusses the effect of the use of vocatives at the outset of political speeches. 3 Throughout this paper I have used the term sentence as synonymous with clause following Halliday (2004) and Thompson (2003). 4 Vern (1987: 19) argues that nominalised forms are characteristic of political discourse. He found these structures in De Gaulles, Mitterrands and Alfonsns speeches. Adams (1927) claims that they are present in Demosthenes discourse. Further specific uses of nominalisations in political discourse can be found in Maingueneau (1987:4) and Cameron (1995: 74). Fairclough (1989: 124) analyses the presence of nominalisations in political news. 5 This corresponds with what Vern (1987: 17) considers the most important participant in a political discourse, since it establishes the relationship between the orator and the pro-addressee. 6 These correlate with Verns (1987: 18) second and third most important participants in a political discourse, namely general collectives identifying the para-addressee and the singular meta-collectives. 7 For an alternative classification of processes applied to political discourse see Raiter (1999: 84) and Raiter et al. (1999: 33-35). 8 The numbers for the examples correspond to the numbers of the clauses in the speeches.

280

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

References Adams, Charles D. (1927). Demosthenes and His Influence. London: Longmans, in Colliers Encyclopedia (1965), 8: 98, 24: 57. New York: Crowell-Collier Publishing Company. Bell, Allan (1997). Language Style as Audience Design in Coupland, Nicolas & Jaworski, Adam (eds.), Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook. London: Macmillan Press LTD: 240-250. Cameron, Deborah (1995). Verbal Hygiene. London: Routledge. Fairclough, Norman (1989). Language and Power. London: Longman Group UK Limited. Giles, Howard & Powesland, Peter (1997). Accommodation Theory in Coupland, Nicolas & Jaworski, Adam (eds.), Sociolinguistics: A Reader and Coursebook. London: Macmillan Press LTD: 232-239. Halliday, M.A.K. (2004) [1985]. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Labov, William (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Maingueneau, Dominique (1987). Nuevas Tendencias en Anlisis del Discurso. Buenos Aires: Hachette. Raiter, Alejandro (2003). Lenguaje y Sentido Comn: Las bases para la formacin del discurso dominante. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos. Raiter, Alejandro (1999). Lingstica y Poltica. Buenos Aires: Editorial Biblos. Raiter, Alejandro et al. (1999). Discurso y Ciencia Social. Buenos Aires: Eudeba. Thompson, G. (2003) [1996]. Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Arnold. Vern, Eliseo et al. (1987) El Discurso Poltico: Lenguajes y Acontecimientos. Buenos Aires: Hachette. Web references Text: President Bushs Acceptance Speech to the Republican National Convention. FDCH E-Media, Inc. Thursday, September 2, 2004; 11:20 PM. Available Online at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57466-2004Sep2.html (accessed on March 22nd, 2008). Text: John Kerrys Acceptance Speech at the Democratic National Convention. FDCH EMedia, Inc. Thursday, July 29, 2004; 11:22 PM. Available Online at www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25678-2004Jul29.html (accessed on March 22nd, 2008).

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

281

Appendix: Introductions to speeches Introduction to Bushs speech 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Thank you all. Mr. Chairman... Mr. Chairman, delegates, fellow citizens. I'm honored by your support, and I accept your nomination for president of the United States. When I said those words four years ago, none of us could have envisioned what these years would bring. In the heart of this great city, we saw tragedy arrive on a quiet morning. We saw the bravery of rescuers grow with danger. We learned of passengers on a doomed plane who died with a courage that frightened their killers. 10. We have seen a shaken economy rise to its feet. 11. And we have seen Americans in uniform storming mountain strongholds and charging through sandstorms and liberating millions with acts of valor that would make the men of Normandy proud. 12. Since 2001, Americans have been given hills to climb and found the strength to climb them. 13. Now, because we have made the hard journey, 14. we can see the valley below. 15. Now, because we have faced challenges with resolve, 16. we have historic goals within our reach and greatness in our future. 17. We will build a safer world and a more hopeful America, 18. and nothing will hold us back.

Introduction to Kerrys speech 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. We are here tonight because we love our country. We are proud of what America is and what it can become. My fellow Americans: we are here tonight united in one simple purpose: to make America stronger at home and respected in the world. 6. A great American novelist wrote that you cant go home again. 7. He could not have imagined this evening. 8. Tonight, I am home. 9. Home where my public life began and those who made it possible live. 10. Home where our nations history was written in blood, idealism, and hope. 11. Home where my parents showed me the values of family, faith, and country. 12. Thank you, all of you, for a welcome home I will never forget.

282

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008

Вам также может понравиться