Post on 29-Oct-2020
A Critical Discourse Analysis of President Musharraf’s
Speech* †
,‡
past heroes
Keywords
*
†
‡
Zubair, Umaima ,
233
discourse by controlling people’s mind and beliefs and examines all
an Dijk’s socio
.
.
ideologies ‘indirectly influence the personal cognition of group
used to be useful to one’s own aim and overshadow the ben
Zubair, Umaima ,
234
on
on
Pak
’s
. Van Dijk’s
Wodak’s (2001) framework of analysis who argues that the first
.
Zubair, Umaima ,
235
‘
victim of terrorism’ (2006). This idea and assertion clarifies the
‘Let me make it clear that this fight
Pakistan’ (2004
‘The problem is that at the government level we are doing very well.
or they are not happy shall I say with the relationship with US.’
,
Zubair, Umaima ,
236
mentions in his interview that ‘
Osama’s information come up we will see how to deal with it’
o
that Pakistan’s integrity would be maintained at all costs.
In his 2001 address to the nation he says, ‘The religion of
misplaced’
2001, Musharraf says that ‘To fight the extremist, deprive him of his
suffer injustice and indignity’ (2001). This i
said that, ‘
to misuse the label of terrorists to keep the peoples’ aspirations
suppressed’ (2006). This is
Zubair, Umaima ,
237
,
image and it is also harmful for the war against terror. “The r
total misplaced” (Musharraf, 2001). He reiterated this stance at lots
Zubair, Umaima ,
238
that “Islam teaches
tolerance…not violence”. It is the doing of the few clerics and
against the religious leaders of the country. He claims that “I called
terrorism and extremism” (2006). Such statement also shows that
.
on.
“Our resources are
–
2004).”
“We have
with both your conduct and arguments”
The
overarching macro structure of his speeches was that “We regard
terrorism as an evil that threatens the world community”
Zubair, Umaima ,
239
(Musharraf, 2001). The selection of this
macrostructure/topic/theme binds him with the people not just
from Pakistan but from the whole world. The showing of solidarity
with the world by a leader is like penetrating into the very ideologies
and identities and getting the favors.
,
oun ‘us’ that stands for two major
his use of ‘we’ word signifies that he is part of the war on terror and
by ‘we’ he means all the allies who are working against terrorism all
world. Yet his second context of using the ‘we’ word is of
completely ‘misled’ and wrong. Another significant implication is
the use of the word ‘terrorism’ and ‘religion’ to which he h
clearly uses the word ‘we’ by saying that “we are with you on the
issue of terrorism”. Thus presupposing
people’s attention by touching upon the shared social practices and
Zubair, Umaima ,
240
.
ases like ‘interest of Pakistan
province’ ,
whole to justify the actions of ‘us’ a
Majority’s agreement on the war on terro
Zubair, Umaima ,
241
(1997). ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’. In
258 284.
,
.
Comprehension
A. (1993). ‘Principles of critical discourse analysis’. In
283.
289.
3) ‘Critical discourse a
of Discourse Analysis’ Oxford: Blackwell.
‘Discourse and Power’. New York:
Van Dijk, T. A. (2009) ‘Critical Discourse Studies; Acognitive Approach’. In
(2001). ‘What CDA is about –
ts developments’. In Wodak, R. &
.