Common Sense Speech Analysis

The second aspect is the form. Rudyk stress on the grammar and the sentences spoke by the speaker. The speaker predominantly used active sentences in his speech to make it persuasive. Other than that, the speaker also imposes a specific presupposition which is indirect and effective to manipulate the listeners into accepting the speaker’s declarations as ‘common sense’. For example, in paragraph 8, the speaker said, “Many (Shia extremists) are known to take direction from the regime in Iran, which is funding and arming terrorist like Hezbollah…”. The words are known in the sentence, is to show the ‘common sense’ or the speaker expect the listeners already know about the subject matter and the same goes with the missing or unstated agency in

What the speaker really meant by we is the agency, the government and the people who work to go against their ‘terrorist’. The speaker choose to speak on behalf of the addressee and implicitly makes an authority claim and contributes to creating corporate ideologies which stress the unity of people at the expense of recognition of division of interest throughout the speech but towards the end of the speech, the speaker state that the we is referring to the members of Quartet (China, Japan, Rusia and South Korea). In addition, the speaker used we and they and us and them to differentiate the good and evil. We are at the good side and they are at the opposite. Furthermore, according to George Lakoff (2002), the dichotomy is the characteristic of Strict Father Morality which a strict father teaches his children right from wrong and sets strict rules for their behavior (p.100). Rudyk believe that, the speaker is using the techniques to be able to stand up to an external evil and to make sure the listeners ‘obey’ him. The speakers used modal verb such must to signals obligation just like a child must obey their

CDA pay attention to all levels and dimensions of discourse, those grammar (phonology, syntax, semantics), style, rhetoric, schematic organization, speech act, pragmatic strategies, and those interaction among others. It is not limited to purely verbal approach to discourse but also pay attention to semiotic dimension of communication event. It is also an attempt to uncover, reveal, or disclose what is implicit, hidden, or otherwise not immediately obvious in relations of discursively enacted dominance or their underlying ideologies. In this context, it helps in understanding the underlying meaning of President Bush’s of the Union speech. It critically analyze every details of the speech; meaning, form, function and cognitive techniques of manipulation. At the end of CDA, it reveals the ideologies from President Bush and how he manipulated words and sentences to indirectly ‘show’ the power that he had to influence the