v
Maranatha Christian UniversityTABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDEGEMENTS………..i
TABLE OF CONTENTS………..………..v
ABSTRACT……….………...vi
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study…………..……….………1
Statements of the Problem……….4
Purpose of the Study……….4
Methods of the Research…………...………4
Organization of the Thesis……….5
CHAPTER II: THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………...………6
CHAPTER III: DISCUSSION ON DOUBLESPEAK………...10
CHAPTER IV: CONCLUSION………...………28
BIBLIOGRAPHY………..………32
vi
ABSTRACT
Dalam menulis tugas akhir ini saya mengangkat masalah penggunaan
doublespeak dalam pidato-pidato yang bersifat politis yang dikeluarkan oleh pihak
Departemen Pertahanan Amerika. Pidato-pidato yang saya pakai sebagai data adalah
pidato-pidato yang membahas masalah Perang Irak, dan penyiksaan kepada para
tahanan oleh tentara Amerika di dalam tahanan Abu Ghraib di Irak.
Tujuan saya menganalisis penggunaan doublespeak dalam pidato-pidato para
politikus adalah untuk mengetahui seberapa besar bahaya dan efek yang akan
ditimbulkan, jika mereka selalu menggunakan doublespeak dalam setiap pidato yang
bersifat politis. Menurut saya doublespeak adalah suatu metode penyampaian
informasi yang sengaja digunakan untuk memanipulasi, menipu, menutupi kejelekan
dan membuat orang bingung menentukan mana informasi yang benar dan salah.
vii
menjadi korban Perang Irak. Karena itulah kita harus waspada dan mencegah
APPENDICES
The political statements of doublespeak
The first speech
Munich Conference on European Security Policy
Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, Munich, Germany, Saturday, February 03, 2001
Dr. Teltschik, thank you so much for your kind words. It is a pleasure to be here on my first trip abroad, during my second tour of duty. [NATO Secretary-General] Lord Robertson, [European Union] Secretary General Solana, [German Foreign] Minister Fischer, distinguished members of the United States Congress, and the co-chairmen, Senator Joe Lieberman and Senator John McCain, members of Parliament, fellow ministers of defense.
……….. Our consultations and cooperation are at the center of this new world. They are the foundation from which we will respond to the challenges we face today and will face in the future. I am pleased to see also that we have participants here from Japan, Singapore, from India and China, to mention but a few of the many non-NATO attendees. They provide a useful reminder that security cannot be achieved by isolating one part of the world from another, by separating Europe from Asia.
The landscape changes, yet the mandate remains the same: it is to preserve peace and security and to promote freedom and democratic ideals. Today we again have some choices before us. And our task is to make the choices together, to share the risks and the responsibilities and to benefit in common. As I see it, ensuring our security in the future comes down to four familiar concepts—but cast in a somewhat new light in this new century: deterrence, defense, diplomacy, and intelligence.
defense capability that makes that deterrence credible. Our deterrence and defense efforts are the underpinning of our diplomatic efforts. And finally, we must have the intelligence assets needed to allow policymakers, diplomats and our leadership a shared situation awareness so that they can do their jobs working off the same set of facts.
Today I want to share a few brief words about four issues in particular:
o Missile defense o The Balkans
o The issue of Europe’s defense identity, and o The prospects of NATO enlargement
Today we are safer from the threat of massive nuclear war than at any point since the dawn of the atomic age--but we are more vulnerable now to the suitcase bomb, the cyber-terrorist, the raw and random violence of an outlaw regime or a rogue nation armed with missiles and weapons of mass destruction. This so-called post-Cold War world is a more integrated world and, as a result, weapons and technologies once available only to a few nations are proliferating and becoming pervasive. And not just to nations but to non-state entities.
This brings me to the first issue, missile defense. I believe we need to recognize that the deterrence of the Cold War—mutual assured destruction and the concept of massive retaliation—worked reasonably well during the Cold War. But as Senator McCain said this morning in answer to a question, the problems today are different. The demands are different. And we have an obligation to plan for these changing circumstances to make sure that we are arranged—first and foremost—to dissuade rash and reckless aggressors from taking action or threatening action. Terror weapons don’t need to be fired. They just need to be in the hands of people who would threaten their use. And it alters behavior. We know that. And we know from history that weakness is provocative. That it entices people into adventures they would otherwise avoid.
……….. I’d point out that when we started in Bosnia, we deployed tens of thousands of heavily armed forces. Today, we still have capable force there, but the mission has changed and the force is appropriately smaller and lighter. We have made these incremental changes as a result of the Alliance’s orderly process, that first began, I believe, in 1996, and continued through routine reviews, conducted some every six or eight months, as I recall. We believe this process of consultation, of assessment, and change should continue.
……….. Our European allies and partners know that NATO is at the heart of Europe’s defenses. Therefore, to sustain our past success into the future we must first and foremost maintain NATO as the core of Europe’s security structures for Europe.
I favor efforts that strengthen NATO. What happens within our Alliance and what happens to it must comport with its continued strength, resilience, and effectiveness. Actions that could reduce NATO’s effectiveness by confusing duplication or by perturbing the transatlantic link would not be positive. Indeed they run the risk of injecting instability into an enormously important Alliance. And if I may add one more point: whatever shape the effort may finally take, I personally believe it should be inclusive—open to all NATO members who wish to take part.
The issue of European inclusion leads to the opportunity of NATO’s enlargement. Here, too, we see opportunities presented by the new world that people in this room have helped to fashion. We have made good progress toward fulfilling the vision of Europe whole and free.
………. Weaken NATO and we weaken Europe, which weakens all of us. We and the other nations of the alliance are bound together in pursuit and preservation of something great and good, indeed, something without parallel in history. Our greatest asset still lies in our values – freedom, democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law. And in the face of shared risks, we still must share the responsibility. As we embrace these challenges, I am confident that we will strengthen our great partnership, and that we will not fail. Thank you very much. [Applause.]
The second speech
Secretary Rumsfeld Speaks on "21st Century Transformation" of U.S. Armed Forces
Remarks as Delivered by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Defense University, Fort McNair, Washington, D.C., Thursday, January 31, 2002.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Be seated.
……….. But really, this is precisely what transformation is about. Here we are in the year 2002, fighting the first war of the 21st century, and the horse cavalry was back and being used, but being used in previously unimaginable ways. It showed that a revolution in military affairs is about more than building new high tech weapons, though that is certainly part of it. It's also about new ways of thinking, and new ways of fighting.
……… Preparing for the future will require us to think differently and develop the kinds of forces and capabilities that can adapt quickly to new challenges and to unexpected circumstances. An ability to adapt will be critical in a world where surprise and uncertainty are the defining characteristics of our new security environment. During the Cold War, we faced a fairly predictable set of threats. We came to know a great deal about our adversary, because it was the same one for a long period. We knew many of the capabilities they possessed, and we fashioned strategies and capabilities that we believed we needed to deter them. And they were successful. It worked.
As we painfully learned on September 11th, the challenges of a new century are not nearly as predictable as they were during the Cold War. Who would have imagined only a few months ago that terrorists would take commercial airliners, turn them into missiles and use them to strike the Pentagon and the World Trade Towers, killing thousands? But it happened.
And let there be no doubt, in the years ahead, it is likely that we will be surprised again by new adversaries who may also strike in unexpected ways.
And as they gain access to weapons of increasing power -- and let there be no doubt but that they are -- these attacks will grow vastly more deadly than those we suffered several months ago.
Our challenge in this new century is a difficult one. It's really to prepare to defend our nation against the unknown, the uncertain and what we have to understand will be the unexpected. That may seem on the face of it an impossible task, but it is not. But to accomplish it, we have to put aside the comfortable ways of thinking and planning, take risks and try new things so that we can prepare our forces to deter and defeat adversaries that have not yet emerged to challenges.
aggressors at the same time and changing their regimes. This approach served us well in the immediate post-Cold War period, but it really threatened to leave us reasonably prepared for two specific conflicts and under-prepared for the unexpected contingencies of the 21st century.
To ensure we have the resources to prepare for the future, and to address the emerging challenges to homeland security, we needed a more realistic and balanced assessment of our near-term warfighting needs. Instead of maintaining two occupation forces, we will place greater emphasis on deterrence in four critical theaters, backed by the ability to swiftly defeat two aggressors at the same time, while preserving the option for one massive counter-offensive to occupy an aggressor's capital and replace the regime. Since neither aggressor would know which the president would choose for a regime change, the deterrent is undiminished. But by removing the requirement to maintain a second occupation force, as we did under the old strategy, we can free up resources for the future and the various lesser contingencies which we face, have faced, are facing and will most certainly face in the period ahead.
………. The third speech
Pentagon Town Hall Meeting
Transcript of Remarks by Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, The
Pentagon, Washington, DC, Tuesday, May 11, 2004
Thank you. Thank you very much.
I'm told the midshipmen are from George Washington University -- except for one -- from Georgetown. Is that possible? And that the cadets are from the University of Maryland. Welcome.
And I know I speak to everyone listening when I say that the those acts ought not to be allowed to define us -- either in the eyes of the world or our own eyes. We know who we are. We know what our standards are. You know what you're taught. And the terrible actions of a few, don't change that.
In Iraq we have liberated 25 million people from the tyranny of a brutal dictator. In a few weeks we'll hand over power to Iraqis, an interim government that will shortly be operating under a constitution that will guarantee freedom to all Iraqi people. This week, while we were immersed in scandal, Ambassador Bremer transferred control of several government ministries to the Iraqi people.
April was a tough month in Iraq as the deadline for transition approached and forces opposed to freedom acted to try to preclude that transition to freedom. But freedom and self-government are coming, inexorably, no matter what number of fanatics may wish.
The building of a free state in Iraq has proceeded probably with fewer lives lost and certainly no more mayhem than we endured here in the United States 228 years ago; when we were going through it, or that occurred in Japan or Germany after World War II.
In Afghanistan, another 25 million men, women and children now have freedom from the tyranny of the Taliban and the Soviets before them -- and they're preparing for their first free elections, again, thanks to U.S. intervention.
That's the bigger picture: We have been privileged to take part in a great stride forward for human freedom in places where it's been scarce, and that is worth celebrating.
Here at home, though we shudder at Abu Ghraib, remember that while we are seeing the excesses of human nature that humanity suffers, Americans live by the rule of law, and our military justice system is working.
A specialist who became aware of the illegal actions in the prison reported them and by the next day, investigations were authorized. And by the next day, it was announced to the world, to the public by the Central Command with no guidance or encouragement from anyone in Washington. They acted responsibly and told the world that there were charges/allegations of abuses. The military, not the media, discovered these abuses. The military reported the abuses, not the media.
……… So I thank you for your hard work every day to keep America safe and free. I thank your families for their support as well.
Now, General Pete Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has a few words to say.
Table of data
Euphemism
The units of doublespeak The actual meanings according to the
context
Counter-offensive
To occupy
Replace the regime
Americans wearing the uniform
Heartsick
A few
The building of a free state
The excesses of human nature that humanity suffers
Invasion
To take control of Topple down
American soldiers/American Forces Embarrassed
Inflated language
The units of doublespeak The actual meanings according to the
context
An outlaw regime or a rogue nation
armed with missiles and weapons of
mass destruction
An outlaw regime
A rogue nation
Weapons of mass destruction
Massive
An aggressor’s capital
A body blow
The really well-earned reputation
A force for good
The tyranny of a brutal dictator
A conflicting nation
A tyrannical and undemocratic government
A dangerous country Nuclear weapons Large or big Iraq/Afghanistan
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Language is a system of verbal and non-verbal communication used by humans. The power of language is really enormous, absolute, functional and influential. Through language, we can express our feelings and ideas, helping us to think, to give opinions on certain issues.
Language appears through words and sounds. We can read words in different kinds of medium, such as newspapers, books, posters or magazines. Furthermore, we can listen to somebody’s speeches or news on the radio. Language can also be used as an instrument to achieve our goal, namely to influence somebody’s concept about something, to create masterpieces in literature, such as poems or novels, and make important statements such as declaration of independence or important speeches.
Maranatha Christian University
2
good as the image they give to the public. In order to achieve their goals, politicians tend to do anything, including the use of doublespeak in their political statements.
According to Webster’s dictionary, the use of language with the purpose of deceiving people, hide the bad facts, complicate things, confuse the listeners, create suspicion, saying one thing and meaning another that is what people call Doublespeak.
<http://www.damronplanet.com/doublespeak/whatisdoublespeak.htm>.
The use of doublespeak is inappropriate, because according to Lutz, doublespeak is a method of speech that is intentionally created with clear ideas to pretend to communicate, the purpose is to hide the facts, make people deceived, and misled into unreal facts. (18-19). Furthermore, Doublespeak has turned into something common in our life that many people fail to become aware of it. Even worse, when they do notice doublespeak being used on them, they do not act in response, and they do not complain. (Lutz 19)
Maranatha Christian University
3
To analyze the use of doublespeak in U.S Department of Defense’s political statements, I use Pragmatics as the approach. The reason is that Pragmatics deals with the speaker’s meaning and the speaker’s intention as well as the contextual meaning. I have to know the contextual meaning of the speaker when using doublespeak in his statements and must be aware of the speaker’s intention in using doublespeak in his speeches.
My purpose to analyze the use of doublespeak usually used by politicians in their speeches is to find out and identify how the use of doublespeak appears in the political speech because doublespeak is dangerous. It has bad effects on the public and they must be aware of the use of doublespeak in political speeches.
The significance of my study is to make people who listen to or read a politician’s speech become more critical. As a result, they will become more aware of the content of the speech delivered by a politician in order to deceive people. It is important for the people to be aware of speeches that contain doublespeak, because if the speeches that they hear and read are misleading, it will mislead their way of thinking and people will fall into falsehood. If people are more aware of the use of doublespeak, they will not only know which issues are the truth and which are merely lies, but also know which politicians are deceptive and which are honest or trustworthy.
Maranatha Christian University
4
statements to cover up some facts, avoid the bad image, and try to change it into the good one. Moreover, the U.S Department won the NCTE doublespeak award in 1991, 1993, and 2001. “The NCTE Doublespeak Award, established in 1974 and given by the NCTE Committee on Public Doublespeak, is an ironic tribute to public speakers who have perpetuated language that is grossly deceptive, evasive,
euphemistic, confusing, or self-centered.” <http://www.ncte.org/about/awards/council/jrnl/106868.htm >.
Statement of the Problem
1. What types of the doublespeak used in the speeches made by the U.S Department of Defense?
2. What does the U.S Department of Defense want the listener to think by using doublespeak in their speeches?
3. What are the actual meanings of doublespeak according to the context in the speeches made by the U.S Department of Defense?
Purpose of the Study
1. To find out the types of doublespeak that are used in the speeches made by U.S Defense Department.
2. To find out what the U.S Defense Department wants the listener to think by using the doublespeak in their speeches.
Maranatha Christian University
5 Methods of Research
In writing this thesis, I follow some steps. First, I search for the theory of doublespeak in the library and the Internet. Second, I read the theory of doublespeak, and try to understand it. Third, I look for the data to analyze the speeches that are spoken by the U.S Department of Defense. Fourth, I analyze all the data that contain doublespeak, and answer all the statement of the problem. Finally, I write a conclusion based on the discussion of my thesis.
Organization of the Thesis
Tetty 28
CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I present some conclusions based on the discussion on the use of doublespeak in some of the political statements made by the U.S Department of Defense in the previous chapter.
After analyzing the speech, I find that in order to save the U.S Department of Defense reputation and get the heroic image, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, delivers a speech which contains doublespeak. The two types of doublespeak that the U.S Department of Defense has used mostly are euphemism and inflated language.
I have taken the sources of data with issues from the Missile Defense System until the Iraq War and the issue at Abu Ghraib prison, so that I could detect the use of doublespeak in different conditions and circumstances.
Tetty 29 the enemy. However, we can see from the fact the effects of the American invasion to Iraq are just creating new sorrows to Iraqi people. Many of them have been killed and suffered. Moreover, the widespread issue of the torture at Abu Ghraib through the photographs and the videos has been an embarrassing for the U.S Department of Defense because the accused people who tortured the prisoner are from the American forces. This will make the public wonder what American forces are actually doing in Iraq. We know from the news, or the other media that the purpose of their mission in Iraq is actually very contradictory to what American forces did at Abu Ghraib.
There are three ways for Rumsfeld to save the reputation of America by using doublespeak in his speech. First, to manipulate the audience to think that the enemy of America (Iraq and Afghanistan) to have a very bad image, so that the audience will support the U.S Department of Defense to invade those countries. He often uses inflated language to make the description of the enemy of America to be as bad as possible, such as an outlaw regime or a rogue nation armed with
missiles and weapons of mass destruction, an aggressor's capital, and the tyranny
of a brutal dictator. They manipulate the public with impressive words, such as
brutal, mass destruction, aggressor, and rogue to make the public get an
impression that the enemies of The United States are so dangerous and the audience must be aware of them. Rumsfeld called Saddam Hussein as the tyranny
of a brutal dictator and Iraq with aggressor capital.
Tetty 30 embarrassing conduct of American forces did at Abu Ghraib. He uses inflated statements such as a body blow, the really well-earned reputation, a force for
good, and massive. The reason they use this type of doublespeak is to show a
good impression, a heroic image, and trustworthy image, so that the American audience will support and give the sympathy for them.
Third, is Rumsfeld often uses euphemism to make the sensitive issue such as the word of ‘war’, ‘invasion’ or the embarrassing conduct done by the American forces in Iraq to appear as implicit as possible in order to cover the unpleasant reality and keep the good image of America. He often uses euphemistic statements such as heartsick, counter-offensive, replace the regime,
Americans wearing the uniform, to occupy, a few, the building of a free state and
the excesses of human nature that humanity suffers, and replace the regime. He
uses euphemism such as heartsick, counter-offensive, the building of a free state,
to occupy, and replace the regime to soften the actual meanings of that phrase to
become more tolerable than their actual meanings. For instance, when Rumsfeld uses the phrase of counter-offensive instead of invasion in order to avoid mentioning the sensitive issue to the audience. He also uses euphemism to give an implicit description such as a few, the excesses of human nature that humanity
suffers, and Americans wearing the uniform to cover the unpleasant reality that
will make the good image of the America tarnish.
Tetty 31 After analyzing the data of the use of doublespeak in the U.S Department of Defense‘s political statements, I conclude that the politicians use doublespeak to gain trust, get a good image and support from the public, though they are not as good as the reality. For example, the U.S Department of Defense has a high reputation in the front of the American public and the world, so they try their best to maintain their “heroic” and “good” image though they have done bad things or some illegal actions.
In my opinion, many people are unaware of the use of doublespeak in some speeches. We can see the effects from both the speaker and the audience. People sometimes are suspicious when some politicians give their speeches or opinions; as a result, people will not easily trust their government. Furthermore, if people are tired of the doublespeak found in the political speeches, people will no longer try to communicate with their own government because they think that it is useless. They will ignore the issues of political speeches whether it is important. As a consequence, government will be ignored and not be trusted by their public anymore due to the use of doublespeak in political speeches.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
REFERENCES:
Lutz, William. Doublespeak. Harper Perenial, 1990
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford University Press 2000 Schrriffin, Deborah. Approaches to Discourse. Oxford 1994
Yule, George. Pragmatics. Oxford University Press, 1996
Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus: For home, school and office. Geddes and Groget davi Dale House, 2002
ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS:
Damronplanet.com. 2001. “What is Doublespeak”
<http://www.damronplanet.com/doublespeak/whatisdoublespeak.ht m>.
Defenselink.mil. 2001. Munich, Germany. 3 February 2001 <http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches>
Defenselink.mil. 2002. National Defense University. 31 January 2002 <http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches>
Defenselink.mil. 2004. The Pentagon, Washington, Dc. 11 May 2004 <http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches>
<http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/culture/2005/Wasserman/main.cf m>.
Ncte.org. 1974. NCTE Doublespeak Award. 2001
