Investigating 'war on terror' discourse from semantic and pragmatic perspective

Critical Discourse analysis (CDA) is a theoretical approach strongly connected with other disciplines . A very important role is played by sociolinguistics that has shown that linguistic variation does not depend solely upon individual choices, because it is a product of social differentiation. In fact language varies according to social setting, the social identities of people in interactions and so on. This study aims to investigate the strong connection between Critical Discourse Analysis and the pragmatic, semantic values of linguistic structures and phrases in Bush’s radio speeches about terrorism in 2005. Particular emphasis has been given to a possible differentiation between a CDA and CDS (Critical Discourse Studies) approach with reference to semantic and pragmatic values. In particular, attention will be focused on specific lexical choices which refer to the two opposite parties in the war on terror, ie terrorists and American troops, and their semantic and pragmatic implications, that is, the cultural values and concepts conveyed in the pragmatic interaction between The President and the American people. Furthermore, a part of the analysis will be devoted to semantic relations between sentences and clauses in order to better emphasize the structures employed to build-up the ‘war on terror’ discourse. Finally, some observations on modality will be provided, since it is considered crucial in «… the texturing of identities, both personal (‘personalities’) and social …» .