Marco Venuti

Dipartimento di Studi Unanistici

Università di Napoli Federico II

Cinzia Spinzi

Università di Palermo

Department of Human Sciences

A diachronic analysis of the

multifaceted concept of ‘security’

in the White House Press Briefings

Verona – May, 30-31 2013

Outline

• White House Press Briefings

• Corpus description and annotation

• security

• Distribution across the corpus

• Collocation

• Collocational profile of security across presidencies

• Concluding remarks

Press Briefings

• The main official channel of communication for the White

House: crucial role in the communication strategies on the

world’s most powerful institution (Kumar 2007);

• The importance of communications and media relations at the

White House has been steadily growing (Perloff 1998; Kumar

2007);

• Battlefield for press secretary (“podium”) and the White House

press corps (“press”).

Press Briefings and institutional discourse

• Institutional interaction (orientation to goal, task or identity

associated with the institution - Drew and Heritage 1992):

– The briefing are atypical since there is a professionals-professionals

interaction (Partington 2003)

• Institutional setting (constraints on allowable contributions -

Drew and Heritage 1992):

– the Briefings are a rather informal setting: participants know each

other well, and talk moves from one social register to another

(Partington 2003: 31), determining the possible roles adopted by

participants (Partington 2003: 31);

– each role carrying a set of opportunities, of strengths and

weaknesses which can be exploited in the interaction (Partington

2003: 32)

Press Briefings and institutional discourse

• The distinction between transactional and interactional talk

(Harris 1995) is very similar to that of Habermas (1984) between

communicative discourse (oriented to reaching an understanding)

and strategic discourse (oriented to success) which ‘is basically

instrumental in mode, power-laden and often located in

institutional sites’ (Harris 1995: 121).

• Briefings are ‘hybrids’ in so far as they display characteristics of

both discourse types leading the Press Secretary to portray

different roles:

“The problem with the format and the problem with the job is

that you have to wear different hats at different moments” (Mike

McCurry)

The WHoB corpus

• Eighteen years: 1993-2011

• Three presidents:– William J. (Bill) Clinton

– George W. Bush

– Barak H. Obama

Year words 1993 1245799 1994 933165 1995 1188252 1996 1056704 1997 1297271 1998 1378935 1999 1076425 2000 843776 2001 985649 2002 779971 2003 1091081 2004 735090 2005 1043027 2006 1218845 2007 1203038 2008 1000061 2009 1349027 2010 1262991 2011 566971 Total 20256078

The WHoB corpus

• Eighteen years: 1993-2011

• Three presidents:– William J. (Bill) Clinton

– George W. Bush

– Barak H. Obama

• Five presidential terms

20256078Total

3140018Barak H Obama 1

4445773George W Bush 2

3598236George W Bush 1

4574333William J Clinton 2

4497718William J Clinton 1

wordsPresidency

20256078Total

3140018Barak H Obama 1

4445773George W Bush 2

3598236George W Bush 1

4574333William J Clinton 2

4497718William J Clinton 1

wordsPresidency

The WHoB corpus: annotation

• Date of the Briefings

• Participant roles:

– Podium

– Podium_OTHER

– journalists

• Participant sex (where available)

• Specific speakers (podium only)

1. “Security refers to all the measures that are taken to protect a

place, or to ensure that only people with permission enter it or

leave it” (Collins Cobuild, 2004);

2. “Safety from attack, harm, or damage; connected with safety and

protection” (MacMillan Dictionary, 2002).

Traditional definitions of security point out the aspect of

immunity from ‘any’ external menace (cfr. Kabbawa, 2000)

Security has always been a key concept in political debate (Buzan

2000), particularly after the events of 9/11 and the rising of a ‘new

regime of international security’ (Fairclough 2007)

Defining ‘security’

Distribution of securityptwPresidency pMw

Clinton 1 592

Clinton 2 1006

Bush 1 1493

Bush 2 1285

Obama 1 902

WJC 1 WJC 2 GWB1 GWB2 BHO1

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Distrib

utio

n o

f securityptw

Collocation

“Collocates establish the relevant contextual framework.

Collocation therefore frequently reinforces meaning distinctions

which may be made on other grounds.” (Moon 1987: 94)

“The origin of meaning is in the text, the selection and

coselection of words. The interpretation of meaning is made by

participants in the discourse” (Sinclair 2005: 22)

“the most reliable collocation candidates are those scoring high on

the MI score [>10.00]and which have a z-score higher than

significance threshold [>2.6]” (Bartsch 2004: 69)

z-score computes the likelihood of the collocation and MI its

strength

Clinton 1 Clinton 2

NWord pMw Z-score MI NWord pMw Z-score MI

1Council 91,74 177,30 31,90 1social 307,60 517,00 34,80

2national 100,97 144,70 31,20 2national 163,78 182,00 32,70

3Advisor 24,29 104,60 32,30 3Council 121,10 181,00 33,10

4Adviser 6,42 97,50 34,00 4Advisor 47,22 158,10 34,10

5social 45,57 96,90 31,20 5surplus 46,43 138,20 33,70

6Lake 12,45 83,30 32,60 6medicare 55,51 97,90 32,50

7U.N. 37,94 74,50 30,80 7solvency 17,39 95,80 34,10

8resolutions 15,26 70,40 31,90 8Berger 19,95 90,90 33,70

9European 15,66 49,40 30,80 9resolutions 18,57 66,20 32,90

10 interests 14,05 40,10 30,40 10saving 8,49 45,80 33,00

11 issues 41,15 40,10 29,10 11surpluses 6,72 43,40 33,20

12regional 10,44 39,60 30,80 12 trust 14,62 42,70 32,10

13assurances 6,02 39,20 31,50 14retirement 9,48 40,60 32,50

14

arrangement

s 5,62 33,00 31,10 15regional 13,83 40,40 32,00

15advisers 2,81 28,80 31,70 16 interests 17,78 38,90 31,60

16Europe 10,84 28,10 29,80 17U.N. 26,28 38,20 31,00

19advisors 6,22 26,90 30,40 18 fix 8,49 38,10 32,50

20relevant 5,02 25,90 30,60 20 fund 14,42 34,50 31,50

21Tony 9,84 25,80 29,70 21Sandy 9,68 33,90 32,00

22resolution 12,25 24,80 29,40 22extend 8,89 32,60 32,00

24measures 7,83 22,20 29,60 25save 8,30 28,20 31,70

26 implications 3,41 21,20 30,60 27extending 5,14 26,80 32,20

27retirement 3,81 20,80 30,40 29Deputy 9,29 26,30 31,40

28related 8,43 20,20 29,30 31European 10,47 24,40 31,10

29stability 5,22 18,80 29,70 32Affairs 7,31 24,10 31,50

31Berger 3,21 18,20 30,30 39relevant 5,14 20,10 31,50

32alliance 4,42 18,10 29,90 42compliance 4,94 18,70 31,30

33protect 7,83 17,90 29,10 49presence 4,74 15,10 30,90

34declaration 3,81 17,00 29,90

38Deputy 4,42 15,80 29,50

39safety 5,02 15,20 29,30

44requirements 2,81 13,30 29,60

Clinton 2

NWord pMw Z-score MI

1social 307,60 517,00 34,80

2national 163,78 182,00 32,70

3Council 121,10 181,00 33,10

4Advisor 47,22 158,10 34,10

5surplus 46,43 138,20 33,70

6medicare 55,51 97,90 32,50

7solvency 17,39 95,80 34,10

8Berger 19,95 90,90 33,70

9 resolutions 18,57 66,20 32,90

10saving 8,49 45,80 33,00

11surpluses 6,72 43,40 33,20

12 trust 14,62 42,70 32,10

14 retirement 9,48 40,60 32,50

15 regional 13,83 40,40 32,00

16 interests 17,78 38,90 31,60

17U.N. 26,28 38,20 31,00

18 fix 8,49 38,10 32,50

20 fund 14,42 34,50 31,50

21Sandy 9,68 33,90 32,00

22extend 8,89 32,60 32,00

25save 8,30 28,20 31,70

27extending 5,14 26,80 32,20

29Deputy 9,29 26,30 31,40

31European 10,47 24,40 31,10

32Affairs 7,31 24,10 31,50

39 relevant 5,14 20,10 31,50

42compliance 4,94 18,70 31,30

49presence 4,74 15,10 30,90

Semantic preference for economic lexical items

extend* security

I think the President's proposal takes the appropriate amount of the surplus to extend Social Security, extend Medicare

Clinton 2

NWord pMw Z-score MI

1social 307,60 517,00 34,80

2national 163,78 182,00 32,70

3Council 121,10 181,00 33,10

4Advisor 47,22 158,10 34,10

5surplus 46,43 138,20 33,70

6medicare 55,51 97,90 32,50

7solvency 17,39 95,80 34,10

8Berger 19,95 90,90 33,70

9 resolutions 18,57 66,20 32,90

10saving 8,49 45,80 33,00

11surpluses 6,72 43,40 33,20

12 trust 14,62 42,70 32,10

14 retirement 9,48 40,60 32,50

15 regional 13,83 40,40 32,00

16 interests 17,78 38,90 31,60

17U.N. 26,28 38,20 31,00

18 fix 8,49 38,10 32,50

20 fund 14,42 34,50 31,50

21Sandy 9,68 33,90 32,00

22extend 8,89 32,60 32,00

25save 8,30 28,20 31,70

27extending 5,14 26,80 32,20

29Deputy 9,29 26,30 31,40

31European 10,47 24,40 31,10

32Affairs 7,31 24,10 31,50

39 relevant 5,14 20,10 31,50

42compliance 4,94 18,70 31,30

49presence 4,74 15,10 30,90

Semantic preference for economic lexical items

national/economic security interests

national/economic security interests

do not affect our national survival,

but ... do affect our national well-

being and the character of the

world in which we live. (Clinton

1999)

protect/advance/+ our + national security interests

protect/advance the national security interests of the United States

be (not) in the best national interests of the United States

Bush 1 Bush 2

NWord pMw Z-score MI NWord pMw Z-score MI

1Homeland 176,80 348,10 35,10 1Council 174,47 224,10 34,00

2Council 284,52 320,00 34,20 2social 144,79 206,60 34,00

3social 122,94 152,10 33,30 3Homeland 85,82 193,00 34,60

4national 160,59 131,90 32,50 4national 150,44 141,90 33,00

5Nations 92,02 90,70 32,30 5 forces 89,26 121,30 33,20

6aviation 14,21 64,90 33,90 6Advisor 39,38 112,50 34,20

7enhance 13,47 53,20 33,40 7equipping 11,31 110,40 35,90

8 improve 24,44 50,30 32,50 8 facing 33,12 99,80 34,10

9Advisor 20,20 49,40 32,70 9Iraqi 71,08 90,40 32,80

10resolution 40,15 48,30 31,70 10Baghdad 28,68 82,70 33,70

121441 7,73 44,80 33,70 111559 7,67 77,00 35,40

13strengthening 14,21 44,00 32,80 12border 38,77 75,70 33,10

14 forces 38,65 43,80 31,50 14U.N. 52,10 66,70 32,40

15department 57,60 43,30 31,00 15permanently 9,09 63,50 34,60

16strengthen 18,20 42,20 32,40 16Hadley 10,50 59,60 34,20

17 threats 20,45 41,60 32,20 17strengthening 16,36 58,40 33,60

18resolutions 14,71 38,50 32,40 18energy 41,40 48,20 31,80

20safety 17,95 32,50 31,70 20 resolution 33,93 46,50 32,00

19Iraqi 31,17 32,50 31,00 21 training 21,41 44,90 32,50

28 transportation 9,23 24,60 31,90 23 resolutions 14,74 44,40 33,00

29ongoing 19,20 24,30 30,90 24strengthen 16,15 42,90 32,70

33border 14,46 23,10 31,20 25discretionary 10,50 41,20 33,20

39 facing 8,48 21,10 31,60 27problems 27,46 38,40 31,80

41 front 15,21 20,90 30,90 28safety 17,16 35,70 32,20

42member 10,72 20,70 31,20 31prosperity 8,48 33,10 32,90

58stability 7,48 14,90 30,90 32 train 8,08 33,00 33,00

33climate 12,72 28,20 32,00

34non 13,53 27,80 31,80

37 responsibility 15,75 26,70 31,60

39Deputy 10,70 25,70 31,90

41Agency 11,11 24,40 31,80

45challenges 12,32 23,40 31,50

improve/enhance security

Bush 1 Bush 2

NWord pMw Z-score MI NWord pMw Z-score MI

1Homeland 176,80 348,10 35,10 1Council 174,47 224,10 34,00

2Council 284,52 320,00 34,20 2social 144,79 206,60 34,00

3social 122,94 152,10 33,30 3Homeland 85,82 193,00 34,60

4national 160,59 131,90 32,50 4national 150,44 141,90 33,00

5Nations 92,02 90,70 32,30 5 forces 89,26 121,30 33,20

6aviation 14,21 64,90 33,90 6Advisor 39,38 112,50 34,20

7enhance 13,47 53,20 33,40 7equipping 11,31 110,40 35,90

8 improve 24,44 50,30 32,50 8 facing 33,12 99,80 34,10

9Advisor 20,20 49,40 32,70 9Iraqi 71,08 90,40 32,80

10resolution 40,15 48,30 31,70 10Baghdad 28,68 82,70 33,70

121441 7,73 44,80 33,70 111559 7,67 77,00 35,40

13strengthening 14,21 44,00 32,80 12border 38,77 75,70 33,10

14 forces 38,65 43,80 31,50 14U.N. 52,10 66,70 32,40

15department 57,60 43,30 31,00 15permanently 9,09 63,50 34,60

16strengthen 18,20 42,20 32,40 16Hadley 10,50 59,60 34,20

17 threats 20,45 41,60 32,20 17strengthening 16,36 58,40 33,60

18resolutions 14,71 38,50 32,40 18energy 41,40 48,20 31,80

20safety 17,95 32,50 31,70 20 resolution 33,93 46,50 32,00

19Iraqi 31,17 32,50 31,00 21 training 21,41 44,90 32,50

28 transportation 9,23 24,60 31,90 23 resolutions 14,74 44,40 33,00

29ongoing 19,20 24,30 30,90 24strengthen 16,15 42,90 32,70

33border 14,46 23,10 31,20 25discretionary 10,50 41,20 33,20

39 facing 8,48 21,10 31,60 27problems 27,46 38,40 31,80

41 front 15,21 20,90 30,90 28safety 17,16 35,70 32,20

42member 10,72 20,70 31,20 31prosperity 8,48 33,10 32,90

58stability 7,48 14,90 30,90 32 train 8,08 33,00 33,00

33climate 12,72 28,20 32,00

34non 13,53 27,80 31,80

37 responsibility 15,75 26,70 31,60

39Deputy 10,70 25,70 31,90

41Agency 11,11 24,40 31,80

45challenges 12,32 23,40 31,50

strengthen* security

Extended context

Obama 1

NWord pMw Z-score MI

1national 164,64 156,10 31,60

2Council 100,92 128,20 31,70

31973 10,96 112,90 34,50

4Afghan 28,26 106,20 33,00

5Advisor 32,87 93,50 32,40

6Homeland 38,64 85,70 31,90

7Donilon 7,21 83,50 34,20

8nuclear 55,94 67,70 30,80

9safety 31,14 66,80 31,50

10 forces 40,08 53,20 30,60

11U.N. 39,50 50,40 30,40

12Afghans 6,92 49,00 32,80

13resolution 31,43 43,50 30,40

14 team 28,26 42,90 30,50

15governance 7,79 38,80 31,90

16Deputy 14,99 37,10 30,90

19non 16,44 34,60 30,60

21ensure 17,01 31,10 30,30

22summit 19,61 27,20 29,80

23discretionary 6,92 26,90 31,10

24social 20,18 26,70 29,70

26resolutions 8,94 26,60 30,70

25 interests 14,42 26,60 30,10

27enhance 5,77 25,70 31,20

28Tom 6,06 25,60 31,10

33proliferation 7,79 24,40 30,70

34stability 9,80 23,60 30,30

38relates 6,92 22,10 30,60

39border 11,53 21,40 29,80

40prosperity 5,48 21,20 30,80

41responsibility 11,82 20,00 29,60

43 improve 8,36 18,90 29,90

48communications 5,48 17,00 30,20

52 training 8,36 16,70 29,60

53regional 6,92 16,60 29,80

national security interests (Obama 1)

be (not) in the (best) national interests of the United States

We have seen al Qaeda driven out of Afghanistan to find refuge in the

mountains of Pakistan. I don't think anyone doubts their continuing

efforts to plot against us. They have not given up on their desire to inflict

damage, harm and murder on the United States of America. That is how

we in this administration view the threat coming from al Qaeda and their

allies. We have walked away from Pakistan before, with consequences that

have not been in the best interests of our security, and we are

determined that we're going to forge a partnership with the people of

Pakistan and their democratically elected government against extremism

(.) and that's what we're pursuing.

security/interests comes back in Obama’s presidency but it widens its

semantics by including other interests the country can benefit from

Collocates of security across the presidencies

responsibilitysafety

nuclearstability

forcesproliferation

OBAMA

facing

challenge

climate

threats

strengthen*

improve

BUSH

interests

issues

surplus

economic

items

CLINTON

Social

National

(commo

n core)

• The concept of security shows great variation across the

presidencies despite a common semantic core: national/social

security;

Concluding remarks

Social

0

100

200

300

400

Clinton 1 Clinton 2 Bush 1 Bush 2 Obama 1

Presidency

pMws

social/security Presidency pMws

Clinton 1 45.57

Clinton 2 307.60

Bush 1 122.94

Bush 2 144.79

Obama 1 20.18

• The concept of security shows great variation across the

presidencies despite a common semantic core: national/social

security;

• The concept of security is undergoing a process of broadening

becoming less state-centric. In Bush’s political frame threats are

mainly identified with external forces, either in a geographical

sense (as was the case for ‘rogue states’) or cultural (terrorism).

• The different collocates in the Bush administration with respect

to the previous administration identify the changing geo-

political scenario due to contextual factors;

Concluding remarks

• In Obama’s vision, the internal/external boundaries are much

more blurred, first because of globalization, and second

because of a quite radical change in perspective;

• The presence of the phrase ‘to be in the best security interests’

[OR the variants ‘It’s in our national security interests’/’It’s in

the security interests of this country’] is almost non-existent in

Bush’s terms

Concluding remarks

interests

0

5

10

15

20

Clinton 1 Clinton 2 Bush 1 Bush 2 Obama 1

Presidency

pMws

interests/security

Presidency pMws

Clinton 1 14.05

Clinton 2 17.78

Bush 1 0.00

Bush 2 0.00

Obama 1 14.42

• In Obama’s vision, the internal/external boundaries are much

more blurred, first because of globalization, and second

because of a quite radical change in perspective;

• The presence of the phrase ‘to be in the best security interests’

[OR the variants ‘It’s in our national security interests’/’It’s in

the security interests of this country’] is almost non-existent in

Bush’s terms …

• and may be (cautiously) interpreted as a sign of political

democratic identity.

Concluding remarks

Thank you

• Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.

• Bartsch, Sabine. 2004. Structural and functional properties of collocations in English. Tubingen:Gunter Varr Verlag.

• Blumler J.G. and Kavanagh, D. (1999) “The third age of political communication:influences and features”. Political Communication, 16, (3): 209-230.

• Buzan, B. 1997 “Rethinking Security After the Cold War”, Cooperation and Conflict, vol.32 no. 1 5-28.

• Cooper, C. and McKinnon, J. D. (2005). ‘White House Press Room as political stage’.The Wall Street Journal. 25 February 2005.

• Drew, P. and Heritage J. (1992). “Analysing talk at work: an introduction.” In Drew andHeritage (eds) Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, 3-65.

• Harris, Sandra. 1995. “Pragmatics and power.” Journal of Pragmatics 23:117–135.

• Fairclough, N. 2007 “Blair’s contribution to elaborating a new doctrine of internationalcommunity”, in L. Chouliaraki (ed.) The Soft Power of War. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,39-60.

References

References

• Kumar, J.K. (2007) Managing the President’s Message. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

• Moon, R.1987 “The Analysis of Meaning”. In Sinclair (ed.) Looking up, pp. 86-103.

• Partington, A. (2003) The lingistics of Political Argument. London: Routledge

• Partington, A. (2006) The lingistics of Laughter. London: Routledge

• Perloff, R.M. (1998) Political Communication: politics, press, and public in America. Mahwah,NJ and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

• Sinclair, J. 2005 “Meaning in the Framework of Corpus Linguistics”. In Teubert, W.(ed.) Lexicographica, 20-32.

• Spinzi, C. and Venuti, M. (forthcoming) “Tracking the change in institutional genre: adiachronic corpus-based study of White House Press Briefings” in F. Poppi e W.Cheng (eds) The three waves of globalization: winds of change in Professional, Institutional and

Academic Genres, Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambrige Scholars Publishing