Masaryk University of Brno Faculty of Education

Home , Bushism, Dialogue in writing

MASARYK UNIVERSITY OF BRNO FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Bachelor thesis

Brno 2010

Klára Hrozínková

Masaryk University Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature

Bushisms: a linguistic analysis of G. W. Bush's slip-ups

Bachelor Thesis

Brno 2010

Supervisor: Written by: Mgr. Martin Adam, Ph.D. Klára Hrozínková

Bibliography HROZÍNKOVÁ, Klára. Bushisms: a linguistic analysis of G. W. Bush’s slip-ups. Brno: Masaryk University, Faculty of Education, Department of English Language and Literature, 2010. 49 pages, 8 pages of attachments. The supervisor of Bachelor thesis is Mgr. Martin Adam, Ph.D.

Anotace Tato bakalářská práce se zabývá nedostatky v mluveném projevu G. W. Bushe, které byly shromážděny z různých zdrojů. Cílem práce je pokusit se o zařazení Bushových projevů do jazykových skupin a o jejich další analýzu. Práce je rozdělena na dvě části. Teoretická část zkoumá přístup starověku k veřejnému projevu, představuje významné osobnosti spojené s jazykovými chybami a zaměřuje se na pět typů chyb. V praktické části jsou sesbírány výroky G. W. Bushe a jejich zkoumání.

Annotation The Bachelor thesis deals with speech errors of G. W. Bush‘s statements gathered from various sources. The attempt will be made on their classification into linguistic units and further analysis. The paper is divided into two parts. The theoretical part explores the Ancient approaches to public speaking, introduces significant personalities related to speech errors and focuses on five types of errors. In practical part, different speech errors of G. W. Bush will be collected and examined.

Klíčová slova Chyby v mluveném projevu, Bushismus, Výroky George W. Bushe, Zařazení a analýza Bushismů

Key words Speech Errors, Bushisms, Uterrances of George W. Bush, Classification and Analysis of Bushisms

Declaration

I hereby declare that I worked on my bachelor thesis independently and that I used only the sources listed in the works cited section.

...... Brno, April 2010 Klára Hrozínková

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Mgr. Martin Adam, Ph.D. for his valuable comments, guidance and positive attitude.

Table of contents

1 Introduction ...... 8 I THEORETICAL PART ...... 9 2 Brief History of Public Speaking ...... 9 2.1. Ancient Greece ...... 9 2.2. Ancient Rome ...... 10 3 Slips researchers ...... 12 3.1. William Archibald Spooner ...... 12 3.2. Sigmund Freud ...... 12 3.3. Kermit Schafer ...... 13 3.4. Victoria A. Fromkin ...... 14 3.5. Arnold Zwicky ...... 16 4 Types of Speech Errors ...... 17 4.1. Blends ...... 17 4.2. Malapropisms ...... 18 4.3. ―Does Know Better‖ Errors and ―Doesn‘t Know Better‖ Errors ...... 20 4.4. Tip-of-the-Tongue ...... 21 4.5. Spoonerisms ...... 22 II PRACTICAL PART ...... 24 5 Bushisms: Analysis of Bush‘s Statements ...... 24 5.1. Morphology ...... 25 5.1.1. Bush‘s Words Resulting into Malapropism ...... 25 5.1.2. ―Doesn‘t Know Better‖ Errors in Bush‘s Utterances ...... 27 5.1.3. George Bush‘s Spoonerisms ...... 28 5.1.4. Word Substitution and Omission ...... 29 5.1.5. Inappropriate Forms ...... 30 5.2. Syntax ...... 32 5.2.1. Subject – Verb disagreement ...... 32 5.2.2. Unclassified Errors ...... 34 5.2.3. Inappropriate Verb Forms ...... 35 5.2.4. Inappropriate Forms of Comparatives and Superlatives ...... 36 5.3. Semantics ...... 37

5.3.1. Tautology ...... 37 5.3.2. Repetition ...... 39 5.3.3. Antonym Substitution ...... 41 5.3.4. Wrong and Out-of-Context Utterances ...... 42 6 Conclusion ...... 46 7 Resumé ...... 47 8 Works Cited ...... 48 9 Appendix ...... 50

1 Introduction

I decided to choose Bushisms as a topic for my thesis. My interest in this topic aroused naturally during the end of Bush‘s presidency. At that time I started noticing his specific speech full of mistakes and imperfections colloquially known as Bushisms, which enjoyed lots of media attention. There were written many books dealing with this term, however, mostly as collections without any further analysis. The goal of my thesis is to investigate different methods and theories of verbal blunders and categorize Bush‘s slips according to the types of speech errors. The thesis is divided into two parts – the theoretical and the practical one. Firstly, the thesis introduces the famous ancient rhetors and their goals of rhetoric performance. The next chapter is devoted to the slips researchers; it describes their different points of view on making mistakes and what explanatory value they can have. The last chapter introduces different types of speech errors and when they most likely occur. The practical part is focused on the presidential speech and public performance of George W. Bush and the linguistic classification and analysis of his errors. The material I used for the thesis consists of books about slips in speech in general, (e.g. books by Victoria Fromkin, Michael Errard and Arnold Zwicky) and books dealing purely with Bushisms and presidential rhetoric. The online sources were used for data completion as well.

I THEORETICAL PART

2 Brief History of Public Speaking

―There was a time when attention to language was so great that entire societies recognized rhetoric as the most important subject a person could master‖ (Williams 9). ―Classical rhetoric was a politically and ethically established style of teaching effective public speaking‖ (―Rhetoric‖).

2.1. Ancient Greece

―Yet as far as we can tell, it was the ancient Greeks who were the first to engage in the systematic study and teaching of rhetoric and oratory‖ (Williams 9-10). Erard states that ―Athenians developed a tradition of using persuasive language, or rhetoric, to shape the course of events, to claim power, and to mete out justice and shame‖ (148).

Corax and Tisias and the First Handbooks for Public Speaking

―Tradition holds that the formal study of rhetoric began around 467 BC in the Greek city of Syracuse on the island of Sicily. In Book 3 of The Art of Rhetoric, Aristotle identified Corax and Tisias, two Sicilians, as the first teachers of rhetoric‖ (Williams 10). Corax, after observing several trials, used his observations to develop a ―system‖ of rhetorical study and began teaching classes on how to win in court (Williams 10). Corax took on a student named Tisias, and together they supposedly went on to produce handbooks on public speaking that were very popular, especially in Athens, where democracy was well established. The handbooks did not survive the passage of time, but various sources report that their primary contribution to rhetoric was the introduction of argument based on probability (Williams 10).

Gorgias, Technai, a Manual of Rhetorical Instruction

Gorgias (c.483-376 BC), transplanted rhetoric from his native Sicily to Athens and Attica, and in the process contributed to the diffusion of the Attic dialect as the

9 language of literary prose. He ushered in rhetorical innovations involving structure and ornamentation and the introduction of paradoxes and paradoxical expression, for which he has been labelled the "father of sophistry". His rhetorical works (including the "Encomium of Helen", "Defence of Palamedes" and "Epitaphios") come down to us via a work entitled "Technai", a manual of rhetorical instruction (―Gorgias‖).

Isocrates, Plato, and Aristotle

Isocrates (436-338 BC), taught public speaking as a means of human improvement. He suggested that while an art of virtue or excellence did exist, it was the only one piece, and the least, in a process of self-improvement that relied much more heavily on a native talent and desire, constant practice, and the imitation of good models (―Rhetoric‖). Plato (427-347 BC), was suspicious of rhetoric because, ethically speaking, it could be used for both good and bad. ―False‖ rhetoric was used to persuade people of probable truths by simply telling listeners what they wanted to hear. Thus, ―false‖ persuasive public speech could create morally deprived listeners. In Phaedrus, Plato offers an account of ―good‖ rhetoric—rhetoric that can persuade the listener‘s soul to know the transcendent truth. (―Rhetorical Study‖). Aristotle (384-322 BC) identified three branches of rhetoric: ‗deliberative‘— legislative rhetoric, the purpose of which is to exhort or dissuade; ‗judicial‘ or forensic rhetoric, which accuses or defends; ‗epideictic‘ or panegyric rhetoric, which is ceremonial in nature and commemorates or blames (―Rhetoric‖).

2.2. Ancient Rome

Erard emphasises that ―Ancient Rome inherited the Greek rhetorical tradition . . . ‖ (150). Roman rhetoric thus largely extends upon and develops its Greek roots, though it tends to prefer practical advice to the theoretical speculations of Greek rhetoricians (―Rhetoric‖).

Cicero

The Roman Statesman Cicero (106-43 BC) categorized the elements of public communication into five ―arts of public speaking,― or canons of rhetoric, that are still applicable today. Cicero argued that these five arts – invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery – constitute the groundwork for learning about public speaking. The five arts provide guidelines for speaking effectively in public (Coopman et al. 15).

A brief insight into history of rhetoric reveals a divergence of opinions in mastering the ability in public speaking. Some thinkers believed it was an inborn talent; others believed the skill could be taught and learned. Yet the Latin proverb ―Poeta nascitur, orator fit―1 speaks for itself. It resulted from the view of those who believed that good rhetoric performance is the product of an intensive training. Although it seems that ancient rhetors did not pay much attention to speech errors, it was actually Hippocrates who noted that speech errors occur. He proposed the theory that before a thought is expressed other thought arises (Gruyter 227). The next chapter will be focused on speech researchers and their field of study.

1 The English version of the Latin aphorism: The Orator is made, the poet is born. 11

3 Slips researchers

There are many scholars who have shed light on the linguistic imperfections. Though some psychologists and linguists have searched for the cause of speech errors, others as humour researchers have gathered the blunders for fun and commercial promise. This chapter, however, will include both interests in speech errors.

3.1. William Archibald Spooner

Although the scientific name for transposing sounds or letters in a word or phrase is an exchange or in the Greek, metatheses, more popularly are such phrases known as ―Spoonerisms― after the Reverend William Spooner. Spooner, who was born in 1844, has become famous for his (real or alleged), plays on words in which corresponding consonants, vowels, or morphemes are switched (―William Archibald Spooner‖). Toasting Queen Victoria at dinner, Spooner said, ―Give three cheers for our queer old dean‖ (….dear old Queen) (Erard 15). Spooner also said ―uh‖ a lot – perhaps because he was trying to avoid making the slips he had become famous for (Erard 18). The facts of Spooner´s life very strongly suggest that he did not make as many verbal blunders as are attributed to him. Erard explains that ―the myths about the man, which were spun out of fancy and admiration, say more about our fascination with verbal blunders than about the blunders or the man‖ (21).

3.2. Sigmund Freud

―One of the most prominent figures who helped shape our view of the modern self, Sigmund Freud, was also the first to understand speech errors as something more fundamental to human consciousness‖ (Erard 27). ―In 1901, Freud published The Psychopathology of Everyday Life, placing his stamp on verbal blunders forever‖ (Erard 29). In Psychopathology he mentions various types: forgetting proper names, foreign words, phrases, childhood memories, slips of the tongue, and slips of writing, hearing, and reading. For Freud, slips of the tongue that had once been marginalized by laughter, embarrassment, of sheer ignorance were, in fact, valuable data (Erard 34).

Freud wrote: In the psychotherapeutic procedure which I employ in the solution and removal of neurotic symptoms, I am often confronted with the task of discovering from the accidental utterances and [p. 94] fancies of the patient the thought contents, which, though striving for concealment, nevertheless intentionally betray themselves. In doing this the mistakes often performs the most valuable service, as I can show through most convincing and still most singular examples. "While writing a prescription to a woman who was especially weighed down by the financial burden of the treatment, I was interested to hear her suddenly say: 'Please do not give me big bills, because I cannot swallow them.' Of course she meant to say pills”. (―Green‖)

Whereas Freud used slips to get a handle on the self, his opponent Rudolf Meringer, who was collecting slips of the tongue with the help of a colleague Carl Mayer and published them in a book titled Misspeaking and Misreading in 1895 six years before the first appearance of ―Psychopathology‖, used them to get a handle on language (Erard 41). Despite of Freud‘s and Meringer‘s disagreement on the origin of the errors, neither of them would forecast that in one hundred years after their books were published, speech errors would be collected in the wild and broadcast on radio and television.

3.3. Kermit Schafer

Kermit Schafer is best known for his collections of "bloopers" — the word for mistakes and gaffes of radio and TV announcers and personalities (―Kermit Schafer‖). Erard remarks that ―his blooper fascination began as a hobby; he collected fluffs and outtakes from military training films and played them for friends‖ (170). His first work that showed to have commercial promise was Candid Microphone and others soon followed, the book Your Slip Is Showing, a record Radio Bloopers and LP Pardon My Blooper! All his records became hot commodities and Shafer was the first to transform people‘s slips of the tongue from television and radio broadcasts into gold. Audience

13 liked the blooper humour because it stripped the dignity from public figures and celebrities, the bloopers played out a kind of identity slapstick, peeling off the mask of the media celebrities to reveal the errant human being beneath (Erard 174).

3.4. Victoria A. Fromkin

―Victoria Fromkin was an American linguist who taught at UCLA2. Dr. Fromkin studied slips of the tongue, mishearing, and other speech errors and applied this to study how language is organized in the mind. Dr. Fromkin earned many achievements in her lifetime (―Victoria Fromkin‖). Her linguistics textbook, An Introduction to Language, has sold nearly a million copies and been translated into Portuguese, Japanese, Swedish, Chinese, Korean, Hindi, and Dutch. In the 1970s, Fromkin was connected by the Kroffts, the producers of psychedelic kids‘ television shows, to invent a language for the character of Chaka, the apelike Pakuni character on Land of the Lost (Erard 185). Later she invented a vampire language for the Wesley Snipes movie Blade, which involved teaching the actress Traci Lords her vampire lines by telephone (Erard 186). Her line of research mainly dealt with speech errors and slips of the tongue. She collected more than 12,000 examples of slips of the tongue. Dr. Fromkin contributed to the area of linguistics known as speech errors. In her book Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence she points out: ―We must study the way people talk … as a window into the human mind. In addition, it is assumed here that one cannot understand ―the way people talk‖ without reference to their linguistic knowledge‖ (Fromkin 11). Dr. Fromkin created a speech error database that is actually called "Fromkin‘s Speech Error Database." The data were collected for several years at UCLA and it is still being collected to this day (―Victoria Fromkin‖). The database is publicly available on the Web site of the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics: http://www.mpi.nl/cgi-bin/sedb/sperco_form4.pl. In this database it is possible to search using many criteria, for instance, by target language, by speaker‘s name, by error type etc..

2 The University of California, Los Angeles (generally known as UCLA) is a public research university located in the Westwood neighborhood of Los Angeles, California, in the United States. 14

The example from the Fromkin Speech Error Database.

Error Corpus Target Language Speaker Error Type 357 UCLASEC ENGLISH Eng Nina‘s Lexical FROMKIN 1978. MFG mother

Specifiable information about the error from database. Overview Target utterance: close it so it doesn‘t go STALE. Error utterance: close it so it doesn‘t go FRESH. Error Situation: conversation Date: 11/20/78 Interpretation 1 Issues: change meaning Extra info: antonym substitution Analysis 1 Comments: could be contamination from a competing form "... so it will stay fresh". [MFG] or a semantic feature change to antonym. [VAF] Target unit: stale Error unit: fresh Process procedure: substitution Item lexical word: adj Dr. Fromkin theorized that slips of the tongue can occur at many levels including syntactic, phrasal, lexical, semantic, morphological and phonological. She also believed that slips of the tongue could occur as many different process procedures. The different forms were: addition, deletion, exchange and substitution (―Victoria Fromkin‖). In 1980, Dr. Fromkin remarked on the speech errors: ―We all produce slips of the tongue and those of us trying to understand the nature of language and language use are grateful for this fact‖ (―Obituraries‖). When Dr. Fromkin died, Times Staff Writer Myrna Oliver wrote: ―Even if she could spark laughter with her material, Fromkin was taken very seriously as an expert on the linguistic significance of speech errors, brain and language, phonetics and psycholinguistics‖ (―Obituraries‖). 15

3.5. Arnold Zwicky

Arnold M. Zwicky is a linguist at Stanford University. He has spent the last thirty years researching spelling errors, double entendres, spoonerisms, ―schoolboy howlers of the maplaprop variety,‖ mixed metaphors, and a whole menagerie of linguistic deviations and innovations (Erard 202). His fascination with slips of the tongue began in the early 1970s, when he sat in on a course taught by Vicky Fromkin. Fromkin taught him how to take dual notes at lectures: on one pad you write the slips; on the other you write notes about the lecture (Erard 203). In 1980, he published Mistakes, the booklet prepared as supplementary material for an introductory linguistics course (Zwicky Preface). In the first chapter – There are mistakes, and then there are mistakes, Zwicky distinguishes the mistakes of SOCIAL and LINGUISTIC character by providing examples. In another chapter - Errors Have Explanations Zwicky points out: ―It is important to see that even real errors are not utterly random events. The chances that anyone will ever err by saying hippopotamus rather than the, are very slight. Usually, it is possible to see the source(s) of the error, or at least imagine what they might be‖ (Zwicky 6). In his workbook he, among others, mentions: Errors of Misplacement, Errors at Many Levels, Ignorance, Disturbances in Production and Inconsistency. Zwicky is also known as a frequent contributor to the linguistics blog Language Log available on http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/, and moreover he and other linguistics helped to create the eggcorn database available on http://eggcorns.lascribe.net/, where after registration anybody can contribute to the collection. The word eggcorn was coined collectively by the linguists who contribute to the linguistics blog Language Log. It was adopted after someone misusing the word ―egg corn‖ instead of ―acorn‖. The database is in alphabetical order and presently contains 629 eggcorns. For Zwicky, ―… we shouldn‘t fault those who make errors but rather take in account what our brains contain: words from speaking and reading; social conventions; formal education; unpleasant or happy experiences speaking or writing; and personal preference and talent‖ (qtd. in Erard 204).

4 Types of Speech Errors

The aim of this chapter is to introduce the basic pattern of how different speech errors are formed.

4.1. Blends

Blends are the simplest kind of slips of the tongue. A blend is a word formed from two other words (very rarely more than two) by dividing each of the two original words into two parts, and combining one part from each original word into the new word called the blend (Fromkin 85). Examples: ―behortment‖ (behaviour + deportment); ―drig a well‖ (drig: drill + dig); ―ebvious‖ (evident + obvious). It happens that in all of these examples the two original words are synonyms. However, this fact is of no concern to the linguist as such. It is linguistically relevant that in each of these examples the two original words are formally similar. Phonetic similarity – behaviour and deportment both have three syllables, and are both accented on the second syllable. Grammatical similarity – behaviour and deportment are both nouns, drill and dig are both verbs, evident and obvious are both adjectives (Fromkin 85). ―… Rulon Wells (1918-2008) a linguist at Yale University, embarked on a study of blends‖ (Erard 50). Wells laid down tree rules about blends:

The first rule. A SLIP OF THE TONGUE IS PRACTICALLY ALWAYS A PHONETICALLY POSSIBLE NOISE. The blend would favour ―scrin,‖ ―scring,‖ and ―scrill‖ over ―ktin,‖ ―pmpik,‖ or ―ksob.‖ It is extremely important to realize that phonetic possiblility varies from language to language. In ancient Greek words can begin with kt but cannot end with kt; in English just the opposite is true (Wells in Fromkin 86).

The second rule. IF THE TWO ORIGINAL WORDS ARE RHYTMICALLY SIMILAR, A BLEND OF THEM WILL, WITH HIGH PROBABILITY, RHYTMICALLY RESEMBLE BOTH OF THEM. The words are rhythmically similar if they have the same number of syllables and are accented on corresponing syllables. For example, behaviour, deportment, and their

17 blend behortment are rhytmically similar: each has three syllables and each is accented of the second syllable (Wells in Fromkin 86).

The third rule. IF THE TWO ORIGINAL WORDS CONTAIN THE SAME SOUND IN THE SAME POSITION, A BLEND OF THEM WILL CONTAIN THAT SOUND IN THAT POSITION. The sound may be simple or complex; it may be a vowel, a consonant, a sequence of two consonants, a vowel followed by a consonant, or any other phonetically possible combination. One person quite often produces blends but very seldom interchanges whole words, another person has the opposite tendency. The study of such tendencies is properly a collaborative job: the linguist furnishes the classification of slips of the tongue, and the psychoanalyst or other psychologist correlates the tendency to select this or that kind of slip with the personality type of the speaker (Wells in Fromkin 87).

4.2. Malapropisms

A malapropism is a ridiculous misuse of a word, in place of one it resembles in sound, especially when the speaker is seeking a more elevated or technical style than is his wont and the blunder destroys the intended effect. The incongruity is heightened if the speaker himself gives no sign of awareness of the blunder - and this speaker did not (Hockett in Fromkin 110). According to Hockett ―the key difference lies in the speaker‘s degree of familiarity with the vocabulary he is using. If we unintentionally blend familiar expressions, we produce and ordinary lapse; if we unintentionally blend unfamiliar expressions, we may produce the special kind of lapse that is also a malapropism‖ (Fromkin 110).

A typical example of malapropism: (1) T: If these two vectors are equivalent, then…. E: If these two vectors are equivocal, then….

Here the speaker has intended to say equivalent, but has inadvertently substituted for it equivocal. This error illustrates well the three major characteristics of malapropisms. First, the erroneous intrusion is a real word – not the intended word, of course, but not a meaningless string of phonemes either. Second, the target and error seem to be unrelated in meaning. Finally, there is a close relation between the pronunciation of the target and the pronunciation of the error (Fay and Cutler 505). Other classes of speech errors gathered by Fay and Cutler that look like malapropisms but in fact are not. The first class comprises errors in which the speech sounds in an utterance are misplaced: spoonerisms, anticipations, perseverations, and omissions.

A type of error which produced a nonword in English (1) a.T: …bone and joint clinic. E: …boin and jont clinic. Errors which resulted in real English words. b. T: …carrot and cabbage. E: …cabbot and carriage. Anticipation of a phoneme. (2) a. T: …splicing from one tape. E: …splacing from one tape. b. E: If you tend me – if you send me the time of your birth… Here the speaker perseverated by repeating a phoneme that occurred earlier in the sentence. (3) a. T: … pale sky. E: … pale skay. b. T: People bounce back and forth… E: People pounce back and forth… A single phoneme has been omitted from the intended utterance. a. E: When panets – planets pass each other … b. E: A most important vote and repeat – replete with historical overtones…

A second type of error involving the sound segments of a word arises when two synonyms are blended together. (4) a. T: gripping/grasping E: grisping

b. T: heritage/legacy E: heresy A third class of errors is that of semantic errors. Often these errors consist in saying the antonym of the intended word. (5) T: good E: bad

(6) T: nearly E: barely T: specific E: general

According to Fay and Cutler the malapropisms have some interesting properties. First, the target and the error are of the same grammatical category in 99% of the cases. Second, the target and the error frequently have the same number of syllables. Third, they almost always have the same stress pattern.

4.3. “Does Know Better” Errors and “Doesn’t Know Better” Errors

Erving Goffman, a Canadian sociologist, divided the errors in two broad categories: ―does know better‖ errors and ―doesn‘t know better‖ errors. In ―does know better‖ faults he includes: i. Influencies, namely, hitches in the smooth flow of syntactically connected words, as with restarts, filled pauses, stuttering. ii. Slips, by which he means words or their parts that have gotten mixed up, or mis- uttered, as in word transposition, phonological disturbance, and the like. He also includes breaches of the canons of ―proper‖ grammar, pronunciation, and word usage that the speaker himself would ordinarily avoid automatically; so, too, one-shot failures of normally rapid access to the corpus of information one would ordinarily be expected to have. Thus, slips are to be seen as a consequence of confused production, accident, carelessness, and one-time muffings-not as ignorance of official standards or underlying incompetence (Goffman 208). Among ―doesn‘t know better‖ faults, he includes:

20 iii. Boners, namely, evidence of some failing in the intellectual grasp and achievement required within official or otherwise cultivated circles, this evidence implied in words spoken or others words not comprehended. Ignorance of the world may thus be demonstrated, or unfamiliarity with the lore of some specific, prestigious domain. Language capacity in its own righ may be involved – general vocabulary, pronunciation, the fine points of grammar, and the like (Goffman 209).

4.4. Tip-of-the-Tongue

Brown and McNeill defined a TOT as follows: ―If you feel you are unable to think of the word but feel sure that you know it and that it is on the verge of coming back to you then you are in a TOT state…‖ (Schwartz 7). They also collected and distinguished TOTs into positive and negative groups. Positive TOTs were those in which participants resolved their TOT or recognized the experimenter‘s word as correct. TOTs were scored as positive even if the participant was sure that it was the word at which the TOT was directed. Negative TOTs were those in which the participant did not judge the actual word to be the one for which they were experiencing a TOT or that they could not recall the actual word for which they had experienced a TOT (Schwartz 9). Brown and McNeill also introduced the distinction between phonological access and semantic access in TOTs. This distinction is that TOTs may elicit two kinds of retrieved information; (a) partial information about the phonology of the word of phonologically related words, and (b) semantic information, such as related information or associatively related words. Phonological information includes remembering the first letter, the first syllable, or a word that sounded similar to the target (e.g., ―croquet‖ for ―cloaca‖). Semantic information, such as related information, entails remembering details of the functioning of the digestive system, and associated words might include ―intestine‖ or ―crop‖ (Schwartz 9). According to Schwartz: ―TOTs are natural and everyday experiences, and they appear to be universal experience across cultures and languages‖ (21).

4.5. Spoonerisms

―The transposition of the initial sounds of words, creating new words either meaningful of meaningless, is called spoonerism‖ (Abootty 179).

Examples of spoonerisms: Correct Version Spoonerism A well-oiled bicycle A well-boiled icicle A crushing blow A blushing crow Rough time Tough rhyme The dean is busy The bean is dizzy.

The transposition of words is also called spoonerism: To bridge the gap To gap the bridge Food in her mouth Mouth in her food Let the cat out of the bag Let the bag out of the cat

In the hope of gaining some insight into mechanisms of Spoonerisms, Donald G. Mackay analyzed a large collection of this type of errors. The questions which motivated him for the study, were for example: What factors contribute to Spoonerisms? Do repeated phonemes frequently precede reversed phonemes? Do reversed phonemes usually occur in the initial syllable of words? Are reversed phonemes usually close together or widely separated and etc. The strict criteria for evaluating had to be adopted, such as: Extensiveness How many examples are available? Inductive generalizations from a small number of cases are out of the question. Context The entire sentential context in which an error occurs should be reported. Validity Care must be taken to ensure that a speech error is really a speech error and not an educational deficiency.

Documentation The name of the individual making the error should be provided with his age, state of fatigue, etc.. (MacKay in Fromkin 164 -165) MacKay analyzed 179 Spoonerisms in German and English. His analysis revealed some of the following facts: Repeated phonemes usually occurred before and after the reversed phonemes. Consonants were more frequently transposed than vowels. Reversed phonemes occurred closer together in words and sentences than could be expected by chance. Effects of the above factors on Spoonerisms in German and English were shown to be quantitatively similar (MacKay in Fromkin 191).

II PRACTICAL PART 5 Bushisms: Analysis of Bush’s Statements

The speech errors described in the previous chapter are not a typical feature of common people only. They have occurred and been widely detected in public speeches of former Presidents of the United States, where the most significant role represents George W. Bush. To label his peculiar utterances the term ―Bushism‖ has been coined and used worldwide. Bush‘s misuse of English language inspired many journalists and writers to document his statements and during his two terms humorous books, CDs, DVDs and Web sites were filled with Bushisms. It is important to point out that there are not only hunters of Bush‘s quotations whose main aim is to complete their collection but also those who are willing to find the origin and background of these quotations. To fit its purpose many of Bush‘s words were taken out of context to seem nonsensical and grammatically incorrect. The authors of books devoted to Bushisms tend to imply that Bush‘s lack of fluency in English refers to his low intelligence. On the other hand, the linguists have different opinion on this matter. Associate professor of linguistics, Alan Cienki said: ―It‘s something we all do, some more than others, some of us do it more under pressure, in spur-of-the-moment situations. Being a world leader definitely puts you in that high- pressure category‖ (qtd. in Cloud). Other linguist Arnold Zwicky remarks: ―What happens with Bush is that some people are listening for mistakes. I haven‘t done any comparison with Bush as opposed to someone else, but I wouldn‘t expect it would be hugely different from any random person‖ (qtd. in Erard 232). Even Bush himself joked about his speech style: ―My critics don‘t realize I don‘t make verbal gaffes, I‘m speaking in the perfect forms and rhythms of ancient haiku‖ (qtd. in Erard 229). Nevertheless, the goal of this thesis is not to evaluate Bush‘s linguistic performance but rather focus on the classifications and analysis of his misspoken sentences. In the practical part I will attempt to categorize his utterances into three linguistic groups (Morphology, Syntax and Semantics) based on Fromkin classification of speech errors and examine his reversals. It is also important to point out that the assigned targets of Bushisms were not always possible to reveal and especially the mistakes identified as malapropism had to be taken from relevant sources. Regarding the classification of his speech errors I derived the inspiration from the books and

Internet websites dealing with Bushisms. All the used statements refer to the sources I worked with and they are included in the Appendix.

5.1. Morphology

5.1.1. Bush’s Words Resulting into Malapropism

The Bush‘s selection of words often results in malapropism. He frequently confuses a target word with a similar sounding one. The examples of malapropisms in Bush‘s utterances:

(1) "I want to remind you all that in order to fight and win the war, it requires an expenditure of money that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they're well-paid, well-trained, well-equipped." - Washington, D.C., 15 Dec. 2003. (App. 4a) Target - commensurate

In the above statement Bush substituted the adjective commensurate with the sounds-like verb commiserate. The words have some same properties as the same number of syllables and the same stress pattern. Beside the different grammatical unit these two words belong to, they also differ in meaning. It seems that Bush is not aware of the accurate meaning of the word commiserate as he used it at least in four other statements. The problem is that some people not realizing the exchange of words, may view this statement insultingly.

(2) "When Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal." - Washington, D.C., 22 Jan. 2003. (App. 4b) Target – prosecuted

In this example, the meaning of the error word is not so far off the target word, however, the word persecuted is more assigned and used in the countries with

25 totalitarian regime and dictatorship and not in America where the freedom is highly valued.

(3) "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile." - Des Moines, Iowa, 21 Aug. 2000. (App. 4c) Target – hostage

Other from Bush‘s speeches given after 9/11 reveals the misuse of the word hostile. The error evidently changes the meaning and doesn‘t fit in the context. Moreover, the switched words belong in different grammatical class.

(4) "And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." - Interview on National Public Radio, 29 Jan. 2007. (App. 4d) Target – alleviate

The usage of the word elevate results here in the utterance with absurd meaning. Even for the inattentive listeners must be noticeable that the word elevate is not the target.

(5) ―We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there‘s not this kind of federal — federal cuff link.‖ - Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 30 Mar. 2000. (App. 2a) Target – handcuff

Totally out of context is the word cuff link in the above-mentioned utterance. This time Bush‘s memory failed, he didn‘t manage to select the right word, and it is evident from repeating the word federal that he was searching for the target word for some time, unfortunately, without success. He managed to recall one segment – cuff but produced cuff link instead of handcuff.

(6) "Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq." - Washington, D.C., 15 Dec. 2003. (App. 5a) Target - denied

The above examples are all substitution errors and they have some of the same properties assigned to malapropism as described by Fay and Cutler. In all examples the error and target words are unrelated in meaning and the pairs have the same number of syllables. All the error words are the real words. The pronunciation is close between the words. As for the stress pattern it differs only in (4). The grammatical category is not the same in (1,3). To sum up only (2,5,6) examples have all the characteristics of malapropism.

(7) ―They misunderestimated me.― - Bentonville, Arkansas, 6 Nov. 2000. (App. 1a) Target – underestimated

(8) "I refuse to be sucked into your hypnotheoretical arguments." - Indianapolis, Indiana, 15 Oct. 2004. (App. 5b) Target - hypothetical or theoretical

In (7) example Bush combined incorrectly two words by adding the prefix mis-. It seems that his first intention was to utter the word misunderstood and then he changed it to underestimated, the outcome of these two words is the non-existent word misunderestimate. In (8) is not clear what the target word should be. It is likely that Bush himself doesn‘t know the real meaning of the target words. He probably fused the words hypothetical and theoretical and it resulted in hypotheoretical.

5.1.2. “Doesn’t Know Better” Errors in Bush’s Utterances

When talking about foreign policy, Bush wrongly named the inhabitants from Greece, Kosovo and East Timor.

(9) „Keep good relations with the Grecians“ - As quoted in The Economist, 12 June 1999. (App. 2b) Target - Greeks

(10) ―Kosovians can move back in― - Inside Politics, 9 Apr. 1999. (App. 2c) Target – Kosovars

(11) „If the East Timorians decide to revolt, I‘m sure I‘ll have a statement― - Quoted by Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, 16 June 1999. (App. 2d) Target – East Timorese

These errors are described as ―doesn‘t know better‖ errors. Bush not knowing the accurate name of the inhabitants, tried to deduce the word from the name of the country. He probably used his intuition and assigned to these words universal ending – ans as in the word Americans. One would expect the President of the USA would have sufficient geography knowledge to avoid such lapses. It seems that Bush doesn‘t pay enough attention to the fact that his errors may lead to some offensive reactions from people of the above-mentioned countries. To avoid these errors he could paraphrase - e.g. people from Kosovo and etc.

5.1.3. George Bush’s Spoonerisms

(12) ―If the terriers and barriffs are torn down, this economy will grow.― - Rochester, New York, 7 Jan. 2000. (App. 1b) Target - tarrifs and barriers

(13) ―Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream― - La Crosse, Wisconsin, 18 Oct. 2000. (App. 3a) Target - Families are, dreams take wing―

(14) "You cannot lead if you send mexed missages." - George W. Bush, 30 Sept. 2004. (App. 5c) Target - mixed messages.”

(15) "My pan plays down an unprecedented amount of our national debt." - Budget address to Congress, 27 Feb. 2001. (App. 3b) Target - plan pays

In (12,14) Bush transposed two segments, in (12) he anticipated the suffix which resulted in meaningful word terriers and meaningless word barriffs. In (14) he exchanged the vowels, however, from audio recording it is evident that he caught the mistake and tried to correct himself. In (13) Bush switched the subject with object, consequently, the words in new position destroy the original notion of the phrase. In the last example he moved the l consonant forward and placed it in the second word, both words resulted in real words. However, the proximity of these words is nonsensical.

5.1.4. Word Substitution and Omission

(16) ―I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family― - To the Chamber of Commerce, Greater Nashua, New Hampshire, 27 Jan. 2000. (App. 2e) Target - ―I know how hard it is for you to put food on your plate/on the table.

(17) "We ought to make the pie higher." - South Carolina Republican debate, 15 Feb. 2000. (App. 3c) Target - "We ought to make the pie bigger."

In (16) Bush wanted to say that he knows how hard it is to feed the family. Although the phrase is mangled the meaning maintains and the origin phrase can be deducted. Miller‘s opinion on this utterance in his book The Bush Dyslexicon is following: ―On the subject of economics, Bush‘s choicest gaffes were evidence not of stupidity but of a rich kid‘s utter insincerity. Repeatedly, in trying to communicate how much he cared about the poor and middle-class, he would mangle the attempt‖ (213).

In (17) Bush substituted the target adjective with the adjective of similar meaning. Logically the pie cannot be higher (unless we think of gateau) only bigger and the meaning of this idiom is to increase the economy, so more people can benefit. Although both quotes were said incorrectly, the meaning was not changed and the spirit maintains.

(18) "Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican." - Declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, 21 Apr. 2001. (App. 3d) Target - Spanish

Some of Bush‘s statements appear to be rather a joke than seriously thought utterances. Presumably this is one of the cases. In Europe it seems logic to derive the language from the name of the country, however, in America this rule can‘t be applied because of the colonies founded by Europeans which spread their languages around. Thus there could be a risk to remember the name of the language spoken in those countries since the name of the country itself is common knowledge.

(19) "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." - Gothenburg, Sweden, 14 June 2001. (App. 3e) Target - continent

The word nation cannot be related to Africa as Africa is not a nation but continent. However, Bush might be thinking rather of the people from Africa than about the country and it probably resulted in the error.

5.1.5. Inappropriate Forms

(20) This is a country which recently was attacked by a suicider that killed innocent children and women, people that were celebrating in a restaurant." - Referring to Syria in Cabinet meeting, 7 Oct. 2003. (App. 5d) Target – Suicide bombers 30

In the above statement Bush added agentive ending -er to the word suicide to create the word with agentive meaning, it is hard to estimate how much inappropriate the word sounds for native speakers but the learners of English would probably not reveal the mistake so easily. It is also the American attitude to simplify and it is likely that this word in particular will be used in this form in the future. The language is changing and the trend is to simplify.

(21) "The public education system in America is one of the most important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society." - Santa Clara, Calif., 1 May 2002. (App. 3f) Target – opportunity

In this statement the adjective was incorrectly used instead of a noun. Bush applied to the opportunity the same ending as has the word fantastic. In the connection with the word society the meaning is nonsensical.

(22) "We've had a great weekend here in the Land of the Enchanted." - Albuquerque, N.M., 12 May 2003. (New Mexico's state nickname is "Land of Enchantment.") (App. 1c) Target - Enchantment

Bush probably wanted to sound sophisticated when using the nickname of the New Mexico but the impression was destroyed when producing adjective form of the word instead of the noun.

(23) "Whether you're here by birth, or whether you're in America by choice, you contribute to the vitality of our life. And for that, we are grateful." - Washington, D.C., 17 May 2002 (App. 3g) Target - born here

It seems that Bush‘s outcome is often influenced by the structure of words in the first or second clause. In this example he probably anticipated and wrongly used the preposition with birth, which in different statement would not be a nonsense.

5.2. Syntax

5.2.1. Subject – Verb disagreement

(24) ―Laura and I really dont‘t realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis― - To Tim Russert, CNBC, 15 Apr. 2000. (App. 1d) Target – are

In the above example it is hard to estimate what caused the error in subject verb agreement. As there are no words intervening the proximity of the subject and verb, it is likely that the dialect used in the southern countries of USA can play some role.

(25) "Education belongs to everybody. High standards belongs to everybody." - White House speech, 2 Oct. 2003. (App. 6a) Target - belong

In this statement the basic principle of agreement is violated again. Bush probably repeated the same suffix –s as in the noun standards, influenced by the sound or simply used the same form of the verb from the first sentence.

(26) This has been tough weeks in that country. - George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., 13 Apr. 2004. (App. 1e) Target - week

The plural form of the subject doesn‘t agree with verb which precedes. This statement can be either caused by Bush‘s short term memory or by his bad habit to jump from one idea to another. It is possible that his first intention was to speak about one week but than he realized that it was not just one week but a few tough weeks.

(27) "But the true greatness of America are the people.‖ - Visiting the Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., 2 July 2001. (App. 3h) Target - is

This example illustrates Bush‘s confusion of the plural noun with singular subject. Bush was probably more focused on the people than on the greatness and lost the track of the subject. One can admit that this mistake is quite common among learners of English but the President of the United States should be able to avoid it. .

(28) "The goals of this country is to enhance prosperity and peace." - Speaking at the White House Conference on Global Literacy, New York, 18 Sept. 2006. (App. 6b) Target - are

(29) ―The illiteracy level of our children are appealing.‖ -Washington, D.C., 23 Jan. 2004. (App. 1f) Target - is Type of error Subject – Verb disagreement

Another examples of the same kind of mistake. Bush seems to prefer the proximity of noun to the subject. He was perhaps confused by the prepositional phrase between the subject and verb not realizing that it doesn‘t affect the agreement.

(30) ―Our priorities is our faith.‖ - Greensboro, North Carolina, 10 Oct. 2000. (App. 1g) Target - priority

Despite the shortness of this sentence Bush made the mistake in agreement again. The only explanation of this mistake is Bush‘s confusion of the subject with object.

(31) "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - Florence, S.C., 11 Jan. 2000. (App. 1h) Target - Are

(32) ―Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream― - La Crosse, Wisconsin, 18 Oct. 2000. (App. 1i) Target - are

Bush seems to habitually use the singular verb with the plural subject. One can wonder whether this error results from Texas dialect or Bush‘s low attention paying to grammar rules.

It is likely that all the above-mentioned mistakes would not happen in the written form as they are clearly visible and there is a chance to control the text. As far as the spoken form is concerned, the errors are less likely to be caught by the listeners but one must take into account the speed of the speech, its clarity and local dialect.

5.2.2. Unclassified Errors

(33) "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." - Washington, D.C.; 7Dec. 2006. (App. 3i) Target – families of those who die.

In the above utterance Bush omitted the key words after the word families and their absence spoiled the whole idea of the statement. Bush‘s version gives an impression that the families are those who die.

(34) ―You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.‖ - Townsend, Tennessee, 21 Feb. 2001. (App. 3j) Target - she

Bush used the incorrect form of the pronoun she. However, the context is quite clear, careful listeners may perceive the mistake.

5.2.3. Inappropriate Verb Forms

(35) ―The important question is, How many hands have I shaked―? - New York Times, 23 Oct. 1999. (App. 2f) Target - shaken

Bush used the regular form of verb when forming past participle instead of irregular. This type of mistake shouldn‘t be considered too serious as in AmE there is a tendency to use these forms. Moreover, the common listener would probably not notice this mistake.

(36) "One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end." - Washington, D.C., 8 Jan. 2003. (App. 3k) Target – came

Besides the fact that the first clause refers to a finished action, Bush incorrectly uses present perfect in the following clause. Nevertheless, the idea of the statement is clear.

(37) "The great thing about America is everybody should vote." - Austin, Texas, 8 Dec. 2000. (App. 3l) Target - can

The sentence is technically correct but may have a politically incorrect impact since the right to vote in the USA is optional and not obligatory. The usage of should in affirmative sentence means to give advice. Bush doesn‘t make logical connection among all parts of the sentence as the statement ―Everybody should vote‖ standing on its own would be correct.

(38) "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." 35

- Waco, Texas, 13 Aug. 2002. (App. 3m) Target - won't be

Another example of a clumsy statement as the listeners might be puzzled of what Bush tried to express.

5.2.4. Inappropriate Forms of Comparatives and Superlatives

(39) "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job." - Gulfport, Mississippi, 20 Sept. 2005. (App. 5e) Target – better

(40) "There's nothing more deep than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of all. ... I can't think of anything more deep than that right." - Washington, D.C., 13 Mar. 2002. (App. 3n) Target - deeper, deepest, deeper

Sometimes more and most can be used with adjectives when it is not immediately followed by than, however Bush doesn‘t meet this criteria in his statement (40).

(41) "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" - Concord, N.H., 29 Jan. 2000. (App. 7a) Target - fewer

(42) "I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be—a literate country and a hopefuller country."

- Washington, D.C., 11 Jan. 2001. (App. 3o) Target - more hopeful

In all the above-mentioned utterances Bush wrongly constructed comparative and superlative forms of the adjectives. In (39,41) he incorrectly follows the rule of regular, two syllable adjectives, which few and better are not. In (40) he should have changed the ending rather than use more and the most. Surprisingly in (42) he changed the ending but with the wrong adjective.

5.3. Semantics

5.3.1. Tautology

(43) "Dick Cheney and I do not want this nation to be in a recession. We want anybody who can find work to be able to find work." - 60 Minutes II, 5 Dec. 2000. (App. 2g)

The extension of the word recession in the next sentence would not matter so much like his illogical statement about people‘s willingness to work. His utterance target was probably as following: ―We want anybody who wants to work to be able to find work.‖

(44) ―I think we agree, the past is over.― - On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, 10 May 2000. (App. 1j)

The combination of words, the past is over, would not sound so peculiar unless Bush preceded it by the phrase we agree. As the past is always over, there is nothing to agree on. What is more the clause the past is over is not so common, the more used statement is – get over the past in that sense to forget about bad things in the past and be able to move forward.

(45) ―Our nation must come together to unite― - Tampa, Fla., 4 June 2001. (App. 3p)

There is no need to use the words come together as the word unite itself expresses the idea. Bush only repeats the idea using extra words.

(46) ―The suicide bombings have increased. There‘s too many of them.― - Albuquerque, New Mexico, 15 Aug. 2001. (App. 1k)

Although in the next sentence Bush says the same thing twice, he might repeat it to emphasize or exaggerate the word increased. On top of that he made a grammar mistake in the next sentence using singular verb is instead of are incorrectly.

(47) "I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with success as opposed to failure." - Interview with the Associated Press, 18 Jan. 2001. (App. 3q)

In the statement ―to succeed with success as opposed to failure‖ Bush made sure everybody understand what the word succeed means. He repeated its meaning twice but of no logical reason.

(48) "I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region." - Washington, D.C., 13 Mar. 2002. (App. 3r)

The statement (48) cannot be true as Bush refers to the Middle East in the first part of the sentence and in the second one he mentions region which Middle East already covers. It would be more appropriate to say the region first and then the Middle East.

In all the above-mentioned statements Bush repeats the meaning using different words to say the same thing twice, moreover, some statement combinations fail for the

38 truth-value. Referring to Bush‘s statements, it is obvious that his sense to combine words sometimes fails.

5.3.2. Repetition

(49) "I'm a patient man. And when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man." - Crawford, Texas, 21 Aug. 2002. (App. 3s)

The repetition of the whole clauses seems to be used for the reason of emphasis. Taken out of the context the clauses sound redundant and meaningless.

(50) ―I‘m the decider, and I decide what is best― - Washington DC, 18 Apr. 2006. (App. 3t)

Both Bush‘s utterances (49 and 50) may be recollected in a similar form from the south western films where cowboys and tough men are the main characters. Surprisingly, this kind of language is not the phenomenon of a silver screen but a natural tool in Bush‘s English.

(51) "And so, in my State of the—my State of the Union—or state—my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation—I asked Americans to give 4,000 years—4,000 hours over the next—the rest of your life—of service to America. That's what I asked—4,000 hours." - Bridgeport, Conn., 9 Apr. 2002. (App. 3u)

In (51) Bush failed to convey his idea, he repeated the words to gain some time and to be able to continue his speech. In the meantime he was trying to formulate what to say next.

(52) ''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right." - Rome, 22 July 2001. (App. 1l)

Another example where Bush failed to produce fluent speech. For the listeners it then becomes hard to track his idea if there is any.

(53) "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants." - Interview with the New York Times, 14 Jan. 2001. (App. 3v)

One can assume that Bush did not have enough background information when producing this statement. The meaning can be detected, however, Bush‘s use of the word power so many times one can wonder whether he knows what he is talking about. He probably wanted to say that there is not enough form of energy for power-generating plants.

(54) "This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." - Speaking during "Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H. As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, 28 Jan. 2000. (App. 1m)

This kind of speech is probably focused on young people. Bush uses very short sentences to gain some attention.

(55) "I think the American people—I hope the American–I don't think, let me—I hope the American people trust me." - Washington, D.C., 18 Dec. 2002. (App. 3w)

This utterance reveals the Bush‘s uncertainty about people‘s confidence in him.

(56) ―Home is important. It‘s important to have a home― - GWB Crawford, Texas, 18 Feb. 2001. (App. 1n)

This is the example of redundant repetition of the first sentence. In the first sentence Bush emphasizes the word important and in the second sentence a home becomes the focus of the sentence.

5.3.3. Antonym Substitution

Bush habitually says the opposite of what he intends. All of the following antonyms except the first example are complementary pairs.

(57) ―Well, I think if you say you‘re going to do something and don‘t do it, that‘s trustworthiness― - George W. Bush, in a CNN online chat, 30 Aug. 2000. (App. 1o) Target - untrustworthiness

It is evident from the context that Bush used the positive word instead of the negative one omitting the prefix un-. The word trustworthiness violates the logic of the first clause. In this example there is no need to provide any background information as the intended word can be derivated from the given utterance.

(58) ―And there‘s no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail.― - Washington, D.C., 4 Oct. 2001. (App. 1p) Target – win

On the contrary, in (58) utterance, the antonym substitution doesn‘t have to be so obvious for someone not knowing that the speech was given by the President and relates to the war with Iraq. Although the repetition of no doubt is so strong that it would probably be not used with the word fail, it doesn‘t violate the previous words.

(59) "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well."

- Washington, D.C., 29 Jan. 2001. (App. 3x) Target - successors

The utterance in the current version is nonsensical since the word predecessors does not fit in the context. Bush intended to say that he preserves the power for someone that will come after him which a predecessor is not.

(60) "The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production." - Washington, D.C., 27 Nov. 2002. (App. 3 a1) Target – destruction

The antonym substitution is evident as the term weapons of mass destruction Bush used in relation to Iraq‘s weapons programs.

(61) "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." - Trenton, N.J., 23 Sept. 2002. (App. 3 b1) Target – conservation

It is not so evident that the target word was substituted, however, the words related to energy and bill are mostly of economic content.

5.3.4. Wrong and Out-of-Context Utterances

(62) ―I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging.‖ -At the dedication of his portrait, Austin, Texas, 4 Jan. 2002. (App. 1q)

Without knowing the context, it sounds like Bush is going to be hanged. However, it is more likely that this utterance was intended as a joke.

(63) "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool 42

me—you can't get fooled again." - Nashville, Tenn., 17 Sept. 2002. (App. 1r) Target - Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Bush‘s unsuccessful attempt to state the above saying correctly is a result of Bush‘s lack of short memory. Bush should have rather avoided this proverb as without remembering it his image as a public speaker is not flattering.

(64) ―I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.― - Sarginaw, Michigan, 29 Sept. 2000. (App. 2h)

It is hard to find logic in this statement. Would it be possible for a human being not to coexist peacefully with fish? Mark Crispin noted: ―This remark is striking not because it's silly but because it casts a threatened creature as a national enemy. A relic of the Cold War, the phrase "peaceful coexistence" was a predétente Soviet coinage, meant to pitch conciliation between the world's two rival superpowers‖ (Crispin 169).

(65) ―When I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the Old West a wanted poster. It said, Wanted: Dead or Alive.‖ - Washington, D.C., 18 Sept. 2001. (App. 1s)

The above statement does not say that Bush remembers it from the old west films. Without this piece of information it gives to listeners an impression that Bush lived during the 19th century.

(66) ―Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.― - Washington, D.C., 5 Aug. 2004. (App. 3 c1)

This example shows how tricky English language can be. The second sentence contains the word harm. Obviously Bush‘s intention was not to speak how the citizens of the USA harm their own country.

(67) "I believe we are called to do the hard work to make our communities and quality of life a better place." - Collinsville, Illinois, 5 Jan. 2005. (App. 3 d1)

From the linguistic point of view the combination of making quality of life a better place is rather clumsy. Quality of life can be regarded as an important value for people living at some place. Bush should have omitted quality of life in his statement.

(68) ―Brie and cheese― - To reporters, on what he imagines reporters eat, Crawford, Texas, 23 Aug. 2001. (App. 1t)

Conjunction and is inappropriate in this case as Brie is a French name for a certain kind of cheese. It is as if Bush tried to say ―Cheese and cheese.―

(69) It is your money. You paid for it. - La Crosse, Wisconsin, 18 Oct. 2000. (App. 1u)

The target utterance should have been You earned it. On the other hand people use money to pay for things so the above-mentioned example can be regarded as a slip of the tongue or Bush‘s subconscious thinking.

(70) ―Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes.― - Ontario, California, 5 Jan. 2002. (App. 1v)

Although this remark is technically correct, the expression not over my dead body sounds too strong and populistic.

(71) ―There‘s a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, ‖I don‘t want you to let me down again.‖ - Boston, Massachusetts, 3 Oct. 2000. (App. 1w)

Let somebody down means to fail to meet the hopes or expectations. In example (71) it is obvious that Bush‘s intention was not to show how unsure he is as it is hard to imagine huge trust combined with letting somebody down. These two ideas simply clash.

6 Conclusion

In spite of the initial hesitation how to work with the subject I felt real excitement while working on my thesis. My work mainly lied in searching for Bush‘s statements and their target completion. As it was sometimes tricky to comprehend Bush‘s statements the time spent on analysing the subject was enjoyable. One of the main goals of the work was to categorize the errors, do the analysis and find some common features of his statements. I based my classification on Fromkin and divided the speech errors into three linguistic units – Morphology, Syntax and Semantics. As I analysed ―only‖ seventy-one of Bush‘s utterances I found out it was impossible to determine the dominant kind of mistake therefore I preferred to research on the coverage of all kinds of his mistakes. Concerning the pattern of his mistakes it is not easy to state what causes all these imperfections. Moreover, for me as a non-native speaker it was sometimes beyond the reach to decipher the gist of the statements and without knowing the target utterance it would be hard to analyse them. The work on this thesis contributed to my knowledge to that extent that I became more aware of my own mistakes as well as of the other speakers and it triggered my sensitivity and carefulness for precise choice of words. I have also realized that it is a big advantage for the teaching career to be able to transform the ideas into the spoken form and therefore be correctly understood by the students. In case the speaker is less skilled or not very well prepared possible misunderstandings between the speaker and the audience may occur. A good speaker should pay attention on the precise choice of words and be able to fit these words into the context. On Bush‘s examples, in particular, we can see that if these rules are broken, the transmission doesn‘t work and leads to misunderstandings. To sum it up, research shows that even a native speaker may not be a talented orator and master of his mother tongue. Furthermore, the line between the correct and incorrect statement is very thin and even a tiny mistake presented by the President can cause huge confusions.

7 Resumé

My thesis deals with the subject of Bushisms – the utterances produces by the former President George W. Bush. The thesis is divided into two sections, the theoretical and the practical parts. The theoretical part is devoted to the short historical outline, to the major figures studying and collecting speech errors and to the examination of speech production. The practical part is mainly focused on the linguistic classification of Bushs‘s statements and its further analysis.

8 Works Cited

Abootty, O. The Funny Side of English. India: Pustak Mahal, 2002. Google Book Search. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. ―Bushism.‖ AllExperts. n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2010. ―Bushisms Or How to Butcher the English Language.‖ Sodahed. 12 June 2008. Web. 15 Feb. 2010. ―Bushisms - US President Proves How Difficult English Really Is!‖ About.com: English as 2nd Language. n.d. Web. 4 Feb. 2010. ―Cicero: On Rhetoric.‖ PbWorks. n.d. Web. 17 Sep. 2009. Cloud, Elizabeth. ―Bushisms‖ from a linguistic view. Emory Report. 20 October 2003. Web. 10 Feb. 2010. Coopman, Stephanie J., and James Lull. Public Speaking: The Evolving Art. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009. Google Book Search. Web. 10 Sep. 2009. Erard, Michael. Um - Slips, Stumbles, and Verbal Blunders, and what they mean. New York: Anchor Books, 2007. Print. Fay, David, and Anne Cutler. ―Malapropisms and the structure of the mental lexicon.‖ Linguistic Inquiry vol. 8, 1977: 505-520. Radboud Repository Search. Web. 20 Jan. 2010. Fromkin, Victoria A. Speech Errors as Linguistic Evidence. The Hague: Mouton & Co. N.V., 1973. Print. ---. An Introduction to Language. 5th ed. USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers, 1993. Print. ―Georgias.‖ The Basics of Philosophy. n.d. Web. 15 Sep. 2009. Goffman, Erving. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. Google Book Search. Web. 5 Jan. 2010. Green, Christopher D. ―Psychopathology of Everyday Life, Sigmund Freud (1901).‖ Classics in the History of Psychology. n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. Gruyter, Walter. ―Book review of Cruel and Unusual Puns.‖ Humor- International Journal of Humor Research. Vol. 6. 2009: 227-236. Reference Global . Web. 17 Oct. 2009. ―Kermit Schaefer.‖ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. ―Malapropism.‖ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2010.

Miller, Crispin Mark. The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002. Print.

Nordquist, Richard. ―(Subject-Verb) Disagreements in the White House.‖ About. Com: Grammar & Composition. 22 Oct. 2007. Web. 8 Feb. 2010.

―Obituraries of Prof. Victoria Fromkin.‖ Victoria Fromkin’s Homepage. n.d. Web. 10 Sep. 2009. ―Rhetoric.‖ BookRags. n.d. Web. 17 Sep. 2009. ―Rhetoric.‖ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.d. Web. 15 Sep. 2009. ―Rhetorical Study in Ancient Greece.‖ Public Speaking Online Guide. n.d. Web. 15 Sep. 2009. Schwartz, Bennett L. Tip-of-the-Tongue States: Phenomenology, Mechanism, and Lexical Retrieval. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2002. Google Book Search. Web. 10 Jan. 2010. ―University of California, Los Angeles.‖ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. ―Victoria Fromkin.‖ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.d. Web. 20 Nov. Weisberg, Jacob. Bushisms: The First Term, in His Own Special Words. New York: Simon & Shuster, 2004. Print. ―William Archibald Spooner.‖ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.d. Web. 20 Nov. 2009. Williams, James D. An Introduction to Classical Rhetoric: Essential Readings. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 2009. Google Book Search. Web. 6 Nov. 2009. Zwicky, Arnold M. Mistakes. Ohio: Advocate Publishing Group, 1980. Arnold Zwicky’s Homepage. Web. 20 Dec. 2009.

9 Appendix

1. Weisberg, Jacob. Bushisms: The First Term, in His Own Special Words: New York: Simon & Shuster, 2004. Print.

(a) ―They misunderestimated me.― - Bentonville, Arkansas, 6 Nov. 2000.

(b) ―If the terriers and barriffs are torn down, this economy will grow.― - Rochester, New York, 7 Jan. 2000.

(c) "We've had a great weekend here in the Land of the Enchanted." - Albuquerque, N.M., 12 May 2003. (New Mexico's state nickname is "Land of Enchantment.")

(d) ―Laura and I really dont‘t realize how bright our children is sometimes until we get and objective analysis― - To Tim Russert, CNBC, 15 April 2000.

(e) This has been tough weeks in that country. - George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., 13 April 2004.

(f) ―The illiteracy level of our children are appealing.‖ - Washington, D.C., 23 Jan. 2004. Target - is

(g) ―Our priorities is our faith.‖ - Greensboro, North Carolina, 10 Oct. 2000.

(h) "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - Florence, S.C., 11 Jan. 2000.

(i) ―Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream― - La Crosse, Wisconsin, 18 Oct. 2000.

(j) ―I think we agree, the past is over.― - On his meeting with John McCain, Dallas Morning News, 10 May 2000.

(k) ―The suicide bombings have increased. There‘s too many of them.― - Albuquerque, New Mexico, 15 Aug. 2001. 50

(l) ''I know what I believe. I will continue to articulate what I believe and what I believe—I believe what I believe is right." - Rome, 22 July 2001.

(m) "This is Preservation Month. I appreciate preservation. It's what you do when you run for president. You gotta preserve." - Speaking during "Perseverance Month" at Fairgrounds Elementary School in Nashua, N.H. As quoted in the Los Angeles Times, 28 Jan. 2000.

(n) ―Home is important. It‘s important to have a home― - GWB Crawford, Texas, 18 Feb. 2001.

(o) ―Well, I think if you say you‘re going to do something and don‘t do it, that‘s trustworthiness― - George W. Bush, in a CNN online chat, 30 Aug. 2000.

(p) ―And there‘s no doubt in my mind, not one doubt in my mind, that we will fail.― - Washington, D.C., 4 Oct. 2001.

(q) ―I want to thank you for taking time out of your day to come and witness my hanging.‖ - At the dedication of his portrait, Austin, Texas, 4 Jan 2002.

(r) "There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again." - Nashville, Tenn., 17 Sept. 2002.

(s) ―When I was a kid I remember that they used to put out there in the Old West a wanted poster. It said, Wanted: Dead or Alive.‖ - Washington, D.C., 18 Sept. 2001.

(t) ―Brie and cheese― - To reporters, on what he imagines reporters eat, Crawford, Texas, 23 Aug. 2001.

(u) It is your money. You paid for it. - La Crosse, Wisconsin, 18 Oct. 2000.

(v) ―Not over my dead body will they raise your taxes.― - Ontario, California, 5 Jan. 2002.

(w) ―There‘s a huge trust. I see it all the time when people come up to me and say, ‖I don‘t want you to let me down again.‖ - Boston, Massachusetts, 3 Oct. 2000.

2. Miller, Mark Crispin. The Bush Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2002. Print.

(a) ―We want our teachers to be trained so they can meet the obligations, their obligations as teachers. We want them to know how to teach the science of reading. In order to make sure there‘s not this kind of federal — federal cuff link.‖ - Milwaukee, Wisconsin; 30 Mar. 2000.

(b) „Keep good relations with the Grecians― - As quoted in The Economist, 12 June 1999.

(d) „If the East Timorians decide to revolt, I‘m sure I‘ll have a statement― - Quoted by Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, 16 June 1999. Target – East Timorese

(e) ―I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family― - To the Chamber of Commerce, Greater Nashua, New Hampshire, 27 Jan. 2000.

(f) ―The important question is, How many hands have I shaked―?

- New York Times, 23 Oct. 1999.

(g) "Dick Cheney and I do not want this nation to be in a recession. We want anybody who can find work to be able to find work." - 60 Minutes II, 5 Dec. 2000.

(h) ―I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.― - Sarginaw, Michigan, 29 Sept. 2000.

(i) ―Now, by the way, surplus means a little money left over, otherwise it wouldn‘t be called a surplus.‖ - Kalamazoo, Michigan, 27 Oct. 2000.

3. “Bushisms Or How to Butcher the English Language.” Sodahed. 12 Jun. 2008. Web. 15. Feb. 2010.

(a) ―Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream― - La Crosse, Wisconsin, 18 Oct. 2000.

(b) "My pan plays down an unprecedented amount of our national debt." - Budget address to Congress, 27 Feb. 2001.

(d) "Neither in French nor in English nor in Mexican." - Declining to answer reporters' questions at the Summit of the Americas, Quebec City, Canada, 21 Apr. 2001.

(e) "We spent a lot of time talking about Africa, as we should. Africa is a nation that suffers from incredible disease." - Gothenburg, Sweden, 14 June 2001.

(f) "The public education system in America is one of the most important foundations of our democracy. After all, it is where children from all over America learn to be responsible citizens, and learn to have the skills necessary to take advantage of our fantastic opportunistic society." - Santa Clara, Calif., 1 May 2002.

(g) "Whether you're here by birth, or whether you're in America by choice, you contribute to the vitality of our life. And for that, we are grateful." - Washington, D.C., 17May 2002.

(h) "But the true greatness of America are the people.‖ - Visiting the Jefferson Memorial, Washington, D.C., 2 July 2001.

(i) "Make no mistake about it, I understand how tough it is, sir. I talk to families who die." - Washington, D.C.; 7December 2006.

(j) ―You teach a child to read, and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test.‖ - Townsend, Tennessee, 21 February 2001.

(k) "One year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end." - Washington, D.C., 8 Jan. 2003.

(l) "The great thing about America is everybody should vote." - Austin, Texas, 8 Dec. 2000.

(m) "I promise you I will listen to what has been said here, even though I wasn't here." - Waco, Texas, 13 Aug. 2002.

(n) "There's nothing more deep than recognizing Israel's right to exist. That's the most deep thought of all. ... I can't think of anything more deep than that right." - Washington, D.C., 13 March 2002.

(o) "I want it to be said that the Bush administration was a results-oriented administration, because I believe the results of focusing our attention and energy on teaching children to read and having an education system that's responsive to the child and to the parents, as opposed to mired in a system that refuses to change, will make America what we want it to be—a literate country and a hopefuller country." - Washington, D.C., 11 Jan. 2001.

(p) ―Our nation must come together to unite― - Tampa, Fla., 4 June 2001.

(q) "I'm hopeful. I know there is a lot of ambition in Washington, obviously. But I hope the ambitious realize that they are more likely to succeed with

success as opposed to failure." - Interview with the Associated Press, 18 Jan. 2001.

(r) "I understand that the unrest in the Middle East creates unrest throughout the region." - Washington, D.C., 13 Mar. 2002.

(s) "I'm a patient man. And when I say I'm a patient man, I mean I'm a patient man." - Crawford, Texas, 21 Aug. 2002.

(t) ―I‘m the decider, and I decide what is best― - Washington DC, 18 April 2006.

(u) "And so, in my State of the—my State of the Union—or state—my speech to the nation, whatever you want to call it, speech to the nation—I asked Americans to give 4,000 years—4,000 hours over the next—the rest of your life—of service to America. That's what I asked—4,000 hours." - Bridgeport, Conn., 9 April 2002.

(v) "The California crunch really is the result of not enough power-generating plants and then not enough power to power the power of generating plants." - Interview with the New York Times, 14 Jan. 2001.

(w) "I think the American people—I hope the American–I don't think, let me—I hope the American people trust me." - Washington, D.C., 18 Dec. 2002.

(a1) "I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but for predecessors as well." - Washington, D.C., 29 Jan. 2001.

(b1) "The law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production." - Washington, D.C., 27 Nov. 2002.

(c1) "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." - Trenton, N.J., 23 Sept. 2002.

(d1) ―Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.― - Washington, D.C., 5 Aug. 2004.

(e1) "I believe we are called to do the hard work to make our communities and quality of life a better place." - Collinsville, Illinois, 5 Jan. 2005.

4. “Malapropism.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. n.d. Web. 10 Feb. 2010.

(a) "I want to remind you all that in order to fight and win the war, it requires an expenditure of money that is commiserate with keeping a promise to our troops to make sure that they're well-paid, well-trained, well- equipped." - Washington, D.C., 15 Dec. 2003.

(b) "When Iraq is liberated, you will be treated, tried and persecuted as a war criminal." - Washington, D.C., 22 Jan. 2003.

(c) "We cannot let terrorists and rogue nations hold this nation hostile or hold our allies hostile." - Des Moines, Iowa, 21 Aug. 2000.

(d) "And there is distrust in Washington. I am surprised, frankly, at the amount of distrust that exists in this town. And I'm sorry it's the case, and I'll work hard to try to elevate it." - Interview on National Public Radio, 29 Jan. 2007.

5. “Bushism.” AllExperts. n.d. Web. 3 Feb. 2010.

(a) "Justice was being delivered to a man who defied that gift from the Almighty to the people of Iraq." - Washington, D.C., 15 Dec. 2003.

(b) "I refuse to be sucked into your hypnotheoretical arguments." - Indianapolis, Indiana, 15 Oct. 2004.

(d) This is a country which recently was attacked by a suicider that killed innocent children and women, people that were celebrating in a restaurant." - Referring to Syria in Cabinet meeting, 7 Oct. 2003.

(e) "We look forward to hearing your vision, so we can more better do our job." - Gulfport, Mississippi, 20 Sept. 2005.

6. Nordquist, Richard. “(Subject-Verb) Disagreements in the White House.” About. Com: Grammar & Composition. 22 Oct. 2007. Web. 8 Feb. 2010.

(a) "Education belongs to everybody. High standards belongs to everybody." - White House speech, 2 Oct. 2003.

(b) "The goals of this country is to enhance prosperity and peace." - Speaking at the White House Conference on Global Literacy, New York, 18 Sept. 2006.

7. ―Bushisms - US President Proves How Difficult English Really Is!” About.com: English as 2nd Language. n.d. Web. 4 Feb. 2010.

(a) "Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" - Concord, N.H., 29 Jan. 2000.