Running Head: Linguistics and The War on Terrorism

Constructing Reality Through Linguistics: The Political Implications of The War on Terrorism

The catastrophic events that occurred on September 11th, 2001 had a multitude of immediate ill-effects, including the death of 2996 people, the loss of 105 billion dollars, as well as the launch of the War on Terrorism through the four coordinated suicide attacks targeting New York and Washington (Averill, 2001). Although not as obvious, the less tangible effects of 9/11 are apparent in our every day lives through instances of increased national security, Islamic phobias, as well as the decade-long War in Iraq, costing the United States over three trillion dollars thus far (Trotta, 2011). Language has played a critical role in creating these shifts within our culture and is the major tool in justifying actions, persuading citizens and constructing realities about terrorism and war. These linguistic tools, such as framing, recontextualization, and jargon work together to cloud the perception of these political issues. As Hasan (1996) states, “We not only use language to shape reality, but we use it also to defend that reality, against anyone whose alternative values might threaten ours.” Framing is a process used by news media outlets and their respective endorsers to manipulate and select the facts presented about a particular event. Specific tones are used, catchphrases are repeated, and headlines are used to highlight a particular ideology. The concept of ideologies was created by Karl Marx and describes how beliefs and ideas are imposed upon society by those in power (Feluga, 2003). Ideologies presented in the articles surrounding the War in Iraq have often been put under scrutiny for using framing to account for a single-sided version of reality, such as the prestigious New York Times and Washington Post