The media have been covering issues of language along with everything
else related to this disaster. The LA Times has had two pieces, one by
Geoffrey Nunberg and one by a staff writer interviewing several language
specialists (including the Atlantic Monthly's Barbara Walraff). Issues
of word usage, tone, hesitation, etc. are discussed. I imagine you could
access these via the LA Times website. Maybe some fellow listers could
let us know of similar reports that they know of. There have also been
electronic media reports, of course, and the only details I recall from
these are notes that Colin Powell was judged by one communications
expert to be the most effective of the government's spokespeople, while
the President was going a little too far in the direction of aggression
while at the same time sounding uncomfortable and not terribly fluent.
(These aren't my own judgments, just what I heard.)

The use of 'crusade' was quite unfortunate, from my viewpoint. Europeans
and Americans don't realize how much meaning the ancient conflict
between Christian Europe and the Islamic countries still has for
residents of the Arab world. It is a very salient part of their
appreciation of their own history and culture. From my personal
experience with Muslims and Arabs (including 4 years living in a
Muslim/Arab country), such a remark would immediately (rightly or
wrongly) be interpreted as a resurrection of that ancient conflict,
indicating the 'West's' desire to 'take back' territory from the Islamic
world and setting the conflict up as a religious conflict, rather than a
political one. I don't know what Bush's intentions were in using the
word, but it is a highly inflammatory word in Muslim countries,
especially in the Arab portion of the Muslim world (by which I mean
parts of the world in which the majority of residents or very
substantial portions of the population are Muslims who also perceive
themselves as Arabs).

Whether avoidance of the word would constitute 'political correctness'
or not is less important to me than its practical inflammatory value.
Bush's use of the word was the first and main headline on the BBC's
headline news one or two evenings this week, showing the BBC's
understanding of its rhetorical value for the Arab/Muslim audience. My
reason to avoid it wouldn't be political correctness, but a desire to
avoid inflaming the situation further (of course, this might have been
Bush's intention). I don't know if Bush was informed of the practical
consequences of using this word.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanna Rubba   Associate Professor, Linguistics
English Department, California Polytechnic State University
One Grand Avenue  • San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
Tel. (805)-756-2184  •  Fax: (805)-756-6374 • Dept. Phone.  756-2596
• E-mail: [log in to unmask] •  Home page: http://www.cla.calpoly.edu/~jrubba
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/