美伊雙方領袖論述的群集分析―以兩次波斯灣危機（1990 ＆ 1998）為例
A cluster analysis of the Presidents ’ discourses of belligerent countries (U.S.A and Iraq) in Gulf Crisis (1990 ＆ 1998)
This study is a rhetorical analysis of the presidents ’ discourses of belligerent countries (U.S.A and Iraq) in Gulf War (1990 ＆ 1998). Kenneth Burke ’s discussion of cluster criticism is employed as a framework of analysis. Burke suggested that through cluster criticism the critic can discover a rhetor ’s worldview. The purpose of study is to discover worldviews and values presented in presidents ’ discourses, and how war is legitimized.
According to Sonja K. Foss, using clusters as units of analysis, the critic analyzes an artifact in three steps: (1) identification of key terms in the rhetorical artifact ; (2) charting of terms that cluster around the key terms ; and (3) discovery of patterns in the clusters around the key terms to determine meanings of the key terms for the rhetor. After employing the three-steps analysis of the discourses of Saddam Hussein and George Bush , an agon analysis may help the critic discover patterns in the clusters that have been identified. In agon analysis, the examination of opposing terms , the critic discovers what oppose or contradict other terms in the rhetoric.
Three major opposing terms are found in the discourse. They are : "righteous war" , "invader", and "technology". This study finds that logical proofs are significantly different in Saddam Husssein’s and George Bush ’s discourses. Koran and the monism are the logical proofs for Saddam Hussein to arouse the masses, while the spirit of Holy Bible and pluralism are the logical proofs for George Bush to fight for liberal democracy.