Redundancy and markers of belief in the discourse of political hearings

Abstract

This article examines forms of redundancy within the testimony of Dr. Condoleeza Rice, former National Security Advisor to the President of the United States, during the 9/11 Commission Hearings ( 9/11 Commission; NCTA, 2004). Using a critical discourse analysis ( Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1995, 1998) to investigate redundancy—facilitative and non-facilitative—as a potentially evasive pragmatic device in political discourse, I then turn to focus on markers of belief ( Chafe, 1986) as possible indicators of non-facilitative redundancy. Consequently, strategies for identifying evasive language under interrogation are suggested. In essence, by not giving direct answers, the examples underscore the creative and powerful crafting of political discourse by skilled speakers to assuage the appearance of culpability in actions or inactions which could prove politically damaging while providing “appropriate” responses ( Berlin, 2007; Harris, 1991; Janney, 2002) within the context of an investigative hearing.