Microsoft Word - ASSC-V1N2-p101


Advances in Social Science and Culture 
ISSN 2640-9682 (Print) ISSN 2640-9674 (Online) 

Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 
www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc 

101 
 

Original Paper 

Out-Side-Text Knowledge: A Critical Discussion of Its 

Importance in the Analysis and Comprehension of Political 

Discourse 

Taher Ben Khalifa1* 

1 Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia 
* Taher Ben Khalifa, Department of English, Faculty of Letters and Humanities, University of Sfax, 

Sfax, Tunisia 

 

Received: April 28, 2019          Accepted: June 4, 2019         Online Published: June 7, 2019 

doi:10.22158/assc.v1n2p101                    URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/assc.v1n2p101 

 

Abstract 

The relation between knowledge and discourse is a problematic one. While speaking, we may activate 

one part of our knowledge and leave anther one silent to serve the coherence of what we seek to convey. 

Having this in mind, this paper seeks to discuss the importance of out-side-text knowledge in the 

analysis and comprehension of political discourse. To study this issue, concern is devoted to two axes 

of discussion. First, focus is given to the analysis and discussion of some key concepts to form a 

workable frame for the study. It also seeks to high-light the boundaries between interpretation and 

over-interpretation. Second, focus shifts to the analysis of some examples to put into practice the tools 

of the established approach. Also, the extent to which the knowledge we activated served to produce 

worthwhile interpretations is questioned. The selected examples are taken from presidential speeches 

delivered by Bush, Obama, and Trump. The method we used consists of two phases: one simple and the 

other complex. In phase one, the meaning the speaker sought to convey is decoded based on the types 

of knowledge he activated. In phase two, we activated the knowledge we have about the context of each 

speech to communicate the un-said. While doing this, we used the logic of critique to avoid 

over-interpreting the examples. The results showed that our activation of the required knowledge 

served to demystify what the speakers hide and to work out deception by highlighting the gap between 

discursive reality and social reality. It is also proved that the issue of boundaries between 

interpretation and over-interpretation remains a matter of critique. Though bringing valuable 

contributions to the critical study of language in use, the paper left the doors open for further research 

on how to use out-side-text knowledge to communicate the un-said.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

102 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Keywords 

knowledge, out-side-text knowledge, linguistic structure, political discourse, and misinterpretation 

 

1. Introduction  

While doing discourse analysis, we need to have a great knowledge of the rules of language grammar 

(Fairclough, 1995a; Martin, 2000; Chilton, 2005). It is the knowledge of how fragments of this 

language are being gathered to form a given linguistic structure. This awareness of how structures of 

this language are constructed is crucial while seeking to decode what is conveyed by a given piece of 

discourse (Ariel, 2009). Though it is important in decoding meaning, our knowledge of language 

grammar is not sufficient to reach a critical understanding of the conveyed meaning (Van Dijk, 2014). 

In other words, we need to introduce another dimension of knowledge that can help us reach an 

in-depth critique of the piece of discourse under focus. This dimension includes all sorts of knowledge 

we have about the context of discourse production (Kintesh & Van Dijk, 1983). This knowledge is not 

absolute. However, it is bounded by such given parameters that are required for the framing of its scope. 

These parameters include examples like the circumstances of language production, the biographies of 

language producers, the historical embedding of discourse, the cultural background of language in use, 

the ideological orientations of language producers, etc. In brief, it is our knowledge of what is outside 

the realm of grammar, but it can affect the way grammar is being manipulated.  

Part of this knowledge is activated by such textual expressions (Van Dijk, 1999; 2008). However, 

another part of it remains outside the realm of the linguistic expression of ideas and information by the 

means of the discursive structure of text and talk. We refer to this part of knowledge as an 

out-side-textual knowledge. It is said to be out-side-textual in that it forms a main part of the 

background of the produced discourse without being activated by it. The remaining of this part of 

knowledge away from being activated does not mean that it is away from the reach of discourse 

analysts or that it is not crucial for the analysis and interpretation of language. Instead, it is in the reach 

of discourse analysts and plays an important role in the analysis, interpretation, and critique of the 

meaning conveyed through the linguistics of the text under focus. Though this non-activated part of the 

knowledge is important for the comprehension of what is expressed by words, phrases, and expressions, 

it might be central for critical debates. These debates turn mainly around the axe of whether or not the 

use of this outside-textual-knowledge leads to the over-interpretation of the text under focus. To 

recapitulate, the importance of the use of this out-side-textual knowledge and the fear to fall in the 

realm of over-interpretation by involving it in the study of discourse represents the main problematics 

leading to the writing of this paper.  

While producing discourse, language users active various kinds of knowledge. All these kinds are 

cognitively activated to shape the linguistics of what the speaker or writer seeks to convey in the 

produced message. The cognitive activation of such knowledge works mainly through the creation of 

contextual models (Van Dijk, 1999; 2005). These models represent the starting point of the process of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

103 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

coding meaning as well as that of decoding meaning. In other words, discourse analysts should have in 

mind the models that the producers of discourse created while speaking or writing. During the phase of 

discourse comprehension, the set of knowledge constituting these models becomes necessary to enable 

the receivers to decode what have been coded during the phase of language production. These 

contextual models could be created in the receivers’ minds, as readers or discourse analysts, through 

many ways of acquiring knowledge such as readings, watching the news, stories, everyday 

conversations, experience, participation in such events, etc. The fact of framing the obtained knowledge 

in the form of such models might involve the interference of personal judgment or evaluation. Here, the 

interference of personal evaluation might lead to the production of a personal opinion towards what is 

discussed in the text under focus. This personal opinion towards what is said raises the fear to say what 

might not be said at the level of the text selected for analysis. In brief, the intervention of personal 

judgments makes the boundary between knowledge and opinion a fuzzy one.  

This fuzziness of borders between what constitutes one’s knowledge about something and his personal 

position towards it reflects the fuzziness of boundaries between both objective and subjective 

interpretation. While the fact of being objective correlates to the state of carrying a straight forward 

interpretation, being subjective denotes the case of falling in the realm of over-interpretation. During 

the phase of discourse production, speakers might resort to the manipulation of the limits between 

knowledge and opinions while seeking to convince their public that what they are delivering as 

information represents a shared knowledge. To make these boundaries obvious, discourse analysts 

should be able to make clear the distinction between what constitutes the speaker’s knowledge and 

what constitutes his personal opinions about a given issue. However, during the phase of discourse 

comprehension, analysts might fall in the mistake of involving their own opinions in the analysis of the 

linguistics of a given piece of language instead of using what they know about the context of discourse 

production. The biased interpretations the analysts might produce by involving their opinions will 

affect the quality of the produced research as well as its reliability. Thus, to overcome the possibility of 

over-interpreting the results of the linguistic analysis of a given discourse, we need to high-light the 

line separating both knowledge and personal opinions. 

 

2. Conceptual Analysis 

Before analyzing some examples, we are going to embark in the review and analysis of some key 

concepts and theoretical bases. These are related to the discussion of what is knowledge, what 

constitute a theory of knowledge, and the re-thinking about what constitute the line of separation 

between interpretation and over-interpretation.  

2.1 Knowledge  

Being the opposite of ignorance, knowledge refers to people’s awareness or familiarity with a particular 

issue. The fact of being familiar with one issue or another implies having a set of ideas or information 

about it. These are the ideas and information we acquire, classify, and store in the form of episodes at 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

104 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the level of both long-term and short-time memories (Tulving, 1972; Van Dijk, 2003). Their existence 

in our minds allows us to interact with others as well as to communicate meaning through the 

activation of the required sequence either in the production or comprehension of discourse. The 

knowledge we have does not flow naturally during the production of both text and talk. However, it is 

manipulated based on many parameters such as the needs of the communicative situation, the goals of 

the speaker, etc. The manipulation of what to activate and what to keep non-active does not mean that 

the knowledge the speakers/writers hide have no affect on their linguistic procession of meaning. 

However, what is kept non-active can be implied. Here, the implication of knowledge might be used to 

serve such goals like the skip of facing confrontations, face saving. Also, it can have a strong impact on 

how the linguistics of the produced discourse is being processed and how meaning is coded. In other 

words, while a part of the knowledge that we have is explicitly expressed, another part of it is implicitly 

conveyed. Thus, our awareness about how things work in a particular context determines how we code 

meaning in text and talk and how to decode it as well. 

Knowledge is the key in any communicative practice. It is the means through which we can create a 

cooperative atmosphere of interaction. Here, we are talking about the role of shared knowledge in the 

creation of intelligibility between the sender and the receiver. But, the processing of any kind of 

knowledge needs reasoning about what to activate while producing language to communicate with our 

audiences or readers. Also, it entails reasoning about what to activate from our acquired knowledge 

while seeking to understand what is new in such a given communicative context. In other words, there 

is a strong connection between what to activate from our stock of knowledge and what we are 

reasoning for. This connection should be understood in the sense that reasoning is given the priority and 

that knowledge should be activated to help reasoning about the unknown. Here, priority is given to 

reasoning because our use of knowledge out-side the realm of reasoning will not help us solve new 

problems. It will not help in that the knowledge we have represent only the known part of the problem 

and that the comprehension of the new part entails the use of a logical process of thinking to infer what 

should be done. Having this in mind, the knowledge we have represents the starting point towards the 

mental collection of ideas and strategies to find the adequate answer to the problematics facing man in 

such a given context. Hence, this relation between reasoning and knowledge should be dealt with as the 

mental configuration of knowledge while seeking to solve complex matters.  

Doing discourse analysis is a way of problem solving. It represents personal attempts by such scholars 

and researchers to communicate the un-said. In CDA, for instance, researchers were interested in the 

revelation and critique of social inequality, injustice, and power abuses that are not explicitly said in 

text and talk, yet these are implicitly conveyed (Fairclough, 1995b; Van Dijk, 1993; Lazar, 2005). As 

far, as problem solving is concerned, our out-side-text knowledge represents the known in the 

comprehension of a given piece of language. However, the analysis of the linguistics of a text 

represents the main problematic we are seeking to solve while dealing with the critical investigation of 

a given topic that is communicated through discourse strata. The results that we are aiming to bring to 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

105 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

light are the new knowledge we are looking for to answer the exiting questions. It represents the 

contributions to be introduced to the existing body of knowledge. To succeed to reach such convincing 

contributions, we need to offer a well-framed model of contextual analysis. It is a theory that will 

enables us to explore out-side-text knowledge in the critical analysis of political discourse away from 

falling in the realm of over-interpretation. The discussion of the conceptual bases of this theory will be 

our focus in the coming section.  

2.2 Theory of Knowledge 

The theory of knowledge we need in the case of our study is the one that is adequate to offer us a 

well-detailed understanding of how contextual knowledge can be manipulated and activated during 

both phases: discourse production and analysis. Manner is the most important among other parameters 

in that the discussion of the importance of out-side-text knowledge in the analysis of discourse puts into 

concern two opposite kinds of discourse analysis: straight forward interpretation and biased 

interpretation. The need to be objective and to avoid being subjective entails determining what kind of 

knowledge we can activate to understand a given piece of language and what to keep non-active since 

it will not enrich our interpretation. The selection of what kind of knowledge to activate and how to 

apply it for the interpretation of the results of linguistic analysis requires being aware about how that 

knowledge could have affected language production. As far as discourse production and analysis are 

concerned, we need to set clear the different parameters that could frame how contextual knowledge 

could be processed in the processes of coding and decoding of meaning.  

The determination of these parameters entails highlighting the nature of knowledge. Its nature is 

depicted in terms of the features that can qualify any sort of information constituting one’s awareness 

about a given issue. Knowledge is social (Killer, 2005). It is said to be social in that it is shared by a 

number of people who belong to the same epistemic community (Van Dijk, 2014). Having this in mind 

the kind of knowledge we might resort to in the critical study of a given piece of discourse should be 

shared and not personal. Emphasizing the quality of being shared should be understood in the sense 

that the use of any kind of knowledge in the study of discourse should take in to account the 

examination of social structures, relations, actions, interests, etc. These are required to understand how 

the social affects the construction of discursive reality. Also, knowledge is cognitive (Van Dijk, 2006; 

2008). It is cognitive in the sense that it is acquired and processed cognitively. What we acquire as 

knowledge will be classified and stored in the form of such epistemic models at the level of our minds. 

These models will be activated when we feel need to a particular kind of knowledge while producing or 

analysing discourse. As far as discourse is concerned, knowledge is discursive too (Hassen, 2015). It is 

discursive in that it is acquired and circulated by means of discourse. Knowledge affects discourse 

production and it could be affected by discourse procession as well. Hence, our analysis of discourse 

structure should take into account the three dimensions constituting the structure of knowledge: the 

social, the discursive, and the cognitive. 

Having in mind these three dimensions, the study of the role of knowledge in the analysis of discourse 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

106 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

requires taking into account knowledge’s connection to such concepts. These are concepts like power, 

ideology, and goals. First, having knowledge represents a great source of power that language users can 

manipulate to control their audiences. Also, having power enables language users to control knowledge 

processing and to make it flows and being re-structured in the way that serves people’s personal plans. 

Second, knowledge is not free from the impact of such social ideologies. However, the acquiring and 

the processing of knowledge are affected by the intervention of the ideological orientations of both 

senders and receivers. The sources we get knowledge from are ideologically monitored and the texts 

we will analyze are not ideology free too. In other words, ideology is there and it should be taken into 

account during discourse production and comprehension. Third, knowledge is not activated at random. 

However, it is based on the determination of what kind of objectives we seek to achieve. In discourse 

production, goals determine what kind of knowledge to activate to convey the meaning that will help us 

re-shape the receivers’ attitudes towards a given matter. In discourse analysis too, the goals of the 

analysis will serve to determine the sort of knowledge we need to activate. The answers we seek to find 

while deciding to carry on the study of such given problematics determine the sort of knowledge we 

should activate. Therefore, the activation of any kind of knowledge depends mainly on one’s reading of 

his context of both producing and studying discourse. 

The dependence of knowledge activation on these dynamic concepts makes its utility in the production 

and comprehension of discourse highly problematic. To deal successfully with the dynamic nature of 

this relation of dependence, it has become crucial to think about the typology of the activated 

knowledge (Pritchard, 2014; Van Dijk, 2005). Here, typology is concerned in that it will help visualize 

how the activated knowledge serves in the structuring of the linguistics of the political speeches under 

study. Language producers might activate different types of knowledge to code the meaning they seek 

to convey to their receivers. These types include examples like historical, political, behavioral, religious, 

ethnic, ethical, ideological, etc. While decoding the meaning of the conveyed messages, we need to 

activate the required type of knowledge that we think can serve for the comprehension of the piece of 

language under question. Once the activated types are determined, we might find ourselves concerned 

to answer another significant question that is concerned with the truth value of the Knowledge we are 

dealing with in our examination of a given text or talk (Armstrong, 1973; Preyer & Peter, 2005). In the 

case of our study, for instance, the evaluation of the activated knowledge in terms of truth should be 

used for the sake of highlighting political deception and misleading. Hence, the determination of both 

the truth criteria and the typology of knowledge is a way to shed light on how language users resort to 

the manipulation of knowledge to serve such ends.  

To sum up, a theory of knowledge we need here should be a multi-disciplinary one. We need a 

multi-disciplinary approach to the study of the role of out-side-text knowledge in the comprehension of 

discourse due to the complex nature of the concept of knowledge. It is complex in the sense that it is a 

multi-dimensional one. This theory will help us reach a well-detailed critique of how language users 

activate the required knowledge to decode the massage they want to deliver to affect a given social 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

107 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

reality. It is also a theory that will provide us with the critical ability to activate the knowledge we need 

for the comprehension of a given discourse. Here, our ability as discourse analysts is said to be critical 

in that the activation of any acquired knowledge in the study of discourse should be based on the 

critique of the knowledge activated in the text under focus. In other words, it is the knowledge 

communicated in the produced discourse which can determine what kind of knowledge the receivers 

should activate to understand that discourse. So, this theory of knowledge makes clear the bases that 

monitor the management of knowledge in both discourse production and analysis. However, the fear to 

fall in the realm of over-interpretation is still there. The line between straight and biased interpretations 

will be our focus in the coming section.  

2.3 Over-Interpretation  

Meaning to say more than what is said by the text, over-interpretation is a crucial concept that we 

should take into account while doing discourse analysis. Being engaged in the practice of studying 

discourse, one should take into account the existence of three kinds of intension: the intension of the 

author, the intension of the interpreter, and the intension of the text (Eco, 1990). The discussion of 

over-interpretation within the scope of the frame constituted by these three intensions highlights that: 

working in the realm of interpretation refers to the highest possible match between the intension of the 

interpreter and the intension of the author as well as that of the text. However, falling in the realm of 

over-interpretation denotes the state of mis-match between the intension of the interpreter and the 

intensions of both the author and the text. Here, mis-match should be understood in the sense that the 

interpreter might derive more meaning than what is intended by the author and his text. In the field of 

psychoanalysis, the concept of over-interpretation refers to the fact of working out an additional 

interpretation of a dream (Freud, 1989). Freud highlighted that the addition of an interpretation could 

be sometimes worthwhile and sometimes not. By being not worthwhile, the interpretation we added 

denotes the fact of falling in the realm of over-interpreting a dream. In the case of my study, for 

instance, the addition of an interpretation consists mainly in the resort to out-side-text knowledge while 

seeking to understand what is coded at the level of discourse strata. In brief, the question—when might 

the use of out-side-text knowledge lead to the production of an over-interpretation?—is what matters in 

this section. 

The answer to this question manifests itself in two logical explanations. First, the discussion and the 

highlight of the boundaries between what constitute the interpreter’s knowledge about something and 

what constitute his positions towards that thing is of great concern. It is essential in that the activation 

of such beliefs instead of knowledge in the study of discourse leads to the production of some 

interpretations that are not worthwhile. In other words, to overcome the problem of falling in the realm 

of over-interpretation, the interpreter should activate only what he knows about the context of discourse 

production. In contrast, he should leave his opinions about the issue under question away from being 

involved in order not to affect the objectivity of the produced interpretation. Second, the selection of 

what to activate from the knowledge we have about the context of the produced discourse represents 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

108 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

another variable that we need to monitor to avoid producing over-interpretations of discourse. As far as 

selection is concerned, there should be well-defined rules to control this game of choosing and to make 

it serves the objective interpretation of what is said by discourse. One of these rules is that our 

activation of out-side-text knowledge, as interpreters, should depend on the nature of the knowledge 

that is activated by the text under study. Another rule says that the activation of any sort of knowledge 

should be the result of a logical critique of what to active from our information to decode the complex 

message we are dealing with. Moreover, a third rule says that reasoning should be prior to knowledge 

in the analysis of discourse. Reasoning is first in that the use of knowledge by itself will not help 

producing new solutions. Thus, setting the limits between interpretation and over-interpretation is a 

matter of critique. 

Having the logic of critique as the only toolkit we can use to set clear the line separating 

over-interpretation from interpretation, we need to offer a brief understanding of the logic of reasoning. 

Reasoning refers to the rational processing of ideas following some given steps to infer such 

conclusions. The conclusions that we are seeking to infer, here, are of two opposite types: interpretation 

vs. over-interpretation. In other words, to infer the right conclusion, we need to think carefully about 

the knowledge we have before activating it during the analysis of text and talk. This process of 

reasoning should start from the critical examination of the knowledge that is activated in the produced 

discourse. Then, we should question whether or not the activation of the knowledge we have in mind 

could serve for the addition of such a worthwhile interpretation. The answer to this question will 

determine our decision about what to activate and what to leave, to avoid producing interpretations that 

are not worthwhile. The activation of the appropriate set of knowledge and the construction of a critical 

understanding of discourse away from biases highlight the success of the reasoning strategy we used. 

However, the failure to find convincing answers to the problematics that a given discourse might rise 

reflects the limitation of our approaching of the logic monitoring the knowledge activated by the author 

and the text and the one activated by the interpreter. Hence, escaping the fear to add such subjective 

interpretations depends on the interpreter’s capacity to critical-ly evaluate his context of study. 

To recapitulate, the use of out-side-text knowledge in the comprehension of discourse remains a matter 

of critique. The logic of reasoning that monitors the activation of any typology of knowledge from the 

stock of information we have in the analysis of a given discourse should be context-dependent. Its 

dependence to the context of study should be understood in the sense that the structure of the problem 

determines the structure of the answer. In other words, to avoid bringing such interpretations that are 

not worthwhile, we have to give priority to reasoning. However, knowledge should be considered as the 

known part of the answer. This means that knowledge will be inserted whenever we feel need to while 

seeking to make our thinking about a problem progress to reach the solution. So, discourse analysis 

should be understood as the analysis of the linguistics of a text where the involvement of contextual 

knowledge is meant to help progress our thinking about the decoding of that text’s meaning. Having 

this in mind, a theoretical recommendation on how to avoid over-interpreting a text is given. But, how 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

109 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

this happens at the level of practice should be explained. The explanation of how to put what is 

theoretically said in practice is our focus in the analysis section.  

 

3. Methodology 

To put into practice the concepts and the theoretical bases discussed before, we will cite and analyse 

some examples. These are taken from speeches that are delivered by the three US presidents: Bush, 

Obama, and Trump. They are delivered in different political contexts. The variation we stressed at the 

level of context is meant to show at each time how the knowledge we have about the context of 

discourse production serves for the decoding of what is being mystified. The use of out-side-text 

knowledge in the analysis of the produced discourse will be carried within the framework that is built 

mainly upon the bases of the logic of critique. The theoretical paradigm that offers a critical study of 

language in context is that of CDA. This critical framework consists of a variety of theoretical 

approaches that are interested in the decoding of textual meaning. However, the most appropriate one 

for the case of my study is the socio-cognitive approach that is developed by Van Dijk, especially his 

conceptions that context should be dealt with as a set of mental models (Van Dijk, 2003, 2005, 2006, 

2007). The theoretical bases of these frames will be applied to explain how to process the knowledge 

we have in mind to understand what is coded at the level of discourse strata.  

Working within this cognitive approach to the study of the role of contextual knowledge in discourse 

analysis and comprehension, the method I will use consists of two phases: one is simple and the other 

is complex. In the first phase, the selected examples will be linguistically explored. In this linguistic 

examination, I will be interested mainly in the decoding of what is explicitly conveyed. The analysis of 

the conveyed message will be undertaken through the determination of what the speaker activated as 

knowledge. In the second phase, I will focus on the determination of what the speakers kept un-active 

as knowledge to hide what they did not want to express to their hearers. To unveil the un-said is the 

difficult task to undertake in this phase. It is difficult in that the demystification of what is mystified 

requires being critical about what to activate from the knowledge we have in mind. My use of the logic 

of critique is meant to avoid falling in the realm of over-interpretation. The fact of keep being in the 

sphere of worthwhile interpretation, it is necessary to ask a critical question: are we still in the realm of 

a positive interpretation? This question will be asked each time we activate a given type of our 

knowledge of the world. Finally, the results of the analysis we undertook in both phases will be 

discussed to recapitulate how the use of out-side-text knowledge could serve to communicate the 

un-said and to help reasoning about the un-known.  

 

4. Analysis and Discussion  

Now, it is time to put into practice the theoretical conceptions we have analysed and discussed before. 

Their use to analyse the selected examples will follow the method depicted in the methodology section. 

Hence, our task here will be to make what haven theorized to in the above sections closer to the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

110 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

reader’s mind. It also seeks to make it at the reach of researchers’ use to help them explore their 

knowledge of the world in the study of such problematics that are related to the analysis and 

comprehension of discourse. 

4.1 Example Analysis 

The first example is taken from Bush’s address on the start of the war. It was delivered in March 19th, 

2003. 

(1) My fellow citizens. At this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military 

operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.  

What Bush sought to convey to his follow citizens through the linguistics of this couple of sentences is 

that the US and its allies are at the beginning of their military action against Iraq. In other words, the 

war against Iraq has become an inevitable action. After, emphasizing the inevitability of the action he 

claimed, he highlighted the goals that this action is meant to achieve. These goals are of two kinds: one 

is local and two others are international. While the local one is about freeing the Iraqi people from the 

regime they lived under its rule for decades, the international ones are related to the disarmament of 

Iraq and the defense of the world against the threat caused by this regime.  

To make his message sound logical and persuasive to the public that he is addressing, Bush resorted to 

the activation of different types of knowledge. These types can be discussed under three headlines: 

military, political, and security knowledge.  

First, the military knowledge is activated through the use of the to-infinitive construction “to disarm”. 

The use of this verb implies that Iraq is an armed country that represents a great threat to its neighbors 

and the world. By implying this meaning, Bush sought to activate the knowledge that his public already 

have in mind. It is their awareness about Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction. The mental 

models that his public have about Iraq’s weapons come as a result of the long argumentation process he 

embarked on since two years before while seeking to convince the Americans and the world that the 

US should go into war against Iraq. Here, Bush makes connection between what he had already given 

as information to his public and the world and what he seeks to achieve as goals. The cognitive 

connection he made was meant to prove that the war the US is going to start soon against Iraq is not 

declared from the absurd. However, it was well-thought about. Also, it aimed to highlight that the US 

Army is not meant to attack the Iraqi people. Instead, it aims to achieve a specific goal manifested 

mainly in the total disarmament of the Iraqi regime from its weapons of mass murder. Thus, the 

military knowledge Bush activated was meant to highlight the rationality of the action he ordered the 

coalition forces to start in Iraq.  

Second, the political knowledge that Bush activated by using the verb “to free” seeks mainly to 

highlight that the mission of the US’s military action against Iraq is to replace tyranny by democracy. 

By activating the mental models that the Iraqi people have about the freedom that the Americans live 

under the rule of the US democracy, Bush sought to tickle the feelings of the oppressed people in Iraq. 

His playing on the feelings of this group of Iraqis was meant to convince them not to defend the regime 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

111 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

that oppressed them during the past years. He also sought to polish the image of the agents of the 

coalition forces by making them freedom defenders while seeking to limit the targeted group’s desire to 

resist the US invasion. Here, Bush’s cognitive connection between the socio-political context in the US 

and that in Iraq aims to make a comparison between how people live in both contexts. This comparison 

is a direct call to push the Iraqis to think about a post war Iraq that is free and more prosperous. The 

visualization of this new socio-political context in Iraq is enacted through imagination. It is the strategy 

that Bush used to monitor the dynamics of what people have as knowledge about the American 

democracy to make them dream of having that kind of political model. In brief, Bush activated the Iraqi 

people’s knowledge about the American democracy to control their resistance to his military. 

Third, Bush activated the security knowledge through the use of the verb “to defend”. By activating 

this kind of knowledge, he sought to convince the world that he and his allies are in a humanitarian 

mission, to save the humanity from Iraq’s danger. His insistence on shared security is a wise strategy to 

re-activate his audiences’ knowledge about the tragedy that innocent people lived while no security 

measures were taken to prevent danger from taking place. Here, the activated security knowledge 

represents the top of Bush’s rhetoric on the demonization of the Iraqi regime. Therefore, Bush implies 

that if the Iraqi regime will not be removed from power, there will be a great danger to face.  

To recapitulate, the types of knowledge that Bush activated in this example are part of his justification 

of the war against Iraq. They enabled him to draw a negative representation of this regime. In contrast, 

he succeeded to draw a positive representation of the self to prove that his war against Iraq will serve to 

defend shared humanitarian values like democracy, peace, security, etc. However, he kept non-active 

the knowledge that might not serve for the well-structuring of his argument and the achievement of his 

political ends. The knowledge he left is there in people’s minds and can be activated to detect and to 

criticize the fallacy he used to destroy an independent country. The types of knowledge that can serve 

to reveal the truth lying behind Bush’s invasion of Iraq will be activated and analyzed as an 

out-side-text knowledge.  

First, our knowledge about Iraq’s relation with Israel represents a pivotal axe to understand Bush’s 

demonization of Saddam and his regime. America is one of the strongest allies of Israel and a great 

defender of the Zionist project in the Middle East. Being against the Israeli occupation of the Arab 

territories in Palestine and having threatened to attack its ally raised the US’s anger as well as its fear 

about the future of the peace of Israel. So, for Israel to live in peace and for the Zionist plan to be 

implemented with success, the Iraqi regime should be removed from power and Iraq’s ability to face 

the Zionist plan should be destroyed. Hence, the Iraqi regime’s declared enmity against Israel is the 

first reason standing behind Bush’s instance on the need to go into war against Iraq. 

Second, Iraq represents one of the strongest powers in the Middle East in terms of military forces. It is 

also a reach country in terms of oils sources. This reality raises America’s fear of having a strong power 

that can affect its interests in the region. This feeling of fear becomes stronger and alarming when the 

Iraqi regime declares being Anti-American and Pro-Russian. In other words, it has become 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

112 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

unacceptable for the Americans to let an ally of one of their greatest enemies—Russia—control the 

prices of oil in the region. To limit this power from affecting its imperialist interests in a region of 

wealth, America needs to sanction and destroy Iraq. This represents America’s first step towards the 

maintenance of a full control on the wealth of Iraq and the region. In brief, America’s imperialist 

interests in the region represent another logical reason that justifies Bush’s willingness to destroy an 

independent state.  

Third, the materialization of what the Americans planned for under the title of the new Middle East 

entails the destroying of the big countries in the region. The activation of this knowledge finds its 

logical justification in the invasion of Iraq and the destruction of its power as well as the attempt to 

destroy Syria and to divide its territories into such federal states. By stimulating sectarianism and 

creating conflicting groups in the powerful states of the region, the US paves the way for its political 

plans to be implemented easily. In other words, the creation of on-going internal conflicts serves to 

weaken the states of the region and make them unable to resist America’s imperialist plans there. 

Moreover, the American policy makers find in the dismantling of some of the ruling powers in the 

Middle East the right technique to replace the existing Anti-American powers by such new 

Pro-American ones. This kind of replacement aims to serve the US’s political ends and not to bring 

democracy and prosperity to people of Iraq as Bush declared in this example (1). So, the US’s attempt 

to re-shape the political map of the Middle East represents another logical reason that can explain 

Bush’s struggle to go into war against Iraq.  

To sum up, the activation of out-side-text knowledge enabled us to determine the logical reasons of the 

war that Bush hided in his speech. These reasons are the main factors pushing for Bush’s declaration of 

war. However, he left the knowledge related to them non-activated in that they did not serve his 

political argument the tool through which he seeks to get the legitimacy to go into war against Iraq. 

Though leaving this knowledge non-active on the part of the speaker, our knowledge of the politics of 

the world served to make the unclear becomes clear. However, what remains here is to question 

whether or not we fell in the realm of over-interpretation by activating the above three types of 

knowledge. Different are the logical reasoning that can prove that what we are doing is away from 

over-interpreting this example. First, the US’s defense of Israel and its interests is obvious and 

represents a shared knowledge for the world community. Second, the US’ struggle to dominate the 

Middle East and to increase its imperial interests there is something obvious too and cannot be denied. 

Third, the US’s struggle to remove Anti-American governments and to replace them by Pro-American 

ones is something that they cannot deny too. Instead, it is something recognized by the world 

community. Also, it happened and is still happening across the globe and not only in the Middle East. 

For instance, the removal Gaddafi from power in 2011 is another example that can justify that our 

activation of this type of knowledge is away from being biased. So, the activation of our knowledge 

about the US politics offered us the opportunity to infer what Bush hided.  

The second, third, and fourth examples are extracted from Obama’s speech on the Libyan crisis. It was 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

113 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

delivered in March 28th, 2011.  

(2) Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. […] It was not in our national 

interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the 

bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. 

Security Council Resolution 1973. 

(3) Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition 

and consult with more than 30 nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is 

necessary to pressure Qaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people 

deserve—because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue 

the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people. 

(4) The task that I assigned our forces—to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to 

establish a no-fly zone—carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support.  

The linguistic analysis of these examples shows that Obama sought to explain to his follow citizens two 

main things: the reason why the US intervened militarily in Libya and what the US forces are supposed 

to do there. He explained the nature of the military task the US will undertake in Libya. Also, he 

highlighted the on-going political debate about how to keep on pressure on Gaddafi to set down from 

power as well as how to support the Libyan transition towards the future they deserve. By signaling the 

need to think about a better future for the Libyan people, Obama aimed to shed light on the role that the 

US plays to remove atrocity and to build democracy in Libya. After highlighting that the US’s 

intervention in Libya comes as a response to its duties towards the humanity, Obama stressed the two 

goals to be achieved by this intervention: to stop killing and to enforce the UN Security Resolution 

1973. Thus, by stating these goals, Obama gave a clear idea about the mission of his forces in Libya. 

To make of what he delivered to his public sound more logical and persuasive, Obama resorted to the 

activation of different types of knowledge. These types can be discussed under three main titles: 

political, social, and military knowledge.  

Politically speaking, Obama focused on the visualization of Gaddafi’s atrocity and his act of aggression 

against his own people. By drawing this gloomy picture of the political scene in Libya, Obama sought 

to prove to his nation that Gaddafi is a dangerous man and that he should be stopped from killing his 

own nation. The representation of Gaddafi as a dictator who shows no mercy to his own people was 

meant to find the legitimacy for the action that he claimed before 10 days to intervene militarily in 

Libya. The fact of looking for legitimacy finds its traces also in his resort to the US local political 

context, the world political context and the Libyan political context too. On the one hand, Obama 

stressed that before intervening militarily in Libya, he got the green light to act from the bipartisan 

leadership of the congress. On the other hand, he shed light on the legitimacy the US got from the 

members of the Libyan opposition who called for the rescue of their nations from the world community. 

Then, he expressed the world community’s agreement on the need to intervene in Libya and to help 

rescue its people from killing. Therefore, by activating political knowledge, Obama sought to make of 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

114 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

his claim to act in Libya a legitimate political decision.  

Socially speaking, Obama highlighted that the Libyan people are living in such an immediate danger. 

They were living under the rule of a dictator for four decades and when they protested peacefully 

against his dictatorship, he declared to face them with no mercy. Here, Obama’s emphasis on the 

mercilessness behavior of the Gaddafi regime was meant to draw a picture of the darkness of the social 

reality in Libya. By highlighting the atmosphere of dictatorship and killing, Obama implies that change 

in Libya should take place to save lives and to bring more freedom to its people. The move from one 

social context (old) towards another context (new) is meant to stimulate a kind of comparison in the 

public’s minds between the democracy the US people live and the dictatorship the Libyan live in the 

same era of the world history. This comparison seeks mainly to convince the public to welcome easily 

what their president claimed to do in Libya. Hence, Obama activated knowledge about the Libyan 

social context to prove the need for political change in Libya.  

Militarily speaking, the knowledge Obama activated is related to three military contexts: the Libyan, 

the American, and the international. At the Libya local level, Obama highlighted the military 

aggression that Gaddafi declared against his own nation. He expressed his refusal to what is going on in 

Libya and he claimed that Gaddafi’s aggression should be stopped insisting that this will happen by 

driving him out from power. At the international level, he claimed that there are international supports 

from many nations to help the US protect the Libyans from killing and danger. By insisting on the 

existence of support from many nations, Obama sought to stress that what the US is doing there is 

legitimate and acceptable for the world community. At the American level, Obama re-assured his 

citizens that what the US is doing in Libya is limited to saving lives via the establishment of a 

no-fly-zone. His re-assurance can be read in various ways. By saying this, he might seek to convey to 

his people that the US’s intervention in Libya will not cost much on tax payers. Also, he might seek to 

highlight to them that there will be no loss of lives among the individual of the US troops. These 

interpretations are cited among possible ones in that the Americans become against the participation of 

the US troops in any war after the long fights they have in Afghanistan and Iraq. In brief, Obama 

activated military knowledge from three contexts to convince his people that the US is there to settle 

peace. 

To Sum up, the different typologies of knowledge that Obama activated are selected based on the 

political logic that serves the well-functioning of his argument on the need to act in Libya. He activated 

the political, the social, and the military knowledge to highlight that change should take place in Libya. 

He insisted that change should start from the removal of a dictator and the building of a new 

democratic state. These typologies of knowledge constitute part of people’s shared knowledge in the 

US and the world, which means that their activation will serve to make Obama’s decision sound 

legitimate. However, he left another important part of his knowledge non active. Though silenced, this 

knowledge is there in the mind of people across the globe and especially the one who read and hear 

about the US-Libyan relations during Gaddafi’s ruling. The activation of this part of knowledge will 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

115 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

help us, as readers and discourse analysis, understand the US’s quick response to intervene militarily in 

Libya. In other words, it will serve us to determine the agenda motivating the US’s military action in 

Libya while the same happened in other states and the US did not react to save lives.  

The history of the US-Libyan relations during the Gaddafi rule witnessed many tensions. The two 

states confronted each other in different times. This confrontation came as a result of the difference of 

views. Gaddafi was known by his Anti-American position. He always criticizes the US for its 

imperialist policies across the globe, and especially in the Arab countries. This political position makes 

of him a bad guy in the views of the US administration. He was accused by managing such terrorist 

attacks against the US interests like the bombing of a discotheque in the German capital, Berlin, in 

April 5th, 1986. After designating the responsible agent, the US reacted by bombing Libya in April 15th, 

1986. This history of tension started with Gaddafi’s nationalization of the oil industry and his removal 

of the American oil companies after his raise to power in 1969. Later on, in 1979, the US considered 

Libya as a sponsor of terrorism after the withdrawal and the firing of its embassy in Tripoli. These facts 

and other represented a legal proof for the US to impose economic sanctions on Libya. Also, they were 

important political justifications for America to control Libya’s export on military and civil crafts. Thus, 

the activation of our knowledge about the reality of the US-Libyan relations served to re-activate old 

contextual models on the readers’ minds and enable them to demystify what Obama mystified along his 

speech.  

Gaddafi’s support of the Palestinians and his Anti-Israel political position makes of him a man who is 

considered among the list of the enemies of the US’s greatest ally in the Arab region. Being an enemy 

of the US and the Zionist state it defends puts Gaddafi at the top of the list of the leaders that should be 

removed from power. His removal represents a great opportunity for the US to restore its political and 

economic interests in Libya as a sate rich in oil. Also, it is an opportunity to get rid of a man who 

supports the Palestinians to resist the Israeli colonist plans in their homeland. In other words, his 

removal among others is required to reduce Arab resistance to the Zionist ideology in the Middle East. 

Moreover, Gaddafi’s claim to coin the African dinar and to sell oil using gold instead of the US Dollar 

represents a threat to the value of the US currency across the globe. This fact makes of Gaddafi a devil 

incarnation on the views of the American capitalists and ruling elites. This means that he becomes a 

real threat to US interests and he should be removed from power. Gaddafi’s image become more 

gloomy on the views of the American leaders after his speech in the UN in 2009. His accusation of the 

US and his harsh critique of the unjust policies of the UN and its Security Council, the tool through 

which the US give legitimacy to its policies, hastened the end of his regime. As a result, the Americans 

and their allies found in the outbreak of the Arab spring the right socio-political political context to 

remove Gaddafi from power and to change him by a Pro-American leader, Khalifa Haftar. 

To recapitulate, the activation of what we have as knowledge about Gaddafi’s relations with the US and 

its allies served to unveil what Obama hid along his speech. The interpretations formulated by 

activating the knowledge that Obama left non-activated made clear the main reasons standing behind 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

116 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

the US’s intervention in Libya. In other words, what Obama stated explicitly represents mere rhetorical 

justification for the legitimacy of his claim to act. In contrast, what he left implicit is the real proof that 

can explain the acceleration of his decision to act and to remove Gaddafi from power. Hence, the 

activation of this knowledge served to communicate the un-said. However, what remains problematic is 

the fear to fall in the realm of over-interpretation. The denial to fall in this realm finds its justification in 

several logical reasons. First, Gaddafi’s opposition of the US imperialism and his rejection of Israeli 

use of power is known for the world community. Second, the US’s repetitive attempts to remove 

Gaddafi from power is there and recorded in the archives of the modern history of the world. Third, the 

US’s military intervention to remove Anti-American leaders and to change them by Pro-American ones 

is something known for all. Fourth, the US’s support of Haftar to lead the rebellion and then to lead 

Libya later on can summarize all about its policy to end Gaddafi regime and to set up a Pro-American 

regime there. Finally, the activation of the knowledge we have about the US-Libyan relation served to 

bring worthwhile interpretations away from over-interpretation.  

The fifth example is taken from Trump’s Proclamation 9683 of December 2017. In this presidential 

document, he proclaimed the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel and the 

relocation of the US Embassy to Israel to Israel to Jerusalem. 

(5)  NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by 

virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby 

proclaim that the United States recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of the State of Israel and that the 

United States Embassy to Israel will be relocated to Jerusalem as soon as practicable. 

The linguistic analysis of this example proves that Trump used his power as a president to proclaim two 

different claims for action. The first claim is related to the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of 

Israel. This claim comes after he reminded his public that the US first recognized the state of Israel 

before 70 years under the rule of president Trauma. The second claim is concerned with the relocation 

of the US Embassy in Jerusalem. To prove the legitimacy of his claim to relocate the US embassy there 

to his public, he highlighted the will of the Congress to have the US embassy in Jerusalem expressed in 

the Act of 1995. Also, the analysis of the linguistics of this example shows that the time of these two 

claims for action is not specified. However, they are said to be materialized “as soon practicable”. Here, 

Trump sought to stress his personal endeavor to put into practice what the previous presidents of the 

US left as mere campaigning promises. In other words, he was seeking to show to his voters that he 

will never hesitate to put into action the claims he gave during his electoral campaign. Therefore, 

Trump was endeavoring to show to his public that he has the power to materialize his promises under 

the US laws.  

To legitimize his use of power to act, Trump activated different sorts of knowledge. These sorts can be 

discussed under three headlines: personal knowledge, political knowledge, and legislative knowledge. 

These three kinds of knowledge are re-activated here in Trump’s conclusion to recognize Jerusalem as 

the state of Israel and to relocate the US embassy in Jerusalem, after being introduced along his 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

117 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

argument for action. First, Trump activated his personal knowledge. He presented his name and family 

name followed by his determination of his personal position in the American society. By saying that he 

is the president of the US, he sought to attract the attention of his people and the world that he is the 

representative of the American people and that he can take important decisions under the cover of the 

US laws. Second, he activated his political knowledge. He argued that he has the adequate political 

power to claim the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move the US embassy from 

Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. His emphasis on his political power was meant to show to his public that his 

decisions are inevitable and that they will be put into practice. Third, Trump activated legislative 

knowledge. His activation of this sort of knowledge was meant to high-light the legitimacy of the two 

decisions he claimed. He is a man of power who works based on the authority he is given by the 

constitution and laws of the US. Finally, Trump’s argument for the need to recognize Jerusalem as the 

capital of Israel and to move the US embassy to Jerusalem ended with a conclusion stressing the 

inevitability of these two actions. To justify the conclusion that he reached, he sought legitimacy in the 

activation of three sorts of knowledge: the personal, the political, and the legislative.  

The types of knowledge Trump activated served to code the message he sought to convey to his people 

and the world. They served for the progress of his argumentation process as well as for the 

persuasiveness of the argument through which he seeks to defend the recognition of Jerusalem as the 

capital of Israel and the removal of the US embassy to Jerusalem. Moreover, the use of the knowledge 

he activated enabled us to decode the explicit meaning of his message. However, our activation of the 

knowledge we have concerning the political context of Trump’s proclamation will help us infer what 

Trump sought to mystify along his argument for action. Trump left an important part of his knowledge 

about the context of his declaration non-activated to hide the truth standing behind the selection of the 

time of his claimed actions. He sought to hide why this declaration should take place now and not at 

any time before or after this moment of the world’s history. Here, those who are interested in the issue 

of the Palestine-Israel conflict have the required typologies of knowledge that can help explain this. 

Therefore, the activation of the required typologies of the knowledge we have in mind will be of crucial 

significance to find the logical explanation for Trump’s selection of time.  

What we have as shared knowledge about the Arab-Israeli conflict represents a variety of mental 

models that we can re-activate to communicate the un-said. These are diverse types of knowledge that 

we re-activate to offer a well-detailed critique of Trump’s proclamation. We cite and use the knowledge 

that we activated under three main titles: historical knowledge, political knowledge, and military 

knowledge.  

On the one hand, our historical knowledge about the US’s support of Israel to build its state on the 

Middle East is something shared by all world community. The US is the main defender of Israel’s 

colonialist expansion in the region and the holder of the Zionist plan there. Having this in mind, we can 

say that Trump found the right time to make everything explicit and proclaim the need to materialize 

what have been recognized before but not yet practiced. In reality, Trump activated his knowledge 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

118 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

about the US’s recognition of the state of Israel and its Congress’s urgent request to recognize 

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to relocate the US Embassy in Jerusalem. Also, he claimed that 

the right time has come to put these claims into action. However, he kept un-explained why this is the 

right time. Historically speaking, the Arab community, as the main defender of the Palestinians’ right 

for independence, lives in a period of weakness. Most of the Arab countries are living in either 

revolution, civil war, or political instability. Being in this critical state, the Arab nations will not have 

the power to resist such political decisions. They do not have the required power to support the 

Palestinians to defend their rights for peace. In other words, the US political decision-makers waited 

for a long period to find the right time to put into practice the plans they elaborated in their political 

labs. Thus, the activation of our historical knowledge proved that the deterioration of the Arab power to 

resist represents the main type of knowledge that Trump and his administration built upon to claim that 

this is the right time to act.  

On the other hand, our political knowledge about the representation of the Arab community in the UN 

represents another important type of context model that we can activate here to explain Trump’s 

proclamation. Formed by a respectful number of countries, the majority of which are members in the 

UN, the Arab community has no permanent member in the UN Security Council (SC). This implies that 

the Arab community does not have the right political power that enables them to defend a legal 

resolution to the Palestine-Israel conflict. In other words, the resolution will be planned for and 

evaluated from one single perspective. It is the perspective of the US and its allies. In his argumentation 

to prove the need to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to relocate the US embassy in 

Jerusalem, Trump activated his knowledge about the US’s support of peace between the two states. 

However, what remains un-said is that this peace plan is a Pro-Israeli one and not a plan that the 

Palestinians and their defenders agree upon. This reality is left un-expressed in that the Arab nations do 

not have the power to act and to influence the UN decisions concerning the Palestine-Israel conflict. 

The Arab nations do not even have the power to resist what the US president claimed because they fear 

the US sanctions. The US’s imposition of sanctions against the Anti-American policy states is 

something known and cannot be denied. Therefore, our activation of our political knowledge 

highlighted that who owns power in the UN owns power on the ground. The Arab nations have no 

power to affect the UN decisions, which means they have no power to resist the world powers’ 

decisions. This political reality offered Trump the right context to put his electoral promises into action.  

Then, the activation of our military knowledge about the disbalance of power between the Arab 

community and the US is important too. It is important in that the logic of fighting says that, as a 

counterpart to a conflict, you should look for the moment of weakness to triumph and to impose your 

instructions on the other. In the case of our context of study, Israel and its allies and supporters have the 

military power to control and to dominate Palestine and its supporters. The power they have came as a 

result of the weakness of the Arab community due to some internal political divisions. This disbalance 

of power makes the US leaders, and especially Trump have the power to humiliate Arab leaders, 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

119 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

proclaim Israel’s right to control some Arab territories, and depict those who defend a legal right as 

extremists and terrorists. Trump did all these in public and in such direct and live broadcasted speeches 

without facing any kind of resistance from the Arab officials, except the expression of such personal 

and institutional condemnations. Having this in mind, Trump Knew that if he claims the recognition of 

Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, he will not face 

such considerable resistance. In other words, his claim that the right time has come to put these two 

decisions into action finds its explanation in his reading of what the counterpart can do when these 

actions are claimed. So, in a historical context in which the counterpart lacks the adequate military 

power to resist, Trump thought of himself as a strong leader who can produce change for the best of a 

great ally, Israel.  

To conclude, our revisit of the contextual models we have about the Palestine-Israel conflict offered us 

the knowledge that can help us demystify what Trump mystified. Our activation of the three types of 

knowledge—the historical, the political, and the military—proved that Trump benefited from the 

weakness of the Arab community to make of himself the leader who can do what his predecessors did 

not. Here, we can say that the US leaders were working for many years to reach the day in which they 

can put into practice what they have planned for before. Hence, the knowledge we have served us to 

reach a detailed conclusion about how the US benefits from the weakness of its counterpart to 

materialize its policies on the ground. However, what remains problematic is the fear of falling in the 

realm of over-interpretation. It is clear that being in the realm of over-interpretation is excluded. The 

fact of excluding this reality can be justified by several logical reasons. First, our historical knowledge 

concerning the US’s support to Israel and its defense of the Zionist state represents a shared knowledge 

for the world community. Second, our political knowledge that the Arab community does not have a 

permanent member in the SC and its weakness to play a leading role in world politics and to affect the 

UN decision-making process is something known too. Third, the disbalance of power between the 

defenders of the Palestinian right and the defenders of Zionist state in the region is an undeniable 

reality either. Finally, we can say that the knowledge we activated served in the formulation of 

worthwhile interpretations away from falling in the realm of over-interpretation. This conclusion 

highlights that the interpretations we made explain the real agendas standing behind Trump’s 

articulation of his proclamation 9683, noting that what he delivered was a mere rhetorical justification 

of his abuse of power.  

4.2 Discussion  

The analysis of the above examples showed that the activation of out-side-text knowledge serves for 

the comprehension of what the speakers left un-clear. When they were speaking, the speakers resorted 

to the activation of some types of knowledge while leaving other types non active. We noted here that 

the speakers activated only what can serve for the progress and the well-functioning of their 

argumentation. What they activated as knowledge is useful to decode the meaning they have coded at 

the level of the linguistics of their speeches. This knowledge is used to shape the rhetorical reality they 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

120 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

sought to create. In other words, its use during the analysis process enabled us to work out the fallacies 

that the speakers used to convince their public about the need to act in a given context. However, what 

they left non-active leads mainly to the mystification of the real causes standing behind their 

production of such a claim. This means that the knowledge they mystify shapes the reality of a given 

socio-political context in which they are acting. Having this in mind, makes our activation of what the 

speakers left non active as knowledge required to demystify what they mystified along their speeches. 

In brief, the activation of the knowledge we have about the issues under focus revealed the legal proofs 

pushing each of the speakers to act. Also, it makes clear the gap between social reality and the reality 

that the speakers sought to shape via rhetoric. 

The gap we detected between the discursive reality and the social reality that people live in the 

addressed contexts makes the activation of our knowledge of the world crucial for the critique of 

discourse. It is crucial in that the process of involving out-side-text knowledge offered us a worthwhile 

interpretation that can clarify what we could not understand if we do not get back to what we have as 

knowledge concerning the issue we are targeting in our analysis. However, what appeared to be 

problematic is what type of knowledge we need to activate from the stock of information we have in 

mind. Based on our analysis of the selected examples, the activation of the required types of knowledge 

should be based on our need for what type of information to understand what is left unclear. In other 

words, to communicate the un-said, we need to start from what is said, determine what the speaker 

might hide, and decide what knowledge we can activate. Following these three steps, we succeeded to 

work out the deceptive nature of the speakers’ justification to act and to make clear the logical reasons 

that could be the real explanation for their insistence on the need to act. Also, this logical reasoning 

enabled us to make clear how the US leaders manipulate universal values to serve their political 

interests. Hence, the examination of how knowledge’s manipulated in the production of discourse is 

crucial for the comprehension of discourse. However, the activation of the required knowledge to 

unveil the hidden remains central for over-interpretation.  

The issue of over-interpretation is something we paid attention to while activating any sort of the 

knowledge we have to communicate the un-said. The fear we have about the possibility to fall in the 

realm of over-interpretation is the main result of the fuzziness of borders between both interpretation 

and over-interpretation. To make clear that we are away from the over-interpretation of each of the 

above examples, each time we question whether what we activate as knowledge leads to the production 

of worthwhile interpretations or not. Our questioning of this fact led to the citing and explanation of the 

logical reasons which can justify that our activation of a given contextual model will not lead to the 

production of over-interpretations. The examination of the cited reasons showed that what makes the 

activation of a given type of knowledge away from over-interpretation is the fact of being shared by the 

world community. In other words, any information that we might activate to understand a given 

discourse should be widely recognized as a shared knowledge. By highlighting the need of being 

shared, we offered a good advice on how to use the knowledge we have to communicate what is left 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

121 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

silent by the users of language.  

To recapitulate, apart from affecting discourse production and analysis, the use of knowledge is proved 

to be affected by such factors at the level of both processes. These factors include examples like context, 

persuasion, goals, etc. Thus, to have the knowledge we activate serve to demystify what the speakers 

mystified, we should be aware about how these factors affect the speakers’ argument for action. Having 

this in mind, it was easier for us to select the appropriate knowledge to activate while seeking to work 

out the speakers’ hidden ideologies. The discussion of how to make of the activated knowledge serves 

the positive interpretation of the above examples revealed that the wider the community who share that 

knowledge is, the more valid the interpretation will be. So, the activation of a given knowledge should 

have the (+ logic) value to be fruitful for escaping the possibility to be in the realm of biases.  

 

5. Concluding Remarks  

This paper offered a multi-disciplinary discussion to the importance of the use of out-side-text 

knowledge in the analysis and comprehension of discourse. This discussion has led to the formulation 

of some important conclusions: some are theoretical and others are practical. 

At the theoretical level, we noticed that the activation of the knowledge we have in the analysis of a 

given piece of discourse should be monitored by several rules. First, priority should be given to 

reasoning. Our activation of any type of the knowledge we have should be based on what we need as 

information to allow our reasoning to progress while seeking for the resolution of a given problem. 

Second, the activation of any type of knowledge from the models we have in mind depends on the 

nature of the knowledge activated by language users. Here, we need to work out the meaning expressed 

by the linguistics of the text, to determine what the speaker hides as meaning, and to decide what type 

of knowledge to activate to communicate the un-said. Third, the fact of activating any type of 

knowledge should adhere to the logic of critique. We need to question whether what we activated as 

knowledge can serve for the production of a worthwhile interpretation or not. Fourth, the knowledge to 

be activated to demystify what the users of language mystified should be shared by the world 

community and not a personal one. We need to activate only shared knowledge to avoid falling in the 

realm of biases. Fifth, we need to make clear distinction between what we have as knowledge and our 

personal attitudes towards a given issue. This distinction is required in that our activation of attitudes 

instead of knowledge will led to the production of subjective instead of objective interpretations. 

Finally, discourse should be viewed as a kind of problem solving where the knowledge we have should 

be considered as the known part of the problem that we can use to reason while seeking to bring to light 

the un-known.  

At the practical level, we noticed that the speakers activated only the knowledge that can serve for the 

progress of their arguments. However, they left non-active what cannot help them justify their plans to 

act in a given context. Our activation of the knowledge we have about their context of speaking 

revealed that there exist two kinds of realities: the rhetorical and the social. While the rhetorical reality 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

122 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

is the one that the speakers created to prove the legitimacy of their claims, the social reality is the one 

that shapes the logical reasons that push the speakers to act. The speakers hid the social reality in order 

to hide the political goals standing behind their claims for action and to highlight the humanitarian 

values they defend. The activation of the knowledge we have served also to reveal that the speakers 

manipulate the knowledge they have in mind depending on the goals they seek to achieve. In other, 

words the activation of any type of knowledge in discourse production and analysis is monitored by the 

logic of serving such goals instead of others. Our critique of how to avoid over-interpreting a text 

highlighted that the separation between interpretation and over-interpretation remains a matter of 

critique. In other words, we need to question each time whether the activated knowledge could lead to 

the production of over-interpretation or not. Our practice, of the logic of this critique revealed that to be 

away from over-interpreting a text we need to active only what is shared by the large world community. 

In brief, the activation of out-side-text knowledge is crucial to communicate the un-said. However, the 

practice of this discipline should be grounded in the logic of critique to avoid being subjective. 

Having these two sorts of conclusions in mind, this paper brought valuable contributions to the 

disciplines interested in the study of language in use. It offered its readers a good idea about how to 

explore their knowledge of the world to understand what they hear and read in their everyday life. Also, 

it offered researchers a well-established theoretical approach that they can use to explore the 

knowledge they have in mind while seeking to communicate the un-said. Though important these 

contributions are, this paper left the doors open for more research on how to explore out-side-text 

knowledge to reveal deception and to communicate what the users of language left silent.  

 

References  

Ariel, M. (2009). Discourse, Grammar, Discourse. Discourse Studies, 11(5), 5-36. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445608098496 

Armstrong, D. M. (1973). Belief, Truth and Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511570827 

Chilton, P. (2005). Missing links in Mainstream CDA: Modules, Blends and the Critical Instinct. In R. 

Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A New Research Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, 

Methodology and Interdisciplinary (pp. 19-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 

https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.05chi 

Eco, U. (1990). Interpretation and Over interpretation: World, History, Texts. The Tanner Lectures on 

Human Values. Clare Hall, Cambridge University. Retrieved from 

https://tannerlectures.utah.edu/_documents/a-to-z/e/Eco_91.pdf 

Fairclough, N. (1995a). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: 

Longman. 

Fairclough, N. (1995b). Critical Discourse Analysis: Papers in the Critical Study of Language. London: 

Longman.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

123 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Freud, S. (1989). Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis. New York, NY: Liveright Publishing 

Cooperation.  

Hassen, R. (2015). Discourse as Medium of Knowledge: Transmission of Knowledge by Transmission 

of Discourse People Live. Journal of Education and Practice, 6(31), 119-128.  

Killer, R. (2005). Analysing Discourse: An approach from the Sociology of Knowledge. From 

Qualitative Research, 6(3), 223-242.  

Kintesh, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York, US: 

Academic Press. 

Lazar, M. M. (2005). Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Macmillan. 

https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230599901 

Martin, J. R. (2000). Close reading: Functional Linguistics as a Tool in Critical Discourse Analysis. In 

L. Unsworth (Ed.), Researching Language in Schools and Communities: Functional Linguistics 

Approaches (pp. 275-303). London: Cassell.  

Preyer, D., & Peter, G. (Eds.). (2005). Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning and Truth. 

Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press and Clarendon Press.  

Pritchard, D. (2014). What Is the Thing Called Knowledge? (3rd ed.). London and New York: 

Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315889443 

Tulving, E. (1972). Episodic and Semantic Memory. In E. Tulving, & W. Donaldson (Eds.), 

Organization of Memory. New York, US: Academic Press.  

Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. In Discourse and Society (Vol. 4, No. 

2, pp. 249-283). London, Newbury Park and New Delhi: Sage. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 

Van Dijk, T. A. (1999). Context Models in Discourse Processing. In H. Van, Oostendorp, & S. R. 

Goldman (Eds.), The Construction of Mental Representations during Reading (pp. 123-148). 

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  

Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). The Discourse-Knowledge Interface. In G. Weiss, & R. Wodak (Eds.), Critical 

Discourse Analysis. Theory and Interdisciplinarity (pp. 85-109). Houndsmills: 

Palgrave-MacMillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230288423_5 

Van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Contextual Knowledge Management in Discourse Production: A CDA 

Perspective. In R. Wodak, & P. Chilton (Eds.), A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis (pp. 

71-100). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Ben Jamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.13.07dij 

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse, Context and Cognition. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159-177. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565 

Van Dijk, T. A. (2007). Comments on Context and Conversation. In N. Fairclough, G. Cortese, & P. 

Ardizzone (Eds.), Discourse and Contemporary Social Change (pp. 281-316). Bern: Peter Lang.  

Van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Text, Context and Knowledge (Unpublished Paper). Retrieved from 

http://www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Text,%20Context% 20and%20Knowledge.pdf  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/assc                 Advances in Social Science and Culture               Vol. 1, No. 2, 2019 

124 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Van Dijk, T. A. (2014). Discourse and Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404