The essays “The curious grammar of police shooting” and “From Ancient Greece to Iraq: The power of words in wartime” have various developments on language use among security officials on different missions. The common message in each essay is on language use among security personnel. This paper looks at how each of the essays presents how the common language use greatly influences and impacts the behavior and actions of the security personnel on their various missions.
The essay “The curious grammar of police shooting” gives the message on the language use among security officers. It also informs our understanding of other essays based on the author’s response. The usage of passive voice in admitting of wrongdoings has turned out as common. One would often observe similar grammatical devices when police officers shoot individuals. The policy agency communications officers are often deft at the contorting of English language as a way of minimizing the culpability of the officers. It is also a method used by many police departments to describe shootings without assignment of responsibilities.
The essay “From Ancient Greece to Iraq: The power of words in wartime” gives a message on the impact of language use during the war. American soldiers referred the Iraqi prisoner as ”it.” Generals also never spoke about ”Iraqi fighters” but referred to them as ”the enemy.” The weapon manufacturers didnot talk about the people but referred to them as ‘‘targets.” These types of words also play a part as war tools on top of bombs and bullets and bombs are not the only war tools. Despite the fact that human beings are social and are genetically wired with feelings of compassion toward each other, in war, any military recruit is often persuaded that the killing of people is honorable. This essay also informs our understanding of other essays based on the authors’ response. The war language is intended to influence change among the combatants and noncombatants for them to see other sides as killable, as ways of overcoming natural queasiness on taking away human life. The Soldiers and those remaining at home make reference to their enemies in ways making them to seem less human, inferior and contemptible. The names are meant to be demeaning and give a sense of control and superiority.For instance, the American soldiers were also trained to refer to those they fought against as ”the enemy.” The uncertainties of war and the terrors made learning the kinds of languages compelling for any soldier on the front. The language created a psychological chasm between them andenabled American troops to start the killing in battle, and made the enemy soldiers to fit as torture and humiliation subjects.
The two essays intersect in their message themes on the impact of language use during various security operations.For instance, in “From Ancient Greece to Iraq: The power of words in wartime” the American soldiers reference to Iraqi prisoners as ”it.” In “The curious grammar of police shooting” the passive voice usage in admissions of wrongdoings had become very common to the extent of being referred to as “past exonerative” tense. On the contrary, the two essays diverged at the points where each continued to demonstrate different viewpoints on their particular messages.For instance, the first essay dwelt more on the policemen and the policy agencies while the second essay continued to look at the American soldier’s language influences at their various wars.