Masaryk University
Faculty of Education Department of English Language and Literature
Persuasive strategies in political speeches: A contrastive analysis of Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's electoral speeches
Diploma Thesis
Brno 2021
Supervisor: Author: doc. Mgr. Martin Adam, Ph.D. Bc. Jana Veselá, DiS.
I hereby declare that I have worked on this thesis independently and that I have used only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.
Kroměříž, 5th April 2021 Jana Veselá
Acknowledgement
In this place I would like to express gratitude and thank my supervisor doc. Mgr. Martin Adam, Ph.D., for his guidance, valuable advice, helpful criticism, endless patience.
Abstract
This thesis presents a contrastive discourse analysis of Barack Obama's and
Donald Trump's political electoral speeches with a focus on persuasive strategies.
It provides a theoretical background for the analytical part dealing with basic concepts of political discourse and persuasion. The main aim of the thesis is to analyse collected electoral speeches with a focus on selected persuasive strategies on the basis of their relation to the three Aristotelian types of appeal to the audience, to observe differences in persuasive techniques between the 44th president and 45th president of the USA, and to determine the impact of the analysed strategies on a persuasive potential of the political speeches.
Key words: discourse analysis, political discourse, communication in politics, electoral speeches, Barack Obama's political speeches, Donald Trump's political speeches, persuasion, persuasive strategies, logos, ethos, pathos, political campaigns
Anotace
Tato práce představuje srovnávací diskurzní analýzu politických volebních proslovů Baracka Obamy a Donalda Trumpa se zaměřením na persvazivní strategie.
Poskytuje teoretický podklad pro analytickou část práce zabývající se základními koncepty politického diskurzu a persvaze. Hlavním cílem práce je analyzovat sesbírané politické proslovy se zaměřením na vybrané persvazivní strategie na základě jejich vztahu ke třem aristotelovským typům apelu k publiku, pozorovat rozdíly co se týče persvazivních technik mezi 44. a 45. prezidentem Spojených států amerických a stanovit dopad analyzovaných strategií na persvazivní potenciál daných politických proslovů.
Klíčová slova: diskurzní analýza, politický diskurz, politická komunikace, volební proslovy, politické proslovy Baracka Obamy, politické proslovy Donalda
Trumpa, persvaze, persvazivní strategie, logos, étos, patos, politická kampaň
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasm, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt
Table of Contents
Introduction ...... 9 Theoretical part ...... 12 1. Persuasion ...... 12 2. Rhetoric and Aristotle ...... 15 2.1 Three types of persuasive speeches ...... 16 3. Persuasion in politics ...... 17 4. Persuasive strategies ...... 21 4.1 Intertextuality ...... 25 4.2 Figurative language ...... 27 4.3 Sharing the personal experience ...... 30 4.4 Direct appeal to the audience ...... 30 4.5 Speech acts ...... 31 5. Summary ...... 33 Practical part ...... 34 6. Methodology ...... 34 7. Logos ...... 35 7.1 Intertextuality ...... 35 7.1.1 Intertextuality in Barack Obama's speeches ...... 40 7.1.2 Intertextuality in Donald Trump's speeches ...... 46 7.1.3 Results ...... 51 7.2 Figurative language ...... 53 7.2.1 Figurative language in Barack Obama's speeches ...... 53 7.2.2 Figurative language in Donald Trump's speeches ...... 62 7.2.3 Results ...... 67 8. Ethos ...... 70 8.1 Sharing the personal politician's experience ...... 70 8.1.1 Barack Obama's personal experience in his speeches ...... 71 8.1.2 Donald Trump's personal experience in his speeches ...... 75 8.1.3 Results ...... 80 9. Pathos ...... 82 9.1 Direct appeal to the audience ...... 82
9.1.1 Barack Obama's direct appeal in his speeches ...... 83 9.1.2 Donald Trump's direct appeal in his speeches ...... 86 9.1.3 Results ...... 89 9.2 Speech acts ...... 90 9.2.1 Speech acts in Barack Obama's speeches ...... 91 9.2.2 Speech acts in Donald Trump's speeches ...... 95 9.2.3 Results ...... 99 Conclusion ...... 102 Bibliography ...... 106 Appendices ...... 112
Introduction
This thesis investigates Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's political electoral speeches using a contrastive analysis with a focus on persuasive strategies according to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian concepts logos, ethos, and pathos. Politics creates an important part of everybody's life and the political rhetoric has been taught since the time of Aristotle who mastered oratory and rhetorical skills of his followers.
Aristotle himself considered the art of persuasion as the key for the politics.
Thus, rhetoric has become a part of classical education for thousands of years.
Furthermore, politicians themselves use persuasive techniques that convince citizens to vote them or to sign a petition to change a law.
I have decided to study this topic because I would like to examine how persuasion works and because I am interested in politicians' tactics based on the logical arguments that are influenced on psychological approach to gain the desired behaviour from the audience. The sphere of my interest is the candidacy for the president of the United States in particular. Therefore, for the purpose of this thesis I have chosen two politicians that were presidential candidates and after their incumbent periods they endeavoured to have their mandate extended.
By the way, the interest in the persuasion in the political field concerns me for the same reason as Halmari and Virtanen (2005) declare that persuasion creates
“such an integral part of human interaction that learning to understand it better will always be meaningful and learning about persuasion is learning more about human nature” (Halmari & Virtanen, 2005, p. 4). Hence, understanding of the human nature of the both politicians via their political speeches whose aim is to persuade the electors to vote exactly them on the post of the president of the USA. As we know, there are many different kinds of political speeches and the persuasive strategies can be found in the numerous subgenres of political speeches varying according
9
to the goal of the speaker, the audience, and the topic. I will focus on the presidential speeches.
Then, I would like to scrutinize the skills of the appeal of the candidates striving for the presidency and what kind of persuasive strategies are typical for both of them.
In this thesis I will put under the linguistic microscope political speeches and especially presidential speeches of Barack Obama and Donald Trump to discover their verbal games and examine the influence of their words as politicians on the voters and supporters from the perspectives of their persuasive potentials.
In addition, I would underline that the analysis of political discourse has its roots in the classical Greco-Roman traditions of rhetoric where to be a good speaker was almost a duty of the citizen and nothing has changed so far. Nowadays, politicians in the role of successful orators are those whose speeches are balanced according to Aristotelian concept of logos, ethos and pathos. And the aim of the thesis is to analyse the differences and similarities in the individual persuasive methods that use persuasion by reason, by character, and by emotions.
The electoral speeches to be analysed and compared have been collected from various websites commonly accessible to any reader. The corpora of electoral speeches consist of 15 Barack Obama's speeches and 15 of Donald Trump's speeches, which were written for the purpose of presidential elections in American English and performed in front of an authentic American audience. These features make that the vocabulary and topic is unified for the cohesive analysis. Moreover, both of the candidates were nominated for the presidency and both of them were also incumbents seeking another term in office. The thesis will not analyse current politics of the United States. I will look at the political speeches only from the linguistic perspective and from the point of their persuasiveness.
The thesis is divided into two main parts: theoretical and practical.
In view of the fact, that the topic of the thesis – persuasive strategies in political speeches according to the Aristotelian notions of logos, ethos and pathos is extensive,
10
I have chosen only a set of phenomena to be discussed in the theoretical part and reconsidered in the practical part. To point out, I will do not deal with logos, ethos and pathos fully in my thesis, all their nuances and possible realisations. I will deal only with a selection of features for these three appeals to audience. For logos or logical appeal I will choose for analysis intertextuality and figurative language in the form of conceptual metaphors whose features politicians use to influence listeners with proofs. For ethos or ethical appeal I will study the opinions, attitudes and experiences shared in stories of both politicians. The last concept of the emotional appeal or pathos will be investigated on direct appeals to the audience and via speech acts, specifically on interrogative, imperative and exclamatory speech acts.
The first chapter of the theoretical part gives an introduction to the persuasion.
The second chapter presents rhetoric by Aristotle and as a subchapter I describe three types of persuasive speeches. In the chapter three I am focused on the persuasion in politics. The last, but not the least chapter is the core chapter of this thesis which investigates the persuasive strategies such as intertextuality, figurative language, sharing the personal experience, direct appeal to the audience, and speech acts used for the analysis in the practical part.
The practical part reveals data from the corpus of 15 speeches per each politician.
On the basic of comparison of individual features typical for every appeal I will identify the similar and distinctive markers with accompanied representative examples which will be categorized according to the features and interpreted. The results of the persuasive strategies of the both candidates for the presidency who have known the victory but also the defeat will be scrutinized in the last chapter. And as Theodore
Roosevelt said “no effort without error and shortcoming is possible”, so this thesis will evaluate if the persuasive strategies will have accomplished their persuasive potentials and if the presidential political speeches are balanced with logos, ethos and pathos, or if not, what appeal plays the most important role.
11
Theoretical part
1. Persuasion
This chapter uncovers persuasion which is an activity that is used all the time in our daily life when we try to change someone's mind. Perloff (2003) defines the persuasion as “the study of attitudes and how to change them” (p. 4) and he declares that the process of persuasion itself is based on “the persuader's awareness to influence someone else and change the persuadee's mind about something on conscious or unconscious decision” (p. 7). Thus, being persuaded covers situations in which “behaviour has been modified by symbolic transactions
(messages) that are sometimes, but not always, linked with coercive force (indirectly coercive) and that appeal to the reason and emotions of the person(s) being persuaded”
(Miller, 2013, p. 73). Similarly, also politicians use persuasion for their purposes.
Especially, they are interested in changing the minds of the citizens about who to vote for. The interest of the thesis is to examine persuasive strategies according to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian concepts logos, ethos, and pathos and therefore the attempts of Barack Obama and Donald Trump to influence opinions towards policy issues.
Perloff (2003) summarizes the persuasion as “a symbolic process in which communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behaviour regarding an issue through the transmission of a message, in an atmosphere of free choice” (p. 8). There are some features that should be taken into account as time, an active involvement of the recipient of the message as well as that not every persuasion finishes successfully. People persuade themselves to change attitudes after providing the arguments by communicators and the persuadee has still a free choice to do something else than what the persuader suggests.
On the other hand, it is suggested that we should distinguish between convincing
12
and persuading. As Miller (2013) emphasizes that persuasion “relies primarily on symbolic strategies that trigger the emotions of intended persuades, while conviction is accomplished primarily by using strategies rooted in logical proof and that appeal to persuadees' reason and intellect” (p. 72).
The persuasion has positive and negative sides. It can be used by good people to implement change of by people with bad intentions to cause harm. To be truth, individuals are induced to abandon a set of behaviours or to adopt other behaviour by different processes that Miller (2013) classifies into: “(1) response shaping process – to shape people's opinions, (2) response-reinforcing process – aims at reinforcing currently held convictions and make them more resistant to change, and (3) response-changing process – changing the attitudes” (p. 74-76).
The debates about how to define persuasion have lasted for centuries because it was ancient Greeks who invented persuasion but the base is found in the Old Testament in Jeremiah's attempts to convince his people to repent and establish a personal relationship with God, or in period of Sophist philosophers known for their art of political eloquence. Sophists trained people in quick and stylish arguments but they did not fight for the truth. Since then there are dual approaches to thinking about persuasion – Platonic thinking and Sophist approach (Perloff, 2003, p. 21).
However, Plato accused the sophists of teaching students to flatter and pander to their audiences, false pretences of knowledge, fallacious arguments, demagoguery, and a ready substitution of appearance for reality (ibid.). The best from both approaches Aristotle used for his theory and confirmed that the truth was important as well as persuasive communication. The main idea of Aristotle was that rhetoric was viewed “as a science whose subject is to discover scientific principles of persuasion and that the aim of the rhetoric was to convince an audience to make the best decision about the matter” and that the persuasion “has to be composed of three parts: ethos – the nature of the communicator, pathos – emotional state of the audience,
13
and logos – message arguments” (Perloff, 2003, p. 22). On the contrary, Cicero in his treatise on The Art of Oratory emphasized the power of emotional appeals
(ibid.). As Hogan (2013) describes, the Romans praised as an ideal orator someone, who was not merely one with “exceptional gifts of speech,” but also a “good man” with “all the excellences of character” (p. 5).
British and American rhetoricians of the 18th and 19th centuries shifted the emphasis in rhetorical theory from persuasion to aesthetic, literary, and performative dimensions of discourse, although the classical tradition was never supplanted entirely by the modern or new rhetoric of the 18th and 19th centuries (Hogan, 2013, p. 6-7). The USA of the 18th and 19th centuries took part in persuasion with the Declaration of Independence, Frederick Douglass's, or W. E. B. DuBois's speeches supporting
African Americans, and that is why the period of American Revolution is called as “a golden age of American oratory with its typical populist style of political speech ultimately degenerated into demagoguery and war with statesmen expected to have classical rhetorical education and be orators whose debates showed limits to reason, compromise, and democratic persuasion” (Hogan, 2013, p. 10). Lincoln reasoned with his audiences, “engaging them on complex issues and employing archaic language, biblical imagery, and rhythmic cadences in service of lofty ideals, his speeches soared with the eloquence of great literary works, but often fell on deaf ears, however, they live on today as touchstones of democratic eloquence” (Hogan, 2013, p. 13).
Hogan (2013) confirms that the study of persuasion has a long history in the rhetorical tradition with today's need to revive the spirit of that classical tradition and emphasis on the responsibilities of citizenship and the ethics of speech (p. 15).
The new trend of healthy politics of persuasion was established by Garsten
(2006) who sees in the healthy politics of persuasion that “reasoned argument prevails over appeals to fears or prejudices, that diverse perspectives and opinions are encouraged and respected” (p. 14). In a healthy politics of persuasion
14
“public advocates aspire neither to manipulate nor to pander to public opinion, and those who refuse to deliberate in good faith are relegated to the fringes, citizens are educated to listen carefully, think critically, and communicate responsibly, they have a sense of civic duty, but they also choose to participate because they know their voice matters” (ibid.). Moreover, as Perloff (2003) claims “those persuaders who advance their claims in ethical ways deserve our respect” (p. 29).
2. Rhetoric and Aristotle
Initially, for an ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle rhetoric was “a practical discipline that aims, not at producing a work of art, but at exerting through speech a persuasive action on an audience” and he considered rhetoric to be “the very art of politics” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 409). Aristotle in his Art of Rhetoric describes the rhetorical appeals logos, ethos and pathos and he sees rhetoric as “a counterpart or a branch of dialectic dealing with arguments which do not presuppose the knowledge of any particular science but can be used and followed by any intelligent man”
(Ross, 1995, p. 172).
In the fourth century B. C., Aristotle outlines three critical modes of persuasion: “the first depending on the character of the speaker, the second kind on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind, and only the third kind being that of providing proof, or more precisely, the apparent proof conveyed by the words of the speech itself” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 409). In the other words, the modes of persuasion are called as rhetorical triangle: logos, ethos, pathos and are the foundation of persuasion. Hence, rhetoric is “the power to see the possible ways of persuading people about given subject” and there are two kinds of persuasion types: “the extra-technical which already exist and have only to be used
15
(such as witnesses, the torture, documentary evidence), and the technical, which have to be invented by the speaker” (Ross, 1995, p. 172).
It is considered that if the speaker uses all three appeals in a well-balanced way he can establish trust with the audience easily. Aristotle himself characterizes persuasion as ”a feat that can be achieved when the speaker's personal character is in accordance with the way the speech is spoken” and “the audience is prone to grant him credibility” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 409). In essence, Aristotle sums up three prerequisites for making the persuasion effective. The speaker has to be able
(1) to reason logically - logos, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their various forms - ethos, and (3) to understand emotions – pathos. However, the speaker has to be able not only to name and describe them, but to derive their causes and the ways in which they can be excited.
Taken as a whole, rhetoric is a mixture both of dialectic and ethical studies and as Wróbel (2015) claims rhetoric is in the service of politics (p. 409).
Thus, “emphasizing moral character as a key element in persuasion and celebrating reasoned argument over appeals to the emotions, Aristotle's rhetoric was hardly morally neutral” (Hogan, 2013, p. 4).
2.1 Three types of persuasive speeches
According to Aristotle there are three divisions of oratory: (1) political,
(2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display, while political speaking urges to either do or not to do something, forensic speaking is either to attack or to defend a person and in the case of the ceremonial oratory the speaker praises or censures somebody (Wróbel, 2015, p. 414). Regardless of the division of the oratory, modern political speeches follow the Aristotle's rule that the “essence of political speech
16
is to arouse in the audience a disposal to do or not to do something” (Wróbel,
2015, p. 414).
Langston (2016) explains that “the forensic or judicial rhetoric establishes facts and judgements about the past, similar to detectives at a crime scene.
Epideictic rhetoric sometimes called demonstrative or ceremonial rhetoric is used to make a proclamation about the present situation. And for symbouleutikon or deliberative rhetoric it is typical the way to accomplish the change with focusing on the future. It is the rhetoric of politicians” (retrieved from TED-ed. online).
In that way they debate the law change and they present their audience a possible future by enlisting their help in avoiding or achieving it. To be the deliberative rhetoric functional the politicians have to follow the three persuasive appeals: ethos, pathos and logos.
3. Persuasion in politics
The language of politics is connected with persuasion. Halmari and Virtanen
(2005) see the strong side of the persuasion “in all linguistic behaviour that attempts to either change the thinking or behaviour of an audience, or to strengthen its beliefs”
(Halmari & Virtanen, 2005, p. 3). Besides, politics has always been about persuasion and persuasion played an increasing role in 19th century American presidential election campaigns from Jackson to McKinley and in the 20th century American politics, persuasion became synonymous in the public mind (Dillard, 2013, p. 258).
Analysing political discourse is a must for anyone interested in the way language is used in the world of politics invoking Aristotle's idea that “we are all political animals, able to use language to pursue our own ends”
(Chilton, 2004, p. i). As Benoit (2014) declares there are three functions of discourse
17
that provide voters a reason to vote for a candidate or against an opponent: (1) acclaims which stress a candidate's benefits and increase a candidate's perceived preferability,
(2) attacks which stress opponent's undesirable attributes, and (3) defenses which help the candidate to minimize the loss of the voters' preferability (Benoit, 2014, p. 18).
Partially as well as Chilton (2004) considers politics as “a struggle for power, between those who seek to assert and maintain their power and those who seek to resist it, but on the other hand, as a cooperation, as the practices and institutions that a society has for resolving clashes of interest over money, influence, liberty, and the like” (p. 3). As Chilton adds some states are based on struggles for power but it is disputable whether democracies are essentially so constituted.
Hague (1998) points out that “politics involves reconciling through discussion and persuasion so communication is said to be the central to politics” (Chilton, 2004,
p. 3). Aristotle defined a political speech “as an encouragement and incentive to do something or not to do something” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 417). Moreover, language and politics are intimately linked at a fundamental level. In Aristotle's definition of humans are humans classified as “creatures whose nature is to live in a polis and who have the capacity for speech and are nicknamed as political animals – politikon zoon” (Chilton, 2004, p. 5). Firstly, Aristotle was convinced that the language had evolved to perform social functions that would in fact correspond to what we understand as “political” (Chilton, p. 6). Secondly, politicians themselves recognize the role of language because its use has effects, and because politics is very largely the use of language (Chilton, 2004, p. 13).
In fact, political discourse involves the promotion of representations, and pervasive features of representation. It is the necessary for political speakers to imbue their utterances with the evidence, authority and truth. This process is referred to in broad terms, in the context of political discourse, as “legitimisation”.
Human minds possess an innate “cheater detection” ability and the task of political
18
speakers is that they have to guard against the operation of their audience's “cheater detectors” and provide guarantees for the truth of their sayings (Chilton, p. 23).
Needless to say, political communication is not aimless and is established on the presentation of the reasonable arguments. A politician while presenting his speech ought to follow Grice's “cooperative principle” which outline that communication involves four types of “maxim”: “(1) maxim of quantity – where the speaker is asked to make his contribution as informative as it is required, and not to make the contribution more informative than is required,
(2) maxim of quality which contains supermaxim – if the speaker makes his contribution one that is true, and specific maxim which advises not to say what the speaker believes to be false and not to say that for which he lacks adequate evidence, (3) maxim of relation – the speaker has to be relevant, and (4) maxim of manner whose supermaxim concerns to be perspicuous and whose specific maxims involve avoidance of obscurity of expression, ambiguity, that the speaker has to be brief and orderly” (Yule, 1996, p. 37). In principle, politicians violate the maxims
“either overtly, as in refusing to give information, or by covertly attempting to circumvent the hearer´s cheater detection, by telling a half-truth or the opposite of the truth and calculating that one will not be found out” (Chilton, 2004, p. 35).
Halmari and Virtanen (2005) define persuasion as “those linguistic choices that aim at changing or affecting the behaviour of others or strengthening the existing beliefs and behaviours of those who already agree, the beliefs and behaviours of persuaders included” (Halmari, Virtanen, 2005, p. 5).
In the political discourse “the speakers share the ethos of the organisation to which they belong,” however, “there are times in politics when speakers clearly do not share the ethos of the organisation of which they are members” (Browse,
2018, p. 39). Very often it happens when the politician “defends his own ethical standing or wants to attack other discourse participants” (Browse, 2018, p. 57).
19
As it was discussed in the previous chapter the three-dimensional model of political discourse based on the classical rhetorical appeals to ethos, logos and pathos is considered to be one that works. Browse (2018) insists that the political discourse is “emotional, visceral even, and that the speaker's responses to political discourse are embodied in the sense that the knowledge brought to the discourse event is produced by our experience and interaction with the world around us, but our reactions are often more directly embodied” (p. 209).
Perloff (2013) declares that political persuasion occurs on different levels: “(1) on the microlevel when a television commercial alters a voter's attitude,
(2) on the dyadic level showcasted by communication network effects on political deliberation, and (3) on the macrolevel exemplified by presidential speech effects on public opinion or multiple influences of primaries on the institutionalization of political consulting” (Dillard, 2013, p. 259-260). For the purpose of the thesis the political persuasion on the macrolevel will be analysed. Election campaigns are an essential element of the representative democracy. They represent “a means for politicians to connect with voters and for citizens or voters to learn about candidates who are seeking their votes” (Benoit, 2014, p. 1). The citizens and voters are exposed to presidential political campaigns where candidates discuss their issue positions, future plans, general goals that they lay out what they will do if elected, and make campaign promises.
W. Norwood Brigance, one of the pioneers of the American speech discipline concluded that if America hoped to remain a “government by talk,” it needed leaders who knew how to talk “effectively, intelligently, and responsibly,” as well as citizens trained to “listen and judge” (Hogan, 2013, p. 2).
The main aim of political debates is gaining a vote. Citizens choose on the basis of their own attitudes, values and the information they possess that appears relevant to them at that moment when they make their vote choice. The ultimate goal sought by candidates, which is winning the elections, is achieved by persuading enough voters
20
to believe that he or she is the better candidate in the election than the opponent.
Benoit (2014) summarizes five key axioms for gaining the votes: (1) voting is a comparative act – one candidate appears to be preferable, (2) candidates must distinguish themselves from opponents, (3) political campaign messages allow candidates to distinguish themselves and in the candidate's best interest is to present themselves in a favourable light and to portray the opponent in an unfavourable light, (4) candidates establish preferability through acclaiming, attacking, and defending – the distinction from the opponent has to appear in ways that most voters favour, and (5) campaign discourse occurs on two topics: policy and character and namely candidates try to persuade voters of their preferability on policy – what they do – and character – who they are (Benoit, 2014, p. 9-13, 19).
4. Persuasive strategies
In this chapter I will explain some persuasive strategies that speakers, in this case politicians might use for their persuasive speeches to persuade the audience. As it was said in the previous chapters, the persuasion “has to be composed of three parts: ethos
– the nature of the communicator, pathos – emotional state of the audience, and logos
– message arguments” (Perloff, 2003, p. 22). Furthermore, a persuasive speaker should always find the right balance between all three parts of the persuasion.
The first persuasive strategy is persuasion by reason. Aristotle defined it as logos. Logos is the proof or apparent proof which is provided by words.
Hence, logos is the persuasive technique whose main aim is to make the crowd/audience think by producing more compelling content that will convince.
It is recommended to use factual language and logically structured arguments and no logical fallacy in order to convince the audience. In logos part the orator uses
21
logic and reason. Thus, logos is called “the logical appeal” and the typical features of logos in a text are features of reasoned discourse using logical arguments, statistics, facts, numerical data, charts, surveys, results of tests, but also anecdotal evidence.
As Browse (2018) asserts it is important not to confuse an appeal to logos with a logical argument. In philosophical logic, “sound arguments are those that are based on a true set of premises and lead logically – and necessarily – to a valid conclusion and the argument structure – modus ponens represent a valid structure which is constructed like: If A, then B. – A – Therefore B” (p. 94). These argument structures Aristotle called syllogisms. Aristotle emphasizes that orators very rarely spell out the premises on which their appeals to logos are built, on the contrary to philosophers (Browse, 2018, p. 95). Another term that Aristotle uses for arguments from logos is an enthymeme which is an argument in which one premise is not explicitly stated (ibid.). While presenting the arguments, it is wise to use signpost words like first, next, consequently, as a result, to conclude. Speakers are supposed to convince the audience and as Browse (2018) confirms create valid arguments that stand or fall on the basis of their premises which “is some fact about the world – a proposition that is accepted as either true or false and is related to what is known about the world” (p. 95). The condition that every orator has to realize is that awareness of the audience is success guaranteed, plus usage of the facts in the way to influence the audience. Within the logos, the speaker can use these persuasive strategies to present logical argumentation: references to statistics, facts, other sources – intertextuality, exemplifications, cause-effect problem solution, comparative methods, etc.
Ethos appeals to character, convinces the audience by presenting reliability, honesty, and credibility. This appeal is “a form of argument based on the good character and authority of the speaker” that is why “for ancient scholars the best orators were necessarily the wisest and most ethical people” (Browse, 2018, p. 28). The audience sees the speaker as reliable and ethical when the speaker describes
22
his life experience relevant to his political program, when the orator presents himself as an expert or qualified and as someone with a strong moral character.
Benoit (2014) assumes that voters value honesty in a presidential candidate and candidates who persuade voters of their honesty will almost certainly enhance their perceived desirability as candidates (p. 13). Aristotle believed that “an orator to appeal via ethos has to possess three qualities: (1) phronesis – experience, (2) arete
– moral character, and (3) eunoia – correct and clean intentions towards the audience”
(Dlugan, 2010). All of them are necessary for impressing the audience and later influencing them. The main speaker's aim to appeal to the audience is to sound credible. Credibility is “one of the “Big 3” communicator factors, that is under the speaker's control during the presentation in Perloff's opinion”
(Dillard & Shen, 2013, p. 159). Hence, the speaker builds his speech on his authority that he proves with his title, trustworthiness – showing his no interest or gaining a personal benefit while the audience is in his favour, expertise, similarity – highlighting the common concerns. Sometimes politicians can use Ad Hominem arguments that are specified for their reasons of use. Ad Hominem arguments serve politicians “for attacking the opponent's character, not his opinion or position” and “with degrading the opponent's character the orator himself compels the audience to take orator's side” (Dlugan, 2010). Browse (2018) presents the second form of persuasive strategy called Ad Herrennium when “something honourable is under attack or when something discreditable is being defended” and recommends that “when the speaker pleads on behalf of a guilty party, rather than defend the discreditable actions, they should instead emphasise the otherwise good character of the defendant” (p. 29). Especially politicians while speaking on the stage have to be able to use some techniques to gain the attention, interest and mainly confidence of the audience. If the audience do not believe in speaker's credibility, morality and authority, then the conviction of the audience is unfeasible. The strategies by which the speaker builds his credibility, reliability, honesty and authority
23
are strategies depending on speaker´s narratives and sharing his personal experience, usage of personal pronouns reference, or by direct appeal to the audience.
Pathos appeals to emotions and its aim is to convince the audience by evoking an emotional response. It is said that emotions are “situated experiences that happen when we evaluate our surroundings in accordance with our preferences” (Browse,
2018, p. 155). The emotional response can be positive or negative and the speaker invokes the senses, memory, nostalgia, shared experience to appeal to the audience's emotions. The orator is supposed to “harness the feelings of the audience so as to move them to agreement” (Browse, 2018, 153). It is believed that unpleasant or negative emotions work, they connect. The emotional appeal goes straight for the audience's heart. Moreover, if the audience is emotionally stimulated well, then it is willing to accept orator's appeals and act in the way the orator prefers. So the orator's goal is to create a shared emotional experience with the audience. The orator can evoke “seven kinds of emotions that Aristotle put into these groups: (1) anger and calmness, (2) friendship and enmity,
(3) fear and confidence, (4) shame and shamelessness, (5) kindness and unkindness,
(6) pity and indignation, and (7) envy and emulation” (Dlugan, 2010).
To make emotions in the audience are not enough, there should be a connection with speech arguments. In other words, if the anger in the audience is created, the orator then is supposed to direct the anger at the opponent. This is the condition for making the audience willing to pay attention to the orator's ideas. The skilful orator is capable to change emotions in the audience, to feel the same emotions and make the audience to act. The emotions have to be in balance with the context of the speech.
Quintilian himself classified that without this appeal “everything else is bare and meagre, weak and unattractive” and he described this appeal as “the ability to emotionally move and audience – to lead them to whatever frame of mind”
(Browse, 2018, p. 153). To do so, the speaker uses humour, irony, or exaggerated irony – satire. He uses techniques where he can show his politeness, affects and express
24
his values. All the strategies are supposed to keep the rules of cohesive and coherent speech, use of different kinds of speech acts depending on the purpose of the speaker, and the lexis that is appropriate for the time, place and type of the audience.
Every mode of persuasion reinforces each other. They can be interlinked with each other. Practically, a statement can contain all three modes or just two, although “it has been argued that the most essential element of an effective speech is ethos, sincerity and belief” (Pattison, 2014, p. 82). Pattison followed the idea of Aristotle who himself considered the appeal of ethos as “one of the most effective persuasive weapons in the speaker's arsenal” and was persuaded that “without garnering the audience's good will, the speaker may not be taken seriously, or could even be ignored altogether” (Browse, 2018, p. 28).
The main problem of contemporary politics seems to Wróbel (2015) to be that it is rhetorical throughout, that happens only in speech and that speech is primarily concerned with pathos where it is the emotions of the audience that are addressed, not arguments, and where the art of persuasion narrows down to catering to these emotions (p. 409).
4.1 Intertextuality
Politicians aim at raising trustfulness of the speech and their support of their points of view by referring to other source because it is thought that citations from the precedent texts have much more authority. Therefore they use intertextuality as one of the persuasive strategies specialized in supporting the logical appeal or logos.
Except of the intertextuality, also figurative language represented by conceptual metaphors will be studied in the following subchapters as the instruments of influential strategies that help the persuader to find the supportive sources for logos.
25
Firstly, I will explain what intertextuality is and how it is linked with logos.
Intertextuality is perceived in two ways: “first, as our previous experience with other texts of a similar kind; second, as the way in which one text echoes or refers to another text” (Tárnyiková, 2002, p. 69). Any politician is obliged to follow historic, state, moral and ethical traditions and customs of the county and that is why the best way is to use reference to precedent texts called intertextuality. The intertextuality is manifested in citations, quotations, allusions, metaphors from the juridical, religious, and literary texts or ideas of the predecessors. Politicians use intertextuality to raise trustfulness of the speech, and their support of their point of view by referring to other sources because it is thought that the precedent texts have much more authority.
Intertextuality as our previous experience with other texts is linked with “pragmatic dimension in text production and perception and builds on the activation of our previous knowledge of particular text types” (ibid.).
Inter-textuality as “a reliance on other texts is associated with the notion of allusion, an allusion occurs if one text makes either explicit or implicit reference to another text”
(ibid.). Allusion creates a relation to a cultural tradition by placing a given text within the cultural framework and demands reader's or listener's ability to recognize it. There are various ways by which texts may allude to other texts: for instance through verbal reference, through names and characters or through choice of titles.
The second interpretation of the inter-textuality is organized in the way that from the source text is taken the quotation, or there is the reference to the previous text, or there is an echo in the text. Such a text is called pre-text while the text in which there is an echo of the pre-text, or a quotation from the pre-text is called an active text (Tárnyiková, 2002, p. 70).
The reference might be also in a form of evidence – factual assertions and quantitative data – can serve as an effective device in political persuasion.
Candidates use evidence to bolster arguments or serve as peripheral cues, although there is never a guarantee the evidence cited is factually correct (Dillard,
26
2013, p. 262). Regarding the persuasion, intertextual reference and evidence expressed by facts is classified as a means for supporting arguments of the politicians in the role of a persuader.
4.2 Figurative language
The other rhetorical tool that politicians use is figurative language. In contrast to intertextuality where politicians take their support for their logical arguments from the other texts and they refer to quotations of the other authorities, figurative language in the form of conceptual metaphors is linked to the modern interpretation of the current political situation. The importance of the metaphors is obvious during election campaigns when politicians describe the political issues and situation by means of figurative expressions. Their understanding lies on the correct interpretation of the voters so the understanding is conditioned socio-culturally. To tell the truth, there are a lot of categories of figurative language, but for the need of the thesis
I will focus only on conceptual metaphors and I will not discuss personification, similes, metonymy, and alliteration, etc.
Thus, this chapter will present communicative functions of the metaphor in a political discourse by using insights from Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT) which was outlined by Lakoff and Johnson in their book Metaphors We Live
By (Musolff, 2016, p. 3). Both of them claim metaphor to be a fundamental and persuasive element of human thinking. The first who outlined a theory of metaphor was Aristotle, although his notion of metaphor is much broader than the present-day metaphor. Aristotle defined metaphor “as just the transfer of a word” and a good metaphor “achieves clarity by putting thing before your eyes or making things vivid” (Leezenberg, 2001, p. 36). Lakoff is persuaded that “most people are profoundly influenced by metaphors that frame their decisions,
27
including those about party registration and voting” and that politicians are aware of “this human frailty and manipulate it to their advantage” (Parrott,
2009, p. 414). Likewise for Aristotle, “the main virtue of oratory prose is clarity or perspicuity, because its purpose is convincing the audience; for this reason, he considers it best to speak with a somewhat exotic or “foreign” air, while at the same time hiding the artifice” and in Aristotle's opinion this effect is possible to create by words that are “current, familiar or metaphorical” and in addition, a metaphor is not taken as a “deviation from regular usage” but he “explicitly claims that “everybody uses metaphors, current and familiar terms in conversations”
(Leezenberg, 2001, p. 39).
Perloff (2003) maintains that charismatic leaders, political activists, and presidents of the United States use metaphors as language intensifiers which goad an audience into changing its attitude towards the issue (p. 202). In the wake of CMT's rise another branch of applied linguistics named Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA) has started studying metaphors. As Charteris-Black confirms Critical Metaphor
Analysis (CMA) has become one of the main frameworks for analysing the persuasive effect of metaphor used to promote the ideological goals of the persuader (Pelclová,
Lu, 2018, p. 66). Political leaders communicate their values and norms to the country in order to persuade the citizens via a variety of linguistic and rhetorical means.
The metaphor to reach an impact has to comply with the condition that “the audience not only understand its figurative meaning and identify its target referent as intended by the speaker, but accept and believe it as a plausible and persuasive interpretation of the social reality” (Musolff, 2016, p. 4). Within CMA the definition of metaphor is as follows: “a linguistic device which can shape reality and frame it according to the persuader's goals, thus connecting their ideological agenda with the addressee's already deep-entrenched worldviews and beliefs on the basis of the pathos invoked by the culturally embedded meanings of the metaphors” (Pelclová, Lu, 2018, p. 66).
Especially in politics, metaphors are not only used to denote specific target concepts.
28
As Musolff (2016) claims “they have pragmatic “added value”, for example, to express an evaluation of the topic, to make an emotional and persuasive appeal, and/or to reassure the public that a perceived threat or problem fits into familiar experience patterns and can be dealt with by familiar problem-solving strategies” (p.4). Thus, the ability of the metaphor to highlight and hide various aspects of different concepts makes metaphors appealing for politicians.
In other words, politicians use metaphors as a persuasive device which helps them de-legitimize some political entities or legitimize their own political goals.
Moreover, metaphors serve for creating a political myth that is based on “a system of mental representations and processes of group members” called social cognition
(Pelclová, Lu, 2018, p. 68). And all of these myths represent legitimizing and de-legitimizing strategies employed by politicians as simplifications of their ideological goals. Typical vehicle for such myth creation is figurative language in which metaphor acts as the centrepiece. For the need of this thesis, the metaphors will be investigated in the part of logos because behind they present the ideological simplification which the speaker has to identified, thus he needs to use the reason and it is in fact the appeal to his reasoning.
There are two possible uses of metaphors as Pelclová (2018) proposes: (1) to link political allies and the in-group with concepts that the persuader perceives as positive or (2) to link political opponents and the out-group with concepts that the persuader perceives as negative (p. 69).
One of the main framework for analysing the persuasive effect of metaphor used to promote ideological goals of the persuader is Critical Metaphor Analysis
(Pelclová, Lu, 2018, p. 66) To sum up, the reason why politicians use metaphors in public communication is that metaphors “draw on the unconscious emotional associations of words and assumed values that are rooted in cultural and historical knowledge and for this reason they have potential as a high persuasive force and activate unconscious, often mythic, knowledge to influence our intellectual
29
and emotional responses by evaluating actions, actors and issues” (Browse,
2018, p. 160).
4.3 Sharing the personal experience
Perloff (2003) states that “narrative evidence is more compelling than statistics, vivid case histories evoke stronger mental images” (Perloff, 2003, p. 183).
As well as Pattison (2014) supports the statement that stories are a vital mechanism for persuasion when they are well conceived and delivered but speakers should not be overtly trying to persuade or strongly stating their opinions, because listeners then set up resistance in defence of their beliefs. In order to be most persuasive, stories must appear to be inviting, not coercive. They invite the reader or listener to suspend judgement, listen for their point or message, and then decide what measure of truth they contain (p. 67). As it is presented, the narrative evidence supports the ethical appeal – ethos and when stories are congruent with the listener's values and attitudes, then the credibility and attractiveness of the speaker is ensured.
Stories have an enormous persuasive potential because within them the speaker can show his sensitivity, sense of humour, his character, and moral values.
4.4 Direct appeal to the audience
Political communication is generally more persuasive when appeals are emotional rather than rational (Wirz, 2018, p. 1118). However, in the context of political speeches it is not completely true. In presidential speeches “the policy
30
is a more frequent topic because voters vote presidents who will run the government”
(Benoit, 2014, p. 21). The pathos's aim is to put the audience into a certain frame of mind and it is possible by means of persuasive strategies that are based on direct appeal to the audience, plus the use of speech acts. Politicians via direct appeal encourage the audience to be involved. The persuader has to be aware of how to make the emotions arise in the audience and also how to make the emotions calm.
4.5 Speech acts
As it was mentioned in the chapter called persuasion, the persuader's intention is to change the addressee's worldview or the understanding of a state of affairs.
Charteris-Black (2005) considers an act of persuasion as a speech act in which the persuader plays an active role and the addressee as a passive one
(p. 14-15). Alternatively, the politician acts as the persuader and his audience as the addressee.
Aristotle's rhetoric has today its counterpart in the theory of speech acts (Wróbel, 2015, p. 412). In the theory of speech acts that was invented by John L. Austin and John R. Searle “speaking a language is engaging in a highly complex rule-governed form of behaviour and to learn and master a language is inter alia to learn and to have mastered these rules. But the unit of linguistic communication is not, as generally has been supposed, the symbol, word or sentence, or even the token of symbols, words or sentences, but rather the production or issuance of the symbols or words or sentences in the performance of the speech act.
Speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving commands, asking questions, making promises, and so on” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 407).
31
Searle proposes five macro-classes of illocutionary act: representatives, directives, commissives, expressives and declarations. However, Willis points out that the border for only representatives or only directives is difficult to classify
(Coulthard, 1985, p. 25). Thus, Searle invented other category called rogatives to separate questioning items from directive ones (ibid.).
This thesis will investigate interrogative, imperative and exclamatory speech acts in the political speeches because they provoke emotions in the audience, so they deal with the pathos.
32
5. Summary
The theoretical part deals with Aristotle's rhetorical appeals that remain powerful means for politicians and orators of any kind to persuade the audience with their logical, emotional and ethical appeals. It is the source for the practical part where the analyses are found. The first chapter explain the problematics of persuasion, the second chapter focuses on the Aristotle's rhetoric. The third chapter deals with the topic of persuasion in the sphere of politics. In the fourth chapter, the individual appeal – logical, ethical and emotional are described with the particular persuasive strategies that support the appeals. The individual chapters present the pillars for the analyses in the practical part of the thesis.
33
Practical part
6. Methodology
The thesis is concerned with a contrastive analysis of presidential speeches which is aimed at persuasive strategies according to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian concepts logos, ethos, and pathos. Firstly, the compilation of corpora was needed.
The corpora involve 15 Barack Obama's speeches (number 15 is the goodbye speech) and 15 Donald Trump's speeches. The corpora are included in appendices and the political speeches are named as [oba-xx] for Barack Obama's political speeches and [tru-xx] for Donald Trump's political speeches. The political speeches are concerned with the topic of presidential elections because I was interested in making the analysis cohesive. For the analysis I chose the presidential speeches of the two American presidents whose presidential speeches led to the victory but also to the defeat and I chose the presidents from different political parties – the Democrats and the Republicans. The same topic of the presidential elections but of different political background will be suitable for comparison.
The presidential speeches were collected from various websites focusing on the rhetoric or politics but still available to any reader. The aim was to analyse contemporary presidential speeches of the 44th and 45th American president. The presidential speeches were pronounced in front of the audience of voters in different states.
To be precise, I will do not deal with logos, ethos and pathos fully in the practical part of the thesis, but only with a selection of features for these three appeals to audience. Within logos I will analyse intertextuality and figurative language in the form of conceptual metaphors whose features politicians use to influence listeners with proofs. Within ethos I will study the opinions, attitudes and experiences shared in stories of both politicians. The last concept pathos will be investigated
34
on direct appeals to the audience and via speech acts, specifically on interrogative, imperative and exclamatory speech acts.
7. Logos
As I mentioned in the theoretical part in Aristotelian triangle logos is concerned on the rationality and logic of the audience. The politicians who are interested in altering the attitude of the audience have to support their perseverance with cogent facts. As a means for establishing the logos appeal in political speeches I will analyse it via intertextuality and figurative language. Politicians persuade their audience by statements/arguments which contain facts from their life, the world and they present these examples. They appeal to the audience for making them support, or think and that is why they present facts (also historical), numerical evidence. Politicians present data to show to their voters or citizens that they fulfilled the tasks of their political program or that they managed to change a law or contract.
The main misleading action of politicians is that they suppose using smart words, long phrases, technical terms they think they help them to be credible.
Politicians exaggerate with facts and figures to convince the audience and they veer to the manipulation with false information that the audience think is true.
7.1 Intertextuality
Politicians use intertextuality, or reference to other sources as a part of their speeches because they intend to influence their listeners with proofs that are part of the history, literature, laws, evidence and so on. In this chapter,
I will analyse the common intertextual features that appear the corpora of Barack
35
Obama and Donald Trump. Then, I will dedicate two subchapters for dealing with the differences of promoting intertextuality in the speeches of Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
The analysis of intertextuality in the corpora of political speeches of Barack
Obama and Donald Trump reveals that politicians refer to the Bible and to the God as Almighty Creator. Essentially, political speeches are not religious texts so the reference to spiritual entity is taken as a crucial part of intertextuality.
The Americans consider themselves as a glorious nation under God, as hardworking
American Patriots who believe in faith, family, God, and country, as mentioned in [tru-06], [tru-07], [tru-08] and [tu-11]. Moreover they have a national motto
“In God we trust” cited by Donald Trump several times. Donald Trump's speeches finish with a closing phrase “God bless America.” He highlights that America is a country blessed by God. Barack Obama blesses the people with a phrase
“God bless you” or “may God Bless the United States of America”.
Moreover, Barack Obama propagates worshipping an awesome God and his idea: “I am my brother's keeper” in [oba-01], [oba-04], [oba-08] which is caused by his own Christian faith and work as a community organizer for churches in Chicago. He several times mentions also the Scripture and in the speech
[oba-08] and [oba-11] where he confirms the hope that should be based on the words of the Scripture. Both politicians appeal to live in unity under one God as it is present in the following selected example:
(1) The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live
together in unity. ….We will be protected by the great men and women
of our military and law enforcement and most importantly,
we will be protected by God. [tru-06]
(2) Now it is up to us to preserve the birth right of freedom and justice,
the birth right of prosperity that our ancestors won for us with their sweat,
with their blood, with their work, with their muscle,
36
with their brain. . . to finally come together as one nation
under god. [tru-07]
(3) …to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed
on from generation to generation: the God-given promise
that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full
measure of happiness. [oba-11]
The aim of the analysis is to study other intertextual references of the both politicians, and to explore their persuasive force regarding the logical appeal.
The political speeches are focused on presidential candidacy. Therefore, the reference of the political figure is involved in the speeches of both candidates. Mostly they refer to “Founders” or to presidents like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.
Barack Obama links the Founders with the dream of all Americans for a better democratic future, such as in the speech [oba-10]. From the Founders for example
Donald Trump reminds Alexander Hamilton, founding father of the United States, who fought in the American Revolutionary War, helped draft the Constitution.
The genius of the Founders is emphasised also by Barack Obama in [oba-01] and he makes compliments as to the system of government that they had designed.
Also in [oba-11] the ancestors and forbearers are mentioned.
The speeches of both politicians contain references to George Washington or Abraham Lincoln who was called by Donald Trump like Honest Abe. Donald Trump a lot of times underlines that Republicans are party of the American worker, the American family, the American dream, and great Abraham Lincoln. For Barack
Obama, America is the land of Lincoln. The ancestors are mentioned as a remark of the struggles that the Americans went through to settle American liberty. In [tru-14] there are mentioned presidents like Teddy Roosevelt (in a familiar way instead of Theodor), Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, in speech [oba-05] the legacy of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman = keeping America safe, general Ulysses
S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower who in [tru-14] are mentioned only
37
by their surnames. Several times Obama mentions that Democrats are the party of Jefferson and Jackson, or of Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.
He does not rely only on one politician. The only past president not mentioned by his name but as “the father of our nation” is invoked by Barack Obama in his speech
[oba-11]. Every American listener knows that he spoke about George Washington.
The audience of the Obama's and Trump's political speeches is demanded to have some knowledge of juridical documents, especially the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment which protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Trump's aim is to protect the Constitution and to follow the laws as written. Trump protects the 2nd Amendment and the right of the people for bearing a gun to protect them.
(4) We will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.
[tru-08, tru-09, tru-12]
(5) Don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping
AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. [oba-08]
Both politicians notify the audience of two dates: Donald Trump emphasizes
3rd November as the official Election Day and Barack Obama 4th November and 20th January – Inauguration of the President.
Besides the dates or political figures, the both presidential candidates emphasize pledging allegiance and the American flag is considered as a symbol of patriotism. The Pledge of Allegiance is mentioned in speeches [oba-01], [oba-09],
[oba-14], [tru-07], [tru-08], [tru-09], [tru-13] and [tru-14]. In Barack
Obama's speeches with the interest to emphasize the unity of the nation and to show that everybody is equal in front of the American flag while in contrary Donald Trump underlines the respect to American flag and anthem and strict legislation for those who burn or somehow destroy the American flag as it is present in the following examples:
38
(6) …black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; young, old; gay, straight;
men, women, folks with disabilities, all pledging allegiance, under the same
proud flag, tot his big, bold country that we love. [oba-14]
(7) We believe children should be taught to love our country, honour
our history, and to always respect our great American flag. [tru-09]
(8) We should have legislation that if somebody wants to burn the American
flag and stomp on it or just burn it, they go to jail for one year. [tru-13]
Together with the patriotism in political speeches of the presidential candidates there was a high involvement of the encouragement of Americans to be proud of them because they are admired by other nations for their success and no matter what they remain the most powerful and respected country on the earth. This sense of Americanism is seen in speeches [oba-07], [oba-12], [oba-14], [oba-15], [tru-07],
[tru-08], [tru-12], [tru-14]. Barack Obama names all the characteristics of America or Americans as decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes able to work harder and smarter than anyone else.
Both of them underlining the skills of the American people and the world's best products as Obama classified as goods that are stamped with three proud words
“Made in America”. Trump's believes in American work for American workers,
American wages for American labourers, and American homes for American citizens as he confirms in [tru-08] and to use American iron, American steel, American aluminium.
As Barack Obama quoted Ronald Reagan's vision of America as “a shining city on a hill” and Donald Trump's vision of America as “a divided crime scene that only he can fix” in [oba-14] the truth is that both politicians see America as a country with potential as it is present in the following examples:
(9) America is exceptional. Not that our nation has been flawless
from the start, but that we have shown the capacity to change, and make
life better for those who follow. [oba-15]
39
(10) No country is better equipped than America to handle new threats,
and no people are more skilled, talented, tough, or driven than Americans.
[tru-12]
In the next subchapters I will analyse the approaches of both politicians to take intertextuality for supporting the logical arguments and to point out their different approaches.
7.1.1 Intertextuality in Barack Obama's speeches
The analysis of intertextuality in Barack Obama's presidential speeches shows that the corpora contain a huge amount of references to other texts that prove the Obama's points and convince the audience that he is the right candidate for the presidency.
Most of the speeches contain more than 5 references, only [oba-03] and [oba-09] contain just 1 or 2 references. Speeches [oba-07] and [oba-13] contain 3 references, [oba-04], [oba-05], [oba-05] contain 5 references, [oba-11] contain 6 references, [oba-12], [oba-15] contain 7 references, [oba-10], [oba-14] contain
8 references, [oba-02], [oba-08] contain 9 references and [oba-01] contains
10 references.
Barack Obama refers to founding documents such as the Constitution, the Declaration, then to the historical speeches. The interest of Barack Obama is in the Constitution. He considers it as a “remarkable and beautiful gift”, but in the same way “just a piece of parchment with no power on its own” as he declares it in [oba-15]. Moreover, the exact quotation from the Constitution about human right is found in [oba-11]:
(11) As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain
inalienable rights, rights that no man or government can take away.
40
We insist on personal responsibility and we celebrate individual initiative.
[oba-12]
Barack Obama quotes from the Declaration and refers to the date inexplicitly.
He derives the date from counting the year of the speech 2008 minus 232 years which equals 1776 the year of the Declaration of Independence. He uses also other prompts like that “the power” comes from those immortal declarations first put to a paper right here in Philadelphia in [oba-14]. The same technique he uses in speech
[oba-15] with the description of 240 years from the important moment – the moment of the Declaration:
(12) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [oba-01]
The citations from the founding documents serve for reminding the values on which the United States was built and Barack Obama s appeal to Americans for remaining faithful to the ideas of the forbearers as explained in [oba-11].
On the other hand, the purpose for the Constitution mentioned in Barack
Obama's speeches is to highlight the freedoms and liberties that America offers.
In [oba-10] he reminds the important date in American history when the Constitution was created that since than (for two-hundred and twenty-one years) the American nation faces all the challenges.
Barack Obama also cited George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796:
(13) George Washington wrote that self-government is the underpinning
of our safety, prosperity, and liberty, but “from different causes
and from different quarters much pain will be taken…to weaken
in your minds the conviction of this truth.” [oba-15]
The citation from Thomas Paine's pamphlet The American Crisis devoted to the army in December 1776. In this part it is expressed the parallel between the winter and the determination to cope with the struggles to win the war:
41
(14) Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing
but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed
at one common danger, came forth to meet it. [oba-11]
Barack Obama quotes from Abraham Lincoln´s Inaugural Address Speech the idea that the Americans „are not enemies, but friends who cannot break the bonds of affection“ in [oba-10] and also from Abraham Lincoln's Speech at Chicago on 10th July 1858 in [oba-02] just to encourage the citizens to have hope in future because also in the past the people survived from “strange, discordant, and even hostile elements and fought to battle through”. Barack Obama cites Abraham Lincoln in speech [oba-02], [oba-12] when he intends to convince the audience that they have not been divided any more. He refers to historical event of the Civil War in [oba-07], specifically to the battles of Gettysburg and Antietam just to make a parallel with the devotion of the people in past to save the union as to save the situation in America in present, or with the comparison to the crisis in Franklin
Roosevelt time in [oba-12] to ask for the shared responsibility like at that times.
Barack Obama cites also the traditional motto of the USA “E pluribus unum.” or “Out of many, one.” which appears on the Great Seal. In two speeches:
[oba-01] and [oba-10] just to reaffirm the fundamental truth – out of many, we are one.
Also in [oba-13] he emphasizes that “we are an American family, and we rise or fall together as one nation and as one people.”
Except of the historical or political speeches, Barack Obama turns his attention also to civil rights via the texts written by Baptist Minister Martin Luther King in [oba-02] or [oba-08] or by Methodist Episcopal Minister the Reverend Charles
Albert Tindley with his “we shall overcome” in [oba-10]. This is caused by Barack
Obama's Afro-American roots and he plans to encourage people of every race
“to always march ahead”.
To support his opinion that the citizens should show comprehension to everybody he uses also the quotation from a book called To Kill a Mockingbird
42
by Harper Lee in the form of the phrase that fictional character from the famous
American fiction Atticus Finch pronounced:
(15) You never really understand a person until you consider things
from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk
around in it. [oba-15]
The quotations from political documents, religious people serve to support
Barack Obama's ideas and he uses the phrases of the giants of the past to attach weight to his own words.
Another type of the reference is through the mentioning of names of politicians.
Politicians who Barack Obama mentions are a Secretary of States John Kerry who he admires for believing in America, a Democrat nominee for Vice-president
John Edward. Barack Obama speaks about his cooperation with the Republican
Senator Dick Lugar with whom he passed the law securing the world against some weapons, he thanks to Joe Biden for being the very best Vice president that he could have ever hoped for, and being a strong and loyal friend in [oba-12],
[oba-13]. Obama gives compliments to Hillary's choice of Vice President Tim Kaine who will make her a better President in [oba-14]. Obama thanks to a National
Guardsman Pete Skidmore for service to his campaign.
It is natural to criticize the political predecessors and also Barack
Obama criticizes George Bush and John McCain (both of them Republicans) because of their interest in Iraq and Afghanistan war and against bin Laden in [oba-04], [oba-05], [oba-06] and [oba-08]. Using their names he shows his opinion against the nonsense of the continuation in the war there.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is mentioned several times in Barack Obama's speeches but we can see Barack Obama's character via logos too, that he does not diminish the value of his opponent or co-candidate as you can see in the following examples:
(16) Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign
not because she’s a woman who has done what no woman has done before,
43
but because she’s a leader who inspires millions of Americans
with her strength, her courage (…). [oba-07]
(17) There has never been a man or a woman – not me, not Bill, nobody,
more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United
States of America. [oba-14]
To support the logic and reason Barack Obama uses also some statistics or facts like figures. His factual knowledge is not hidden into a lot of numbers, on the contrary in [oba-01], [oba-02], [oba-03], [oba-04] and [oba-06] he does not use facts and statistics at all. One reference with statistics or figures is in [oba-07], [oba-09], [oba-10], [oba-11], [oba-13], [oba-14] and [oba-15]. If he uses statistics it is especially in his nomination speeches [oba-08] and [oba-12] where he uses from 4 to 7 statistics that he uses for supporting his political party and success and for supporting his political programme and future vision of the country.
(18) We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created
when Bill Clinton was President, when the average American family saw
its income go up 7,500 dollars instead of go down 2,000 dollars,
like it has under George Bush. [oba-08]
(19) I want to reform the tax code so it’s simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest
households to pay higher taxes on incomes over 250,000 dollars –the same
rate we had when Bill Clinton was President, the same rate we had
when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs. [oba-12]
The topics of factual references are connected to jobs, health care, family budget, and he efforts to show his understanding for struggles facing working families via cutting the taxes for the middle-class families. He uses a convincing argument for changing the political party because of wasting money in two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with usage of the figure like “trillions”.
44
(20) After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion
dollars, it’s time to do some nation building right here at home. [oba-12]
On the other side, Barack Obama prefers to use imaginable figures and set into practical lives of the voters: college affordable with an annual $4,000 tax credit in [oba-04], cutting taxes for 95 percent of all working families in [oba-08], cutting oil imports in half by 2020 and supporting more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone in [oba-12]. In my opinion, he is persuaded that listeners do not follow the numbers, plus there is always need to have a proof so he rather uses figures like trillions, billions, etc. as you can see in the following example:
(21) It’s understanding that the struggles facing working families
can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks
for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving the middle-class
a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure,
and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools,
and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. [oba-07]
The analysis of intertextuality in Barack Obama's speeches proves that Barack
Obama refers to the other sources with a high intention and he uses different sources of juridical, political, historical and literary documents, including some factual statistics. The references of the other sources raise the trustworthiness of Barack
Obama and make the logos part of the speeches highly-developed. Logos in his speeches is rooted well and the persuasive strategy via intertextuality accomplished its goals. The references via quotations and citations from other documents accompanying the logical appeals of Barack Obama supported his efforts to make the audience united, full of respect and understanding to each other and hopeful for the future because he pointed out for the past events evaluated in the historical and political documents. The references via statistics and figures offered a support to his political programme ideas and made his logical appeal
45
trustworthy. To convince with no exact numbers or numbers that the listener can imagine easily makes the logical arguments to sound like factual information.
7.1.2 Intertextuality in Donald Trump's speeches
The analysis of intertextuality in the corpus of Donald Trump's presidential speeches shows that he does not use the strength of the persuasive strategy at full capacity and that the intertextual reference is not extensive. The reference and the citation of one literary text Speeches [tru-05] and [tru-06] contain no reference, [tru-01], [tru-15] contain 1 reference, [tru-04] has 2 references,
3 references are in [tru-07], [tru-12]. The speech [tru-08], [tru-09] and [tru-13] contains 4 references. The speech [tru-14] has 5 references. There are speeches
[tru-03], [tru-10] and [tru-11] with the range between 7 or 9 references.
Donald Trump does not quote from another political text except of the referring to the name of Abraham Lincoln who is connected with the Republican Party as it is seen in the following example:
(22) The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, goes forward united,
determined and ready to welcome millions of Democrats, independents
and anyone who believer in the greatness of America. [tru-14]
The reference and the citation of the song called The Snake written by a civil-rights activist Oscar Brown is found in the speech [tru-09]. It is the song that describes illegal immigration and this allegory fits perfectly to support
Trump's idea against the opening of the Mexican borders:
(23) On our way to work one morning, down the path, along the lake,
a tender-hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake. His pretty
coloured skin had been all frosted, with the due, poor things she cried, I will
take you in, and I will take care of you. . .take me in, oh tender
46
woman. . .she wrapped him all cosy -- she hurried from work. . .She stroke
his pretty skin again and kissed him . . . but instead of saying thank
you, the snake gave her a vicious bite. I saved you, cried the woman
. . .you know your bite is poisonous, and now I’m going to die. Shut up,
silly woman, said the reptile with a grin. You knew damn well
I was a snake before you took me in. [tru-09]
As I mentioned in the previous chapter also Donald Trump refers in his speeches to some names of the politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton or the Clintons to refuting their arguments and showing the audience his truth. Donald
Trump criticizes his predecessor's bad decisions as well as Hillary's bad political behaviour and her mistakes – incorrectness, making money for special interests and taking money from special interests. He accused Hillary of perfected the politics of personal profit and of doing favours to oppressive regimes. Donald Trump himself refers to the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweitzer which contains documents about Bill and Hillary's efforts to enrich their family at America's expense, namely
4 references in [tru-02]. There are only two of them as examples:
(24) Together, she (Hillary) and Bill made $153 million giving speeches
to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years
since 2001. [tru-02]
(25) [Hillary] has even deleted this record of total support from her book –
deletion is something she is very good at – (at least 30,000 emails
are missing). [tru-02]
Not only about national budget is Donald Trump concerned like in the case of Obama's government that the debt was more than $19 trillion as he states in [tru-03], he is concerned also about family budget in [tru-03], [tru-08] and [tru-10].
He provides figures to support his logical arguments and the list of figures seem like factual information:
47
(26) Median household income is now the highest ever recorded in our country.
President Bush, eight years, $450. President Barack Hussein Obama,
eight years, $975. President Donald Trump, three years, $10,000
per family a year. [tru-10]
As a proof of usage figures just for supporting Trump's logic I will mention an example with blood tests where Donald Trump presents different prices.
More important than the price itself is the fact, that there are different blood tests as you can see in the following examples:
(27) They take blood. We have one person, blood $39. Another place, the exact
same thing, $2500. Take blood, a blood test. One is $39 and one is $2500.
The same test. Maybe the $39 test is better. [tru-10]
(28) We have people that take a blood test in one place, it’s $26, and in another
place it’s $2000. Same blood test, maybe the cheap is the better,
who knows? Same blood test. [tru-12]
This situation only proves that politicians use statistics as an attempt to back up their arguments. Then their logical appeals sound as persuasive. In Donald Trump's speeches the topics of factual references are linked to criminality: homicide victims, criminal aliens, traffickers, then to Afro-American employment, creating jobs, foreign politician, Democrats and Republicans political aims and completing the tasks, the famous Mexican wall, virus etc.
Donald Trump states these numbers as to the criminality: homicides last year increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities in [tru-03], more than 2,600 people have been shot in Chicago and almost 4,000 killed in President Obama’s hometown in [tru-04], in 2018 the police arrested nearly 12,000 people for murder and manslaughter, 25,000 people for rape in [tru-13], deported 20,000 gang members and 500,000 criminal aliens were deported in [tru-14].
During the presidential campaigns Donald Trump had to travel to different states and in every state he gave the exact numbers of the post jobs: since my election,
48
Americans made 7 million new jobs in [tru-09], another 225,000 new jobs were added last month alone in [tru-10], over 125,000 new jobs have been created right here in Nevada in [tru-10], over 121,000 new jobs have been created right here in South
Carolina in [tru-11]. He kept his voters from every state informed. The information about job posts fit to his logical appeal still with the listener’s caution if the numbers are true.
Except of jobs, Donald Trump focuses his attention to black communities: almost 4 in 10 African-American men in Milwaukee between the ages of 25-54 do not have a job in [tru-04], wages for African-American workers have increased by $2400 per year in [tru-09], I’ve done more for the black community in four years than Joe Biden has done in 47 years in [tru-13]. The figures in these statements are not exaggerating and are supporting Trump's argument about taking care of African-American and showing to the people that they are getting better and better.
In his speeches he defends the administrative work of the Republican Party and attacks the political decisions of Democrats. He names some concrete tasks that he and his political party managed to do and offers some clue arguments about results and previous work of the representatives from political parties as it is present in the following examples:
(29) The Democrats don’t have to be, but we have to be. We’ve destroyed
the ISIS territorial caliphate 100%, we killed the founder and leader
of ISIS. Al Baghdadi is dead. Al Baghdadi is dead. 17 years. They looked
for him. 17 years. [tru-10], [tru-11]
There is the example of the bad political decision of the Democrats:
(30) This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran
$150 billion and gave us nothing – it will go down in history as one
of the worst deals ever made. [tru-03]
There are some examples of political success of the Republican Party:
49
(31) We’ve created nearly 4 million new jobs since the election and lifted almost
4 million Americans off of food stamps. [tru-08]
(32) Our NATO partners, as an example, were far behind in their defense
payments, but at my strong urging, they agreed to pay $130 billion
more a year – the first time in over 20 years that they upped
their payments. [tru-14]
Not only counting the jobs but Donald Trump's invests his efforts to counting every kilometre of the “Wall” between the United States and Mexico.
(33) This is everything they wanted, 132 miles already. We’ll have 500 miles
built by very early next year sometime. [tru-14]
(34) The wall is now 380 miles long. It’ll soon be finished. [tru-15]
Donald Trump appeals his logical side through facts and he refers to some beliefs that are commonly held and that are difficult to deny, like in the example comparing the flu to the Covid-19:
(35) I was shocked to hear it, 35.000 people on average die each year
from the flu. 35.000, that’s a lot of people. It could go to 1000.000,
it could be 27.000. They say usually a minimum of 27, goes up to 100.000
people a year die. [tru-11]
To sum up, he is a communicator who relies within his logical reasoning on figures, facts and statistics. The amount of references from other sources is low in comparison to Barack Obama. However, the usage of statistics is extremely extensive. Donald Trump does not forget to develop the logos, although his logical appeals are supported unilaterally by statistics. He supports his opinions about the past and present political situation only with statistics whose author might be him in person so he does not have the support from the other authority. His detailed figures and data support his logical arguments and from the point of persuasion could be more effective if there were some references to economical documents and statistics. This means
50
that the intertextuality in Donald Trump corpora is not strictly perceived as authority and therefore has a lower persuasive potential.
7.1.3 Results
The analysis of intertextuality in the corpora of Barack Obama's speeches and Donald Trump's speeches indicates that the politicians' approaches to logical appeals differ in the technique. It is influenced by the professional background of the speakers. In the case of Barack Obama who was trained to become a lawyer, he was a senator and he had a juridical knowledge and cultural awareness which he assembles in the way of searching for the foundation of his logical appeal in legal texts or political speech of the famous presidents or in texts of known sophists or ecclesiastic men. In this way the listeners are assured that the candidate for the presidency will not be a common person but an erudite one. The high amount of references to other sources such as juridical, political, historical and literary documents increases in trustfulness of Barack Obama and reveal a high persuasive potential of the persuasive strategy via intertextuality. The citations from official juridical, political and historical documents support the logical arguments and via intertextuality the authority of the speaker is supported in the high level.
On the other hand, the references via statistics and figures do not have the support in official document which means that the persuasion might not have the high effect.
In the case of Donald Trump his tendency of excessive usage of statistics is caused by his profession as a business officer who is used to counting and working with numbers. He uses the figures and the statistics to support his logical appeal and it is visible that his reasonable arguments are accompanied with correct amount of figures that his logical appeal accomplishes the goal to convince the audience.
However, there is no reference to other sources while presenting the numbers and data
51
to the audience. Therefore, the persuasive potential of the logical appeal is low.
The attentive listener needs to have proofs of the presented statistics. To have it, the veracity of the arguments would be higher.
The analysis proves that Donald Trump's relies on facts, statistics references with a rare reference of use of other sources such as historical texts, or political speeches of previous presidents. He used at least 70 facts or statistic references in comparison to 20 Barack Obama's facts or statistic references.
On the other hand, the analysis of Barack Obama's speeches confirms that Barack Obama takes a variety of sources into consideration and offers external proofs based on historical facts by which he intends to instruct the audience in forerunners' capabilities dealing the situation just to motivate them and be strong and deal with the present situation as successfully as them. To motivate the audience he mentions the exact lines from the political speeches of the presidents of 18th century mainly but also of preachers. The support of his arguments proved in precedent texts shows not only that the arguments have much more authority, but also they have higher persuasive potential.
The results prove that the variety of different types of references in both speeches depends on candidates' decision which of them use because they count with the interests of the audience and voters of the specific party, as well as the place and time.
As explained above, the higher potential for the logical appeal is considered to be in Barack Obama's speeches because of his various intertextual references.
This means that his persuasive strategies have higher potential to persuade the audience more. However, the statistics proofs of Donald Trump sound like factual information and serve to him as a means of effective persuasion or manipulation of the listeners, without the proofs for checking out the veracity and without other references to economical documents, the persuasive potential of the statistics is low.
52
7.2 Figurative language
This chapter is ordered by concept of major political metaphors. The metaphors depict political entities in terms of history, light and darkness, natural elements, human body, human activities, travelling, etc. I will focus on conceptual organization and its interpretation. The analysis of figurative language was done in three methodological steps in Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA), which consists of metaphor identification, interpretation, and explanation. Firstly, metaphor identification is based on a manual search with intuition, and its organization according to the keywords.
Secondly, establishment of a relationship between metaphors and the cognitive and pragmatic factors that determines them. And the last step, a description of the social role of metaphor involved in metaphor production and the role of metaphor in political persuasion.
The analysis of figurative language in the corpora of both politicians happened to be the task of the following subchapters, specifically conceptual metaphors.
The other types of the figurative language will not be covered in this thesis. I will search for the main concepts in the metaphors and I will find out what differences and what similarities the speeches cover.
7.2.1 Figurative language in Barack Obama's speeches
In Barack Obama's speeches we can find a wide range of metaphors.
In all speeches there are about 120 metaphors. Speeches [oba-01], [oba-02], [oba-04] contain between 12 and 16 metaphors. The amount of metaphors is influenced by the motive of the speeches which were determined for official acceptance of nomination and for the speech in front of the Convention, in other words
53
the speeches were supposed to be written stylistically and pronounced for the demanding audience. Speeches [oba-05], [oba-06], [oba-07] and [oba-10] have from 9 to 11 metaphors. The average amount of the metaphors is about 5 to 7 metaphors for speeches [oba-08], [oba-09], [oba-11], [oba-14].
The lowest number of metaphors have speeches [oba-12], [oba-13] and [oba-15].
They have exactly 3 metaphors.
One of the used conceptual metaphors is related to the concept of history in the source domain. Every politician evaluates the work of the previous political party that was in incumbency. The politicians look at the past events that influenced the national history. They call the present moment as the important moment to change history. The metaphors frequently use words, such as past, turn the page, the arc of history, etc. The concept of history is present in the following selected examples:
(36) But these priorities don’t address the real problems of the American people,
because they are bound to the failed policies of the past. [oba-04]
(37) Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. [oba-07]
(38) As we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices,
and meet the challenges that face us. [oba-01]
(39) …and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc
of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. [oba-10]
Another type of the conceptual metaphor uses the concept of contrast between light and darkness in the source domain. The politician describes the past or previous electoral period as dark period whereas the light has the positive connotation with the better future, more prosperity for the country. The metaphors frequently use words, such as the light of opportunity, bright, shadow, beacon, a dark chapter, dawn etc. The concept of light and darkness is present in the following selected examples:
(40) This country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political
darkness a brighter day will come. [oba-01]
54
(41) This election is about you – the American people – and whether we will
have a president and a party that can lead us toward a brighter future.
[oba-06]
(42) My father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America
that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many
who had come before. [oba-01]
(43) To all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns
as bright – tonight we proved once more (…) [oba-10]
(44) …because after 106 years in America, through the best of times
and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. [oba-10]
Political discourse concerns about concept of the conceptual metaphor that is related to natural elements in the source domain. The politician describes the decisions of the government by means of natural elements, especially the strength of some elements express the amount of prosperity or economic decrease or the political situation among the political members. The metaphors frequently use words, such as water, tides, waves, storm, wind, etc. Examples of this conceptual metaphor are listed below:
(45) We have the right wind at our backs. [oba-01]
(46) The next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas. [oba-15]
(47) The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still
waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering
clouds and raging storms. [oba-11]
(48) I’ve seen it on the shores of New Jersey and New York, where leaders
from every party and level of government have swept aside
their differences to help a community rebuild from the wreckage
of a terrible storm. [oba-13]
Another example of a conceptual metaphor present in Barack Obama's speeches is related to the concept of opportunity. It is natural for politicians to search
55
new ways how to govern and the opportunity might be discovered for a nation, political party in a positive connotation or in a negative connotation the opportunity of the individual which does not correspond with the common welfare but personal.
In the metaphors to get to the opportunity is advised through a lot of means, such as through the door which symbolizes just choose the correct way, through the ladder that is a symbol of effort or of work to get to the opportunity, or even via a symbolic breaking the walls or barriers to gain the opportunity.
The concept of opportunity is present in the following examples:
(49) We can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life,
and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. [oba-01]
(50) …that new schools can provide ladders of opportunity to this nation
of dreamers. [oba-12]
(51) ….a mother and grandmother who would do anything to help our children
thrive; a leader with real plans to break down barriers, and blast through
glass ceilings, and widen the circle of opportunity to every single American
–the next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. [oba-14]
A conceptual metaphor related to the concept of war appears in the Barack
Obama's speeches. The concept of war is symbolic, in the field of political rallies, debates that the participants lead to confront each other. The politicians want to win the battle, in case of candidates for presidency to win the state. The metaphors frequently use words: battle, battlefield, struggle, blood. The concept of war is present in the following examples:
(52) We can’t keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich
and the rest who struggle to keep pace. [oba-04]
(53) Politics is a battle of ideas. [oba-15]
(54) When we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country,
she will be central to that victory. [oba-07]
(55) ….a charter expanded by the blood of generations. [oba-11]
56
As in the case of the conceptual metaphor with a concept of war there are some similar concepts of taking a politics as a sport activity where politicians behave like sportsman to win a match or a debate or election. The metaphors frequently use words: game, player, result, playbook, etc. The conceptual metaphor is present in the following examples:
(56) We can recognize that you can’t be the champion of working Americans
if you’re funded by the lobbyists who drown out their voices. [oba-05]
(57) We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same
Washington players and expect a different result – because it´s a game
that ordinary Americans are losing. [oba-04]
(58) And his plan to win in November appears to come from the very same
playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election.
[oba-06]
Another type of the widely-spread conceptual metaphors in Barack
Obama's speeches is related to the concept of human body in the source domain.
Every part of the body represents a different quality of the politicians, politics or approach to a political issue. The metaphors frequently use words like hands, heart, face, etc. The concept of human body appears in the following selected examples:
(59) The Democratic Party is in good hands. [oba-14]
(60) To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit
and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side
of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench
your fist. [oba-11]
(61) I still believe that (change only happens when ordinary people
get involved). And it’s not just my belief. It’s the beating heart
of our American idea. [oba-15]
(62) In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an empire to its knees.
[oba-02]
57
(63) And if a voice can change a room, it can change a city, and if it can change
a city, it can change a state, and if it can change a state, it can change
a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world. [oba-09]
Very closely to human body in Barack Obama's speeches there is a conceptual metaphor related to the concept of human body activities. The acceptance or agreement is expressed by the gesture of embracing, the work on a political decision or the defence against the decision by rolling up the sleeves etc. The types of the metaphor appear in the following selected examples:
(64) ….by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change.
[oba-06]
(65) Our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling
up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle the big problems
of America. [oba-02]
(66) We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises,
the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long
have strangled our politics. [oba-11]
(67) If you sense, that I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber,
and slough off our fears, and make good on the debt we owe past
and future generations. [oba-02]
Barack Obama's speeches contain metaphors related to the concept of contrast between consumption and famine. The words like hunger, feed, consume, predator, poison are contained in the metaphors. If we poison someone, we want him to die, and the poisoned politics is unhealthy politics, all the negative connotations are connected to starving, consuming or being a victim of a predator. In contrary, if the politician intends to support some behaviour, it has to be fed to grow or to spread.
The metaphor is present in the following selected examples:
(68) We are hungry for change. [oba-03]
58
(69) We’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign
but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want
to be as a nation. [oba-03]
(70) It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness
and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics. [oba-05]
(71) We do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked
out of their homes by Wall Street predators. [oba-06]
(72) Let us resist temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness
and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. [oba-10]
Nine speeches contain conceptual metaphors connected to travelling.
There are about twenty metaphors which is quite a high involvement of conceptual metaphors with this theme. The metaphors use these words: a path, road, journey, course, direction, crossroad, follow in the footsteps, walls, across the heartland, forgotten corners, etc. In this context the path, journey or course mean following a stated political program or offered solution of the situation. The road is the symbol of the effort to satisfy the electoral promises. The metaphor appears in the following selected examples:
(73) If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished
the job in Afghanistan. [oba-04]
(74) This time we can face down those who say our road is too long; that our
climb is too steep; that we can no longer achieve the change that we seek.
[oba-06]
(75) We make the end of one historic journey with the beginning
of another – a journey that will bring a new and better day to America.
[oba-07]
(76) Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love. [oba-07]
59
(77) It is now our turn to follow in the footsteps of all those generations
who sacrificed and struggled and faced down the greatest odds to perfect
our improbable union. [oba-05]
During political rallies and speeches politicians believe that their party and their programme is the reply for solving the problems and the clue for a better future. Thus, the conceptual metaphor related to the concept of hope is a must in political speeches. The concept of hope is present in the following selected examples:
(78) This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle of your hopes,
and your dreams. [oba-02]
(79) If you feel destiny calling and see as I see, the future of endless possibility
stretching out before us. [oba-02]
(80) No dream is beyond our grasp if we reach for it. [oba-04]
(81) The promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace
to bridge divides and unite in common effort. [oba-08]
The concept of religion as a form of conceptual metaphor is present also in politics. Every nation has its own spirit to combat the difficulties. The verb rein or reinstate is found originally in the Bible too. Examples of this conceptual metaphor are selected in the section bellow:
(82) We will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit
of the American people in three simple words: Yes, we can. [oba-03]
(83) We can bring both parties together to rein in their power so we can take
our government back. [oba-05]
(84) You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates
of Hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives. [oba-08]
Two of the Barack Obama's speeches contain a conceptual metaphor with the concept money as the source domain. In the speeches Barack Obama criticizes leading the country into the debts and bribery. The metaphors related to the concept of money appear in the following examples:
60
(85) We can’t keep mortgaging our children’s future on a mountain
of debt. [oba-04]
(86) The truth gets buried under an avalanche of money and advertising.
[oba-11]
The relatively new kind of metaphor which appears in speeches of both politicians is Trojan horse which represents somebody with evil intentions or somebody whose ideology is considered as negative as shown in the following examples:
(87) They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer,
and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes
and the abandonment of traditional values. [oba-09]
The analysis of figurative language in the corpus of Barack Obama's political speeches demonstrates a various types of representation of conceptual metaphors.
The conceptual metaphors are related to concepts of history, light and darkness, natural elements, opportunity, hope, war, sports activities, human body travelling, consumption and famine. Some of them are used in several speeches.
There are also some concepts that do not have a lot of examples, such as religion and money. The most preferred concept for Barack Obama is the concept of light and darkness and human body and travelling. The metaphors with path and road appear in a several parts of the corpora.
To conclude, the frequent usage of conceptual metaphors in Barack
Obama's corpora proves that the speeches have persuasive potential developed on the high level and that Barack Obama as a speaker uses this persuasive strategy fully to appeal to the reason of his listeners.
61
7.2.2 Figurative language in Donald Trump's speeches
In Donald Trump speeches we cannot find a lot of metaphors. In all speeches there are about 70 metaphors. Speeches [tru-02], [tru-04], [tru-05], [tru-07], [tru-09] and [tru-15] contain only 1-3 metaphors. The lack of metaphors is influenced by the motive of the speeches which were determined for voters and common listeners.
Speeches, that are rich for metaphors, are [tru-03], [tru-06], [tru-12] and [tru-14] in which at least 10 metaphors are presented. The amount of the metaphors is due to the purpose of the speeches which are as official speech for nomination for the presidency, for inauguration, or for Super Tuesday or the speech [tru-14] was read in front of the National Convention.
Also in Donald Trump's speeches there are conceptual metaphors that are related to the concept of history. Donald Trump compares history to a functional period or to the ideas of the political party. The political scene is described as a history book and the voters are those who are supposed to vote politicians who will accomplish the promises and create better situation for citizens.
This conceptual metaphor is present in the following examples:
(88) Tonight we close one chapter in history and we begin another.[tru-01]
(89) Biden is always on the wrong side of history. [tru-13]
(90) Together, we will write the next chapter of the great American story.
[tru-14]
Donald Trump uses as conceptual metaphors the metaphors that are built on the contrast between light and dark. The light presents country that is wealthy or politician who knows how to govern and has a vision for the future. When a political issues are dark so they are not uncovered for the citizens, or when a city or country is dark it means that it is not powerful or prosperous. For Barack Obama America was described like a beacon and for Donald Trump America is described like a torch.
The concept of light and darkness appears in the following selected examples:
62
(91) Transformed the barren desert into a shining oasis, lit up the lights
of the Las Vegas strip and help to make this the greatest nation ever to exist
on the face of the earth. [tru-10]
(92) We understand that America is not a land cloaked in darkness, America
is the torch that enlightens the entire world. [tru-14]
(93) Joe Biden may claim he is an ally of the light, but when it comes
to his agenda, Biden wants to keep us completely in the dark. [tru-14]
A conceptual metaphor related to the concept of natural elements appears also in Donald Trump's speeches in which he applies the force of water to depict the economic and political situation in the USA. The metaphors frequently use words, such as tides, waves, engulf, etc. Examples of this conceptual metaphor are listed below:
(94) We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing
business in America and keeping our workers employed.
This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. [tru-02]
(95) This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class
and our jobs. [tru-02]
(96) Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens
the West. [tru-03]
In Donald Trump's speeches, there is a huge amount of conceptual metaphors related to the concept of human body in the source domain. The metaphors frequently use words, such as shoulders, heart, spine, face, breath, teeth, blood, cancer, in a good shape, etc. The most frequent body part as a domain of the metaphor was the part shoulders. These metaphors appeared in 5 speeches [tru-08], [tru-09],
[tru-11], [tru-12], [tru-13]. The shoulders present the base of the nation rooted in patriot times. The second favourite body part in Trump's speeches is heart presenting the emotions. The diseases or bleeding serves for explaining an unpleasant
63
situation, often frauds, bad political decisions. The concept of human body is present in the following selected examples:
(97) We stand on the shoulders of generations of American patriots who knew
how to work, knew how to fight. [tru-08]
(98) Americans have steel in their spines, grit in their souls, and fire in their
hearts. [tru-14]
(99) I will fight for you with every breath in my body. [tru-06]
(100) When Congresswoman Ilhan Omar called the Minneapolis Police
Department “a cancer that is rotten to the root”. [tru-14]
(101) It looks like it’s in very good shape – our Second Amendment. [tru-07]
Related to the concept of human body activities the speeches contain conceptual metaphors in which verbs typical for people are discovered. The physical activity expresses the agreement or disagreement with the political situation or defines the measure of acceptance. There are verbs like nod, turn an eye, embrace, bind the wounds, grasp. This conceptual metaphor is present in the following examples:
(102) Those peddling the narrative of cops as a racist force
in our society - a narrative supported with a nod by my opponent – share
directly in the responsibility for the unrest in Milwaukee, and many other
places within our country. [tru-04]
(103) It’s easy for Hillary Clinton to turn a blind eye to crime
when she has her own private security force. [tru-04]
(104) They’ve embraced an extreme left wing agenda. [tru-12]
(105) Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get
together. [tru-05]
(106) Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country.
[tru-03]
One of the topics that a politician has to deal with is the topic of finances.
The excuses when the state does not have a balanced budget are hidden into conceptual
64
metaphors connected to the concept of money. The concept of money is present in the following selected examples:
(107) I understand the responsibility of carrying the mantle. [tru-01]
(108) It’s a sad day in America when foreign governments with deep pockets
have more influence in our own country than our great citizens. [tru-01]
(109) When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading
access and favours to special interests and foreign powers I know the time
for action has come. [tru-03]
(110) It’s the lobbyists who know how to insert that perfect loophole into every
bill. [tru-04]
Another example of a conceptual metaphor present in the corpora of Donald
Trump is related to the concept of place. The place is not connected to travelling but to a static geographical item, such as a globe, landscape, horizon, bedrock, swamp, etc. The size of the place symbolizes the impact of the political issue. The concept of place is present in the following selected examples:
(111) In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of America prestige around the globe
– was brought down in flames. [tru-03]
(112) Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities;
rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape
of our nation. [tru-06]
(113) We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence
of our country has dissipated over the horizon. [tru-06]
(114) At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States
of America. [tru-06]
(115) We’re going to drain the swamp. [tru-08]
The concept of religion as a form of conceptual metaphor is present also in political speeches of Donald Trump. The metaphors frequently use words, such as a soul, spirit, faith, sin, saviour, sacred gift, altar, pulpit, crusade, evil, etc.
65
The metaphors with the source domain soul are widely-spread. The words like faith, spirit and soul serve to depict the American character that is full of hope, wisdom.
Donald Trump's metaphors with the religious source domain belong to the most sophisticated that's why I state more examples:
(116) Joe Biden is not a savior of America’s soul. [tru-14]
(117) They (Democrats) see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins.
[tru-14]
(118) We will never stop fighting for the sacred values that bind us together
as one America. [tru-09]
(119) If the left gains power, they´ll launch a nationwide crusade against law
enforcement. [tru-15]
(120) One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders. [tur-03]
(121) The irresponsible rhetoric of our President, who has used the pulpit
of the presidency to divide us by race and colour, has made America
a more dangerous environment for everyone. [tru-03]
(122) And we took out the world’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani, ending his evil
reign on terror forever. [tru-12]
The concept of expressions from Greek mythology as a form of conceptual metaphor is present in two metaphors. Audience has to have an awareness of mythology or understand that in Pandora's box is hidden something unpleasant that can cause problems for citizens and the similar danger expresses also Trojan horse.
Both items represent hidden danger, needless complications. These concepts are present in the following examples:
(123) The Egyptian military has retaken control, but Clinton has opened
the Pandora’s box of radical Islam. [tru-02]
(124) Biden is a very willing Trojan horse for socialism. tru-13
To the metaphor with Trojan horse are close conceptual metaphors with a concept of a war strategy. Trump uses different types of war strategy
66
to describe the process of elections and their results. He compares the political scene to an arena. The metaphors frequently use words: surrender, save, fight, trap and arena. The concept of war strategies is present in the following examples:
(125) This election will decide if we save American dream or whether we allow
a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny. [tru-14]
(126) I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat
up on people that cannot defend themselves. [tru-03]
(127) I always say if it’s permissible by law, because they have so many little
booby traps, but they only like getting the Republicans. [tru-11]
(128) The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back
from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence
to their total and complete control. [tru-02]
The analysis of figurative language proves that the corpus of Donald
Trump's political speeches contains a wide variety of conceptual metaphors that are related to the concepts of history, light and darkness, natural elements, human body and human body activities, money, place, religion, Greek mythology and a war strategy. Only the concept of religion with source words soul and faith is widely spread in other speeches. The existence as to the amount of conceptual metaphors in this corpora is lower, thus the potential of this persuasive strategy is lower too.
7.2.3 Results
The analysis of figurative language shows that both politicians communicated via rhetorical means called figurative language in different extend.
The difference between the amount of metaphors used by Barack Obama
67
in his speeches that are 85 pages long and contain about 43, 000 words in comparison to Donald Trump´s speeches with 165 pages and about 94,000 words was excessive.
The political metaphors were easily recognized in the text, also with their hiding artifice, and understood the figurative meaning as a persuasive element of political thinking. Barack Obama as well as Donald Trump used metaphors to intensify their opinions on the issues and in the same way to goad the audience into changing the attitudes towards the issues. They handled the process of using these persuasive devices to the maximum and managed to de-legitimize some political entities and legitimize their goals.
In the case of Barack Obama it is visible that his mental representation of the political situation is described in figurative language and he considers his metaphorically expressed ideas as a centrepiece in his speeches while in the case of Donald Trump the figurative language is marginal or peripheral partly proportionally and partly thematically. He puts more emphasis into another way – facts to support his logical appeal.
Both of them performed well to promote their ideological goals and handled the task to provoke the unconscious emotional associations in the listeners because they are aware of high persuasive force in metaphors. Several conceptual metaphors occur in the speeches of both politicians, and are related to the concepts of history, light and darkness, natural elements, religion, money. Surprisingly, Donald
Trump uses metaphors with religious context extensively.
Conceptual metaphors are used as a tool of persuasive strategies by politicians because with help of figurative language they can interpret the current political situation and the description of the political scene might be hidden into the expressions whose meaning has to be detected by the audience according their best abilities.
With this persuasive strategy politicians can hide, uncover, or even highlight some problems or speak about sensitive issues and it is the task of the audience to understand the arguments of the politicians as well as politicians appeal
68
to the audience in the way that the listeners are able to understand and identify the target referent and accept it. Politicians use the metaphors for intensifying their opinions and for goading into the attitude change of the audience. The persuasive effects of the metaphors are revealed in promoting the ideological goals.
The corpora of both orators prove that Barack Obama's speeches are focused on figurative language in the form of conceptual metaphors more than Donald
Trump's and that is why they are supposed to have the persuasive potential higher, although as well as in the Donald Trump's speeches this persuasive appeal to reason is covered. Both politicians use conceptual metaphors for de-legitimizing political entities. The analysis of Barack Obama's conceptual metaphors shows that he acts as a supporter or a coach whose aim is to prepare the nation for the moment of the decision. He motivates the citizens that the moment of opportunity is arriving.
He describes the political scene, the situation in the party and government and dishonest tactics. Within his metaphorical expressions he depicts the post-electoral situation when finally the prosperity could come after combating the difficulties. Barack Obama's positive attitudes are visible and understood from his conceptual metaphors and the audience is capable to decipher them so it is considered that the persuasive potential could be high.
Unlike Barack Obama, Donald Trump acts rather as a visionary, fighter or predictor within his conceptual metaphors. He encourages the citizens to move forward and not to be satisfied with the bad economic situation because America might be again the powerful country. In the Donald Trump's case there is no difficulty in identifying the meaning of the conceptual metaphors.
The involvement of the figurative language is in Barack Obama's corpus higher than in Donald Trump's, however, the appeal to reason from both politicians could be considered as the one with high persuasive potential.
69
8. Ethos
Ethos in political speeches is shown and presented in as an ethical appeal.
The politician uncovers his personality and puts all his emphasis into the credibility and efforts to be trustworthy to the audience, or at least be esteemed as a trustworthy orator. The candidate efforts to enhance desirability form the voters on the basis of his or her persuasion as an honest person. They use acclaims – statements that stress a candidate's advantages or benefits, or attacks – statements that stress undesirable attributes of the opponent, or defences – the recipient of the attack chooses to defend against it and creates a campaign message. Benoit (2014) emphasizes that not every attack is persuasive with all voters (p. 14). However, more acceptable are attacks on policy than on the character (Benoit, 2014, p. 15).
To be considered as a trustworthy orator, politicians share their personal stories, mainly stories that highlight their virtues and draw them as experts.
In the political field it is appreciated by the audience when the politician shows his disinterest or that his entrance is not conditioned by a personal gain. Not vainly, the persuasion by character is considered as the most important and Aristotle considered that three qualities a trustable person should have: good sense, good moral character and good will.
8.1 Sharing the personal politician's experience
What makes the politicians close to the audience are the stories that are connected to them, their family, or family members but mainly the stories from the political background which for voters are the basis for their decisions if to elect the candidate whose stories seem to be veracious. They know that via stories they create a connection with their audience to talk about their reputation, expertise,
70
and while speaking to transform their personality. I will analyse two persuasive methods in persuasion by character or in other words ethical appeal. The ethos of the both politician will be studied through their (1) abilities to express their opinions, attitudes and emotions, and (2) through their experience that will be transferred to the audience via stories from their personal and professional life.
8.1.1 Barack Obama's personal experience in his speeches
Every Obama's speech contains a reference to personal experience or opinion except of the speech [oba-03] in which he mentions the work of the political party as a group work, he did not point out his individuality. On the other hand, some of the speeches contain more phrases with opinions: [oba-06], [oba-07], [oba-08],
[oba-14].
Barack Obama expresses his personal opinions and shares his ideas using the expressions: I think or I thought, I say, I believe, I trust, I know, I recognize,
I understand, I expect, I look forward to, I want, I insist, I intend, I promise, I honour,
I respect, I love, I face, I realize, I see, I am absolutely certain, I am grateful,
I am more optimistic, I will never hesitate, I will never forget, etc. Below are a few selected examples:
(129) I know how hard it will be to make these changes. [oba-04]
(130) I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness,
but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies. [oba-06]
(131) I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President
of the United States. [oba-08]
(132) I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit
the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls
of Washington. [oba-09]
71
(133) I believe we can build on the progress we’ve made and continue to fight
for new jobs and new opportunities and new security for the middle class.
[oba-13]
Barack Obama bolsters his ethical arguments by sharing his personal experience. Only one speech [oba-12] does not contain a personal experience story probably due to the speech of nomination acceptance. In speeches [oba-01], [oba-04],
[oba-06] and [oba-14] there are from 5 to 6 stories from personal or political life.
The average of the amount of stories is three per one speech. There are three groups of stories: stories form family life, stories of different people that he met or are somehow connected to his life, stories from his political life.
Barack Obama shares the stories from his own family where he points out his origin, the story of his grandparents, the improbable love of his parents, difficulties of his mother as a single parent values taught in the family, he spoke nicely about his wife as his best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family and the love of his life, he honours his wife and his daughters Sasha and Malia.
In the speeches there are about twenty stories from his family life. The speech [oba-01] contains at least 5 stories, speeches [oba-02], [oba-04], [oba-06] and [oba-14] have two stories, and at least one story form a family life is in [oba-05], [oba-10], [oba-11],
[oba-13] and [oba-15]. Examples of his family stories:
(134) My grandparents valued were traits like honesty and hard work,
kindness, courtesy, humility, responsibility, helping each other out.
That’s what they believed in. True things. Things that last. The things
we try to teach our kids. [oba-14]
(135) I’m not a native of this great state. I moved to Illinois over two decades
ago. I was a young man then, just a year out of college. I knew no one
in Chicago when I arrived, was without money or family connections.
But a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer
for the grand sum of 13,000 dollars a year. I accepted the job. . .motivated
72
then by a single, simple, powerful idea: that I might play a small part
in building a better America. [oba-02]
(136) I became a civil rights lawyer, and taught constitutional law, and after
a time, I came to understand that our cherished rights of liberty
and equality depend on the active participation of an awakened electorate.
It was with this idea in mind that I arrived in this capital city as a state
Senator. [oba-02]
(137) Sasha and Malia – before our very eyes, you’re growing up to become
two strong, smart, beautiful young women, just like your mum. [oba-13]
Barack Obama uses stories of different people that he met or they contacted him to point to some strategic political issues to be thought about. It is a proof of his good intention to help people. There are about 15 stories of this character.
Sometimes he mentions the names of the people sometimes he gives only general descriptions: a young man named Shamus, mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover all the needs of her sick child, the teacher who works another shift at Dunkin' Donuts after school just to make ends meet, the man who lost his job but can’t even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, etc. Examples of the stories of different people that he met or had the opportunity to speak to them:
(138) We’ re here because of the young man I met in Youngsville, North Carolina
who almost lost his home because he has three children with cystic fibrosis
and couldn’t pay their medical bills; who still doesn’t have health insurance
for himself or his wife and lives in fear that a single illness could cost
them everything. [oba-05]
(139) The mother in Wisconsin who gave me a bracelet inscribed with the name
of the son she lost in Iraq. [oba-06]
In the speech [oba-08] he compares the story of somebody else to a story from his family because he intends to show people that the problems that they might
73
go through he has lived. In that way he is interested in creating a connection to the audience.
(140) In the face of that young student, who sleeps just three hours
before working the night shift, I think about my mum, who raised my sister
and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree,
who once turned to food stamps, but was still able to send us to the best
schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.
[oba-08]
(141) And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting
her own business or making her way in the world, I think
about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool
to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions
because she was a woman. [oba-08]
The third group of the stories that Barack Obama shares with his audience are the stories from his political life or job experience. By showing his job experience in politics he aims to convince the audience that he is an expert and the right candidate for the presidency. The topics of the stories are related to the cooperation with politicians from his party but also for a good thing also from the opposite party, he names some political successes. The stories from his political life are 15 in the corpora. There are a few examples:
(142) And I’ve worked with friends in the other party to provide
more children with health insurance and more working families
with a tax break. [oba-07]
(143) In my two decades of public service to this country, I have seen time
and time again that real change doesn’t begin in the halls of Washington,
but on the streets of America. [oba-05]
74
(144) You may remember Hillary and I were rivals for the Democratic
nomination. We battled for a year and a half. Let me tell you, it was tough,
because Hillary was tough. [oba-14]
The analysis shows that Barack Obama uses the persuasive strategy of sharing personal experience. Moreover, he builds on the stories the support of his political vision and program. He uncovers himself in front of the audience. His intention is that the audience should know him better, his values. In his stories his respect for his family and the opponents is expressed as well as the humility. Barack Obama accomplished the task of the ethical appeal in persuasion via sharing the personal stories with the audience. In the corpora there is an enormous amount of the stories that he shares so it means that the ethical appeal is high within the persuasion.
8.1.2 Donald Trump's personal experience in his speeches
Donald Trump shares his personal experience and attitudes in the corpora.
The speeches rich for expressions of personal opinions and attitudes are [tru-10],
[tru-13] and [tru-11] and [tru-12]. He evaluates his four-year presidency.
The speech where there is no personal opinion is the speech [tru-06]. The reason why there is the lack of his personal opinions in this speech is the motive for presenting his presidential acceptance. It is an Inaugural Speech presented on 20th January.
In his speeches he expresses his personal opinions and shares his ideas using the expressions: I know, I mean, I feel, I see, I think, I honestly don’t think, I just don’t believe, I promise, I hope, I love, I say, I must say this, I admit, I understand, I agree,
I guess, I wonder, I recognized, I’ve got to be very accurate, I have to say, I have to be honest, I hate to say, I can only say, the truth is, I’d like to share, I only want to admit, I have a different vision, I came up with an idea, I’m truly honoured,
I’d like to begin, I want, I’m proud to say, I’m not part of, I’m not like, I don’t get
75
the whole thing, I am certain, I have pointed out, I’ll never get rid of, I will outline, etc.
Below there are a few selected examples:
(145) I know the corruption has reached a level like never before.[tru-03]
(146) I’m not part of the corrupt system. In fact, the corrupt system is trying
to stop me. [tru-04]
(147) I’m not part of the corrupt system. In fact, the corrupt system is trying
to stop me. [tru-09]
(148) I honestly don’t think he (Sleepy Joe) knows what office he’s running for.
And it doesn’t matter. [tru-12]
(149) I say, the fact is that I’ve done more for the black community
than any president since Abraham Lincoln. I say it. [tru-15]
Besides expressing the personal ideas, in most political speeches stories from politician's life create the supporting part of the ethos. The stories are divided according to the topics. Needless to say, Trump's personal stories from his political activities and from his post of the president or as a presidential incumbent who has to deal with other politicians are found in every speech. The stories from his political life are found mainly in his speeches [tru-08], [tru-10], [tru-11].
However in every speech he mentions at least one or two stories from his political life.
The stories are about boasting about his political success as a president, about the laws that he signed, about accusing of Democrats, about important politicians that he met, criticizing Hillary Clinton and his opponent in candidacy for a presidency Joe Biden.
Below are a few selected examples:
(150) I’ll tell you, every foreign leader who comes to see me, almost, they walk
in and they start off, Mr. President, congratulations on the incredible
success you´re having with your economy. [tru-08]
(151) From the moment I left my former life behind - and it was a good
life - I have done nothing but fight for you. I did what our political
76
establishment never expected and never forgive, breaking the cardinal rule
of Washington politics. [tru-14]
(152) I thought he gave up the presidency the other day because he said
he’s running for the Senate. I looked at the First Lady, I said: “Hey,
he’s running for the Senate.” And today he just said Super Thursday,
he’s looking forward to Super Thursday. [tur-12]
There is a difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump.
Unlike the stories from the political background the stories from Trump's personal life are not involved in his political speeches. If he mentions his family members, so then he puts them into a political situation. He often mentions his wife Melania or Ivanka and he points out their abilities and political functions: Melania as the First
Lady and Ivanka as a business woman and involved into politics too. In his speeches there are about 7 stories from his personal life with a political subtext.
Stories connected to his family are stated below:
(153) And she (Ivanka) left the company. And when you leave a company,
all of a sudden it doesn’t do as well. But she left the company, came
to Washington and she said 500,000 jobs. That was her goal.
And she did that in the first month. She actually did… She’s now
over 15 million jobs where they train people and bring
them into the companies. [tru-10]
(154) For her incredible service to our nation and its children, I want to thank
our magnificent first lady. I also want to thank my amazing daughter
Ivanka for introduction, and to all of my children. [tur-14]
In the Donald Trump corpora there are placed stories describing his business background. The amount is not high, only 7 stories, however, they are used strategically because they serve as a support of the ethical argument according to the persuasive strategy. He uses his own reputation by describing himself as a businessman.
This tactics serves to support his possible future reputation of the president.
77
Thus, he convinces the audience by comparing leading the state to leading his firms.
These stories are present in the following examples:
(155) I have made billions of dollars in business making deals – now I’m going
to make our country rich. [tur-03]
(156) I built an extraordinary business on relationships and deals that benefit
all parties involved, always. My goal is always again to bring people
together. [tru-01]
A lot of Donald Trump's stories begin with: I’ve travelled, I’ve visited, I’ve met, etc. Moreover, Donald Trump supports his credibility as to some serious topics connected to criminality, he uses the stories of people, who were involved into crimes, who were killed, murdered, as for example Sarah Root who was killed by a border-crossed, or a young man who was murdered by a criminal alien, a 92-year-old woman who was raped, beaten, brutalized, and murdered by an illegal alien, etc. These stories are present in the following examples:
(157) One of incredible Americans was Detective Miosotis Familia. She was part
of a team of American heroes called the NZPD, or New York’s finest,
who I was very proud to get their endorsement just the other day. . . Three
years ago on the Fourth of July weekend, Detective Familia was on duty
in her vehicle when she was ambushed just after midnight
and murdered. . . two years ago, I stood in front of the U.S. Capitol
alongside those beautiful children and held their grandmother´s hand
as they mourned their terrible loss. [tru-14]
Apart from drastic stories Donald Trump uses stories that have to amuse the audience that´s why he invites also for his rallies people that have something in common with sport. He invited Mike Eruzione – a captain of the Vegas Knights,
Kelly Brooks – a daughter of a coach Herb Brooks to talk about her dad. These stories are present in the following examples:
78
(158) Her dad was an amazing coach. He was a great teacher. He was a great
motivator at times, maybe too much of a motivator. He was demanding.
He was very difficult to play for. But trust me one thing, there never was
a day that we didn’t respect the man and never once was a day
that we didn’t trust him and what he was trying to do. [tru-10]
(159) Kelly Brooks: I’m honoured that this legacy still is alive today
and he would be proud to be here with you all. In my personal opinion,
he would have been a Trump fan. [tru-10]
Donald Trump to support his credibility invites on the stage other political supporters of him to testify in his favour, such as Lindsey Graham Senator who gave a compliment to him:
(160) Mr. President, thank you for being the best Commander in Chief
since Ronald Reagan. Thank you for killing the terrorists over there,
so they can’t hurt us over here. [tru-12]
Donald Trump understands well that the stories said by somebody else have bigger credibility. It is the reason why he read a letter by Mary Ann Mendoza – a mum that lost her son a police sergeant Brandon Mendoza. This letter defends Trump's idea of closing the borders plus the same negative opinion about Hillary. Trump begins the letter with the following words:
(161) Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands,
is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of four
lives in harm’s way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists
to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or, I, she is only
concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs
to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed
against this country. [tru-02]
In speeches [tru-08], [tru-11], [tru-13] Donald Trump shares the stories of his experience with the media and fake news or hoaxes. He underlines several times
79
what fake news can cause. As a speaker in politics the media take an important part and every politician should not attack the media.
(162) Our biggest obstacle and their greatest ally actually is the media.
You can believe it. We’ve got stories that are so big and the media
doesn’t pick them up. [tru-08]
(163) They (the media) don’t even like showing the crowd. They only show
my face. They never show the crowd. You know what? The people
can hear the crowd. The people can hear the crowd. They know.
That is not the sound of 200 people. [tru-08]
The analysis shows that Donald Trump has the same motives for sharing personal experience as Barack Obama. By means of the stories he creates his reputation as a person who is trustworthy and as the right person to be placed in the presidential position. Also in Donald Trump's corpora there is a huge amount of the stories that proves that the ethical appeal is high within the persuasion.
8.1.3 Results
The persuasion works better when the politician manages to describe himself and have a good image in front of the audience as to his character, professional background, skills. A good persuader is the one who highlights the nature of his character so strongly that he persuades the audience about it. To do so, the persuader uses sentences that emphasize his thoughts, opinions, comprehension of the other people's problems. He introduces himself via sharing the experience.
If the personal experience is included in the speech, the listeners become accustomed to know the speaker and they start believing him and are easier persuaded.
In the case of Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's corpora the analysis proves that both of them use their personal stories to have good images
80
in front of the audience, although the analysis proves that Barack Obama uses his personal experience in a larger extent than Donald Trump. Barack Obama's corpora contain about 50 stories and Donald Trump's corpora contain 56 stories, however, the extent of the Barack Obama's speeches is shorter almost in a half. The stories of the both politicians work on the personal level, although the personal level in Barack
Obama's is presented in his family life and values. On the other hand, Donald Trump uncovers his personal political stories. Barack Obama introduces himself as a father, husband, grandson, community organizer, lawyer, Senator, and politician.
He tries to have a closer approach to his audience and he intends to share with the audience common problems and struggles that he or his family had to deal with. He also uses the other people stories in a non-violent and gentle way to change opinions of his listeners. He puts emphasis on emotions of the audience.
Barack Obama's aim in his stories is to show to the audience that he has a good moral character and that the audience could trust his judgement because he depicts himself as an expert in law and a man who has have some experience in politics.
Regarding the use of personal experience as a persuasive strategy, Barack Obama is successful orator endorsing the humility and calm approach. Donald Trump's stories are focused on his business success and later on his political activities, especially on his good results in politics in comparison to previous political parties. Unlike Barack
Obama his stories describe chaos, depict horror scenarios and dangerous world and make people feel fearful. He depicts himself as capable to defend them and the only one who can liberate world from the chaos. It is impossible to say which persuasive strategy is better, although also Donald Trump uses his personal experiences as a persuasive strategy. Moreover, to emphasize the persuasive aspect, he uses the help of other speakers and other proofs for supporting his ethical arguments.
81
9. Pathos
Pathos is one of the three modes of persuasion by emotions. By the emotional appeal politicians might evoke a wide range of emotions and via emotions provoke the audience to actions. The action that is needed the most is if the politicians are capable to persuade the audience to vote them. The aim of the speaker is to get connected with the audience. The persuasive strategies that politicians are allowed to use to appeal emotionally the audience are strategies like a direct appeal to the audience and the use of speech acts. Both strategies are the subject of the following analysis.
9.1 Direct appeal to the audience
For the appeal to the audience politicians use persuasive strategies that are based on creating a relationship between the orator and the audience.
The politician builds emotional bridges in different ways: 1) by salutations, 2) by usage of personal pronouns you and your, 3) by interrogative and imperative sentence,
4) by declaratives that are typical for political speeches and within pathos they points to belief or judgement and evaluate strategies of the predecessors. They fulfil the function of requests. In this chapter there will be analysed only salutations and usage of personal pronouns, the other two points will be the subject of the analysis in the next chapter.
This chapter will be focused on differences of the direct appeal in Barack
Obama's and Donald Trump's speeches, specifically on the use of salutations and the use of personal pronouns you and your and how both politicians use them in regards to the persuasion.
82
9.1.1 Barack Obama's direct appeal in his speeches
Barack Obama addresses to his audience by salutations at the beginning of the speech just to create a contact or during the speech for giving the audience to know that he speaks to them, he counts with them. Barack Obama addresses to his voters by salutations such as: fellow Americans; my, fellow Americans; the American people; fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents;
Hello Springfield; Hello, America!; We, the people; thank you, South Carolina; good people of South Carolina; hello, Indiana – the vocative of the state where the rally is presented; hello, Chicago!; you guys; folks; to all my fellow citizens of this great nation, or just my fellow citizens; citizens; to the rock of my life – Michelle Obama or to the love of my love – the next First Lady,
Michelle Obama, to Mahlia and Sasha (Obama's daughters); America;
Michelle LaVaughn Robinson of the South Side; Madam Chairwoman; delegates; and to all of you out there. Instead of vocatives he uses also at the beginning of the speech: Thank you! Thank you very much! to express his gratitude.
It is not the rule that every speech begins with the salutation but also with: today, tonight, I want to start or by a surprising phrase: what a scene! From the point of the persuasion he is interested in creating a good atmosphere and the feeling of unity or belonging. He expresses also a surprise about the amount of the followers and that he feels that they have the same aim. There are following examples:
(164) Hello, Springfield!...Look at all of you. Look at all of you. Goodness.
Thank you so much. [oba-02]
(165) What a scene! What a crowd! Thank you for Virginia. [oba-09]
(166) My fellow citizens! I stand here today humbled by the task before us,
grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne
by our ancestors. [oba-11]
83
The other strategy of the direct appeal, is the use of personal pronouns you and your which politicians use to attract attention to some topics or in fact just to gain the attention of the audience. When having the attention of the listeners a politician can create an emotional response in the audience and thus, the audience is willing to adopt a particular belief presented by the orator. You can see in the examples quoted below how Barack Obama catches the listener´s attention:
(167) This campaign is about you – about your hopes, about your dreams,
about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American Dream.
[oba-06]
(168) I’m hopeful because of you. [oba-12]
(169) And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you.
I have learned from you. [oba-13]
(170) I’ve rejoiced with you and mourned with you, what I have also seen,
more than anything, is what is right with America. [oba-14]
(171) You made me a better president, and you made me a better man. [oba-15]
The politician uses the persuasive strategy to make listener to believe that what the orator says is meant to be like that and the audience is pushed to be emotionally connected to the orator and also incite to an action, as shown below:
(172) That is why I am in this race – not just to hold an office, but to gather
with you to transform a nation. [oba-02]
(173) Now it’s up to you, Indiana. You can decide whether we’re going to travel
the same worn path. [oba-05]
(174) I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do
it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task
that lies ahead. [oba-10]
(175) I’m asking you to choose that future. I’m asking you to rally around
a set of goals for your country. [oba-12]
84
(176) I’m asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring
about change – but in yours. [oba-15]
In the previous examples Barack Obama encourages the audience to change their thinking, to be active in politics and especially in their decision who to vote.
The analysis of the direct appeal to the audience in the Barack
Obama's speeches shows that Barack Obama appeals to the audience by salutations directly or just by thanks to be on the stage at the beginning of the speech. If the second possibility happens he demonstrates his efforts to address the audience in the course of the speech.
The analysis of personal pronouns you and your in the Barack Obama's corpora shows that in some speeches [oba-02], [oba-08], [oba-12], [oba-13], [oba-14] and [oba-15] the involvement of this type of appeal is high and except of the speech
[oba-12] the appeals using personal pronouns you and your are to be found at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the speech. It means that speeches
[oba-02], [oba-08], [oba-12], [oba-13], [oba-14] and [oba-15] because of their high involvement of the pronouns you and your have the persuasive potential as to emotional appeal higher than the other speeches. In these speeches the orator evokes emotions by the usage of you and your and from the persuasive point by these arguments based on pathos Barack Obama can influence or change political behaviour of his listeners. The lower involvement of the appeal by means of pronouns you and your is in the speeches [oba-01], [oba-03], [oba-04] and it means that he does not control the emotions or guide the emotions so much, so the persuasive potential of these speeches as to pathos will be considered as lower. In the speech
[oba-09] these appeals are at the beginning and at the end of the speech, they are and completely missing in the middle and the situation is vice versa in the speech [oba-10] where direct appeals in the form of pronouns you and your can be found in the middle part of the speech. As a result of the analysis Barack Obama does not use this form of the appeal equally in his speeches.
85
9.1.2 Donald Trump's direct appeal in his speeches
Donald Trump addresses to his voters by salutations such as: hello, folks; my friends; fellow Americans; fellas; very special people; all people of the world; delegates and distinguished guests; we, the citizens of America; warriors;
Rudy, really a friend to me; thank you, everybody; brave people; boy, oh, boy, oh, boy
– he called his politician's friend Reince, a good man; ladies and gentlemen.
In his speeches Donald Trump addresses the audience also with: hello, Manchester; hello, Las Vegas; so we begin, Oklahoma. He salutes the audience to create a contact and emotional response with the audience. There are following examples:
(177) Friends, delegates and fellow Americans: I humbly and gratefully accept
your nomination for the presidency of the United States. [tru-02]
(178) Hello, Manchester, I am thrilled to be in the great state of Hampshire
what thousands of hard working patriots, who believe in God, family
and country. [tru-09]
(179) Well, thank you very much. And hello, Las Vegas. Great to be with you.
[tru-10]
As well as Barack Obama also Donald Trump uses as a form of salutations names of cities where the rally takes place. Sometimes the beginning of the speech is with thanks to the audience. He uses also informal type of salutations, such as fellas, folks, and friends.
Donald Trump uses as a form of salutations also nicknames for his opponents: like “sleepy” Joe for Joe Biden, crooked Hillary for Hillary Clinton, Mini Mike for Mike
Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City), Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren (Senator of Massachusettes), “crazy” Bernie for Bernie Sanders and Bootedgeegde for Pete
Buttugieg (Mayor of South Bend), Trump calls him also like Howdy Doody or he refers him to a fictitious character Alfred E. Newman, “Mister impeachment” for Tom Steyer
(Democratic nominee for president in 2020). The nicknames are both humorous
86
and offensive. His speeches thanks to his comedian talent are both ironic and humorous, moreover with rhetorical “zingers” is capable to catch the audience's attention. It is known that trying to use humour or present speech with jokes helps to catch attention of the audience and guide their emotions in the directions that are needed for the orator. On the other side, Donald Trump throws out insults to his rivals and he mocks of the other candidates, which in some cases is not appropriate but again his arguments based on pathos permit him to create an emotional response of the audience and to attach them to the topic of the speech.
The other strategy that this analysis explores is the use of personal pronouns you and your in the direct appeal. As it was written in Barack Obama's part also Donald Trump tries to attract attention of the audience to some topics and incite them to some actions on the basis of effecting their emotions. Using you and your pronouns serves for creating a connection between the orator and the audience.
You can see it in the examples below where Donald Trump tries to catch the attention of the audience:
(180) I’m with you: the American people. [tru-02]
(181) Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America. [tru-03]
(182) I say these words to you. [tru-04]
(183) That all changes starting right here and right now – because this is your
moment. It belongs to you. ….This is your day. This is your celebration.
[tru-06]
The listeners gain the feeling that they are unique. The analysis proves that Donald Trump uses short phrases with pronouns you to attract the listeners.
In the following examples Donald Trump provokes the audience to some actions, he let them believe that they will be taken care about in future by him, that they will be important for him after the elections too and that they have a common aim. See the examples below:
87
(184) I will never let you down – too much work, too many people, blood, sweat
and tears. I’m never going to let you down. I will make you proud
of your party and our movement, and that´s what it is, is a movement.
[tru-01]
(185) I am running for President to end the unfairness and to put you,
the American worker, first. [tru-02]
(186) In this election, you aren’t just voting for a candidate. You’re voting
for which party controls Congress. Very, very big vote. It’s very
close. [tru-08]
(187) If you want to protect your family and your loved ones, you must vote
Republicans in 2020, November. [tru-10]
(188) We’re returning power to you, the American people,
that’s what’s happening. With your help, your devotion, and your drive,
we are going to keep on working, we are going to keep on fighting. [tru-12]
In the speech [tru-01] there was a specific appeal to the audience that could be interpreted as a warning, although in this context there was a description of a political situation when the Democrats are in government that after the elections they do not think about citizens. As I stated before, Donald Trump describes the horror scenes and in this was he presents the change:
(189) You better hope I’m President. [tru-01]
In some political speeches the speaker expresses the direct appeal by using humour, as shown in the following example:
(190) I am going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place
with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very,
very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend,
who knows. [tru-01]
(191) I’d ask whether or not you think I will someday be on Mt. Rushmore,
but, but here’s the problem. If I did it joking, totally joking, having fun,
88
the fake news media will say, “he believes he should be on Mt. Rushmore.”
So I won’t say it, okay? [tru-07]
The analysis of the direct appeal to the audience in the Donald
Trump's speeches shows some similarities to Barack Obama's speeches as to direct appeals to the audience by salutations. Politicians are supposed to appeal directly by a salutation or by thanks at the beginning of the speech. Donald Trump addresses his listeners during his speech several times.
The analysis of personal pronouns you and your in the Donald Trump's corpora shows that the speech with the highest involvement of the use of personal pronouns you and your is the speech [tru-08]. The other speeches with the higher persuasive potential because of higher presence of the personal pronouns you are [tru-07],
[tru-09], [tru-10], [tru-11], [tru-12], [tru-13] and [tru-15]. The reason why it is so could be that the length of the speeches [tru-10], [tru-11], [tru-12], [tru-13] is excessive.
Direct appeals expressed by personal pronouns you and your serve for creating the emotional attachment with the audience. The lower involvement of the appeal by means of pronouns you and your is in the speeches [tru-02] and [tru-05].
Even though, the occurrence of the direct appeals using pronouns you and your is proportionate to the length of the speeches.
9.1.3 Results
Both politicians address the audience with the salutations and using personal pronouns you and your. The salutations are made with the sense of familiarity when the aim of the speech is highlighting the political programmes and vision of the government changes, but also with the sense of formality when the speech is inaugural. While using personal pronouns you and your, they use similar techniques for involving the audience into the discussion of the topic. The direct engagement
89
with the audience is proportionate. Both politicians use pronouns you and your more after their first presidential period. The persuasive effect of Donald Trump speeches is focused on attachment of the audience to the topic. He intends to incite actions in the audience. The direct appeal of his speeches has also the persuasive effect that might be classified as making his listeners to believe in the promises presented at the stage. It is noticed that the usage of pronouns you and your have also the effect of warning and reminding the audience to have as voters their tasks. The often used phrase “you know” is used to announce the important information and to point out that the listeners should concentrate on the passage of the speech.
Barack Obama uses direct appeal to the audience to point out the uniqueness, exceptionality and magnitude of the voters. Voters being motivated positively by sense of togetherness could be provoked and persuaded to change their way of thinking.
Both politicians tend to address the audience with the aim to make their audience more attached to the contents of the speeches and to evoke the emotions of self-importance, contentment, anxiety, etc. The truth is that when the politicians manage to evoke these feelings in the listeners, the listeners can be persuaded easily.
9.2 Speech acts
This subchapter is focused on analysis of speech acts in both corpora.
The analysis will indicate some similarities or differences in the occurrence of interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory speech acts. These acts were chosen because they provoke the audience to actions and they stir the emotions.
As it is expected, they address the audience directly and that is the reason why they are close to the direct appeal that was presented in the previous chapter.
Moreover, questions, commands, and exclamations evoke some feelings and cause some actions in the audience and as we have known emotions are connected to pathos.
90
9.2.1 Speech acts in Barack Obama's speeches
Unexpectedly, interrogative speech acts with personal pronouns you and your are not present in Barack Obama's corpora. There is only one example of informal question quoted in the following example:
(192) You know what? [oba-12]
There is a scarce presence of the interrogative speech acts with we and I in the Barack Obama's corpora, too. In 15 speeches only four examples are found as you can see below:
(193) Are we serving Shamus as well as he is serving us? [oba-01]
(194) Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics
of hope? [oba-01]
(195) The question is not whether the other party will bring about change
in Washington – the question is, will we? [oba-05]
(196) How could I not be after that we’ve achieved together? [oba-14]
Speeches [oba-02], [oba-03], [oba-04], [oba-06], [oba-07], [oba-09], [oba-13] do not contain an interrogative speech acts. Interrogative speech acts with questions in a row are involved more in the speeches. Seven speeches out of 15 contain at least 1 example of questions in a row, namely speech [oba-05], [oba-08], [oba-10],
[oba-11], [oba-12], [oba-14] and [oba-15]. These questions function like philosophical questions or rhetorical, they do not need to answer, they provoke the listeners to think about the issue presented, so they have an illusion of a false communication.
I chose these three examples:
(197) How many years – how many decades – have we been talking
about solving our health care crisis? How many Presidents have promised
to end our dependence on foreign oil? How many jobs have gone overseas
in the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s? [oba-05]
91
(198) Does anyone really believe that a guy who’s spent 70 years on this Earth
showing no regard for working people is suddenly going
to be your champion? Your voice? [oba-14]
(199) And isn’t that part of what so often makes politics dispiriting?
How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend
money on pre-school for kids, but not when we’re cutting taxes
for corporations? How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party,
but pounce when the other party does the same thing? [oba-15]
Imperative speech acts with verbs such as look, understand, recall, forget, trust, etc. serve to the politicians to make the audience to think, or to stop to think about the words of the politician or to pay attention that there will be an important piece of information. The persuasive function is to engage the audience to use their intellectual capacity. Below there are a few selected examples:
(200) Look, we have made some progress already. [oba-02]
(201) So understand this, South Carolina. [oba-03]
(202) Don’t ever forget that we have a choice in this country – that we can choose
not to be divided. [oba-06]
(203) Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism
not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring
convictions. [oba-11]
(204) Trust me, I know. [oba-14]
Then to the other group of imperative speech acts belong the imperatives whose task is to make the audience to act or to change their manners. The imperative speech acts encourage the audience to do or not to do something. Below there are a few selected examples:
(205) Let’s get to work. [oba-02]
(206) Don’t tell me, we can´t change. [oba-03]
(207) Don’t boo – vote! [oba-14]
92
(208) Just ask the 20 million more people who have health care today. [oba-14]
(209) Embrace the joyous task! [oba-15]
Exclamatory speech acts are not highly involved into the Barack
Obama's corpora. Together, there are only 20 exclamations in 15 speeches.
In the peroration, there is found Yes, we can!, or God bless you and (may) God bless the United States of America!, or its variety God bless these United States!
The exclamatory speech acts have a rhetorical and emotive force. Their main persuasive effect is to emphasize the main electoral messages or slogans and to evoke the feelings such as fighting for a better future or some changes in the society that could improve the lifestyle of the citizens, simply they encourage to some actions mainly for the political participants to keep the political programmes and their followers to be acquainted with the ideas of the candidates, and to encourage citizens to change their attitudes and to create a better future. The exclamatory speech acts are present in the following examples:
(210) The audacity of hope! [oba-01]
(211) Yes we can reclaim that dream! Yes we can heal this nation! [oba-04]
(212) All this we can do! And all this we will do! [oba-11]
Instead of interrogative, imperative and exclamatory speech acts Barack Obama uses declarative sentences with the pronouns we and they. He uses inclusive we, he does not use pronoun I very often and in speeches [oba-01], [oba-02], and [oba-03] at all. The we pronoun covers we as a nation, Barack Obama tries to be close to the citizens and to express his understanding, but also we functions as an encouragement. As it is known declarative sentences lower the potential of emotional appeals but in the case of political speeches, they can be also persuasive.
Declaratives indicating pathos reveal as persuasive because they point to belief or judgement about something, or as a hidden request. The declarative sentences with we are present in the following examples:
93
(213) We cannot afford to keep doing what we’ve been doing. We owe our
children a better future. [oba-07]
(214) We have real anxieties about paying the bills, and protecting our kids,
caring for a sick parent. [oba-14]
(215) We are moving forward, America. [oba-12]
The second usage of we in Barack Obama's speeches is for expressing the political unity within the democratic political party, their common ideas about governing the country. The persuasive effects of declaratives might be seen also in presenting an evaluative opinion, in predictions, or expectations.
These declarative sentences with we are present in the following examples:
(216) We Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress
in this country. [oba-08]
(217) To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you.
To those who seek peace and security – we support you. [oba-10]
Politicians often use pronoun they as a reference for the opponents, in case of Barack Obama as a reference for Republicans or much often as a reference for people in general, which is really interesting. The declarative sentences with they which refers to people as shown in the following examples:
(218) They (people) know we can do better. And they want that choice. [oba-01]
(219) They can’t afford another four years without good schools.
They can’t afford another four years without decent wages
because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done. [oba-03]
Declaratives indicating pathos reveal as persuasive when they criticize and blame and in fact they show the audience the differences between the political party they follow and the opposite party. The declarative sentences with they which refers to political opponents or the Republicans as shown in the following examples:
94
(220) They (politicians in Washington) think they own this government,
but we’re here today to take it back. [oba-02]
(221) They didn’t have much to say about how they’d make it right. They want
your vote, but they don’t want you to know their plan. [oba-12]
The analysis of the speech acts proves that imperatives are the most used.
Surprisingly the interrogative speech acts are used scarcely. On the whole,
Barack Obama does not rely on the speech acts in his speeches, moreover some speeches [oba-02], [oba-03], [oba-04], [oba-06], [oba-07], [oba-09] and [oba-13] do not contain all three speech acts, the speeches miss interrogatives though.
To sum it up, with so low involvement of speech acts expressed by interrogative, imperative and exclamatory sentences in the Barack Obama's corpora it is advised to conclude that the persuasive potential of the speeches as to this strategy will be low.
Barack Obama uses declarative sentences in his speeches and they in general, lower the potential of the emotional appeal to the audience.
9.2.2 Speech acts in Donald Trump's speeches
The analysis proves that in the corpora there is found a number of interrogative speech acts that use personal pronouns you and your to appeal directly to the audience and to evoke the emotions. Examples:
(222) Can you believe we have to do that? [tru-07]
(223) Can you imagine if they had to cover mini Mike? [tru-10]
(224) Do you see how many crooked ballots are being found and turned back
in and fraudulent? [tru-15]
In the corpora of Donald Trump it is visible his effort to be close to the audience that he does not use auxiliary verbs in the interrogative speech acts. There is a high involvement of the colloquial questions as you can see in the examples:
95
(225) And you know what? [tru-08]
(226) You ever see what happens? [tru-09]
In Donald Trump's political speeches there are also interrogative speech acts with the use of pronouns we and I. The interrogatory speech acts with the personal pronoun I Donald Trump uses scarcely, and if so, it is in the question tag. The following examples present the inclusive use of pronoun we:
(227) After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? [tru-03]
(228) How are we serving these American victims by attacking law enforcement
officers? [tru-04]
(229) Are we allowed to tell them who we would like them to vote for? [tru-11]
(230) I guess I’m good at getting things approved, aren’t I? [tru-11]
There are also several occurrences of question tags by which the politician
Donald Trump asks for affirmation, as in the following examples:
(231) So what’s happening, you do know who is paying for the wall, don’t you?
[tru-09]
(232) All I can say is that the fake news just doesn’t get it, do they? [tru-11]
There is also high occurrence of the questions with right, and the alternative to the version with ok instead of the word right, as you can see in the following examples:
(233) We won by a lot, right? [tru-09]
(234) You know about the death tax, right? [tru-12]
(235) Many of whom are not exactly what we are looking for, ok? [tru-12]
In the corpus of Donald Trump speeches, there are also several occurrences of series of more questions in a row. In speeches [tru-09], [tru-10] and [tru-11] there are three examples of questions in a row per speech. They are present in the following examples:
(236) Aren’t you tired of a system that gets rich at your expense? Aren’t you tired
of big media, big businesses, and big donors rigging the system to keep
96
your voice from being heard? Are you ready for a change? Are you ready
for leadership that puts you the American people, first? That puts
your country first? [tru-04]
(237) What’s wrong with having the strongest military brand new in the world?
What’s wrong with having these great economic numbers? What’s wrong
with having to close it down? [tru-13]
In the corpus of Donald Trump speeches, there are found also several questions that do not have a personal pronoun still with a potential of emotional appeal.
They are present in the following examples:
(238) Is there any place that’s more fun, more exciting and safer than a Trump
rally? [tru-07]
(239) Unemployment for Americans without high school diplomas has reached
the lowest rate ever recorded. Isn’t that beautiful? [tru-08]
(240) Was that the worst debate in history? [tru-12]
Imperative speech acts in the corpus of Donald Trump speeches can be divided into two groups as well as in the corpus of Barack Obama's speeches. Firstly, the imperative speech acts that make the listeners to think, to imagine or to use brain skills, as it is presented in the following examples:
(241) Imagine how many lives could have been saved, all across this country,
if Democratic politicians hadn’t blocked in their cities what Rudy
did in New York City! [tru-04]
(242) Illegal immigration costs Nevada taxpayers, think of it, more than $1.6
billion every year! [tru-10]
(243) Listen, we have the best unemployment numbers in the history
of our country. [tru-10]
(244) Remember, they also said, „if you build the wall you’ll lose the Hispanic
vote.” [tru-10]
97
The other group of imperative speech acts involves the imperatives that make the audience to act or to change their manners. Donald Trump gives them or a piece of advice or a warning, it is a strong recommendation. It might be concluded that Donald Trump's imperatives are more explicit. He uses forceful expressions and that is why his imperative speech acts are coercive. Below there are a few selected examples:
(245) Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge
can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. [tru-06]
(246) Don’t move. Don´t sell your house. Don’t sell your house. Remember,
I got a lot of credit. [tru-07]
(247) Vote for me, what the hell do you have to lose? [tru-07]
Every speech contains at least one exclamatory speech act except the speech
[tru-05]. The speeches [tru-06], [tru-07], [tru-08], [tru-11], [tru-12], and [tru-15] contain at least two or three exclamations. They have a function of political slogans.
Below there are a few selected examples:
(248) We will bring back our jobs! We will bring back our borders! We will bring
back our wealth! And we will bring back our dreams! [tru-06]
(249) We are the party of equal opportunity for all Americans! [tru-09]
(250) Keep America great! [tru-10]
Like in Barack Obama's speeches the usage of declarative speech acts lowers the emotional appeal to the audience and reduces the persuasive potential of the pathos. Donald Trump uses more we in the declarative speech acts where we is referring to the participants of the Republicans and this serves to express the political programmes to the audience and to show them the unity of the Republicans. Donald Trump's declarative speeches indicating pathos within the persuasion have the effect of provoking the feelings of contentment, expectation, belongings. Below there are a few selected examples:
(251) We’re going to start bringing back our jobs! [tru-07]
98
(252) We proudly welcome and embrace voters of all parties and political
persuasions who want to join our mission! [tru-09]
(253) We have all the love, we have all the enthusiasm, and we know
what we’re doing. We know what we’re doing. So we´re thrilled
to be joined tonight by many really great, terrific, brilliant, wonderful
warriors. [tru-12]
The analysis of the speech acts proves that Donald Trump uses interrogatory speech acts the most. Not only that he uses different types of questions but he also uses informal questions. All three speech acts are not present equally in the speeches, mainly speeches [tru-02], [tru-05] and [tru-06] do not contain interrogatory speech acts. Even though, the occurrence of the interrogatory speech acts equals
¾ in comparison to ¼ of imperative and ¼ of exclamatory speech acts.
On the one hand, the high occurrence of the interrogatory speech acts confirms that the persuasive potential of the speeches is also high. On the other hand, the questions with personal pronoun I are not used, there are a few exceptions.
The most typical question is the question with the pronoun you. To conclude, there is a high involvement of the speech acts expressed by interrogative ones so the speeches stir the emotions in the audience. Like Barack Obama also Donald
Trump uses declarative sentences in his speeches with the wide range of the pronoun we and as in the case of Barack Obama's speeches also here the declaratives reduce the value of the emotional appeal to the audience.
9.2.3 Results
The analysis of the corpora shows that both politicians use different amount of the speech acts. Moreover, the proportion of the speech acts differs. In the case of Barack Obama the speech acts are more balanced, although the most preferred
99
speech acts are imperatives, then exclamatory speech act, and the orator does not put impact on the usage of questions. In the Donald Trump's speeches the proportion is less balanced, the interrogatives tend to be used with a high involvement, even 3 times more. Thus, the speeches can result with higher emotional appeal and their potential of persuasion is increased.
In the corpora of Barack Obama's speeches there is a low occurrence of interrogative speech acts. Moreover, the speaker prefers questions in a row that function like philosophical questions with the aim to provoke the listeners to think about the issue presented, so they have an illusion of a false communication.
Unlike Barack Obama, in the corpora of Donald Trump's speeches there is an extensive amount of interrogative speech acts with the most common question in a form of pronoun you and questions in a row and with a higher potential via emotional appeals to create the importance in the audience to consider the issue and to adopt an attitude. There is higher probability to persuade the audience with these questions.
The analysis of imperative speech acts reveals that Barack Obama's speeches contain imperative speech acts that make the audience to think, or to show the directions to pay attention to the highlighted pieces of information.
Their persuasive function is in encouraging the audience to some acts. They serve as requests. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's imperative speeches occur in the corpora in a lower amount, they are meant to be a forceful recommendation or strong advice to act in a demanded way, thus their force is coercive. For both politicians the imperative speech acts are taken as direct forms of persuasion with explicit instructions what to do.
The analysis of exclamatory speech acts proves that the use of them in both corpora is similar as to amount. The main purpose of the exclamatory speech acts is to get acquainted with the electoral programs, to present slogans, and to encourage citizens to change their attitudes and to create a better future.
100
In the corpora of Donald Trump's speeches the emotions are more influenced by speech acts, the appeals of Donald Trump are stronger, so they have higher persuasive potential.
101
Conclusion
The aim of the thesis was to provide a contribution to political persuasion of two presidential candidates. The thesis investigated Barack Obama's and Donald
Trump's presidential electoral speeches using a contrastive analysis with a focus on persuasive strategies according to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian concepts logos, ethos, and pathos. In the theoretical part I explained the term of persuasion in the first chapter. The second chapter was dedicated to rhetoric founded by a Greek philosopher Aristotle in 4th century B. C. who introduced the rhetorical triangle: logos, ethos, and pathos. The third chapter inquired into the language of politics connected with persuasion and highlighted the features typical for a political communication whose main aim is the presentation of the reasonable arguments. In the chapter four, which I consider as the core part of the thesis, there were presented persuasive strategies that politicians use for their persuasive speeches to persuade the audience.
In this chapter I tried to mention a detailed description of the strategies that use persuasion by reason – logos, by character – ethos, and by emotions – pathos, and I classified their typical features and means of the appeals. In the subchapters
I dealt with main supportive sources for the persuasive appeals. In the analysis I used namely these strategies appropriate for revealing the three Aristotelian appeals and to be discussed in the practical part: intertextuality, figurative language within logos, within ethos I chose sharing the personal experience, and within pathos
I focused on direct appeal to the listeners and speech acts.
As I mentioned above, in the practical part I used a contrastive analysis of Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's political speeches. The data were compiled into two corpora that were found on the internet and their selection was conditioned by the speeches that were prepared by these two politicians for the presidential candidacy. In both corpora there are 15 political speeches – presidential speeches.
102
The aim of the analysis was to study selected persuasive strategies in the corpora of presidential speeches and to compare the use of their persuasive strategies in Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's speeches. In the analysis the speeches were studied from the point of intertextuality, figurative language, sharing personal experience of the presidential candidates, direct appeal to their audience, and the use of speech acts, specifically on the interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory speech acts. There persuasive strategies were analysed with regard to logos, ethos and pathos, and their persuasive potential was discussed in every part of the analysis. The results of the individual strategies in Barack Obama's and Donald
Trump's speeches were then compared and contrasted in the final evaluation of every part.
The results of the analysis show that Barack Obama's speeches in some parts contain stronger persuasive potential than Donald Trump's and vice versa.
The intertextuality part and sharing personal experience is highly developed in Barack
Obama corpora. Barack Obama refers to the other sources with a high intention and he finds the sources for his arguments in juridical, political, historical, literary documents, including some factual statistics. The references of the other sources raise the trustfulness of Barack Obama and make the logos part of the speeches highly-developed and these references serve for creating the unity among the citizens and have a motivational effect. His references via statistics and figures support his political programme ideas and contribute to trustworthiness of his logical appeal.
In Barack Obama corpora personal stories are involved in a huge amount in comparison to Donald Trump's and their goal to gain credibility for the politician is accomplished on a high level together with the emotional appeal to the audience.
Even though the analysis shows that the direct appeals of Barack Obama are not in a larger extent, they have a strong effect on the audience because of the familiar salutations, usage of personal pronouns you and your for involving the audience into the political topic. The direct appeals are engaged
103
in a proportionate mode and he uses interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory speech acts to the audience to point out their uniqueness, exceptionality and magnitude as the voters. His speech acts effect their emotions and fulfil his persuasive intentions.
At the point of direct appeal Donald Trump's speeches have the similar function and extension in the corpora. Moreover, his usage of pronouns you and your have also the effect of warning and reminding the audience to have as voters their tasks, and with his intention to incite actions in the audience the direct appeals are classified as one with strong persuasive effect.
In some parts Donald Trump's speeches are more persuasive, especially in speech acts. Speech acts in Donald Trump corpora are more extended than in Barack
Obama corpora, specifically in interrogative speech acts with the aim to stir emotions.
The analysis showed that Donald Trump puts more interest into the pathos appeal, and there is higher probability to persuade the audience. Additionally, Donald Trump's imperative speech acts have a persuasive potential and they are classified as coercive.
The focus was to investigate that Barack Obama's as well as Donald Trump corpora used metaphors to intensify their opinions on the issues and in the same way to goad the audience into changing the attitudes towards the issues. They handled the process of using these persuasive devices to the maximum and managed to de-legitimize some political entities and legitimize their goals. The corpora of both orators prove that Barack Obama's speeches are focused on figurative language in the form of conceptual metaphors more than Donald Trump's and that is why they are supposed to have the persuasive potential higher, although as well as in the Donald Trump's speeches this persuasive appeal to reason is covered.
To sum up, both politicians balanced the three Aristotelian appeals in their speeches. However, their approach to persuasive strategies differs.
The difference is caused by the character of the presidential candidates, by their professional background and family values that could be seen in ethos part
104
the best. Both of the corpora confirms that the ethos part is interlinked and conveyed with the personal stories as the most important part and with the stories the politicians uncover their personality, character and they intend to be considered as credible and trustworthy speakers and experts who are competent to carry out the function of the president. If they gain the sympathy, if they convince the audience and evoke the emotions in them, then they can build on the logical appeal.
These findings indicate that the logos and ethos is more convincing in Barack
Obama corpora while pathos is more convincing in Donald Trump corpora.
105
Bibliography
Sources of Barack Obama's electoral speeches
[oba-01]: Obama, B. (2004). Democratic National Convention Keynote Address (July
27th, 2004). Retrieved from
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2
004dnc.htm
[oba-02]: Obama, B. (2007). Official Announcement of Candidacy for US President
(February 10th, 2007). Retrieved from
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobamacandidacyforpresid
ent.htm
[oba-03]: Obama, B. (2008). South Carolina Democratic Primary Victory Speech
(January 26th, 2008). Retrieved from
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamasout
hcarolinavictory.htm
[oba-04]: Obama, B. (2008). Potomac Primary Night (February 12th, 2008). Retrieved
from https://obamaspeeches.com/E03-Barack-Obama-Potomac-Primary-
Night-Madison-WI-February12-2008.htm
[oba-05]: Obama, B. (2008). Pennsylvania Primary Night Evansville (April 22nd, 2008).
Retrieved from https://obamaspeeches.com/E07-Barack-Obama-Pennsylvania-
Primary-Night-Evansville-Indiana-April-22-2008.htm
[oba-06]: Obama, B. (2008). North Carolina Primary Night Raleigh, NC (May 6th,
2008). Retrieved from https://obamaspeeches.com/E08-Barack-Obama-
North-Carolina-Primary-Night-Raleigh-NC-May-6-2008.htm
[oba-07]: Obama, B. (2008). Final Primary Night Presumptive Democratic Nominee
Speech (June 3rd, 2008). Retrieved from https://obamaspeeches.com/E09-
106
Barack-Obama-Final-Primary-Night-Presumptive-Democratic-Nominee-
Speech-St-Paul-Minnesota-June-3-2008.htm
[oba-08]: Obama, B. (2008). Democratic National Convention Presidential
Nomination Acceptance (August 28th, 2008). Retrieved from
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/barackobama2
008dnc.htm
[oba-09]: Obama, B. (2008). Night Before the Election (November 3rd, 2008).
Retrieved from http://obamaspeeches.com/E-Barack-Obama-Speech-
Manassas-Virginia-Last-Rally-2008-Election.htm
[oba-10]: Obama, B. (2008). Election Night Victory Speech (November 4th, 2008).
Retrieved from http://obamaspeeches.com/E11-Barack-Obama-Election-Night-
Victory-Speech-Grant-Park-Illinois-November-4-2008.htm
[oba-11]: Obama, B. (2009). Inaugural Speech (January 20th, 2009). Retrieved from
https://obamaspeeches.com/P-Obama-Inaugural-Speech-Inauguration.htm
[oba-12]: Obama, B. (2012). Second Democratic Presidential Nomination Acceptance
Speech (September 6th, 2012). Retrieved from
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2012/barackobama20
12dnc.htm
[oba-13]: Obama, B. (2012). Victory Speech (November 7th, 2012). Retrieved from
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/07/barack-obama-speech-full-
text
[oba-14]: Obama, B. (2016). Democratic National Convention Address (July 27th, 2016).
Retrieved from
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2016/barackobamadn
c2016.htm
[oba-15]: Obama, B. (2017). President Obama´s Farewell Address (January 10th, 2017).
Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/obama-
farewell-address-speech.html
107
Sources of Donald Trump's electoral speeches
[tru-01]: Trump, D. (2016). Subdued Victory Speech After Winning New Jersey (June
7th, 2016). Retrieved from https://time.com/4360872/donald-trump-new-
jersey-victory-speech-transcript/
[tru-02]: Trump, D. (2016). NYC Speech on Stakes of the Election (June 22nd, 2016).
Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-trump-
speech-on-the-stakes-of-the-election-224654
[tru-03]: Trump, D. (2016). Nomination Acceptance Speech at RNC (July 21st, 2016).
Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-
donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974
[tru-04]: Trump, D. (2016). Donald Trump Campaign Speech in Wisconsin (August
17th, 2016). Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/full-text-
donald-trumps-speech-on-227095
[tru-05]: Trump, D. (2016). Victory Speech (November 9th, 2016). Retrieved from
https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-victory-
speech/index.html
[tru-06]: Trump, D. (2017). Presidential Inaugural Address (January 20th, 2017).
Retrieved from
https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/donaldtrumpinauguraladdress.ht
m
[tru-07]: Trump, D. (2017). Ohio Rally Speech (July 26th, 2017). Retrieved from
https://time.com/4874161/donald-trump-transcript-youngstown-ohio/
[tru-08]: Trump, D. (2019). President Trump´s Speech at the Evansville Rally
(December 12th, 2019). Retrieved from
https://eu.courierpress.com/story/news/local/2018/09/04/heres-transcript-
president-trumps-speech-evansville-rally/1191281002/
108
[tru-09]: Trump, D. (2020). New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary
(February 11th, 2020). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?468493-
1/president-trump-holds-rally-manchester-hampshire
[tru-10]: Trump, D. (2020). Las Vegas, Nevada Rally (February 21st, 2020). Retrieved
from http://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-las-vegas-nevada-
rally-transcript
[tru-11]: Trump, D. (2020). Charleston, South Carolina Rally (February 28th, 2020).
Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-
charleston-south-carolina-rally-transcript-february-28-2020
[tru-12]: Trump, D. (2020). President Donald Trump Hosts Rally on Eve of Super
Tuesday (March 2nd, 2020). Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/transcript-
editor/shared/7ENBtvcR3naHRD-
GgIJ6N0Tn4qrGFqmdc6CsWfRntSUqW_y4tXAB_GMeCwe_nshx-
wPJ6mu0OIlk1HAFh8LRrwEaapM?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=4033.66
[tru-13]: Trump, D. (2020). Donald Trump Holds a Political Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma
(June 20th, 2020). Retrieved from
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdudxAZhJKM
[tru-14]: Trump, D. (2020). President Trump´s Republican National Convention
Speech (August 28th, 2020). Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/us/politics/trump-rnc-speech-
transcript.html
[tru-15]: Trump, D. (2020). Donald Trump White House Rally Speech (October 10th,
2020). Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-
white-house-rally-speech-transcript-october-10-first-event-since-covid-
diagnosis
109
References
Aristotle. (2006). Rhetoric. Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher & W. Rhys Roberts. New
Zork: Barnes&Noble Classics.
Benoit, W. L. (2014 ). Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and
Character. Plymouth: Lexington Books.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Browse, S. (2018). Cognitive Rhetoric: The Cognitive Poetics of Political Discourse.
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper
Collins.
Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman Group
UK.
Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2013). The SAGE handbook of persuasion: developments in
theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dlugan, A. (2010). Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Pillars of Public Speaking. Retrieved from
http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/ethos-pathos-logos/
Garsten, B. (2006). Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hogan, J. M. (2013). Persuasion in the Rhetorical Tradition. In J. P. Dillard, & L. Shen
(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and
Practice (2-19). Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of
Metaphor, Basingstoke: Palgrave - Mackmillan.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. New York,
London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
110
Langston, C. A. (2016). How to Use Rhetoric to Get What You Want. [Video file]. TED-
Ed. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/?v=3klMMíBkW50
Leezenberg, M. (2001). Contexts of Metaphor. Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Miller, G. R. (2013). On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & L.
Shen (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and
Practice (70–81). Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/
Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London:
Bloomsbury.
Parrott, J. B. (2009). George Lakoff´s New Happiness: Politics after Rationality.
Academic Questions, 22(4), 414-430.
Pattison, O. (2014). Outrage and Engage: A Story of Eminent Domani. Journal of Legal
Studies Education, 31 (1), 55-88.
Pelclová, J., & Lu, W. (2018). Persuasion in Public Discourse: Cognitive and
Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Perloff, R. M. (2003). The Dynamics of Persuasion. Communication and Attitudes in
the 21st Century. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Perloff, R. M. (2014). The Dynamics of Political Communication. Media and Politics in
a Digital Age. New York, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
Reynolds, R. A., & Reynolds, J. L. (2002). Evidence. In J. E. Dillard & M. Phau (Eds.),
The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 427-444).
Ross, D. (1995). Aristotle. London: Routledge.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). The Handbook of Discourse
Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Tárnyiková, J. (2002). From Text to Texture: An Introduction to Processing
Strategies. Olomouc: UP.
U.S. Constitution (repealed 1933)
111
Virtanen, T., & Halmari, H. (2005). Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives.
In Halmari, H. & Virtanen, T. (Eds.), Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic
Approach (3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Wróbel, S. (2015). Logos, Ethos, Pathos. Classical Rhetoric Revisited. Polish
Sociological Review, (191), 401–421. Retrieved from
https://search.ebscohost.com/
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wirz, D. S. (2018). Persuasion through Emotion?. International Journal of
Communication 12 (1114-1138), Switzerland: National Science Foundation.
Appendices
Contents of a CD-ROM enclosed at the back of the thesis.
The CD contains two corpora of political electoral speeches used in the analysis
(in .docx and .pdf format):
- Appendix A: Barack Obama's speeches
- Appendix B: Donald Trump's speeches
112