LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES FACULTY OF PHILOLOGY DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY

INGRIDA STAUGAITĖ

LINGUISTIC REALIZATION OF RHETORICAL STRATEGIES IN BARACK OBAMA AND DALIA GRYBAUSKAITĖ’S POLITICAL SPEECHES

MA Paper

Academic Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Linas Selmistraitis

Vilnius, 2014 LIETUVOS EDUKOLOGIJOS UNIVERSITETAS FILOLOGIJOS FAKULTETAS ANGLŲ FILOLOGIJOS KATEDRA

RETORINIŲ STRATEGIJŲ KALBINIS REALIZAVIMAS BARAKO OBAMOS IR DALIOS GRYBAUSKAITĖS POLITINĖSE KALBOSE

Magistro darbas Humanitariniai mokslai, filologija (04H)

Magistro darbo autorė Ingrida Staugaitė Patvirtinu, kad darbas atliktas savarankiškai, naudojant tik darbe nurodytus šaltinius

______(Parašas, data)

Vadovas doc. dr. Linas Selmistraitis

______(Parašas, data)

2 CONTENT ABSTRACT 4 INTRODUCTION 5 1. THE ART OF RHETORIC 7 1.1 Rhetoric and communication 7 1.2 History of rhetoric 9 1.3 Rhetorical strategies 13 1.3.1 Argumentation 14 1.3.2 Persuasion 16 2. LINGUISTIC MANAGEMENT IN POLITICAL SPEECHES 17 2.1 Stylistic approach in political speeches 17 2.2 Functions and classification of stylistic devices 20 2.2.1 Metaphor 24 2.2.2 Epithet 27 2.2.3 Hyperbole 28 2.2.4 Rhetorical questions 29 3. BARACK OBAMA’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR LINGUISTIC REALIZATION 30 3.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches 30 3.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches 34 3.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches 37 3.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches 39 4. DALIA GRYBAUSKAITĖ’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR LINGUISTIC REALIZATION 41 4.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches 41 4.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches 46 4.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches 49 4.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches 51 5. JUXTAPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INVENTORY 53 CONCLUSIONS 60 SUMMARY 62 REFERENCES 63

3 ABSTRACT

The principal objective of this study was to explore what rhetorical strategies and stylistic devices Presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and Barack Obama use in their political speeches and how these devices help them to gain the audience’s attention and render the message. The speeches of the two Presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and B. Obama were analyzed in order to highlight the patterns of the usage of rhetorical strategies and to investigate the stylistic devices which are aimed at making speech more emphatic, expressive and persuasive. The method chosen for the study was content analysis including generalization and evaluation of the results. The results of the research showed a significant contribution of stylistic means to persuade the listeners on an emotional level or even to manipulate them. The next step of the study must be conducted to determine stylistic means which can influence rhythmical feature of the speech.

4 INTRODUCTION

Since the ancient times political rhetoric was the attention of many orators. Rhetoric was considered as a valuable skill of communication. Nowadays, political leaders are concerned about their use of language, too. They often pay attention to various rhetoric techniques how to enhance their ideas and due to this, to glamorize their public image. In the process of time, rhetoric has become a crucial way to spread their ideology, to manipulate the audience’s emotions and to become more prominent figure among other rivals in everyday interactions. Actually, language is the significant tool of persuasion. Therefore, to gain a favorable public opinion, politicians employ appropriate linguistic recourses in their political speeches. Stylistic devices help to embellish the speech and to attain success in public debates or in political discussions. Political leaders apply stylistic devices in their remarks in order to strengthen their thoughts and arguments on an issue or to create an impression of an authoritative leader. So, language is a powerful instrument in gaining public support in elections or to achieve any political interests. The aim of this research was to investigate, compare and contrast rhetorical strategies and the use of stylistic devices such as metaphor, personification, epithet, rhetorical questions and hyperbole in political speeches by two presidents, i.e. Dalia Grybauskaitė and Barack Obama. The objectives of the research are as follows: 1. to overview the theoretical material under the question; 2. to analyse the speeches of D. Grybauskaitė and B. Obama; to highlight the patterns of the usage of rhetorical strategies; 3. to investigate the stylistic devices which are aimed at making speech more emphatic, expressive and persuasive. The research questions of the paper are: What rhetorical strategies and stylistic devices do presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and Barack Obama use in their political speeches and how these devices help them to gain the audience’s attention and render the message? A research is carried out through comparison and contrast of the speeches of the two presidents. The methods of the analysis are: comparative, content and discourse, including generalization and evaluation of the results. The scope of the research – 100 D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches consisting of 104 pages and 30 randomly taken speeches of President B. Obama that makes 110 pages.

5 As for significance of this research, the analysis of the rhetorical persuasion will help to conceive how these stylistic devices and rhetorical strategies help presidents to seize the political power and position. Besides this, it is a valuable contribution to the teaching and learning rhetoric and stylistics. The MA paper consists of Introduction in which the purpose, objectives, the research questions, methods and significance of the research are presented; Theoretical part in which theoretical aspect of the art of rhetoric and linguistic management in political speeches are discussed. The Practical part analyzes the two Presidents B. Obama and D. Grybauskaitė’s rhetorical strategies and their linguistic realization. It is also deals with the juxtaposition of the Presidents’ linguistic inventory. The research includes conclusions and the list of references.

6 1. THE ART OF RHETORIC 1.1. Rhetoric and communication

Rhetoric is the ability to use language effectively. It is the art of persuasion. For centuries rhetorical study was considered as a clincher of a gentleman’s education. Every individual, who wanted this communication to have impact, had to study rhetoric. Rhetoric was considered as the cornerstone of communication. Rhetoric should be used to make ideas clear and concise and to make issues essential or important for people. Rhetoric concerns itself with language and how people use it. The good rhetorician had to be proficient to control arguments according to the rules of art of persuading. “The English word “rhetoric”, and its various forms in European languages, is derived from the Greek word rhētōr, a speaker in a public meeting or court of law, sometimes equivalent to us might call a “politician”. Before and after “rhetoric” came into use there were other terms current. One was peithō, which means “persuasion”; more common was use of the word logos, meaning word or speech, in combination with other words: a dēmiourgos logōn was a “worker of words”, and thus an orator; tekhnē logōn “art of words” was used to describe the technique or art of speech and became the common title for a handbook of public speaking” (Kennedy 2007, 08). There are plenty of different thoughts regarding what rhetoric is, but the main components of rhetoric can be: The purpose of the speech, what the orator wants to say; The audience, because different audience needs different rhetorical strategies (e.g., an audience of soldiers or doctors); The appeals (Aristotle’s logos, ethos, and pathos). Indeed, Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies logos, ethos, pathos are three basic ways to persuade an audience. Using logos (logic) in the speeches rhetoricians appeal to the mind and seeks to persuade the listener intellectually. He uses facts and statistics, definitions of terms, explanation of ideas, details that come from objective reporting. When orator uses logos, he appeals to the audience’s rational side and involves building arguments through evidence inferring logical conclusions from the evidence. However, Aristotle understood that humans are emotional beings who sometimes make decisions based upon emotions. Using pathetic appeals, rhetoricians attempted to move the audience by taking into their emotional side. Many political decisions have an emotional (pathos) motivation. Pathos (emotion) appeals to the one’s emotions in other words, seek to persuade listeners emotionally. The speaker sometimes

7 uses stories or testimonials; personal connections, visual images or words that inspire people to empathize or have compassion towards the idea or topic. Using imagery and figurative language that provokes an emotional response is very effective, too. Next, ēthos (ethics, but a more accurate translation might be “image”) appeals to ethic and character. It seeks to persuade the listener that the speaker can be trusted and believed to his noble character on ethical ways in which he is presenting ideas. It appeals to the speaker’s believability, qualifications and character. The next example of ethos is the use of appropriate language – language of discipline. The orator uses appropriate tone, knows the audience, context of situation. In other words, ēthos is arguments made by rhetoricians that are designed to build his trustworthy with his audience and create the impression that he is a person of intelligence and fairness. So, if people believe that a speaker has good sense, good moral character, is not arrogant, they are inclined to believe what the speaker says. According to Roberts, “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways being possible, this subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art” (Roberts 2008, 04). It should be mentioned that rhetoric was adapted to a multitude of different applications, ranging from architecture to literature. Kennedy claims that “classical rhetoricians – that is, teachers of rhetoric recognized – that many features of their subject could be found in Greek literature before the invention of rhetoric as an academic discipline, and they frequently used rhetorical concepts in literary criticism” (Kennedy 1994, 03-04). He claims that, “the teaching of rhetoric in the schools, ostensibly concerned primarily with training in public address, had a significant effect on written composition and thus on literature” (Kennedy 1994, 04). Rhetoric has become a major interest in a variety of discipline such as literary study, sociolinguistics, science studies etc. However, Kock says that “Rhetoric is not just a subject about how each individual can do his or her own thing with words, sometimes at the expense of others. It also holds that we have language and communication to perform certain vital functions in society. Rhetoric has always been seen by some of its practitioners as the ongoing public discourse that has helped establish human societies and hold them together” (Kock 2004, 103). According to Yoos, “In speaking we need to be more reiterative for emphasis and

8 compensate for the limited uptake of less-attentive listeners who are having trouble hearing exactly what our words mean” Yoos (2009, 60). Briefly, people should pay attention that every situation in which they communicate is a unique experience; the meaning is always particular, depending upon the unique location of space and time. Political rhetoric is a device of government in the political system of any society. Rhetoric contains the variety of cultural and linguistic expressions as a part of the process of social communication. A good orator knows that words are a powerful tool. The appropriate choice of words is similarly important as the distribution of the purpose in the speech. In order to convince the people, politicians try to select clear, accurate, descriptive and short words that best convey ideas, as well as the words are arranged efficiently, coherent and correctly. Every word contains value meaning and performance in their speeches. Indeed, rhetoric is not just empty words in political speeches. Rhetoric concerns itself with language and how politicians use it. Aristotle’s extensive comments on the use of emotion in oratory provide the basis for Cicero’s claim that “Nothing in oratory is more important than to win for the orator the favor of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a mental impulse or emotion, rather than by judgment or deliberation” (Connolly 2007, 146).

1.2 History of rhetoric

Rhetoric as a science and an art last more than 3,000 years and combines almost all the sciences and the arts. In ancient times, a good orator was considered as an educated man who was a charismatic person, and without a doubt, was able to model voice and gestures as an actor. The orator acquired knowledge of psychology, logic, architecture, history, literature, medicine, and the most essentially law and philosophy. “Rhetoric has its origins in the earliest civilization, Mesopotamia. In ancient Egypt, rhetoric existed since at least the Middle Kingdom period (2080-1640 B.C.). In ancient Greece, the earliest mention of oratorical skill occurs in Homer’s Iliad. The Iliad and its companion poem the Odyssey, place a high value on eloquent speech, almost equal to military prowess, and contain many poetic versions of debates and speeches that already utilize features of argument, arrangement, and style later described in rhetorical handbooks” (Kennedy 2007, 08). This use of language was of interest to philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato. Plato perfectly put differences between true and false rhetoric in a number of dialogues. He focused on holding high standards of rhetorical communication. Aristotle, as Plato, was firmly

9 convinced that rhetoric had the task of teaching and inculcating truth neither about ethico- political values in general nor about particular truths or values. The study of rhetoric began in Greece in the fifth century B. C. Democratic government was emerging in Athens, so all the citizens had an equal right to speak in public. “The Greeks, already as seen in the Iliad, were a highly argumentative, contentious people; their city states were almost constantly at war with each other, and in times of peace they turned their energies into competitive athletics. Their rivalries and arguments contrast with values commonly found in Middle Eastern and Far Eastern cultures, where strong central government discouraged or prevented public debate. Under democratic governments in Athens and some other Greek cities in the fifth and forth centuries B. C., all important decisions about public policy and actions were made after debate in assembly of the adult, male citizens, any one of whom could speak” (Kennedy 2007, 09). Some people seem to have a natural gift for communication but others had to develop these skills by studying the principles of speech. Aristotle was the first person who recognized rhetoric as an art of communication. He is the father of speech communication. He was a strong believer in logic. Aristotle said that persuasion depends on three things: the truth and logical validity of what is being argued, the speaker’s success in conveying to the audience a perception that he or she can be trusted and the emotions that a speaker is able to awaken in an audience to accept the views advanced and act in accordance with them. In the Roman period, the rhetoric was a powerful political tool, too. So as to fully understand the rhetorical traditions of people, orators had to know the culture of country and people. As a consequence, people were required to study the art of persuasive speech. But this education was based in the Greek tradition and the tutors in Rome were actually from Greece. Rhetoric studies included techniques of letter-writing, poetry, preaching and argumentation. People learned how to manage the logic in argumentation and how to say what he had to say persuasively. At that time Cicero was best known for refining and clarifying not new rhetorical theories but those developed by the Greeks. Cicero, a well known lawyer and politician, believed that communicators needed extensive knowledge to be effective and attaining true eloquence required a strong liberal education. According to Duchan, “Cicero’s view of speech included not only articulation and voice but also gestures and intonation. He believed that nature had endowed every word spoken with an appropriate hand and facial gesture as well as tone of voice. He introduced the idea that the text of every speech be delivered with attendant physical movement and fullness of emotion” (Duchan 2011, 02).

10 Quintilian was the second well known teacher of rhetoric. He developed a course of rhetorical education. However, his contribution was more practical and more concerned for his students. Quintilian wanted to make a good speaker into the perfect speaker. His phrase “a good man speaking well” means that the audience needs to perceive the speakers as believable and trustworthy. Quintilian opened a public school for rhetoric in Rome. Perhaps for that reason he paid more attention than did Cicero to education and the teaching of rhetoric whereas Cicero called for a broad, general education. Duchan says that “Quintilian’s suggested a programme of education in rhetoric that was more focused. He laid out the educational process step by step, from birth to adulthood” (Duchan, 2011, 02). The history of the medieval arts of discourse begins in the 5th century. Augustine was the only significant name of this era. He incorporated classical “pagan” rhetoric with the goals of the Catholic Church. According to Murphy, “Augustine attempted the marriage of rhetoric and Christianity in his De doctrina christiana, and Martianus used his Du nuptiis Philogiae et mercurii to transmit the Roman concept of the liberal arts into the medieval period” (Murphy 1981, 43). So, the rhetoric in the middle ages had some results (Murphy 1981, 43), They produced sets of rules for the art of preaching and the legal letters of the church and secular governments. It was recognized the study of the uses of rhetoric by people in informal kinds of political interaction. Even though, rhetoric would not regain its classical heights until the renaissance. During the Renaissance period (beginning in Italy in the 1300’s and ending in England in the early 1600’s) the main goal of rhetoric was the excellence of spoken and written language in order to affect the audience. Besides, the listeners was differentiated and grouped according to their interests in a given situation or problem. Rhetoric’s greatest influence over a civilization was achieved during the Renaissance. It was the time when the rhetorical material was flourishing again. Most books followed Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian’s ideas. Rhetorical terms found their way into the new science of vernacular grammar: colon, comma, apostrophe and parenthesis. There was a great emphasis on style and it was impossible to speak without using rhetoric in the Renaissance. With reference to Schmitt and Skinner “rhetoric distinguished five stages of composition: inventio, the discovery of material; dispositio, its structuring and arrangement; elocutio, its formulation in language; memoria and pronunciatio, its memorizing and appropriate delivery. Rhetoric also distinguished three kinds of oration (and, by extension, any literary work): the judicial or forensic type, concerned with proof and disproof, as in a court of law; the deliberative type, involving persuasion and discussuasion, as in politics; and the

11 demonstrative or epideictic type, devoted to praise and blame. Each type of speech had a style appropriate to itself, as did the various literary genres, the choice of which was governed by the principle of decorum. Writers and readers were trained to observe the constituent parts of an oration, in one popular version exordium, narratio, divisio, confirmatio, confutatio, conclusio. Rhetoric also had a detailed lore of linguistic devices, the tropes and figures of speech that made language more effective in its appeal to the mind and emotions” (Schmitt & Skinner 1988, 715-716) Later, in the 19th century schools changed their curricular: added mathematics and science courses where typically a classical education of Greek and Latin language, philosophy and rhetoric made up the curriculum. Education was more available to people, and rhetoric became simply composition and speech courses. Scientists claim that, “the classical tradition was the growing influence of rhetoric in American colleges. College or university presidents frequently delivered the lectures on rhetoric, in fact, the first American “rhetoric” was written by the president of Princeton, John Witherspoon” (Connors & Lunsford 1984, 02). In the 20th century, Burke was one of the significant names in this period. The most important thing he considered was the speaker’s identification with the audience. In his book Burke says “Here is perhaps the simplest case of persuasion. You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his” (Burke 1969, 55). According to Irwin (2012), Burke’s rhetorical pentad is the element of act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose is perhaps one of the most familiar concepts to arise from 20th century rhetoric. So, at the beginning of 20th century, the rhetorical study has been steadily increasing. Indeed, the reason for a significant rising of the study was the renewed importance of language and persuasion in the increasingly medial environment and with the media focus on wide variations and analysis of political rhetoric and its consequences. According to Miller “Rhetoric has become a prominent feature of contemporary thought, with critics willing and eager to discuss the rhetoric of history, of economics, of anthropology, of fiction, even of mathematics” (Miller 1993, 211). Needless to say, that rhetoric has become a major interest in a variety of discipline such as literary study, sociolinguistics, science studies etc. Taking everything into a consideration, rhetoric originated in ancient Greece, due to practical needs of people who were learning how to manage democratic government, but despite the fact that the classical art of rhetoric is still significant today. Johnstone & Eisenhart claims that ‘the focus of rhetoricians’ attention is widening, however, from public to private spheres, from official to vernacular rhetoric, from oratory to written and multimedia discourse,

12 from the carefully crafted to spontaneous discourse emerging from fleeting everyday rhetorical situations” (Johnstone & Eisenhart 2008, 04). Actually, the five criterions of classical rhetoric invention (inventio), arrangement (dispositio), style (elucutio), memory (memoria), delivery (pronunciatio), are present in everyday communication, especially in technological environment. So, not surprisingly that such phrases of rhetoric arises “political rhetoric”, “rhetoric of media”, “rhetoric of music” etc. According to Lunsford, “We need the art, theory, and practice of rhetoric if we are going to survive and flourish in this 21st century” (Lunsford 2013, 01).

1.3 Rhetorical strategies

Rhetorical strategies are the ways that writers and speakers use words and language in order to persuade the audience. In other words, rhetorical strategies help to find all methods that allow us to convey the most convincingly our point on a given topic. These strategies help effectively, efficiently and coherently present our material on a chosen subject also, to connect facts into a sequence, provide clusters of information necessary for conveying a purpose or an argument. Rhetoricians use sounds, objects and behaviors, especially gestures as well as words, to say what they would like to say. “Rhetoric is a much more comprehensive art, especially as one finds it going on in the art of negotiation in politics that aims to bond and interact with others in shaping a community”(Yoos 2009, 55). Politicians participating in debates and in public speaking activities usually construct arguments that explain or persuade, proving those arguments. Moreover, speakers who truly want their words to be memorable employ a variety of stylistic devises to figuratively illustrate their ideas. What is more, a good orator’s speech depends not only on a collection of statements worthy of belief, but also on appropriate arguments, logical and progressive arrangement and an effective style. In order to make an influence on the listeners, speakers use one of the rhetorical strategy-rhetorical devices. According to Harris, rhetorical devices can be distinguished into 3 categories: 1. involving emphasis, association, clarification, and focus (antithesis, asyndeton, simile, etc.); 2. involving physical organization, transition, and disposition or arrangement (polysyndeton); 3. involving decoration and variety (metaphor, personification, etc.). He claims that “sometimes a given device or trope fall mainly into a single category, but more often the effects of a particular device are multiple, and a single one may operate in all three categories e.g. parallelism, helps to order, clarify, emphasize and beautify a thought” (Harris 2013, 01-02).

13 Indeed, politicians use rhetorical strategies and devises to win the support of their desired constituency. The type of their rhetoric used, oral or written, usually depends on the goals of the speakers producing the messages. Their public speeches have a great number of form e.g. charming, insulting, inviting, and humorous, etc. Similarly, the use of symbols or slogans always inspire people to join or support the movement as well as inducing individuals to spread the message. Sometimes, not only the language is the one of the main ways to influence people. Nowadays, increasing media is exploited in successful political communication. Dress, gesture and voice quality are important in face–to–face communication. Non verbal language, e.g. facial expressions, body movement, gestures, eye contact are also important in maintaining the flow of speech and for estimating the audience’s response. With reference to Antczak (2002), “a real, living, growing language has always been a collection of spoken sounds. The sounds that accompany our thoughts, the prosodic features that join them in a complex “melody”, and the gestures that accompany any speech are moulds into which we power our own thoughts. It is our voice that gives form and direction to our ideas” (Antczak 2002, 77). So, politicians realize that nonverbal image is important, too. However, despite the body language, an argumentation speech is a form of persuasive public speaking. Argumentation can play an important role in presenting ideas and influencing others. 1.3.1 Argumentation

With reference to Collins English Dictionary (2009), an argument is “a discussion in which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case; debate”. Argumentation is understood as evidence of any statement based on other statement of which the justice is already known. In other words, an argument is attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion. Fahnestock & Secor pointed out, that “arguments addressed to favorably inclined audiences can have other practical consequences aside from such immediate ones as creating enough votes for a new community park or starting a letter campaign. They can also create group cohesiveness, solidarity among those who find themselves agreeing with the appeals cast at them. The person who articulates the reasons that hold the group together may of course become its leader. But more important is the fact that the argument that meets with agreement has created a human community ready to act together” (Fahnestock & Secor 1988, 6-7).

14 Aristotle separated two main parts of arguments: inductive and deductive. Inductive reasoning starts with a specific case and progresses toward generalization. The speaker/writer begins with specific observations; formulate some hypotheses to explore, and finally ends up developing some general conclusions or theories. Deductive reasoning starts with a generalization and progress to a specific case. That is to say, deductive reasoning is when a speaker/writer starts at the top with a very broad spectrum of information and they work their way down to a specific conclusion. Fairclough (2012, 38) claims, that sometimes a third type of argumentation is recognized, namely, conductive argument. He says that “In conductive arguments, the support pattern is said to be convergent and the premises are put forward as separately or independently relevant to the claim. One difference is that the “even-if” characteristic of conductive reasoning takes into account the arguments on both sides of a disputed issue, the pro and contra”. According to Crawford, political argumentation can be classified into four ideal-type categories that vary in terms of their content: practical/instrumental, ethical, scientific and identity. She says that “in complex situations that demand complex arguments, more than one, in some cases all these types of arguments may be deployed” (Crawford 2002, 23). The role of practical or instrumental argument is more to persuade rather to prove, demonstrate or refuse. Crawford claims that “these arguments involve beliefs about cause and effect relations among individuals; they are about how to do things in the social world” (Crawford 2002, 23). Scientific arguments are about natural world, the laws of science and technology. A scientific argument must persuade the audience that the date you present, and your arguments are strong enough to support your theory or proposed action. Ethics focuses on a specific thing is either morally right or wrong; within the field of ethic, applied ethics looks at real-life issues. People should base their arguments on a principle that is self-evident; a principle that is so basic and widely accepted that it needs no proof. Crawford (2002, 24) states, that “Identity arguments posit that people of a certain act or don’t act in a certain ways and the audience of the argument either positively or negatively identifies with the people in question. Identity arguments may apply to groups or to individuals, but they are specifically about the characteristics of those individuals and what those characteristics imply in terms of actions or reactions.” Politics is supposed to be an incredibly emotional subject. According to Nauckūnaitė (2007), “it is evident that logical arguments have the strongest direct effect on the mind, emotional arguments influence feelings and aesthetic arguments stimulate imagination; however, any argument mentioned above makes stronger or weaker peripheral effect on the

15 addressee (Nauckūnaitė 2007, 94). To put it another way, arguments more or less depend on the emotional status of the audience and the emotional content of the argument. Logical argumentation is often difficult, time consuming and has not the obvious power to push people to action. So, it is a fact, that people’s emotions often carry much more force than their reason. Political argumentative discussions can be found on social media sites. Politicians are obsessed with the media. Actually, digital media have changed patterns of communication. Politicians have their own social sites or use photo –sharing service, so, it allows them to contact many people at once. Walton (2007, 05) claims that, “From political speeches to TV commercials to war propaganda, it can appeal to emotions that mobilize political action, influence public opinion, market products, and even enable a dictator to stay in power”. So, mass media used as a political argumentation is undeniable.

1.3.2. Persuasion

Rhetoric and persuasion go together. Rhetoric may fail if it is not persuasive. Actually, the measure of a successful rhetoric is its ability to persuade. According to Frezza (2011), a good start of persuading is acknowledging the prevalence of moral diversity, because each of us has different viewpoints of life. Roberts points out that “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion. This is a function of any other art. Every other art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter; for instance, medicine about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences” (Roberts 2008, 10). Needless to say, that the persuasion is an art, too. The good orators always try to identify people that at a given time are persuadable to your point of view and then try to focus the energy and attention on them. In other words a good orator understands not just how to communicate with audience, but also how to influence and persuade others. Persuading involves being able to convince others to take appropriate actions. According to Walton, “persuasion involves some sort of change of opinion or acceptance of a belief from an initial state to a new state that is the outcome of the act of persuasion. The transition from the one state to the other takes place within an agent, and is brought about by a second agent. The two agents, it is presumed, are engaged in a conversation interaction. Thus the speech act of persuasion is based on a conversational or dialogue structure, and can best be understood within such a structure. One party persuades another

16 party normally through some sort of verbal communication with the other” (Walton 2007, 46- 47). Moreover, he states that “the fundamental structure of the persuasion dialogue can be stated very simply. The central notion is that there are two participants, and one is trying to persuade the other to accept a designed proposition as true” (Walton 2007, 53). Roberts says that “there are three kinds of modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible” (Roberts 2008, 10). It is popularly believed that persuasion is an essential part of politics. Political persuasion is a process in which speakers try to convince other people to change their attitudes or behavior regarding a political issue through messages. During the political campaigns politicians usually try to persuade the people of why they should vote for them. So, the politicians understand that it is important to conciliate the audience using persuasion. Needless to say, that sometimes politicians want to create fear in something that most of the people would be worrying about for example, unemployment. But at the same time they use another tactic-flattering and praising them for being such hard workers. Another way of persuasion is generating new ideas and promise that the changes will benefit the people. It is a fact, that politicians trying to get the audience’s attention establishing trust evoke emotions and attempt to make themselves seem more compassionate. It is true that an argumentation speech is a form of persuasive public speaking. Argumentation can play an important role in presenting ideas and influencing others.

2. LINGUISTIC MANAGEMENT IN POLITICAL SPEECHES 2.1 Stylistic approach in political speeches

Speech is human communication through spoken language. With reference to Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary, speech is “a formal talk that a person gives to an audience” (OALD 2000, 1241). It is not easy to define the political speech. However, according to Rice, a political speech is “any oral presentation that sets forth a proposal of a political position, particularly one in which the speaker hopes to influence others” (Rice 2007, 18). For this reason, a good speech is essential for a politician to have a powerful stage presence. Politicians all over the world vivify their speeches in a unique way, by using stylistic devices and giving extra effect to their ideas. It can be called linguistic management and it is

17 based on the idea of persuading people. That is to say, politicians’ linguistic manipulation is a basic instrument to become apparent and to implement the corresponding communicative strategies. Nowadays, according to Rozina & Karapetjana, “to convince the potential electorate in present time societies, politics basically dominates in mass media, which leads to creating new forms of linguistic manipulation, e.g. modified forms of press conferences and press statements, updated texts in slogans, applications of catch phrases, phrasal allusions, the connotative meanings of words, a combination of language and visual imagery” (Rozina & Karapetjana 2009, 113). Ritter & Medhurst claim that “the fact is that presidents have requested and received assistance with their speeches, messages, letters, bills, memoirs, and the like since the beginning of Republic” (Ritter & Medhurst 2002, 04). Seeing that, politicians preparing persuasive speeches need to think about what they are going to say and how. Some politicians simply try to deliver a clear or expressive message. According to Matkevičienė, “economic and political issues are discussed in more sophisticated ways in comparison with discussions of social policy issues which are presented in a very simply, clear way with the arguments that stress the aspects important for society or for some specific groups of citizens” (Matkevičienė 2011, 83). However, “speeches, agitation themes depend very strongly on society’s political consciousness and ideology which dominate in particular decade” (Bucevičiūtė 2010, 166). Hariman claims that “a political style is a coherent repertoire of rhetorical conventions depending on aesthetic reactions for political effect” (Hariman 1995, 04). Moreover, Bourdieu claims that “we are aware of the many ways in which linguistic exchanges can express relations of power. We are sensitive to the variation accent, intonation and vocabulary which reflect different positions in the social hierarchy. We are aware that individuals speak with differing degrees of authority, that words are loaded with unequal weights, depending on who utters them and how they are said, such that some words uttered in certain circumstances have force and conviction that they would not have elsewhere” ( Bourdieu 1991, 01). Not only the personality of the speaker, such as charismatic qualities or a good reputation is the center of performance, but it is also the style of the speech. Actually, the style of the speech depends on many factors: the occasion of the speech, how the speaker organizes the material, how the speaker uses persuasive devices and which points of the speech he/she wants to highlight. According to Prime, “with the growing popularity and use of the major news media and the Internet, the general public currently has an utterly unprecedented level of access to reports, transcripts and even videos of every word that passes through a public speaker’s lips. The public scrutiny is generally turned towards the meaningful content of these

18 speeches rather than the manner of their expression. Nevertheless, a great volume of information is conveyed by these political figures, not only at semantic level, but also on the level of syntax, morphology and even phonetics” (Prime 2008, 01). Reynolds beautifully compares a great speech with a symphony. He claims, that “there are different kinds of symphony, but a symphony — like a good speech — takes you some place. It has a shape, it has forms. Fast/slow, loud/quiet, all of which may be separated by a short pause or silence. A symphony has different movements and forms, and yet it has a harmonious whole. Symphony has much in common with story as well. A well crafted and delivered speech and a powerful symphony, in their own ways move the listener” (Reynolds 2008, 01). That is why, the speakers use a great number of figurate language and try to make the speech more approachable for the audience and very often full of rhetoric. Broadly speaking, when the speeches are delivered in style to the audience, motivates and inspires them, then they are known as great speeches. So, when the speech is stylish and rich in content then are very powerful and effective that can have a long lasting impact on the audience. Stylistics is a discipline which has been considered from many perspectives. It should be noted that the term ‘stylistics’ is an extensive term that has assumed various meanings from different linguistic scholars. Actually, it can be understood as a study of the linguistic items in actual language use. In fact, all texts have style. According to Childs et al, “a style is a manner of expression, describable in linguistic terms, justifiable and valuable in respect of non- linguistic factors” (Childs & Fowler 2006, 228). Leech defines stylistics “as the (linguistic) study of style, is rarely undertaken for its own sake, simply as an exercise in describing what use is made of language” (Leech 2007, 11). He states that people study style in order to explain something and in general, literary stylistics has, implicitly or explicitly, the goal of explaining the relation between language and aesthetic function. The scientist says that from linguistic angle it is “Why does the author here choose this form of expression?” From the literary critic’s view point, it is “How is such – and – such an aesthetic effect achieved trough language?” (Leech 2007, 11). Naturally, stylistics is concerned about different range of language styles and varieties which are feasible in different spoken or written, forma or informal etc., texts. Similarly, the scientists claim that “styles may be seen as characteristic of an author, of a period of a particular kind of persuasion (rhetoric), or a genre” (Childs & Fowler 2006, 228). Nowadays, stylistics is considered as the modern version of the ancient discipline known as ‘rhetoric’ which taught students how to structure the argument, how to make effective use of figures of

19 speech and how to create a speech in a way which can have an absolute influence on listeners or readers. However, the possibility of stylistics for taking insights from other disciplines means that it is a subject that is always expanding and developing. While it is true to say, that “stylistics is neither theoretically nor in practice limited to study the language of literature” (Jeffries & Mclntyre 2010, 193). The scientists claim, that “there are many outside the field who consider stylistics and literary stylistics to be identical”. That is to say, “speeches, gas bills, love letters, committee minutes etc. can be analyzed for their stylistic features in just the same way as poems, plays and novels” (Jeffries & Mclntyre 2010, 193).

2.2 Functions and classification of stylistic devices

As it was mentioned above, stylistics is a branch of general linguistics. Stylistics deals with: functional styles, stylistic devices and figures of speech. It should be mentioned that, there are two branches of stylistics: lexical and grammatical. Lexical stylistics focuses on studies functions of direct and figurative meanings and how the contextual meaning of a word is realized in the text. It is also studies various types of connotations e.g., expressive, evaluative, emotive; neologisms, dialectal words and their behavior in the text. Grammatical stylistics has two parts: morphological and syntactical. Morphological stylistics deals with stylistic potential of grammatical categories of different parts of speech (numbers, pronouns etc.). Syntactical stylistics analyzes syntactic, word order, expressive means, and word combinations. It is also studies different types of sentences and types of syntactic connections. Moreover, phono-stylistics is concerned about phonetical organization of prose and poetic texts. It examines rhythm, rhyme, correlation of the sound form and meaning. Next, functional stylistics analyzes functional styles and their possible use in communicative situation. The fact of the matter is that there exist a number of classifications of functional styles, but the most common one was introduced by Galperin. So, he distinguishes five groups of functional styles: 1. official style (all kinds of documents); 2. scientific (academic publications); 3. publicist (public speeches, essays); 4. newspaper (articles printed in newspapers); 5. belles-letters style (emotive prose, poetry, drama).

20 However, according to Arnold, “there are four functional styles: poetic, scientific, newspaper and colloquial style” (Arnold 1986, 241). Besides, there are two more styles included: poetic style and oratorical. Poetic style is concerned about verbal forms particular for poetry and oratorical style, which was specifically important in ancient Greece where it was a basic instrument in rhetorical speeches. It should be noted that belles-letters style is the richest register of communication. This style is so many colored and has the aim to impress the listener aesthetically. With reference to Walter “if there are more functional styles or registers in a language, it shows the suitability and elaborateness of language structure for different forms of discourse such as scientific, semi-scientific, technical, literary, popular, journalistic, formal, etc” (Walter 1989, 136). So, in a language one particular style or register may be more developed than others. In addition to this, Yule claims that “a register is a conventional way of using language that is appropriate in a specific context, which may be identified as: situational (e.g. church), occupational (e.g. among lawyers) or topical (e.g. talking about language” (Yule 2010, 259). Furthermore, Walter characterizes the criterion of language production for setting up functional types: “creative literature, scientific and technical literature, literature in social sciences, journalistic literature, and production of text books” (Walter 1989, 137). Similarly, as the scientists mentioned above, Weihs & Gaul claim that “a functional style thus relates to particular discourse spheres such as everyday, official-administrative, scientific, journalistic, or artistic communication” (Weihs & Gaul 2005, 57). The scientists distinguish these functional styles “everyday style, scientific style, official style, journalistic style and artistic style - prosaic, poetic, dramatic” (Weihs & Gaul 2005, 57). However, Bakhtin says that “functional styles are nothing other than generic styles for certain spheres of human activity and communication” (Bakhtin 1986, 64). He claims that “it is no generally recognized classification of language styles, because existing taxonomies are extremely poor and undifferentiated” according to Bakhtin “there are the following stylistic subcategories of language: bookish speech, popular speech, abstract-scientific, scientific-technical, journalistic- commentarial, official-business, and familiar everyday speech, as well as vulgar common parlance” (Bakhtin 1986, 64). Galperin all political speeches puts into publicistic style. He claims that “the general aim of publicistic style, which makes it stand out as a separate style, is to exert a constant and deep influence on public opinion, to convince the reader or the listener that the interpretation given by the reader or the speaker is the only correct one and to cause him to accept the point of view expressed in the speech, essays or article not merely by logical argumentation, but by emotional appeal as well”. According to the scientist, political speeches can be divided into

21 “parliamentary debated, and speeches at rallies, congresses, meetings and election campaigns” (Galperin 1977, 263). Stylistic devices considered to be an instrument for politicians’ to strengthen their image, help to realize ideas and emphasize certain issues. Therefore, many politicians try to find the best way to make a great and memorable speech. It is important to seize the moment in which the politicians try to present the facts convincingly. So, it is an excellent politician’s maneuver to use stylistic devices in their speeches. Stylistic devices ensure persuasion. It is obvious that the author’s style of language consists of selecting and using certain stylistic devices. Galperin pointed out, that “the oratorical style of language is the oral subdivision of the publicistic style” (Galperin 1977, 263). It has been mentioned that rhetorical devices are literary techniques used to heighten the effectiveness of expression. It is a fact that the stylistic devices employed in oratorical style are determined by the conditions of communication. If the intention of the speaker is to invoke the audience and to keep it in uncertainty, he will use various traditional stylistic devices. Indeed, the audience relies only on memory and the orator often relies on repetition of words or phrases or the use of intentional exaggeration in order to create an effect and to force his listeners to follow him and retain the main points of his speech. Repetition has a convincing and strong effect, too. Some techniques commonly are found in poetry and songs for ex. rhyme and repetition can make sentences more memorable than actual words. Moreover, speechwriters often use irony when they have the purpose to create a contrast or discrepancy between what is said and what is meant. Political irony is usually related to humor when they want to criticize the out – party in a polite and amusing way. In addition to this, political speeches, especially those delivered at party conventions are generally are uttered in the first- person plural. It should be mentioned that rhetorical questions are frequent, too, because rhetorical questions inspires the audience to contemplate about important issues. Rhetorical questions are important because of the intonation which change the monotony of the speech and awakes the listeners’ attention. According to Dlugan, “repeating a word or phrase in different parts of the speech helps the audience make connections as if you were sewing your speech elements together with a thread” (Dlugan 2008, 03). A device like alliteration can be used for slogans. Stylistic devices which change word meaning especially imagery (metaphors, personification, simile) contribute to the effect of the utterance. Moreover, these stylistic devices which can enhance the speakers’ influence for ex. devices such as metaphors, personification, epithets can also be used in order to embellish to what is being said. Metaphors, personification and simile together with connected concepts such as symbolism

22 and analogies are often the core of speeches as an effective means of communication. Indeed, metaphors used by an orator make an impression on his listeners by expressing the ideas in some way extraordinary. While it is true to say that using these stylistic devices in speeches the oratorical style, is closely related on the context of the speech and the level of the audience. Stylistic devices are important to anyone who gives speeches, writes articles or studies. Using stylistic devices in an appropriate way, the author can create strong, logical and compelling speeches. Generally speaking, a stylistic device is a literary pattern which semantic and structural features are combined so that it represents a generalized model. In other words, it is a generative model which through use in language is transformed into a stylistic device e.g., metaphor, epithet, etc. According to Galperin, stylistic devices “necessarily touches upon such general language problems as the aesthetic function of language, synonymous ways of rendering one and the same idea, emotional coloring in language, the interrelation between language and thought, the individual manner of an author in making use of language and a number of other issues”(Galperin 1977, 06). Stylistic devices can be in spoken or written texts where an author tries to emphasize an idea or to make an impression on listeners or readers by using language. Galperin’s classification of stylistic devices is based on the level-oriented approach: phonetic stylistic, lexical stylistic, lexico-syntactic, and syntactical stylistic. Phonetic stylistic devices play an important role in certain type of communication. This is the way a word, a phrase or a sentence sounds. The aesthetic effect of the text is composed with the help of sounds and prosody together with the meaning. They are: onomatopoeia, rhyme alliteration and rhythm. Galperin claims that “words in a context may acquire additional lexical meanings not fixed in the dictionaries, what we have called contextual meanings” (Galperin 1977, 125). The scientist distinguishes 3 groups of lexical stylistic devices: 1. The interaction of different types of lexical meaning: Dictionary and contextual (metaphor, metonymy, irony). Primary and derivative (zeugma and pun). Logical and nominative (antonomasia). 2. Intensification of feature (simile, hyperbole, periphrasis) 3. Peculiar use of set expressions (clichés, proverbs, epigram, quotations). Syntactical stylistic devices add logical and expressive information to the utterance but there are certain structures which focus on lexico-semantic aspect of the utterance. They are called lexico-syntactical stylistic devices. Lexico-syntactic devices are oxymoron, zeugma, simile, periphrasis, euphemism, hyperbole and litotes. Next, syntactic stylistic devices depends

23 on the completeness of the structure or on the arrangement if its member. So, syntactic stylistic devices can be put in this order: The interaction of syntactical constructions (parallelism, chiasmus, anaphora, and epiphora); The transposition of syntactical meaning in context (rhetorical questions); The transformation of types and forms of connection between clauses and sentences (parcellation, coordination instead of subordination, subordination instead of coordination). Using stylistic devices in the speech, an author enhances the arguments of the text. For this reason, the utterances became vivid, organized and structured. Simpson claims that “to do stylistics is to explore language, and, more specifically, to explore creativity in language use”. According to Simpson, “the reason why language is so important to stylisticians is because the various forms patterns and levels that constitute linguistic structure are an important index of the functions of the text” (Simpson 2004, 02-03). The main function of stylistic devices is to produce an effect in an audience. Sometimes, in order to emphasize important aspects, the orators use: repetition, parallelism or alliteration. Fahnestock claims that “a stylistics drawn from the rhetorical tradition also adds to the vocabulary of language analysis”. According to the scientist “the richest source of descriptive concepts comes from the figures of speech. The list of such devices appears as early as the first century B.C. and catalogues of the figures expanded dramatically in the early modern period” (Fahnestock 2011, 09). Taking everything into consideration, stylistic devices have an aesthetic function of language. For all the above mentioned reasons their function is to intensify the speaker’s utterance and to make the speech more figured and emotional.

2.2.1 Metaphor

Metaphors are one of the most frequently used stylistic devices. The purpose of using metaphors is to create a vivid picture in the audience’s mind and to arouse imagination for example “She has a heart of stone” or “We are all shadows on the wall of time”. Rhetoricians or poets use metaphors in an imaginative way to show that the two things have the same qualities and to make the speech more persuasive and more powerful. With reference to Lakoff & Johnson (2008, 04), “metaphor is pervasive in every life, not just in language but in thought

24 and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is fundamentally metaphorical in nature”. Anderson groups metaphors into two categories: live and dead metaphors. A live metaphor is “a phrase that is not part of our everyday use of language, so when we hear it we know that it is a metaphor, e.g. black holes in the economy”. Similarly, the scientist says that “a dead metaphor is a phrase or a word that was once a live metaphor but it has become so frequently used that it has become a part of our everyday language, e. g. a helping hand” (Anderson 2005, 06). According to Galperin the term “metaphor” means transference of some quality from one object to another. He says that “a metaphor becomes a stylistic device when two different phenomena (things, events, ideas, actions) are simultaneously brought to mind by the imposition of some or all of the inherent properties of one object on the other which by nature is deprived of these properties”(Galperin 1977, 126). Moreover, Yoos claims that “metaphor brings to our attention things difficult to summarize or express in literal words, flatter a reader’s sensibility and sensitivity and bind author’s and readers together in shared feelings and in familiar held agreements” (Yoos 2009, 104). It is popularly believed that to understand politicians’ ideas people should be more accurate and to pay more attention to what is said. That is what politicians’ speeches are considered as monotonous and difficult to perceive the ideas which are presented by politicians. For this reason the speakers were interested in various forms of figurative or symbolic language which can be effective persuasive device in order to catch the audiences’ attentions. Linguists have considered that metaphors are the most persuasive devise and that it is the easiest way to reach peoples’ consciousness. With reference to Mio, “metaphors allow the general public to grasp the meanings of political events and feel a part of the process. They are also effective because of their ability to resonate with latent symbolic representations residing at the unconscious level” (Mio 1997, 130). Hayes claims that “politicians have also recently started to show an interest in metaphor as a mean of engaging with people. Of course political speech writers have long been aware of the power of metaphors, but what seems to be different now is the way in which metaphor- laden speeches are being constructed to appeal to the emotions of the audience” (Hayes 2011, 05). With reference to published article on presidential leadership and charisma, the author discusses what makes a leader charismatic. He claims that “the charismatic leader can use metaphors as a tool to clarify meaning, to inspire, and to motivate followers (Mio 2005, 288). So, that means that “metaphor is a tool of inspiration”. According to him “speeches that

25 contain more metaphors may be perceived to be more inspiring because they can stir up emotional connections with the topic or with the speakers while also conveying the message of action” (Mio 2005, 288). To sum up, the stylistic devise like metaphors are the core of the persuasion and the most widely used in political speeches. However, not all speeches are based on metaphors. There are some other widely used stylistic devises such as personification and epithets. A stylistic device in which human characteristic are attributed to an abstract, quality, animal, or an inanimate object is called personification. In other words, personification as a sub-category of metaphor when a human trait (the ability to show emotions and take part in activities) is given to non-living objects e.g. her life passed by. According to Sinnott, the term ‘personification’ with its variety of connotations in the English language, denotes the literary convention of attributing human characteristics and personality to an element or abstract quality. This convention has featured in poetry and songs since ancient times. Rhetorically it may be described as a means of taking hold of things that appear startlingly uncontrollable and independent” (Sinnott 2005, 19-20). The difference between metaphor and personification is that a metaphor replaces a person or an object with another, whereas in personification, an inanimate object or animal is given human characteristics. As metaphors, personification adds vividness and creates visual imagery to literary texts. First of all, with reference to Smith, “during Athens’ democratic era, personifications or representations of things, places, or abstractions by human form appeared at first on vase paintings and eventually on publicly displayed monuments such as free-standing statues, wall paintings, etc.” Afterwards, according to the scientist, “whereas few personifications in the archaic period (before 480 BC) were political in nature, the use of personifications and mythological figures in a politically abusive manner, in early classical period (4480-450 BC), paved the way for the explicit use of political personifications during the Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) and in the fourth century” (Smith 2003, 01). Moreover, ancient Greeks considered that every natural thing to have a spirit. So, the spirits with which such ‘things’ were attached usually took the names of those things and if these named spirits attained human characteristics e.g. voice, appearance, or activity then they were personified. Nowadays, especially in political speeches using personification gives a break from the monotonous language. Politicians frequently use metaphors to personify the nation in order to emphasize some issues or to appeal to the listeners’ emotions. It should be noted that personification is a very common way of creating metaphors. Lakoff pointed out that “personification is a general category that covers a very wide range of

26 metaphors, each picking out different aspects of a person on ways of looking at a person.” According to the scientist, “metaphors and that they allow us to make sense of phenomena in the world in human terms that we can understand on the basis of our motivation, goals, actions, and characteristics” (Lakoff 1980, 34).

2.2.2 Epithet

An epithet (from the Greek word epithetos, means ‘added’) is defined as a word or a comparison that describes a person or an object which strengthens emotional expression. It is a lexical stylistic device that depends on the emphasizing of the emotive meaning. Actually, an epithet provides us information about the person or thing to which it is being attached. Some famous historical people are usually recognized with the epithets e.g., Alexander the Great, William the Conqueror or nowadays well known the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher) etc. Many fixed epithets are closely related to folklore, so, due to this through long and repeated use epithets become fixed e.g. ‘true love’, ‘dark forest’, ‘green wood’ etc. Galperin says that “the epithet is a stylistic device based on the interplay of emotive and logical meaning in an attributive and logical meaning in an attributive word/phrase or even syntactically used to characterize an object and pointing out to the reader, and frequently imposing on him, some of the properties or features of the object with the aim of giving an individual perception an evaluation of these features or properties” (Galperin 1977, 143). The epithets are classified semantically and structurally. Semantically are divided into two groups: associated and unassociated. Associated epithets convey emotional evaluation of the object of the speaker for ex. unbelievable story, incredible experience. Unassociated epithets have an attribute which characterizes the object by giving a feature which it does not have and can surprise the reader for ex. thoughtful moon, soft grass. Structure epithets are divided into: simple for ex. she looked astonished, compound for ex. almond-shaped eyes, phrase for ex. the blue-eyed woman, and reversed for ex. a slim figure of a girl. However, Kukharenko divides epithets into fixed, e.g. Merry Christmas, dead silence and figurative or transferred that can be metaphorical, metonymic, ironical, etc., e.g. the tobacco-stained smile. Due to epithets compositional structure, they can be distinguished into simple, compound, phrase and a sentence. Simple or phrase epithets are ordinary adjectives e.g. wild wind. Compound epithets are like compound adjectives e.g. almond-shaped eyes. According to Kukharenko, “phrase epithets always produce an original impression e.g. the sunshine-in-the- breakfast-room smell” (Kukharenko 2000, 31). Moreover there are some more epithets such as

27 metaphorical or reversed epithets (devilish woman) strings of epithets (apple-faced young woman) and transferred epithets which often involve shifting a modifier from the animate to the inanimate e.g. discreet silence, cheerful money.

2.2.3 Hyperbole

Hyperbole is a figure of speech when the speaker exaggerates and overemphasizes some words or phrases in order to produce more noticeable effect or to stress a specific point of the speech. The word ‘hyperbole’ has its origin in the Greek language and means exaggeration. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines hyperbole as “a way of speaking or writing that makes sth sound better, more exiting, dangerous, etc than it really is” (OALD 2000, 639). According to Claridge, “hyperbole as a term has a long tradition. In the sense of ‘exaggeration’ it was already used in classical Greece”. The scientist says that Roman rhetoricians, such as Quintilian, dealt with the figure of overstatement in their handbooks and used in diverse sources such as love poetry, sagas, tall tales, classical mythology, political rhetoric and advertising as texts containing hyperbole. Furthermore, Claridge points out that “hyperbole is not only arcane rhetorical figure, but rather, similar to metaphor, it is common feature of everyday language use. Just like metaphor, it may be wired in the cognitive structuring of our experience: the concept of size, to which exaggeration must primarily be connected, is very basic and salient one” (Claridge 2011, 01). In many cases, hyperbole is commonly used in everyday spontaneous language. According to Kukharenko, “when we describe our admiration or anger and say I would gladly see this film a hundred times – we use trite language hyperboles which, through long and repeated use have lost their originality and remained signals of the speaker’s roused emotions” (Kukharenko 2000, 33). In other words, hyperbole may lose its quality as a stylistic device through frequent repetition. Similarly, Galperin states that “in its extreme from this exaggeration is carried to an illogical degree, sometimes a kind of absurdum e.g. He was so tall that I wasn’t sure, if he had a face” (Galperin 1977, 161). Also, hyperbole can be expressed by all notional parts of speech as all, every, everybody; numerical nouns a million, a thousand; adverbs of time ever, never” (Kukharenko 2000, 33). Politicians’ speeches contain a number of classic rhetorical devices, but hyperbole is the one of the most powerful device to express their ideas and manipulate the audience’s feelings. Actually, according to Baker, “telling manipulative “lies’— intentionally deceptive, knowingly false, statements of facts as a mean for getting others to behave other than they would

28 otherwise — is not included within the realm of protected expression but that protected expression includes unintentional falsehoods, metaphor, and hyperbole in the strong expression of opinion or perspective” (Baker 1992, 02). In the same way, Claridge claims that “the persuasive or even manipulating aspect of hyperbole may come to the fore in public speeches and debates.” According to the scientist, “politicians use overstatement for purposes which are often regarded as manipulative and deceiving by the public at large, such as denouncing the political opponent or praising their own achievement” (Claridge 2011, 02). Also, they may use it for producing points in quotable catchphrases, which are very memorable but through their briefness often implausibly exaggerated.

2.2.4 Rhetorical question

Rhetorical devices and literary techniques are closely connected to tone and style. Rhetorical question is defined as any question which not intended to be answered. So, it is normally used for rhetorical effect with a presumption that only one answer is possible or it is asked without needing or intending to be answered. According to Galperin, “the rhetorical question is a special syntactic stylistic device the essence of which consists in reshaping the grammatical meaning of the interrogative sentence” (Galperin 1977, 222). Similarly, Nozan claims that “rhetorical questions are infelicitous or false questions in that the answer to the question is already known to the questioner and a rhetorical question may or may not have the illocutionary force of questioning but always bear the force of an indirect assertion.” (Niazi 2010, 270). Furthermore, Han says “a rhetorical positive question has the illocutionary force of negative assertion, and a rhetorical negative question has the illocutionary force of a positive assertion” (Han 2000, 202). There are various kinds of rhetorical questions. According to Athanasiadou, “using rhetorical questions is the intention of the speaker is to give emphasis to some particular point. Moreover, in a rhetorical question, the speaker considers the propositional content he/she is going to utter to be trivial or well-known. In a rhetorical question a constituent is given emphatic prominence and gets a universally valid touch and finally, rhetorical questions express wonder in an exclamative way” (Athanasiadou 1990, 108-109). Rhetorical questions have a persuasive power in political speeches. Due to this, rhetorical questions are frequently used in political speeches and like other stylistic devices can be used in varieties of ways, depending on the orator and the purpose of the speech. It is obvious that a rhetorical question is a great way to get the audience’s attention and to encourage the listener

29 to think about what the answer to the question must be. In addition to this, Dlugan claims that “if your entire speech is a series of statements, the audience may passively listen and absorb little” (Dlugan 2013, 01). That is to say, using a rhetorical question the orator can make the listeners active participants in the speech by inviting to think about the arguments. Similarly, rhetorical questions may be framed as topics for discussions in political forums or debates, too. However, the main reason of using rhetorical questions in political speeches is that it has the psychological benefit for the speaker. It shows that the orator shares experience with the audience and understands the people’s situation or problems which creates a psychological bond between the speaker and the listener.

3. BARACK OBAMA’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR LINGUISTIC REALIZATION

3.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches

Obviously, one of the greatest linguistic tools of political persuasion is the metaphor. It is popular to believe that the President of the United States Barack Obama delivers emotional speeches, full of stylistic devices. Besides, by putting ideas into metaphors the President presents himself as a strong leader who is responsible for his country. So, B. Obama masterly uses metaphorical phrases in order to gain people’s attention. The length of the speeches performed by B. Obama is enormous. However, the speeches make people want to listen, because they create a situation in which people feel that they are in the presence of a great political leader. Similarly, as Lithuanian President D. Grybauskaitė, B. Obama uses the word ‘heart’ in his speeches metaphorically in order to arouse people’s emotions. Poetically, the ‘heart’ is thought to be the organ of human emotion. Due to this, B. Obama resorts to metaphorical language to focus on preservation of peace in the world. (1) That's where peace begins -- not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of people. The stylistic device supports the President’s wish that people all around the world live peacefully and secure liberty across the globe. He metaphorically claims that the values of freedom, heritage and principles depend on people’s internal value. (2) We carry all that history in our hearts.

30 The President B. Obama through metaphors strengthens the main arguments about security and peace in his speech in Jerusalem. He shows his friendship and deep understanding for Israel people’s dilemmas. Moreover, despite the faith and creeds the President figuratively invites the people to love their neighbors, sisters and brothers, inspires to think about the values of the nation. (3) Of course, those values are at the heart not just of the Christian faith; but of all faiths. From Judaism to Islam; Hinduism to Sikhism; there echoes a powerful call to serve our brothers and sisters. To keep in our hearts a deep and abiding compassion for all. And to treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves. According to President, our world is changing every minute. So due to the fact, he argumentatively points out that the authorities need to think about the change of educational standards and methods. He strongly criticizes educational systems, various policies and procedures of institutions and draws the importance of the interaction between students and employees. (4) So all along that education pipeline, too many people – too many of our young talented people – are slipping through the cracks. It's not only heartbreaking for those students; it's a loss for our economy and our country. In his eulogy for Nelson Mandela, the President Obama metaphorically describes Mandela’s charismatic personality and powerful influence on the people. Besides, Obama glorifies Mandela’s ideas how to struggle to equality and justice, how to uphold freedom and that in spite of our differences people can create more beautiful place to live. He draws the audience’s attention to Mandela’s ability to be a skillful and righteous for everyone. (5) He changed laws, but he also changes hearts. (6) Let us search for his largeness of spirit somewhere inside of ourselves. And when the night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, when our best-laid plans seem beyond our reach, let us think of Madiba and the words that brought him comfort within the four walls of his cell. (7) It is hard to eulogize any man- to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that make a life, but the essential truth of a person- their private joys and sorrows; the quiet moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul. President B. Obama emotionally uses image of ‘heart’ to stress an importance of Palestinian human rights and the significance of peace between Israel and Palestine. (8) No one -- no single step can change overnight what lies in the hearts and minds of millions.

31 In the speeches which dealt with the economic situation, the president compares crises with the worry and the source of sleepless night. He tries to convince and to calm the people that there is the way to get away from recession and to strengthen the country. (9) It's the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It's the job you thought you'd retire from but now have lost, the business you built your dreams upon that's now hanging by a thread, the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the envelope. The President metaphorically compares the work with the backbone of foreign policy. He appreciates the extraordinary role of the state department employees for the tireless work they do. (10) You are the backbone of American foreign policy – especially those of you who are serving far away from home during the holidays. In his remarks at Yad Vashen in Jerusalem, the President passionately tries to persuade the people to think about changing themselves inside. B. Obama points out that empathy is the core of the humanity. People should not ignore what happens to others and should not be indifferent to the cruelty. (11) To succumb to our worst instincts or to summon the better angels of our nature. (12) We have to work for it around the world – to tend the light and the brightness as opposed to our worst instincts. The President’s expressions ‘icy currents’ and ‘storms’ emotionally inspires people to believe that the nation is strong enough to combat any difficulties. (13) America: In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents, and endure what storms may come. Finally, in his political speeches the President demonstrates how certain ways of seeing a policy problem and reacting to it can be emphasized through the use of metaphors. Beside this, metaphors help the president to develop a prospect on a problematic situation. Similarly, as in President D. Grybauskaitė’s political speeches, B. Obama frequently uses root metaphors “keep in our heart”, “lies in the heart”, “backbone of American foreign policy”. Extended metaphors are noticeable in his speeches, too. In his speeches the President uses extended metaphors that are meant to be memorable. Among the widely used figures of speech the president often employs personification, one of the types of metaphors, as another symbolic way to emphasize his main messages. The President of the United States B. Obama often personifies America. The President gives human

32 characteristics to America in order to show his concern about the country. In his inspirational speeches the President tries to convince the audience that they can seize the future together and addressing his arguments to America as a human. (14) America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class. (15) That is not just my promise; that’s America’s promise. The President of the United States emphasizes that people should not forget the past. Due to political considerations, the President invites the people to renew American leadership in the world and to expand opportunity for the next generation. (16) In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the world cannot meet them without America. Furthermore, personification enhances the arguments about the importance of every person in helping to promote the economy. B. Obama gives a human trait to America by emphasizing what should be done in order to improve the financial situation. (17) We know that can happen. We know that in the global economy -- where there's no room for error and there's certainly no room for wasted potential America needs you to succeed. At the same time, the President B. Obama presents the solution to the economic problems, so he vividly uses imagery and personifies the jobs. (18) More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; lying broadband and expanding mass transit. There are a great number of speeches where the President B. Obama personifies countries. He assigns the qualities of a person to Israelis and South Africa. In his fiery speech the President shows his intolerance to violence and at the same time he shows his worries about the countries’ freedom and using this stylistic device creates a persuasive situation that no nation can build a safer, better world alone. The President convinces the people that only work can bring the hope of democracy and development of the country. (19) Over the last 65 years, when Israel has been at its best, Israelis have demonstrated that responsibility does not end when you reach the Promised Land, it only begins. (20) For young Israelis, I know that these issues of security are rooted in an experience that is even more fundamental than the pressing threat of the day.

33 (21) South Africa shows that is true. South Africa shows we can change, that we can choose a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes. B. Obama personifies the world, too. According to the President, the world as a human can be cruel and selfish. Due to this, B. Obama invites the people to join together to solve the national problems. (22) In a world that can be cruel and selfish, it’s this knowledge – the knowledge that we are inclined to love one another, that we’re inclined to do good, to be good – that causes us to take heart. The president feels sorrow for Joplin people for aftermath of the storm. Through personification power, as the head of the State, B. Obama brightly shows his responsibility for the people and shows his charity to the people of Joplin. (23) In the last week, that’s what Joplin has not just taught Missouri, not just taught America, but has taught the world. In his political speeches the President B. Obama takes personification for granted as an important aspect of rhetorical strategy. The President uses stylistic device to express strong concern about the country and to stress the importance of National unity. Moreover, through the appeal to the audience’s emotions he inspires people to believe that the nation is strong to combat any difficulties. So, B. Obama uses personification when a phenomenon is associated with human actions. Sometimes, the president applies the type of personification when a thing is personified and portrayed to have human emotions. In addition to this, he personifies not only America but also other countries. Sometimes, the President gives human traits to jobs.

3.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches

The President B.Obama uses a great number of epithets, too. Describing people, events or things he tries to strengthen his arguments and to create emotional atmosphere. The President likes to share his personal life in order to convey a message that he is friendly for everyone and to show his closeness. Talking about his personal life he appeals on the audience’s emotions. As well as that, B. Obama opens his inner life and shows how much he loves his family. The strategy of being frank is used to gain the audiences warm feelings. It is obvious that the President includes personal experience, to make his speech livelier and establish a ‘personal’ relationship to become well-liked. (24) Sasha and Malia, before our very eyes you're growing up to become two strong, smart beautiful young women, just like your mom.

34 Argumentative force of epithets is seen when he praises other people, shows his pride and trust of them and at the same time tries to inspire the audience to believe in government and politics. (25) That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with. Now, we need a strategy- and a politics- that reflects this resilient spirit. Furthermore, the epithet supports the President’s message of the unity, the strength of the troops and the power of the State. (26) Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us. His speeches contain epithets describing young people and the importance of education. So, he vividly embraces his concern about education system. (27) But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, the best schools in the world – and none of it will make a difference, none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities, unless you show up to those schools, unless you pay attention to those teachers, unless you listen to your parents and grandparents and other adults and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. However, B. Obama reinforces his arguments by saying that people must find the solutions for the financial problems and draws attention to political awareness. Besides, the President intends to persuade the audience claiming that education is one of the most important things in life because without education young people cannot contribute to the world’s prosperity. (28) Now, to achieve this goal, we're going to need motivated students, motivated families, motivated communities, local leaders who are doing their part, state leaders who are doing their part. (29) But because she had worked hard and her parents understood the value of education, and she had great teachers and great opportunities, and because the country was willing to invest to make sure that she was able to pay for college, she ended up going to some of the best universities in the country. Furthermore, B. Obama’s speeches are full of epithets describing America. He boosts the strength of American military. Using these epithets the president wants to emphasize that those who intends to confront with America, they are ready to fight for safety. (30) We want to pass on a country that's safe and respected and admired around the world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this – this world has ever known.

35 (31) We have the most powerful military in history, but that's not what makes us strong. The President B. Obama rhetorically concentrates people’s attention and again appeals to their emotions when he talks to people with a pride about America. He emphasizes particular aspects of living in America and shows his devotion to American country and to its people. (32) This is a nation of museums and patents, timeless holy sites and ground-breaking innovation. (33) And together with your help and God's grace we will continue our journey forward and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth. At the same time, the president points out that America is a friendly country and it is a place for everyone. Moreover, he creates persuasive situation that everyone has an opportunity to have more prosperous life and invites to make a progress together. (34) Let’s make sure we’re giving America a raise. One thing that Americans across the board agree on is if you work full-time in the wealthiest nation on Earth, you shouldn’t be in poverty. However, speaking about enemies and terrorism, he rhetorically shows his strong anxiety about terrorism and appeals to collective awareness. Being decisive and confident political leader, B. Obama lets the audience to understand that he will have no use for fierce people. (35) And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory, alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history – the flag of the United States will still wave from small – town cemeteries, to national monuments, to distant outposts abroad. (36) Make no mistake: There will be difficult days ahead. We know that the violence in Iraq will continue – we see that already in the senseless bombing in Kirkuk earlier today. Similarly, B. Obama emphasizes difficult and uncertain times in order to show his responsibility and represents himself as a powerful and attentive president of the United States. (37) So we're helping states get through some very tough times without having to drastically cut back on the critical education infrastructure that's going to be so important. (38) And finally, I want to thank all of you here today for everything you're doing to find new solutions to some of our oldest, toughest problems. In order to arouse the people’s feelings to inefficient politicians’ decisions, he criticizes their good intentions and problem solutions. (39) Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into broken promises and wasteful spending.

36 (40) That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe. To sum it up, associative epithets are the most significant type in President B. Obama’s speeches. That is to say, associated epithets describe the idea which inherits the concept of the object “difficult day”, “brutal despots”. Furthermore, from the point of composition, the President mainly chooses simple epithets. So, the President resorts to epithets in order to enhance the arguments of the speech.

3.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches

As it was mentioned above, stylistic means play a crucial role in B. Obama’s speeches. As a rule, the President’s speeches contain a great number of stylistic devices, still hyperbole is not very often used for emphasizing ideas. However, B. Obama likes using hyperbole in order to transfer strong expression of opinion or perspective. In his inspiring victory speech the president emotionally thanks voters’ for their loyalty and trust in him as a leader, as a father figure of all Nation. (41) Thank you for believing all the way, through every hill, through every valley. In his passionate speech, B. Obama describes Mandela as a ‘giant’ of a history. The President of America uses magnification in order to inspire the audience to struggle for racial freedom in Africa and America. (42) How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward justice, and in the process moved billions around the world. To emphasis the importance of foreign policy B. Obama employs hyperbole to boast ambassador Holbrooke for his devotion to his job and that he was extremely hard-working man. Due to this, the stylistic device supports the author’s message of his responsibility for every person. (43) He is simply one of the giants of American foreign policy. The American President sensuously resorts to figurative language to show how much he outlives National tragedies. So, he emphasizes the importance of the unity, cooperation and self-devotion among the people. (44) You’ve banded together. You’ve come to each other’s aid. You’ve demonstrated a simple truth: that amid heartbreak and tragedy, no one is a stranger. Everybody is a brother. Everybody is a sister. (45) Now, there have been countless acts of kindness and selflessness in recent days.

37 Moreover, B. Obama concentrates and accentuates the audience’s attention to new policies about developing and improving technology in schools. By saying ‘huge’, he exaggerates the significance of connection between science and economy. (46) We also need folks who are studying the arts because our film industry is a huge generator of jobs and economic power here in the United States, and it tells us our story and helps us to find what’s – our common humanity. At the students’ film festival, the President B. Obama uses hyperbole to create a friendship atmosphere and to make his speech livelier and to become well-liked. (47) And today, the Oscar goes to – all of you. Speaking at the Yad Vashen Holocaust Memorial Museum, the use of hyperbole gives the strength to communicative tension. Similarly, B. Obama shows his firm attitude towards tragic history and figuratively expresses his sorrow. (48) We could come here a thousand times, and each time our hearts would break. (49) So may God bless the memory of the millions. Furthermore, to enlarge his concerning about aggression and terrorism, B. Obama stresses his strong attitude to National security and at the same time he tries to show to the audience that he is a responsible and forceful leader of a country. (50) Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a sun-filled morning. In order to draw the audience’s attention to important issues, B. Obama employs numerical nouns such as, ‘millions’, ‘thousands’. So, he uses hyperbole to inspire the people to believe in America’s successful economy and prosperous future. (51) It would lift millions of Americans out of poverty, and help millions more work their way out of poverty – without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or spending. (52) He not only embodied Ubuntu, he taught millions to find that truth within themselves. (53) We’ve been able to provide millions of young people additional grants and loans so that they can go to college. (54) We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy to cities and towns across this country. Taking everything into consideration, Obama employs hyperboles in his speeches where he shows his feelings, intensifies rhetorical effect and focuses on the main arguments of the speech. In many cases certain types of hyperbole is used repeatedly. The main group of hyperbole which the President applies in his speeches is numerical nouns ‘a million’, ‘a

38 thousand’. Furthermore, B. Obama sometimes uses quantifiers ‘everybody’, ‘all’, ‘every’. As one might expect that through the usage of hyperbole, the President achieves impressive effects on the listener. So that is why, he exaggerates the size of the phenomenon by saying ‘giant’. B. Obama overstates something because of his intention to highlight some very important points.

3.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches

It was noticed that in his speeches, the President B. Obama mostly uses wh-question form. The American President expresses himself by using questions that are asked and at the same time immediately answered. These types of questions allow the President to highlight the reason why he is expressing his worriment. (55) Now, you may ask, why are we here at Hudson Valley? We're here because this is a place where anyone with the desire to take their career to a new level or start a new career altogether has the opportunity to pursue that dream. In order to force the audience to thing about the future possibilities of the country, the President seeks to break the stillness and to probe the audience’s opinion. (56) So today, I want to ask all of you, what's your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country? Moreover, by asking questions B. Obama encourages young people to think about their future and evokes their personal awareness. In order to create a communicative tension of the speech he uses incorrect Yes/No questions. (57) You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? Similarly, the President invites to think about other possibilities of the future that people may or can change. By using rhetorical device he stimulates the audience’s emotions and arouses their imagination. (58) So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made? (59) Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the America we want to leave to our children? By highlighting the everyday problems and showing his worry, the President expresses his strong criticism towards unpleasant situation.

39 (60) What are we doing to hire more cops? What are we doing to make sure that they're getting the training that they need? What are we doing to make sure our sheriff's offices in rural counties have access to some of the resources that some of the big cities do in order to deal with some of these emergencies? However, not only the President uses rhetorical questions to show his strong criticism, but also when he shows his closeness to the people. That is why he sometimes starts or ends the speeches using rhetorical questions and seeks to attract attention by conspicuous behaviour or to become more well-liked. (61) Oh, this is a good-looking crowd here. Are you fired up? Are you ready to go? (62) All right? Thank you very much, everybody. Furthermore, to express his great sorrow for a terrible storm that stroke the country the president uses rhetorical questions for dramatic effect. So, he shows his personal touch and brings the people to self-reflection. (63) And as Reverend Brown alluded to, the question that weighs on us at a time like this is: Why? Why our town? Why our home? Why my son, or husband, or wife, or sister, or friend? Why? We do not have the capacity to answer. The President B. Obama again appeals to the audience’s emotion and it seems that the president tries to provoke though and encourages taking some actions. (64) I just walked through some of the neighborhoods that have been affected, and you look out at the landscape, and there have to be moments where you just say, where to begin? How to start? Instead of getting into immediate declaration, the President figuratively achieves impressive effects on the listener. The stylistic device affirms the author’s message that the people should stop for a while and to find time for self-evaluation. (65) How well have I applied his lessons in my own life? In conclusion, the President B. Obama’s speeches often contain rhetorical questions showing his closeness to the audience and compelling them to find right solutions. In addition to this, rhetorical questions help the President to support already expresses views and to influence further thought. It was noticed that B. Obama uses questions at the beginning or the end of discourse to enhance the audience’s emotions. Similarly, series of questions weight ideas and support the arguments of the text. This rhetorical device helps the President to spread the main arguments of the text by saying why he is expressing his worrying or delight against something and somebody. For this reason, he President sometimes asks questions and immediately answers.

40 4. DALIA GRYBAUSKAITĖ’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR LINGUISTIC REALIZATION

4.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches

In President D. Grybauskaitė’s political speeches metaphors played a crucial role used for the purpose of persuasion. Similarly, the President used metaphors as a powerful communication tool to spread the ideas and concepts. The research deals with the speeches delivered by Dalia Grybauskaitė at the beginning of her presidency. It was noticed that the president appeals to the feelings and emotions by figurative use of the word ‘heart’. Instead of saying directly, she makes a sentence thrilling by conveying strong imagery and creating a colourful picture in the audience’s mind. (1) Laisvės ir demokratijos troškimas. Širdyje- prasideda ir valstybė. D. Grybauskaitė uses ‘heart’ as a symbol of emotion, to convey a vivid people’s desire for free nation. President D. Grybauskaitė highlights that people who work towards a common vision can create a better life in the future. The President also mentions the strength of the little country and that the world was stunned by people’s civic courage to stand against military power. She glorifies people whose hearts were beating in unison for the same ideals. The power of unity, D.Grybauskaitė figuratively describes as the nation’s one heart (2) Ir ta jėga sudrebėjo – neišdrįso pakelti ginklo prieš vaikus, senelius, vyrus ir moteris, kurių širdys plakė kaip viena. Similarly, she uses the image of a ‘heart’ showing the sense of human unity celebrating Lithuanian Independence Day. (3) Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės Aktas- tai laisvės liudijimas kiekvieno lietuvio širdyje. Dalia Grybauskaitė vividly describes The Baltic Way: A Chain for Freedom. This way she compares with the ‘way of hearts’. The President figuratively emphasizes the peoples’ protest against the Soviet rule and how the world was stunned by peoples’ civic courage and determination to resist a military power peacefully and democratically. (4) Baltijos kelias, grįstas širdimis, buvo ir vedė ne tik į laisvę, bet ir į žmogaus bei visuomenės išsivadavimą. The President beautifully tried to persuade the people by using word ‘heart’ the advantages of the opportunities offered by the European Union.

41 (5) Atveriame savo širdis ir protą tam, kad kurtume bendrą Europos ateitį. The power of metaphorical persuasion is obvious in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches where she tries to establish a ‘personal’ relationship to become well-liked. (6) Čia, Lietuvos širdyje, matau susirinkusiųjų veidus, kuriuose daug šviesos ir išminties. (7) Nuoširdžiai dėkoju bibliotekose dirbantiems žmonėms, kurie įdeda daug širdies į savo darbą, skatina skaityti, padeda savo bendruomenei. Similarly, the president wants to show the unity of the nation and that only freedom could preserve our homeland and independence. Dalia Grybauskaitė's affirmation that Lithuanians all over the world will join together in singing the national anthem - one voice, one heart symbolizes that Lithuania is free, recognized and respectable nation. (8) Sausio 13-toji yra mūsų vienybės šaltinis. Tegul jis niekada neišsenka ir maitina mūsų širdis laisvės dvasia. (9) Kad visi kartu vakare susibursime giedoti Lietuvos himną, išvien sujungdami savo balsus ir širdis. Moreover, the President in her speech emotionally inspires sportsmen and referees and invites them to have a sense of national pride and calls glorify the country proudly. (10) Sportininkams, treneriams ir visai sporto bendruomenei turėčiau du palinkėjimus. Pirma – saugokite savo širdyje – Lietuvą! Metaphorical use of the word ‘heart’ also creates a situation in which the President wants people to think about new opportunities. Moreover, she metaphorically invites people to open their homes and hearts to spring and to rejoice in the good and wonderful things that life has to offer. (11) Bundanti gamta ir sugrįžtantys paukščiai suteikia mums vilties ir jėgų naujiems darbams. Įsileiskime pavasarį į namus ir širdis. However, not only the word ‘heart’ the President uses metaphorically. Talking about the crisis she draws attention to everyday troubles and invites to think about the future. (12) Šiais nelengvais laikais, kasdien girdime sakant: krizė. Gesindami gaisrą šiandien, galvokime apie rytojų. According to D.Grybauskaitė, knowledge plays an important role as an integral part of national growth and development. Both freedom and education can make a nation strong. (13) Prisiminkime, kokias dideles aukas ant žinių ir laisvės aukuro sudėjo mūsų protėviai. Knygnešiai ir daraktoriai, kariai ir artojai, mokslininkai ir menininkai. Visi jie sunešė tą didelį aruodą, iš kurio mes dabar semiame. (14) Mokslo ir žinių diena-tai ne tik šventė. Tai slenkstis prieš tobulėjimo erdves.

42 Furthermore, in her speech about human right situation, the President draws her audiences’ attention to understanding the role women play or could play in furthering the cause of the societies. She points out that people have hundreds of international and national declarations and regulations on human rights and gender issues in particular. So, she figuratively expresses her thoughts by invoking people not to get lost in the forest of documents on gender issues. (15) Manau, kad mums reikia kritiškai įvertinti, ką turime, kad nepasiklystume dokumentų lyčių klausimais miške. Dalia Grybauskaitė perfectly illustrates the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the European Union comparing it with a choir where different voices come together. This metaphorical expression shows that the president wishes to stress the task to seek an agreement among member states and to strengthen European’s financial posture. (16) Mieli europiečiai, manau, kad viskas jau pasakyta šiuo muzikiniu pasirodymu. Jis puikiai atspindi, kas yra pirmininkavimas Europos Sąjungos Tarybai. Tai choras, kuriame susilieja ir dera skirtingi balsai. In the same way, D. Grybauskaitė conveys the message that Lithuania has many artists and the audience has the opportunity to know Lithuania and its culture better. So, the culture she compares with the community orchestra. (17) Todėl sveikindama „Klara“muzikos festivalio dalyvius ir klausytojus, džiaugiuosi, kad šiandien yra puiki proga Jums visiems daugiau sužinoti ir apie Lietuvą, ir apie jos kultūrą- išgirsti, kaip ji skamba Bendrijos orkestre. The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania is compared with a wreath. It symbolizes the nation’s fights, victories and losses, connecting them back to their deep roots, national wisdom and experience. (18) Nepriklausomybės aktas- tai ilgamečių tautos kovų už laisvę vainikas. In D. Grybauskaitė’s political speeches metaphors are the most significant device among other rhetorical tools used for purpose of persuasion. From the point of usage ‘heart’ is considered as the site of a room of emotions. In her political speeches ‘heart’ is associated with feelings. It could be stated that the President’s speeches are based on model of emotions. Root metaphors, are the most prevailing rhetorical device in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches. They are embedded within a language that it is often not realized as being a metaphor “įdeda daug širdies į darbą”, “troškimas gimsta širdyje”. Furthermore, complex metaphors where a simple metaphor is base on a secondary metaphor element, quite often emerge in her speeches <…krizė. Gesindami gaisrą šiandien, galvokime apie rytojų.>, <…pirmininkavimas Europos

43 Sąjungos Tarybai…choras, kuriame susilieja ir dera skirtingi balsai>. So, it is obvious that all metaphors have a positive connotation and arouse positive feelings in the addressees. Personification is a frequent means of creating metaphors. The president Dalia Grybauskaitė uses this artful form of speaking when she wants to make her speech more imaginative. It is obvious that personification helps the audience to understand better the speeches when the president gives those human qualities or characteristics. In the same way, she uses imagery in order to make speeches stronger and to influence people by using this stylistic device. The President personifies Lithuania many times. She usually gives to Lithuania human- like qualities. According to D. Grybauskaitė, Lithuania is a militant and suffering, but at the same time, independent, proud and stable woman. (19) Į Vasario šešioliktosios parašą kiekvienas įspaudė savo Tėvynės viziją - kovojančios, galbūt net kenčiančios Lietuvos, tačiau nepriklausomos, išdidžios, nepalenkiamos, savos Lietuvos. The President usually speaks with the intention of getting the audience’s support to the policies of Lithuania and to share the sense of communality. For this reason, D. Grybauskaitė gives to Lithuania human attribution when she rhetorically claims that Lithuania awakes and speaks about independent and democratic state. (20) Dienos, kai prieš devyniasdešimt ketverius metus Lietuva prisikėlė ir pasakė: būsim. Būsim laisva, nepriklausoma ir demokratiška valstybė. Ji paskelbė tai pasauliui ir patvirtino šį siekį dvidešimties iškiliausių signatarų parašais. According to the President, Lithuania, as a human, knows the value of the liberty. She draws the people’s attention to the friendship and unity of the neighborhood. So, personifying Lithuania D. Grybauskaitė shows her solidarity with Polish nation. (21) Lietuva žino laisvės kainą, todėl supranta ir lenkų jausmus šiandieną. The President of Lithuania figuratively invites the school authorities and parents to work together in the community and emphasizing the importance of cooperation and again gives a human trait to Lithuania. According to her, the school is the place where Lithuania can come into the world. (22) Mokykla turi tapti bendru mokytojų, tėvų, bendruomenės, valdžios rūpesčiu, nes joje gimsta ateities Lietuva. Furthermore, D. Grybauskaitė seeks to create and to be in a credible family where the nations as the family members can share values and common vision. Through this emotional

44 effect, she seeks to arouse the audience’s feelings of civic duty and expresses ideas about collectivism and creativeness. (23) Lietuva siekia telkti ir jungti Bendriją kaip atvirą, patikimą ir kūrybingą šeimą, kurią sieja vertybės ir bendra vizija. A national personification is noticeable in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches, too. Personifying the nation the president represents her strong trust in people, the power of the nation and tries to create an impression of national unity. As well as that, the nation as a woman gave birth to prominent people. (24) Tad būkime ir mes atsakingi už savo šalies valdymą ir ateitį. Dalyvaukime valstybės reikaluose, neleiskime abejingumui tvarkytis mūsų šalyje. (25) Tauta gimdė iškilius kūrėjus. Jų padedama kėlėsi ir ėjo. Tikėjo ir išsaugojo savo gyvastį. In the Olympic awards ceremony, the president appeals to the audience’s emotion by saying that during the Olympic competition whole nation looked to the teams in expectation of winnings. Indeed, D. Grybauskaitė uses personification to convey a lively impression of ability to unite the nation and to inspire the people to the new challenges. (26) Olimpinėmis dienomis visa Tauta viltingai žvelgė į Jus. Ir Jūs su kaupu pateisinote lūkesčius. Kovėtės netausodami savęs. Moreover, in order to establish a ‘common sense’ Lithuanian President humanizes three Baltic States, by naming them ‘sisters’. She uses this stylistic device to emphasize the importance of a good relationship between countries and to show solidarity by possible attacks from military countries. (27) Mūsų tautos - ne tik kaimynės, mes dar ir sesės. (28) Į jį stojusios trys Baltijos sesės apstulbino pasaulį pilietiniu brandumu ir laisvės troškimo jėga. To sum up, personification allows the President D. Grybauskaitė to express her national feelings and it makes the speeches more enjoyable. In her remarks, the President personification applies to many things i.e. personifies countries, nations.

45 4.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches

In D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches epithets are is focused on attracting attention of the listeners. Due to this, the President describes the characters, places and things brightly. Actually, she applies a great number of epithets to bring out the typical characteristic in persons, places and things and she attempts to describe suitable imagery in a fewer words. Lithuanian’s President largely uses epithets characterizing people. Similarly epithets employed by a president are the force which argumentatively expresses ideas and shows a close contact with people. At the Gaudeamus Festival D. Grybauskaitė beautifully welcomes singers, dancers and musicians. (29) Džiaugiuosi sveikindama Jus, susibūrusius iš visų Baltijos šalių. Šauniuosius dainininkus, šokėjus, muzikantus, visą Baltijos šalių studentiją. However, she shows her attention not only to the youth, but also mentions elderly who can sing together with all. (30) Ne tik studentijai, bet ir žilagalviams seneliams. In the speeches, the President appeals to the people’s patriotism and always rhetorically invites the youth to stand together on the path to freedom and glorify the independence. (31) Valstybės laisvei reikalingi laisvai ir drąsiai mąstantys žmonės, girdintys vieni kitus, gerbiantys savo istoriją ir mylintys savo kalbą. Moreover, in the Mother’s Day speech D. Grybauskaitė shows honour to mothers with many children. She nicely expresses about their children and uses many epithets in order to show her responsibility for harmonious families. (32) Šiandien, Motinos dienos proga, Jūs apdovanojamos už tai, kad užauginote gražų būrį vaikų, išauklėjote juos dorais žmonėmis ir piliečiais, gerbiančiais savo tėvus, mylinčiais Tėvynę ir atjaučiančiais savo artimą. Consequently, figurativeness of speech is achieved due to epithets used in speeches where the President draws significance of smart, talented and creative youth. (33) Mieli olimpiadų dalyviai, sveikinu Jus - išsilavinusios ir pažangios Lietuvos kūrėjus. (34) Visi kartu toliau stenkimės, kad jaunieji protai ir talentai turėtų visas sąlygas tobulinti savo gebėjimus. She shows her respect to people who are willing to enjoy politics. Similarly, D. Grybauskaitė mentions the risky profession by emphasizing its importance and demands to perform noble and fair actions.

46 (35) Ne tiek ir daug jaunų, kūrybingų ir pažangių žmonių nori dalyvauti politikoje. Politikas - rizikinga profesija. (36) Matydami Jūsų gražų, širdimis jaunų kovotojų būrį, gyventi Lietuvoje galime ramiau. The arguments of the importance of economic, infrastructural and scientific strategies the President transfers through characterizing people. In the same way, accentuating the importance of success for the State, D. Grybauskaitė stresses the importance of youth education, brave and active young people. (37) Tik savita, išsilavinusi, dėmesinga kiekvienam savo nariui visuomenė - valstybės ateities garantas, didžiausias mūsų valstybės turtas. (38) Tačiau apie visus galima pasakyti – esate darbštūs, drąsūs, principingi, atsakingi ir ištikimi savo pašaukimui. Addressing her sympathy to young people, Lithuanian President uses impressive epithets in order to make the youth believe that it is possible in Lithuania to work successfully and profitably. (39) Džiaugiuosi, kad mūsų šalyje jau užaugo veržlių ir drąsių profesionalų karta, iš kurios galime mokytis sėkmingo, novatoriško ir etiško verslo pagrindų. (40) Kviečiu Jus, jaunuosius mokslininkus, burtis ir garsiai išsakyti savo poreikius – ko reikia, kad galėtumėte sėkmingai ir naudingai dirbti Lietuvoje. Furthermore, she tries to inspire and to encourage the youth for new challenges to sports by describing them as ‘golden Lithuanian youth’. (41) Linkiu, kad ir toliau išliktumėte kovotojais. Kad pateisintumėte auksinės jaunimo kartos vardą ir profesionalaus krepšinio pasaulyje. The Lithuania’s President appeals to audience’s feelings and emotions when she describes Lithuania, its towns and other countries. (42) Nuoširdžiai džiaugiuosi, kad Palanga, vienas brangiausių Lietuvos perlų, kasmet vis gražėja. (43) Palangiškių išradingumas ir darbštumas padeda kurti gyvą ir spalvingą kurortą ištisus metus. At the State dinner in Reykjavik D. Grybauskaitė starts her speech figuratively by describing Island, in order to create a friendly atmosphere and show the friendship. (44) Norėčiau padėkoti Jums, Jūsų Ekscelencija, ir visiems, padėjusiems surengti šį vizitą, už tokį šiltą mano ir visos Lietuvos delegacijos sutikimą Jūsų gražioje ledo ir ugnies šalyje.

47 Furthermore, conveying her intentions to force the people to contemplate the tasks, the president nicely describes Lithuania. Here an implied comparison shows to the audience D. Grybauskaitė’s wishes of modern and tolerant State. (45) Galime atidžiau įvertinti save ir savo darbus. Apmąstyti, ką kiekvienas nuveikėme, kurdami atvirą, tolerantišką ir teisingą Lietuvą. (46) Lietuva - kūrybiška ir imli naujovėms valstybė. Speaking about the time of changes she illustrates her arguments by saying that people should not waver but they should trust in progressive and unconcealed country. (47) Tik skleisdama demokratijos idėjas bei atverdama mūsų tautos kūrybinį potencialą, Lietuva tampa atvira, modernia, tolerantiška valstybe. However, in her speeches D. Grybauskaitė strongly criticizes Lithuanian legal system, unfair judges but she rhetorically claims that the courts are changing and new judges will be appointed to serve justice. (48) aplaidžiai dirbantiems ir nesąžiningiems teisėjams – ženklas, kad teismų savivaldos institucijos pradėjo veikti ne kaip savigynos organizacijos, o kaip reikli ir reali savivalda. (49) Pirmiausia, tai neprasidedantys arba stringantys teismai. Similarly, she uses some negative epithets about government and policy. The Lithuanian President shows her strong concern about corruption and austerity. She tries to suggest what should be done in order to improve the situation and presents solutions to the problems. D. Grybauskaitė encourages fighting against corruption and unfair officials. (50) Todėl noriu atkreipti dėmesį ir į tai, kas labiausiai trukdo užtikrinti mūsų žmonėms teisę į greitą, teisingą ir nešališką teismą. (51) Tik taip pajėgsime ištrūkti iš nešvarios politikos, korumpuotos valdininkijos ir nesąžiningo verslo rato. All things considered, from the point of view of their compositional structure, the President D. Grybauskaitė uses simple (adjectives, nouns) epithets. It should be noted that semantically the president applies associated epithets with the noun following it and pointing to a feature which essential to the objects they describe “žilagalviams seneliams”, “šauniuosius dainininkus”. Furthermore, the biggest group of epithets serves to convey the emotional evaluation of the object by the President. So, the most qualifying words are used as affective epithets “nesąžiningiems teisėjams”, “nešvarios politikos”. It is a fact that the President seldom uses figurative epithets “gražioje ledo ir ugnies šalyje” , “auksinės kartos vardą”, “brangiausių Lietuvos perlų”. In addition to this, there are some chain construction in

48 her speeches “atvira, modernia, tolerantiška valstybe”, “darbštūs, drąsūs, principingi, atsakingi ir ištikimi”. Also, the President employs pair structure epithets “gyvą ir spalvingą kurortą”, “veržlių ir drąsių profesionalų karta”.

4.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches

In most cases, as other stylistic devices, hyperbole is used to create a strong impression of the speech. As well as that, D. Grybauskaitė uses hyperbole in order to dramatize ideas or convey strong emotions. In her speeches, the president employs this figure to overstate things, to make things bigger or smaller, better or worse, etc. So, as one might expect, this stylistic device of exaggeration quite often appears in D. Grybauskaitė’s remarks. The impressive and imaginative example of hyperbole the President uses in her speech at the Ceremony of Presentation of State decorations. To impress the audience and to praise the citizens for their courage the president names them the titans of modern Lithuania. (52) Didžiuojamės valstybės ir visuomenės veikėjais, mokslininkais, verslininkais, nuoširdžiai tarnaujančiais Lietuvai. Visi Jūs esate šiuolaikinės Lietuvos milžinai. Similarly, by exaggeration of oat, the President vividly describes her responsibility to the Nation and Homeland. (53) Lietuvos piliečių valia, šios dienos priesaika man – milžiniška atsakomybė savo Tautai ir Tėvynei In order to increase emphasis on the issue, D. Grybauskaitė uses word ‘titanic’ very often. It is obvious, when she speaks about the significance of the military service. (54) Kiekvieną tarnybos dieną skirti „Tėvynės labui” yra milžiniškas įsipareigojimas. Furthermore, the President of Lithuania uses overstatement for the purpose to praise the international community for their achievement. (55) Jos turi sukaupusios milžinišką patirtį, kuria gali pasidalyti su visais, išgyvenančiais panašią transformaciją. However, the frequent use of hyperbole is not just manipulation or self– presentation. The President employs simply to make some aspects more prominent or highlight important issues. Beside this, D. Grybauskaitė draws her audience’s attention to conflicts in the world and due to this many people suffering of this violence. So, as a result, this leads to stagnation of global economy. (56) Pastaraisiais metais pasaulyje konfliktų vėl daugėja. Dėl jų tūkstančiai žmonių miršta, yra sužalojami ar praranda pastogę.

49 Moreover, the President rhetorically enlarges things by using numerical nouns such as a ‘million’, ‘a hundred’ to create a positive atmosphere and impression. In addition to this, she often uses this emotive technique to evoke strong feelings and to create a strong emotive response. (57) Vidaus rinka sukūrė milijonus darbo vietų. (58) Galima būtų išvardinti šimtus atvejų, kai Jūs išgelbėjote gyvybę, užkirtote kelią nusikaltimui ar padėjote jį išaiškinti, sulaikėte pavojingus nusikaltėlius, kontrabandininkus, kitus įstatymo pažeidėjus. (59) Jūs suteikiate sceną šimtams atlikėjų, o tūkstančiams muzikos gerbėjų atveriate duris į stulbinantį muzikos pasaulį. (60) Ne tik milijonai žmonių, stovėjusių Baltijos kelyje prieš dvidešimt metų, yra jo dalyviai. In the same way, at the State Awards Ceremony, D. Grybauskaitė praise people who made a significant contribution to raising civic awareness. So, by saying that human life is the most precious asset of all, she figuratively magnifies the future. (61) Išgelbėta gyvybė - tai išgelbėtas pasaulis, išgelbėta ateitis. The President illustrates her arguments by exaggeration the sustainable future of the planet. She intends to persuade the audience by emphasizing the importance of being smart, sensitive and responsible. So, the people who are listening the speech are likely to believe of successful and stable future. (62) Būdami pažangūs, atsakingi ir jautrūs, mes galime žengti didžiulį žingsnį pirmyn link tvaresnės mūsų planetos ateities. To summarise, the President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaitė employs hyperbole for emphasis of current issues, for rhetorical effect or for drawing the audience’s attention to more salient problems. Beside this, the most frequent device of overstatement is aimed at exaggeration of quantity when the size of the objects is intentionally overstated. The President D. Grybauskaitė quite often uses trite language hyperbole i.e. numeral nouns ‘a hundred’ ‘a thousand’ ‘a million’. In spite of the fact that through long and repeated use hyperbole lost its originality but still remained as a tool of compelling.

50 4.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches

Lithuanian President D Grybauskaitė uses different stylistic means by which she provokes people for further debate or inspires to find the right solutions together. One of them still not mentioned is rhetorical question. This solidarity device the president not very often use as a strategic tool to involve the audience into a communication. Through rhetorical questions the president seeks to establish a communicative atmosphere and to involve the audience into unreal dialogue. Generally, D. Grybauskaitė employs rhetorical questions to give a thought and emphasize the status of the female leader in the world. She rhetorically argues that women leaders work hard and take a huge responsibility to improve lives and work to ensure successful future. (63) Ar žinote, jog tai prilygtų Europos gyventojų skaičiui pasaulio bendruomenėje? Ar galite įsivaizduoti tiek daug moterų pasaulyje, prisiimančių atsakomybę ir gerinančių gyvenimą sau ir savo šalims? Similarly, to express strong feelings of the audience and make the speech more influential she calls to think about women’s rights, human rights situation and gender equality. She asks a provocative question in order to inspire people for further debate. (64) Todėl leiskite užduoti vieną provokacinį klausimą - kada paskutinį kartą peržiūrėjome visus dokumentus prieš priimdami dar vieną? (65)Pavyzdžiui ,jeigu turime internetinius žemėlapius, atspindinčius pasaulinę pajamų nelygybę, kodėl neturėti žemėlapio, kuriame būtų parodyta lyčių nelygybė?Mes kviečiame gyventojus internete pranešti apie kyšininkavimo atvejus, tad kodėl nesukūrus tinklalapio, kuriame būtų galima informuoti apie lyčių diskriminacijos atvejus? The use of rhetorical question helps the President to express strong feeling of outrage. This method of manipulation allows provoke the audience’s awareness. (66) Ar tūkstančio metų pakako, kad suvoktume, kokios valstybės norime, kokie esame patys? However, sometimes, criticizing Lithuanian Constitution, the President rhetorically expresses her vehement indignations. Due to this, she masterly shows her fairness to the audience through stylistic devise. (67) Tačiau Konstitucija - ne tik teisės ir laisvės, bet ir pareigos. Ar visuomet tinkamai jas vykdome? Ar padarėme viską, kad nuolat didėtų pagarba Konstitucijai? Ar Konstitucija ir

51 šiandien mums padeda sumažinti socialines ir politines įtampas? Ar paisome Konstitucijos galios, glūdinčios ne tik jos tekste, bet ir pačioje jos dvasioje? Moreover, using this persuasive tool D. Grybauskaitė seeks to embellish the speech and at the same time figuratively expresses her anxiety about social upheaval in Ukraine. (68) Gerbiami nariai,ko pasaulyje galėjo nejaudinti vaizdai paprastų įvairaus amžiaus žmonių šąlančiame Kijevo Euromaidane, taikiai besipriešinančių gausiai riaušių policijai; o tarp jų - vienišas pianistas, grojantis Europos Sąjungos vėliavos mėlyna spalva su geltonomis žvaigždėmis dažytu pianinu? In order to highlight a new topic, the President uses rhetorical questions so that people can realize the importance of the discussing issues. Consequently, the President asks the audience’s a piece of advice how to get out of the difficulties and D. Grybauskaitė shows that she is open to amendments. (69) Ką reikia daryti? (70) Kokių konkrečiai veiksmų reikėtų imtis? (71) Taigi ką pasiekėme? Beside this, the President figuratively invites to debate the audience about the importance of reading books. She tries to inspire the young readers do not forget the book and the national language. (72) Visi kartu pasvarstykime, ar šiandien pakanka rankų, nešančių knygą, statančių pilį toliau? In conclusion, Lithuanian President D. Grybauskaitė employs rhetorical questions mostly as a thought provoking the way to stimulate discussion and expressing displeasure against somebody or something. Sometimes, she uses a string of questions in order to highlight crucial problems or to express strong resentment against dishonesty. It should be mentioned that in her speeches the President emphasizes a common understanding and at the same time demonstrates the strength of her own position of power.

52 5. JUXTAPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INVENTORY

In order to analyze the ways of rhetorical strategies and the use of stylistic devices, 100 speeches delivered by President D. Grybauskaitė making up 104 pages were taken for the analysis and 30 randomly taken speeches of President B. Obama that make 110 pages. It should be noted that D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches are really short. The shortest speech is one page and the longest one is two pages. Whereas the length of the political speeches delivered by B. Obama are much longer: the shortest speech is one page and the longest is nine pages. The analysis of presidents’ speeches revealed how both Presidents using the same rhetorical strategies but different stylistic means influence the audience and convince people the benefits that can arise from their leadership. The analysis of stylistic devices showed how political leaders apply these powerful tools to strengthen their arguments of the speech.

Stylistic devices

60 51

50 42

40 35 30 B. Obama 30 22 20 18 D. Grybauskaitė 20 14 11 12

10

0 Metaphors Personification Epithets Hyperbole Rhetorical questions

Figure 1. The distribution of the stylistic means used by the Presidents’

The target stylistic devices were counted and presented in Figure 1. According to Figure 1, the President B. Obama uses significantly more stylistic devices than the President D. Grybauskaitė. From this data, we can see that the speeches contain many stylistic devices, still metaphors and epithets are the most prominent. It is apparent from this Figure 1 that the rhetorical questions are the least dominant stylistic means in their remarks.

53

Figure 2. The distribution of metaphors in the Presidents’ speeches

Both speakers resort to metaphorical language. Figure 2 shows that in B. Obama’s speeches metaphors make 63% while in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches the percentage is equal to 37%.

The purpose of the usage of the metaphors is presented in Table 1. The table below illustrates that this persuasion technique is employed by the Presidents’ differently.

Table 1. The usage of metaphors in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė 1. To focus on preservation of the peace in 1. To glorify the National power of unity the world and the national pride

2. To criticize educational system 2. To inspire people to think about the future 3. To emphasize economic situation 3. To highlight the human rights situation 4. To appeal to people’s internal value

A comparison of the two results revealed that in persuading people, B. Obama uses more logical arguments than emotional when he criticizes economic situation and enhances the importance of new technologies. Whereas, D. Grybauskaitė employs pathos when glorifies the National power of unity and the national pride. As can be seen from the Table 1, the President D. Grybauskaitė’s metaphors have positive effects on the audience’s when appeals to people’s rational side by highlighting the human rights situation. Another interesting observation is that both presidents establish credibility so arguments bring stronger logical than emotional appeal.

54

Figure 3. The distribution of personification in the Presidents’ speeches

Figure 3 deals with personification. As Figure 3 shows, there is a substantial difference of the percentage of personification. The proportion of usage is seen in their speeches. Much more personification is applied in B. Obama’s speeches 65 % than in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches 35%. It can be clearly seen that the amount of epithets in B. Obama’s speeches is bigger than in D. Grybauskaitė’s.

Focusing on the personification in Table 2, one of the rhetorical strategies pathos (emotions) in the Presidents’ speeches is essential.

Table 2. The usage of personification in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė 1. To express strong concern about the 1. To emphasize the value of liberty country

2. To stress the importance of National 2. To share the sense of commonality unity 3. To inspire the audience to believe that 3. To show the importance of solidarity the nation is strong to combat any difficulties 4. To appeal to the audience’s emotions 4. To inspire people to new challenges

Table 2 indicates that personification is one of the influential ways to express emotional attitude of the speakers. From Table 2 above, it can be seen that the President D. Grybauskaitė uses pathos emphasizing the value of liberty, sense of commonality and the importance of

55 solidarity. However, the President B. Obama applies to ethos, when he tries to build an image of a strong leader of the State. Due to this, personification enhances the arguments of the speeches when B. Obama expresses strong concern about the country, the importance of National unity and forces to believe that the nation is strong to combat any difficulties.

Figure 4. The distribution of epithets in the Presidents’ speeches

According to Figure 4, both presidents try to embellish their remarks employing epithets. There is a slight difference in usage of epithets: B. Obama 55%, D. Grybauskaitė 45%. So it can be clearly seen that slightly more epithets are used in B. Obama’s speeches than in D. Grybauskaitė’s. Table 3 compares the results obtained from the analysis of epithets in the speeches. It illustrates why the Presidents employ epithets for persuasive effect.

Table 3. The usage of epithets in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė 1. To enhance the significance of the ideas 1. To contemplate the tasks

2. To show responsibility to people 2. To express dissatisfaction about corruption and austerity 3. To establish ‘personal’ relationship 3. To show a close contact with people

4. To reinforce the people to find right 4. To appeal to people’s patriotism solutions

56 What is interesting in this data is that the President B. Obama relates his speeches with personal life. The results as shown in Table 3, indicate that he employs epithets to establish a ‘personal’ relationship with the audience. However, D. Grybauskaitė does not try to gain the audience’s feelings through the personal life. The President uses ethos creating the impression that she is a person of intelligence and fairness. Epithets support D. Grybauskaitė’s message which conveys her strong dissatisfaction about corruption and austerity. Similarly, the President tries to make people believe that she is not arrogant thorough showing a close contact with people.

Figure 5. The distribution of hyperbole in the Presidents’ speeches The Figure 5 deals with hyperbole. From the data in Figure 5 it is seen that the distribution of hyperbole by B. Obama and D. Grybauskaitė is not the same. Hyperbole is more preferred in B. Obama’s speeches than in D. Grybauskaitė’s.

Table 4 compares the reasons of employing the hyperbole in the speeches. The examples in the Table 4 below show the differences of the usage between two Presidents.

Table 4. The usage of hyperbole in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė 1. To inspire the people to struggle for 1. To draw attention to conflicts in the world racial freedom 2. To emphasize the importance of 2. To show the significance of the military cooperation and self-devotion service 3. To enhance the importance of new technologies

57 The President B. Obama resorts to hyperbole in order to inspire people to struggle for racial freedom and emphasizes the importance of cooperation and self-devotion. However, D. Grybauskaitė through hyperbole focuses on conflicts in the world and shows the significance of the military service. The Table 5 above shows that both presidents employ hyperbole to provoke emotional response of the audience.

Figure 6. The distribution of rhetorical questions in the Presidents’ speeches

As figure 6 shows that there is not noticeable difference in proportion of rhetorical questions. However, comparing speeches the usage of rhetorical questions by B. Obama 54% employs slightly more than and D. Grybauskaitė 46%.

The use of hyperbole throughout the speeches is also significant. The results obtained from the analyses of the hyperbole are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. The usage of rhetorical questions in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė 1. To show closeness to the audience 1. To express vehement indignation 2. To support already expressed views 2. To express displeasure against something or somebody 3. To influence further thought 3. To provoke the audience’s awareness

58 From the data in Table 5, it can be seen that the nuances of usage of the rhetorical questions are not the same. B. Obama puts the emphasis on personal connections to the audience. He attempts to gain the audience’s attention through people’s emotions. Rhetorical questions help him to show closeness to the people and to influence further thought. However, D. Grybauskaitė refers to logic. In other words, her arguments are more logical than emotional. So, through she rhetorical questions strengthens the main arguments of the speeches when she expresses vehement indignation and displeasure again something or somebody.

59 CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study conduced to achieve the aims of the study, which were to examine what rhetorical strategies and stylistic devices Presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and Barack Obama use in their political speeches and how these devices help them to gain audience’s attention and render the message. The analysis of Presidents’ speeches showed that both Presidents through stylistic means transmit a valuable information and express their vision of the political situation. So, from the results it became evident that both Presidents use tactical manipulation of rhetoric to obtain the target aims, still B. Obama employs more stylistic means in his speeches than D. Grybauskaitė. In the course of analysis it became evident that metaphors are the most prominent stylistic device in the Presidents’ remarks. It is obvious that Presidents employs metaphorical language in their speeches because metaphors have a huge influence on people and help them to gain votes. Due to this, the amount of metaphors, which were found in the target speeches in the Presidents speeches, is considerably more: B. Obama employs 63% metaphors and D. Grybauskaitė 37%. However, the Presidents use them to strengthen their arguments differently. Through metaphorical language B. Obama appeals to logos (logic) that means B. Obama appeals to the audience’s mind when he emphasizes economic and educational issues in the country, whereas D. Grybauskaitė attracts people through emotional side by indicating National unity. The techniques of classical rhetoric are seen in the further analysis of the linguistic features of the speeches. Pathos (emotions) is expressed through personification. That is to say that through humanizing things D. Grybauskaitė persuades listeners by highlighting the inner value emotionally. It should be noted that this stylistic device D. Grybauskaitė employs 35 % and B. Obama uses significantly more, i.e. 65%. However, B Obama use ethos (ethics) in order to build his trustworthy with his audience when he emphasizes the strength of the country. Rhetoric, especially pathos causes people to feel sympathy. That is why B. Obama through epithets shows his thoughts based upon pathos (emotions). Epithets relieve the President to characterize the people and describe places or things. So, he employs speeches 55% still D. Grybauskaitė 45% of epithets. The President D. Grybauskaitė draws attention to the moral principles. So that is why she resorts to epithets to strengthen her image and uses ethos (ethics). The President D. Grybauskaitė exposes herself as a strong leader of the

60 Nation and that people worth listening to her opinion. Moreover, epithets help the President to show her strong fundamental values of fairness. The way of seeing situation, B. Obama transfers through rhetorical questions. Political message delivered here is more grounded pathos (emotions). The analysis revealed that B. Obama’s often expresses his personal touch with the people. By asking rhetorically he stresses the issues such as storm that stroke the country and at the same time bringing the people to self-reflection. However, political rhetoric in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches appeals to logos (logic). In other words, rhetorical questions help her to persuade the listener intellectually when she expresses her displeasure about problems in the country. The results indicated that the quantity of rhetorical questions in both Presidents’ speeches is not significant: B. Obama 54%, D. Grybauskaitė 46%. Furthermore, in order to stir the audience’s emotions both presidents use pathos (emotions). Through the use of hyperbole both Presidents emphasize the significant issues of the countries such as conflicts in the world, importance of cooperation and significance of the military service. The results showed that B. Obama uses more hyperbole 55% than D. Grybauskaitė 45%. Indeed, these catchphrases are memorable and help the Presidents’ to achieve the target goals. All things considered, both Presidents are masters of linguistic realization of rhetorical strategies in their political speeches. As well as that the Presidents support arguments proficiently according to the rules of persuading.

61 SANTRAUKA

Magistro darbe yra nagrinėjamos retorinės strategijos: argumentacija ir įtikinėjimas, taip pat stilistinės priemonės: metafora, personifikacija, epitetas, retorinis klausimas ir hiperbolė. Jos, naudojamos prezidentų Dalios Grybauskaitės ir Barako Obamos politinėse kalbose, padeda įgyti auditorijos palankumą, iškelti svarbias problemas ir kartu įtikinti visuomenę savo idėjomis emociškai manipuliuojant. Darbo tikslas – išryškinti retorinių strategijų modelius ir ištirti stilistines priemones, kuriomis siekiama padaryti kalbą išraiškingesnę ir įtikinamesnę. Analizuojant kalbas buvo atliktos lyginamoji, turinio, diskurso, taip pat apibendrinimo ir vertinimo analizės. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad visuomenės palankumui įgyti abu prezidentai naudoja tas pačias retorines strategijas, tačiau skirtingas stilistines priemones. Pastebima, kad metafora yra dažniausiai vartojama stilistinė priemonė. D. Grybauskaitė savo politinėse kalbose proporcingai mažiau vartoja metaforas nei B. Obama. Amerikos prezidento kalbose metaforos simbolizuoja iššūkius ir problemas, su kuriomis susiduria šalis, taip pat prezidentas siekia jomis pabrėžti tautos vienybės svarbą. D. Grybauskaitė metaforomis išreiškia šalies stiprybę ir tuo pačiu parodydama savo kaip stipraus tautos lyderio poziciją. Personifikacija padeda D. Grybauskaitei pabrėžti dvasines žmogaus vertybes, o B. Obama siekia parodyti tautai, kad jis yra patikimas lyderis, taip pat pabrėžia tautos stiprybę. Abu prezidentai vartoja epitetus norėdami solidarizuotis su publika ir perteikti savo idėjas paveikiant žmones emociškai. Politinėje retorikoje B. Obama retoriniais klausimais išreiškia asmeninį ryšį su publika tuo pačiu priversdamas žmones susimąstyti apie keliamas aktualias problemas. D. Grybauskaitė keldama retorinius klausimus išreškia nepasitikėjimą teismų sistema ar valdžios organais. Hiperbolizuodami svarstomas esamas politines aplinkybes, abu prezidentai siekia emocijų pagalba perteikti savo tvirtus įsitikinimus apie kariuomenės svarbumą, šalies bendradarbiavimą ir kitas keliamas problemas. Apibendrinant reikia pasakyti, kad gauti rezultatai patvirtina, jog prezidentai, siekdami savo tikslų per politinę retoriką, bando manipuliuoti auditorijos įsitikinimais ir taip paveikti visuomenės veiksmus.

62 REFERENCES

1. Anderson, I. 2005. American Political Rhetoric: A study of selected speeches by George W. Bush. Lulea University of Technology.

2. Арнольд, И. В. 1986. Лексикология современного английского языка.Москва: Высшая школа.

3. Antczak, F., Coggins, C., K Frederick, J., Antczak Cinda Coggins & Geoffrey D. Klinger. (eds.) 2002. Professing Rhetoric: Selected Papers from the 2000 Rhetoric Society of America Conference. University of Iowa &University of Utah. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey& London.

4. Athanasiadou, A. The Discourse function of Questions. Congress of Applied Linguistics, accessed 15 March 1990, available from http://elanguage.net/journals/pragmatics/article/viewFile/332/266

5. Baker, E. 1992. Human Liberty and Freedom of Speech. Oxford. Oxford university Press.

6. Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres & other Late Essays. University of Texas Press. Printed in the United States of America.

7. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Polity Press. United States of America.

8. Bucevičiūtė, L. Seimo rinkimai Lietuvoje 1920-1926 metais: Politinės retorikos ypatumai. ISSN 1392-0588 2010 53.

9. Burke, K. 1969. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

10. Childs, P. & Fowler, R. 2006. The Routledge Dictionary of Literary Terms. Routledge: London and New York.

11. Claridge, C. 2011. Hyperbole in English. Cambridge. Cambridge University Press.

12. Connolly, J. 2007. The State of Speech: Rhetoric and Political Thought in Ancient Rome. Princeton University Press.

13. Connors, R. Lunsford, A. 1984. Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse. Southern Illinois University: United States of America.

14. Crawford, N. 2002. Argument and Change in World Politics. Ethicists, Decolonization, and Humanitarian Intervention. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

15. Dlugan, A. How to Use Rhetorical Questions in Your Speech. Six minutes, accessed 29 August 2013, available from http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/rhetorical-questions/

63 16. Dlugan, A. Speech preparation: Add Impact with Rhetorical Devices. Six minutes, accessed 5 March 2008, available from http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/speech- preparation-6-rhetorical-devices/

17. Duchan, J. Ancient Rome. A History of Speech- Language Pathology. Ancient History: 3500BC-50AD, accessed 05 December 2011, available from http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~duchan/new_history/ancient_history/rome.html

18. Fahnestock, J. 2011. Rhetorical Style: The uses of Language in Persuasion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

19. Fahnestock, J. & Secor, M. 1988. Rhetoric of Argument. New York.

20. Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. 2012 Political Discourse Analysis: A method for advanced students. London and New York: Routledge.

21. Frezza, B. Revitalizing the Art of Political Persuasion. Forbes, accessed 17 May 2011, available from http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2011/05/17/revitalizing-the-art- of-political-persuasion/

22. Galperin, I.R. 1977. English stylistics. Moscow. Higher School.

23. Han, Chunh-hye. Interpreting interogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua, accessed 7 August 2000, available from http://www.sfu.ca/~chunghye/papers/lingua112-3-2.pdf

24. Hariman, R. 1995. Political Style — The Artistry of Power. University of Chicago Press. Printed in the United States of America.

25. Harris, R. A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices. Virtual Salt, accessed 19 January 2013, available from http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm

26. Hayes, P. The political use and abuse of metaphor: Spiked, accessed 25 Fefruary 2011, available from http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/10230#.UnN-LfLCzuM

27. Holmes, A. McKeown, C. 2009. Collins English Dictionary. Glasgow.

28. Hornby, A.S. 2000. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

29. Irwin. R. 20th-Century Rhetoric, Symbolically Speaking. Rhetoric Click. Composition, Rhetoric, and Pedagogy, accessed 11 September 2012, available from http://rhetorclick.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/20th-century-rhetoric-symbolically- speaking

30. Jeffries, L. & Mclntyre, D. 2010. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Stylistics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

31. Johnstone, B. & Eisenhart, C. 2008. Rhetoric in Detail. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company.

64

32. Kennedy, George A. 2007. Aristotle on Rhetoric. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

33. Kennedy, George A. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric. New Jersy: Princeton University Press.

34. Kock, C. 2004. Rhetoric in Media Studies. The Voice of Constructive Criticism. Plenary Session IV Rhetorics in Media Studies-Media Studies in Rhetorics.

35. Кухаренко, В.А.2000.Практикум з стилістики англійської мови: Підручник. – Вінниця

36. Lakoff, J. & Johnson, M. 2008. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

37. Leech, G. & Short, M. 2007. Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional prose. United Kingdom: Person Education Limited.

38. Lunsford, A. The Role of Rhetoric (and Social and Other media) Writing in 21 st Century Universities. California University. Long Beach, accessed 4 January 2013, available from http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/cla/departments/english/andrea-lunsford- presents-the-role-of-rhetoric-and-social-and-other-media-writing-in-21st-century- universities-2/

39. Matkevičienė, R. Rizikos komunikacija Lietuvos prezidentų inauguracinėse kalbose. ISSN 1392-0561. INFORMACIJOS MOKSLAI. 2011 55

40. Miller, C. R. 1993. The Polis as Rhetorical Community, The International Society for the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica , XI-3

41. Mio, J. S.1997. Metaphor and Politics, Metaphor and symbol, 12 (2), 113-133.

42. Mio, J. S. 2005. Presidential leadership and charisma: The effects of metaphor. The Leadership Quarterly, 16:287-294.

43. Murphy, J. 1981. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A history of Rhetorical Theory from Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. University of California Press.

44. Nauckūnaitė, Z. 2007. Argumentacija: įrodymo ir įtikinėjimo santykis, Žmogus ir Žodis, 2007 I

45. Niazi, N. & Gautam, R. 2010. How to Study Literature. Stylistic and Pragmatic Approaches. New Delhi.

46. Prime KT Yahoo Contribution Network. 2008. Characteristic Linguistic Features of Modern American Political Speeches. Yahoo voices.

65 47. Reynolds, G. Obama delivers speech like a symphony. Presentation Zen, accessed 02 September 2008, available from http://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2008/09/obama-delivers-his-speech- like-a-symphony.html

48. Ritter, K. & Medhurst M. J. 2003. Presidential Speech-writing: From the New Deal to the Reagan Revolution and Beyond. Texas A&M University Press College Station.

49. Rise, H, W. 2007. Ralph Ellison and the Politics of the Novel. Lexington books. United States of America.

50. Roberts, W. R. 2008. Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric [book on -line] Megaphone; eBooks., available from: http://www.wendelberger.com/downloads/Aristotle_Rhetoric.pdf

51. Rozina, G. & Karapetjana, I. 2009. The Use of Language in Political Rhetoric: Linguistic Manipulation. SDU Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi: Sosyal Bilimber Dergesi.

52. Simpson, P. 2004. Stylistics. A resource book for students. London and New York. Routledge.

53. Sinnott, A. M. 2005. The Personification of Wisdom. Great Britain: Cornwall.

54. Smith, C.A. Athenian Political Art from the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE: Images of political personifications: Demos , accessed 18 January 2003, available from http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_personifications?page=all&greekEncoding

55. Walter, G. 1989. Status and Function of Languages and Language Varieties. Berlin. Printed in Germany.

56. Walton, D. 2007. Media Argumentation: Dialectic, Persuasion, and Rhetoric. Cambridge University press.

57. Weihs, C. & Gaul, W. 2005. Classification- the Ubiquitous Challenge. Heidelberg. Printed in Germany.

58. Yoos, G. E. 2009. Politics & Rhetorics: Coming to Terms with Terms. Macmillan. USA.

59. Yule, G. 2010. The Study of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

SOURCES The presidents’ speeches are available at: http://www.prezidentas.lt/lt/prezidento_institucija/lietuvos_respublikos_prezidentas.h tml http://www.whitehouse.gov/

66