Masaryk University

Faculty of Education

Department of English Language and Literature

Persuasive strategies in political speeches:

A contrastive analysis of Barack Obama's

and Donald Trump's electoral speeches

Diploma Thesis

Brno 2021

Supervisor:

doc. Mgr. Martin Adam, Ph.D.

Author:

Bc. Jana Veselá, DiS.

I hereby declare that I have worked on this thesis independently and that I have used

only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography.

Kroměříž, 5th April 2021 Jana Veselá

Acknowledgement

In this place I would like to express gratitude and thank my supervisor doc. Mgr.

Martin Adam, Ph.D., for his guidance, valuable advice, helpful criticism, endless

patience.

Abstract

This thesis presents a contrastive discourse analysis of Barack Obama's and

Donald Trump's political electoral speeches with a focus on persuasive strategies.

It provides a theoretical background for the analytical part dealing with basic concepts

of political discourse and persuasion. The main aim of the thesis is to analyse

collected electoral speeches with a focus on selected persuasive strategies on the basis

of their relation to the three Aristotelian types of appeal to the audience, to observe

differences in persuasive techniques between the 44th president and 45th president

of the USA, and to determine the impact of the analysed strategies on a persuasive

potential of the political speeches.

Key words: discourse analysis, political discourse, communication in politics,

electoral speeches, Barack Obama's political speeches, Donald Trump's political

speeches, persuasion, persuasive strategies, logos, ethos, pathos, political campaigns

Anotace

Tato práce představuje srovnávací diskurzní analýzu politických volebních

proslovů Baracka Obamy a Donalda Trumpa se zaměřením na persvazivní strategie.

Poskytuje teoretický podklad pro analytickou část práce zabývající se základními

koncepty politického diskurzu a persvaze. Hlavním cílem práce je analyzovat sesbírané

politické proslovy se zaměřením na vybrané persvazivní strategie na základě jejich

vztahu ke třem aristotelovským typům apelu k publiku, pozorovat rozdíly co se týče

persvazivních technik mezi 44. a 45. prezidentem Spojených států amerických

a stanovit dopad analyzovaných strategií na persvazivní potenciál daných politických

proslovů.

Klíčová slova: diskurzní analýza, politický diskurz, politická komunikace,

volební proslovy, politické proslovy Baracka Obamy, politické proslovy Donalda

Trumpa, persvaze, persvazivní strategie, logos, étos, patos, politická kampaň

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man

stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs

to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat

and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again,

because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive

to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasm, the great devotions; who spends himself

in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement,

and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place

shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

Theodore Roosevelt

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 9

Theoretical part ........................................................................................................................ 12

1. Persuasion ......................................................................................................................... 12

2. Rhetoric and Aristotle ...................................................................................................... 15

2.1 Three types of persuasive speeches ....................................................................... 16

3. Persuasion in politics ....................................................................................................... 17

4. Persuasive strategies ........................................................................................................ 21

4.1 Intertextuality ........................................................................................................... 25

4.2 Figurative language .................................................................................................. 27

4.3 Sharing the personal experience ............................................................................ 30

4.4 Direct appeal to the audience ................................................................................. 30

4.5 Speech acts ................................................................................................................ 31

5. Summary ........................................................................................................................... 33

Practical part ............................................................................................................................. 34

6. Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 34

7. Logos .................................................................................................................................. 35

7.1 Intertextuality ........................................................................................................... 35

7.1.1 Intertextuality in Barack Obama's speeches ................................................. 40

7.1.2 Intertextuality in Donald Trump's speeches ................................................ 46

7.1.3 Results ................................................................................................................ 51

7.2 Figurative language .................................................................................................. 53

7.2.1 Figurative language in Barack Obama's speeches ....................................... 53

7.2.2 Figurative language in Donald Trump's speeches ....................................... 62

7.2.3 Results ................................................................................................................ 67

8. Ethos .................................................................................................................................. 70

8.1 Sharing the personal politician's experience ........................................................ 70

8.1.1 Barack Obama's personal experience in his speeches ................................. 71

8.1.2 Donald Trump's personal experience in his speeches ................................. 75

8.1.3 Results ................................................................................................................ 80

9. Pathos ................................................................................................................................. 82

9.1 Direct appeal to the audience ................................................................................. 82

9.1.1 Barack Obama's direct appeal in his speeches ............................................. 83

9.1.2 Donald Trump's direct appeal in his speeches ............................................. 86

9.1.3 Results ................................................................................................................ 89

9.2 Speech acts ................................................................................................................ 90

9.2.1 Speech acts in Barack Obama's speeches ...................................................... 91

9.2.2 Speech acts in Donald Trump's speeches ...................................................... 95

9.2.3 Results ................................................................................................................ 99

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 102

Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 106

Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 112

9

Introduction

This thesis investigates Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's political electoral

speeches using a contrastive analysis with a focus on persuasive strategies according

to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian concepts logos, ethos, and pathos. Politics creates

an important part of everybody's life and the political rhetoric has been taught

since the time of Aristotle who mastered oratory and rhetorical skills of his followers.

Aristotle himself considered the art of persuasion as the key for the politics.

Thus, rhetoric has become a part of classical education for thousands of years.

Furthermore, politicians themselves use persuasive techniques that convince citizens

to vote them or to sign a petition to change a law.

I have decided to study this topic because I would like to examine

how persuasion works and because I am interested in politicians' tactics based

on the logical arguments that are influenced on psychological approach to gain

the desired behaviour from the audience. The sphere of my interest is the candidacy

for the president of the United States in particular. Therefore, for the purpose

of this thesis I have chosen two politicians that were presidential candidates and after

their incumbent periods they endeavoured to have their mandate extended.

By the way, the interest in the persuasion in the political field concerns

me for the same reason as Halmari and Virtanen (2005) declare that persuasion creates

“such an integral part of human interaction that learning to understand it better

will always be meaningful and learning about persuasion is learning more about human

nature” (Halmari & Virtanen, 2005, p. 4). Hence, understanding of the human nature

of the both politicians via their political speeches whose aim is to persuade the electors

to vote exactly them on the post of the president of the USA. As we know,

there are many different kinds of political speeches and the persuasive strategies

can be found in the numerous subgenres of political speeches varying according

10

to the goal of the speaker, the audience, and the topic. I will focus on the presidential

speeches.

Then, I would like to scrutinize the skills of the appeal of the candidates striving

for the presidency and what kind of persuasive strategies are typical for both of them.

In this thesis I will put under the linguistic microscope political speeches and especially

presidential speeches of Barack Obama and Donald Trump to discover their verbal

games and examine the influence of their words as politicians on the voters

and supporters from the perspectives of their persuasive potentials.

In addition, I would underline that the analysis of political discourse

has its roots in the classical Greco-Roman traditions of rhetoric where to be a good

speaker was almost a duty of the citizen and nothing has changed so far. Nowadays,

politicians in the role of successful orators are those whose speeches are balanced

according to Aristotelian concept of logos, ethos and pathos. And the aim of the thesis

is to analyse the differences and similarities in the individual persuasive methods

that use persuasion by reason, by character, and by emotions.

The electoral speeches to be analysed and compared have been collected

from various websites commonly accessible to any reader. The corpora of electoral

speeches consist of 15 Barack Obama's speeches and 15 of Donald Trump's speeches,

which were written for the purpose of presidential elections in American English

and performed in front of an authentic American audience. These features

make that the vocabulary and topic is unified for the cohesive analysis. Moreover,

both of the candidates were nominated for the presidency and both of them

were also incumbents seeking another term in office. The thesis will not analyse current

politics of the United States. I will look at the political speeches only from the linguistic

perspective and from the point of their persuasiveness.

The thesis is divided into two main parts: theoretical and practical.

In view of the fact, that the topic of the thesis – persuasive strategies in political

speeches according to the Aristotelian notions of logos, ethos and pathos is extensive,

11

I have chosen only a set of phenomena to be discussed in the theoretical part

and reconsidered in the practical part. To point out, I will do not deal with logos, ethos

and pathos fully in my thesis, all their nuances and possible realisations. I will deal

only with a selection of features for these three appeals to audience. For logos or logical

appeal I will choose for analysis intertextuality and figurative language

in the form of conceptual metaphors whose features politicians use to influence

listeners with proofs. For ethos or ethical appeal I will study the opinions, attitudes

and experiences shared in stories of both politicians. The last concept of the emotional

appeal or pathos will be investigated on direct appeals to the audience and via speech

acts, specifically on interrogative, imperative and exclamatory speech acts.

The first chapter of the theoretical part gives an introduction to the persuasion.

The second chapter presents rhetoric by Aristotle and as a subchapter I describe

three types of persuasive speeches. In the chapter three I am focused on the persuasion

in politics. The last, but not the least chapter is the core chapter of this thesis

which investigates the persuasive strategies such as intertextuality, figurative language,

sharing the personal experience, direct appeal to the audience, and speech acts used

for the analysis in the practical part.

The practical part reveals data from the corpus of 15 speeches per each politician.

On the basic of comparison of individual features typical for every appeal I will identify

the similar and distinctive markers with accompanied representative examples

which will be categorized according to the features and interpreted. The results

of the persuasive strategies of the both candidates for the presidency who have known

the victory but also the defeat will be scrutinized in the last chapter. And as Theodore

Roosevelt said “no effort without error and shortcoming is possible”, so this thesis

will evaluate if the persuasive strategies will have accomplished their persuasive

potentials and if the presidential political speeches are balanced with logos, ethos

and pathos, or if not, what appeal plays the most important role.

12

Theoretical part

1. Persuasion

This chapter uncovers persuasion which is an activity that is used all the time

in our daily life when we try to change someone's mind. Perloff (2003)

defines the persuasion as “the study of attitudes and how to change them” (p. 4)

and he declares that the process of persuasion itself is based on “the persuader's

awareness to influence someone else and change the persuadee's mind

about something on conscious or unconscious decision” (p. 7). Thus, being persuaded

covers situations in which “behaviour has been modified by symbolic transactions

(messages) that are sometimes, but not always, linked with coercive force (indirectly

coercive) and that appeal to the reason and emotions of the person(s) being persuaded”

(Miller, 2013, p. 73). Similarly, also politicians use persuasion for their purposes.

Especially, they are interested in changing the minds of the citizens about who to vote

for. The interest of the thesis is to examine persuasive strategies

according to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian concepts logos, ethos, and pathos

and therefore the attempts of Barack Obama and Donald Trump to influence opinions

towards policy issues.

Perloff (2003) summarizes the persuasion as “a symbolic process

in which communicators try to convince other people to change their attitudes

or behaviour regarding an issue through the transmission of a message,

in an atmosphere of free choice” (p. 8). There are some features that should be taken

into account as time, an active involvement of the recipient of the message

as well as that not every persuasion finishes successfully. People persuade themselves

to change attitudes after providing the arguments by communicators and the persuadee

has still a free choice to do something else than what the persuader suggests.

On the other hand, it is suggested that we should distinguish between convincing

13

and persuading. As Miller (2013) emphasizes that persuasion “relies primarily

on symbolic strategies that trigger the emotions of intended persuades,

while conviction is accomplished primarily by using strategies rooted in logical proof

and that appeal to persuadees' reason and intellect” (p. 72).

The persuasion has positive and negative sides. It can be used by good people

to implement change of by people with bad intentions to cause harm. To be truth,

individuals are induced to abandon a set of behaviours or to adopt other behaviour

by different processes that Miller (2013) classifies into: “(1) response shaping

process – to shape people's opinions, (2) response-reinforcing process – aims

at reinforcing currently held convictions and make them more resistant to change,

and (3) response-changing process – changing the attitudes” (p. 74-76).

The debates about how to define persuasion have lasted for centuries

because it was ancient Greeks who invented persuasion but the base is found

in the Old Testament in Jeremiah's attempts to convince his people to repent

and establish a personal relationship with God, or in period of Sophist philosophers

known for their art of political eloquence. Sophists trained people in quick and stylish

arguments but they did not fight for the truth. Since then there are dual approaches

to thinking about persuasion – Platonic thinking and Sophist approach (Perloff, 2003,

p. 21).

However, Plato accused the sophists of teaching students to flatter and pander

to their audiences, false pretences of knowledge, fallacious arguments, demagoguery,

and a ready substitution of appearance for reality (ibid.). The best from both

approaches Aristotle used for his theory and confirmed that the truth was important

as well as persuasive communication. The main idea of Aristotle was that rhetoric

was viewed “as a science whose subject is to discover scientific principles of persuasion

and that the aim of the rhetoric was to convince an audience to make the best

decision about the matter” and that the persuasion “has to be composed of three parts:

ethos – the nature of the communicator, pathos – emotional state of the audience,

14

and logos – message arguments” (Perloff, 2003, p. 22). On the contrary, Cicero

in his treatise on The Art of Oratory emphasized the power of emotional appeals

(ibid.). As Hogan (2013) describes, the Romans praised as an ideal orator someone,

who was not merely one with “exceptional gifts of speech,” but also a “good man”

with “all the excellences of character” (p. 5).

British and American rhetoricians of the 18th and 19th centuries shifted

the emphasis in rhetorical theory from persuasion to aesthetic, literary,

and performative dimensions of discourse, although the classical

tradition was never supplanted entirely by the modern or new rhetoric

of the 18th and 19th centuries (Hogan, 2013, p. 6-7). The USA

of the 18th and 19th centuries took part in persuasion with the Declaration

of Independence, Frederick Douglass's, or W. E. B. DuBois's speeches supporting

African Americans, and that is why the period of American Revolution is called

as “a golden age of American oratory with its typical populist style of political speech

ultimately degenerated into demagoguery and war with statesmen expected to have

classical rhetorical education and be orators whose debates showed limits to reason,

compromise, and democratic persuasion” (Hogan, 2013, p. 10). Lincoln reasoned

with his audiences, “engaging them on complex issues and employing archaic language,

biblical imagery, and rhythmic cadences in service of lofty ideals, his speeches soared

with the eloquence of great literary works, but often fell on deaf ears, however,

they live on today as touchstones of democratic eloquence” (Hogan, 2013, p. 13).

Hogan (2013) confirms that the study of persuasion has a long history

in the rhetorical tradition with today's need to revive the spirit of that classical tradition

and emphasis on the responsibilities of citizenship and the ethics of speech (p. 15).

The new trend of healthy politics of persuasion was established by Garsten

(2006) who sees in the healthy politics of persuasion that “reasoned argument prevails

over appeals to fears or prejudices, that diverse perspectives and opinions

are encouraged and respected” (p. 14). In a healthy politics of persuasion

15

“public advocates aspire neither to manipulate nor to pander to public opinion,

and those who refuse to deliberate in good faith are relegated to the fringes, citizens

are educated to listen carefully, think critically, and communicate responsibly,

they have a sense of civic duty, but they also choose to participate because they know

their voice matters” (ibid.). Moreover, as Perloff (2003) claims “those persuaders

who advance their claims in ethical ways deserve our respect” (p. 29).

2. Rhetoric and Aristotle

Initially, for an ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle rhetoric was “a practical

discipline that aims, not at producing a work of art, but at exerting through speech

a persuasive action on an audience” and he considered rhetoric to be “the very art

of politics” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 409). Aristotle in his Art of Rhetoric describes

the rhetorical appeals logos, ethos and pathos and he sees rhetoric as “a counterpart

or a branch of dialectic dealing with arguments which do not presuppose the knowledge

of any particular science but can be used and followed by any intelligent man”

(Ross, 1995, p. 172).

In the fourth century B. C., Aristotle outlines three critical modes

of persuasion: “the first depending on the character of the speaker, the second kind

on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind, and only the third kind being

that of providing proof, or more precisely, the apparent proof conveyed by the words

of the speech itself” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 409). In the other words, the modes

of persuasion are called as rhetorical triangle: logos, ethos, pathos

and are the foundation of persuasion. Hence, rhetoric is “the power to see the possible

ways of persuading people about given subject” and there are two kinds of persuasion

types: “the extra-technical which already exist and have only to be used

16

(such as witnesses, the torture, documentary evidence), and the technical, which have

to be invented by the speaker” (Ross, 1995, p. 172).

It is considered that if the speaker uses all three appeals in a well-balanced

way he can establish trust with the audience easily. Aristotle himself characterizes

persuasion as ”a feat that can be achieved when the speaker's personal character

is in accordance with the way the speech is spoken” and “the audience is prone to grant

him credibility” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 409). In essence, Aristotle sums up three

prerequisites for making the persuasion effective. The speaker has to be able

(1) to reason logically - logos, (2) to understand human character and goodness in their

various forms - ethos, and (3) to understand emotions – pathos. However, the speaker

has to be able not only to name and describe them, but to derive their causes

and the ways in which they can be excited.

Taken as a whole, rhetoric is a mixture both of dialectic and ethical studies

and as Wróbel (2015) claims rhetoric is in the service of politics (p. 409).

Thus, “emphasizing moral character as a key element in persuasion and celebrating

reasoned argument over appeals to the emotions, Aristotle's rhetoric was hardly

morally neutral” (Hogan, 2013, p. 4).

2.1 Three types of persuasive speeches

According to Aristotle there are three divisions of oratory: (1) political,

(2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display, while political speaking urges

to either do or not to do something, forensic speaking is either to attack or to defend

a person and in the case of the ceremonial oratory the speaker praises or censures

somebody (Wróbel, 2015, p. 414). Regardless of the division of the oratory, modern

political speeches follow the Aristotle's rule that the “essence of political speech

17

is to arouse in the audience a disposal to do or not to do something” (Wróbel,

2015, p. 414).

Langston (2016) explains that “the forensic or judicial rhetoric establishes facts

and judgements about the past, similar to detectives at a crime scene.

Epideictic rhetoric sometimes called demonstrative or ceremonial rhetoric

is used to make a proclamation about the present situation. And for symbouleutikon

or deliberative rhetoric it is typical the way to accomplish the change with focusing

on the future. It is the rhetoric of politicians” (retrieved from TED-ed. online).

In that way they debate the law change and they present their audience a possible

future by enlisting their help in avoiding or achieving it. To be the deliberative rhetoric

functional the politicians have to follow the three persuasive appeals: ethos, pathos

and logos.

3. Persuasion in politics

The language of politics is connected with persuasion. Halmari and Virtanen

(2005) see the strong side of the persuasion “in all linguistic behaviour that attempts

to either change the thinking or behaviour of an audience, or to strengthen its beliefs”

(Halmari & Virtanen, 2005, p. 3). Besides, politics has always been about persuasion

and persuasion played an increasing role in 19th century American presidential election

campaigns from Jackson to McKinley and in the 20th century American politics,

persuasion became synonymous in the public mind (Dillard, 2013, p. 258).

Analysing political discourse is a must for anyone interested

in the way language is used in the world of politics invoking Aristotle's idea

that “we are all political animals, able to use language to pursue our own ends”

(Chilton, 2004, p. i). As Benoit (2014) declares there are three functions of discourse

18

that provide voters a reason to vote for a candidate or against an opponent: (1) acclaims

which stress a candidate's benefits and increase a candidate's perceived preferability,

(2) attacks which stress opponent's undesirable attributes, and (3) defenses which help

the candidate to minimize the loss of the voters' preferability (Benoit, 2014, p. 18).

Partially as well as Chilton (2004) considers politics as “a struggle for power,

between those who seek to assert and maintain their power and those who seek to resist

it, but on the other hand, as a cooperation, as the practices and institutions

that a society has for resolving clashes of interest over money, influence, liberty,

and the like” (p. 3). As Chilton adds some states are based on struggles for power

but it is disputable whether democracies are essentially so constituted.

Hague (1998) points out that “politics involves reconciling through discussion

and persuasion so communication is said to be the central to politics” (Chilton, 2004,

p. 3). Aristotle defined a political speech “as an encouragement and incentive

to do something or not to do something” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 417). Moreover, language

and politics are intimately linked at a fundamental level. In Aristotle's definition

of humans are humans classified as “creatures whose nature is to live in a polis

and who have the capacity for speech and are nicknamed as political

animals – politikon zoon” (Chilton, 2004, p. 5). Firstly, Aristotle was convinced

that the language had evolved to perform social functions that would in fact correspond

to what we understand as “political” (Chilton, p. 6). Secondly, politicians themselves

recognize the role of language because its use has effects, and because politics

is very largely the use of language (Chilton, 2004, p. 13).

In fact, political discourse involves the promotion of representations,

and pervasive features of representation. It is the necessary for political speakers

to imbue their utterances with the evidence, authority and truth. This process

is referred to in broad terms, in the context of political discourse, as “legitimisation”.

Human minds possess an innate “cheater detection” ability and the task of political

19

speakers is that they have to guard against the operation of their audience's “cheater

detectors” and provide guarantees for the truth of their sayings (Chilton, p. 23).

Needless to say, political communication is not aimless and is established

on the presentation of the reasonable arguments. A politician while presenting

his speech ought to follow Grice's “cooperative principle” which outline

that communication involves four types of “maxim”: “(1) maxim

of quantity – where the speaker is asked to make his contribution as informative

as it is required, and not to make the contribution more informative than is required,

(2) maxim of quality which contains supermaxim – if the speaker makes

his contribution one that is true, and specific maxim which advises not to say

what the speaker believes to be false and not to say that for which he lacks adequate

evidence, (3) maxim of relation – the speaker has to be relevant, and (4) maxim

of manner whose supermaxim concerns to be perspicuous and whose specific maxims

involve avoidance of obscurity of expression, ambiguity, that the speaker has to be brief

and orderly” (Yule, 1996, p. 37). In principle, politicians violate the maxims

“either overtly, as in refusing to give information, or by covertly attempting

to circumvent the hearer´s cheater detection, by telling a half-truth or the opposite

of the truth and calculating that one will not be found out” (Chilton, 2004, p. 35).

Halmari and Virtanen (2005) define persuasion as “those linguistic choices

that aim at changing or affecting the behaviour of others or strengthening the existing

beliefs and behaviours of those who already agree, the beliefs and behaviours

of persuaders included” (Halmari, Virtanen, 2005, p. 5).

In the political discourse “the speakers share the ethos of the organisation

to which they belong,” however, “there are times in politics when speakers clearly

do not share the ethos of the organisation of which they are members” (Browse,

2018, p. 39). Very often it happens when the politician “defends his own ethical

standing or wants to attack other discourse participants” (Browse, 2018, p. 57).

20

As it was discussed in the previous chapter the three-dimensional model

of political discourse based on the classical rhetorical appeals to ethos, logos and pathos

is considered to be one that works. Browse (2018) insists that the political discourse

is “emotional, visceral even, and that the speaker's responses to political discourse

are embodied in the sense that the knowledge brought to the discourse event

is produced by our experience and interaction with the world around us,

but our reactions are often more directly embodied” (p. 209).

Perloff (2013) declares that political persuasion occurs on different

levels: “(1) on the microlevel when a television commercial alters a voter's attitude,

(2) on the dyadic level showcasted by communication network effects on political

deliberation, and (3) on the macrolevel exemplified by presidential speech effects

on public opinion or multiple influences of primaries on the institutionalization

of political consulting” (Dillard, 2013, p. 259-260). For the purpose of the thesis

the political persuasion on the macrolevel will be analysed. Election campaigns

are an essential element of the representative democracy. They represent “a means

for politicians to connect with voters and for citizens or voters to learn about candidates

who are seeking their votes” (Benoit, 2014, p. 1). The citizens and voters are exposed

to presidential political campaigns where candidates discuss their issue positions,

future plans, general goals that they lay out what they will do if elected, and make

campaign promises.

W. Norwood Brigance, one of the pioneers of the American speech discipline

concluded that if America hoped to remain a “government by talk,” it needed leaders

who knew how to talk “effectively, intelligently, and responsibly,” as well as citizens

trained to “listen and judge” (Hogan, 2013, p. 2).

The main aim of political debates is gaining a vote. Citizens choose on the basis

of their own attitudes, values and the information they possess that appears relevant

to them at that moment when they make their vote choice. The ultimate goal sought

by candidates, which is winning the elections, is achieved by persuading enough voters

21

to believe that he or she is the better candidate in the election than the opponent.

Benoit (2014) summarizes five key axioms for gaining the votes: (1) voting

is a comparative act – one candidate appears to be preferable, (2) candidates

must distinguish themselves from opponents, (3) political campaign messages

allow candidates to distinguish themselves and in the candidate's best interest

is to present themselves in a favourable light and to portray the opponent

in an unfavourable light, (4) candidates establish preferability through acclaiming,

attacking, and defending – the distinction from the opponent has to appear in ways

that most voters favour, and (5) campaign discourse occurs on two topics: policy

and character and namely candidates try to persuade voters of their preferability

on policy – what they do – and character – who they are (Benoit, 2014, p. 9-13, 19).

4. Persuasive strategies

In this chapter I will explain some persuasive strategies that speakers, in this case

politicians might use for their persuasive speeches to persuade the audience. As it was

said in the previous chapters, the persuasion “has to be composed of three parts: ethos

– the nature of the communicator, pathos – emotional state of the audience, and logos

– message arguments” (Perloff, 2003, p. 22). Furthermore, a persuasive speaker should

always find the right balance between all three parts of the persuasion.

The first persuasive strategy is persuasion by reason. Aristotle defined

it as logos. Logos is the proof or apparent proof which is provided by words.

Hence, logos is the persuasive technique whose main aim is to make

the crowd/audience think by producing more compelling content that will convince.

It is recommended to use factual language and logically structured arguments

and no logical fallacy in order to convince the audience. In logos part the orator uses

22

logic and reason. Thus, logos is called “the logical appeal” and the typical features

of logos in a text are features of reasoned discourse using logical arguments, statistics,

facts, numerical data, charts, surveys, results of tests, but also anecdotal evidence.

As Browse (2018) asserts it is important not to confuse an appeal to logos with a logical

argument. In philosophical logic, “sound arguments are those that are based

on a true set of premises and lead logically – and necessarily – to a valid conclusion

and the argument structure – modus ponens represent a valid structure

which is constructed like: If A, then B. – A – Therefore B” (p. 94). These argument

structures Aristotle called syllogisms. Aristotle emphasizes that orators very rarely spell

out the premises on which their appeals to logos are built, on the contrary

to philosophers (Browse, 2018, p. 95). Another term that Aristotle uses for arguments

from logos is an enthymeme which is an argument in which one premise

is not explicitly stated (ibid.). While presenting the arguments, it is wise to use signpost

words like first, next, consequently, as a result, to conclude. Speakers are supposed

to convince the audience and as Browse (2018) confirms create valid

arguments that stand or fall on the basis of their premises which “is some fact

about the world – a proposition that is accepted as either true or false and is related

to what is known about the world” (p. 95). The condition that every orator has to realize

is that awareness of the audience is success guaranteed, plus usage of the facts

in the way to influence the audience. Within the logos, the speaker can use these

persuasive strategies to present logical argumentation: references to statistics,

facts, other sources – intertextuality, exemplifications, cause-effect problem solution,

comparative methods, etc.

Ethos appeals to character, convinces the audience by presenting reliability,

honesty, and credibility. This appeal is “a form of argument based

on the good character and authority of the speaker” that is why “for ancient scholars

the best orators were necessarily the wisest and most ethical people” (Browse, 2018,

p. 28). The audience sees the speaker as reliable and ethical when the speaker describes

23

his life experience relevant to his political program, when the orator presents

himself as an expert or qualified and as someone with a strong moral character.

Benoit (2014) assumes that voters value honesty in a presidential candidate

and candidates who persuade voters of their honesty will almost certainly enhance

their perceived desirability as candidates (p. 13). Aristotle believed that “an orator

to appeal via ethos has to possess three qualities: (1) phronesis – experience, (2) arete

– moral character, and (3) eunoia – correct and clean intentions towards the audience”

(Dlugan, 2010). All of them are necessary for impressing the audience and later

influencing them. The main speaker's aim to appeal to the audience

is to sound credible. Credibility is “one of the “Big 3” communicator factors,

that is under the speaker's control during the presentation in Perloff's opinion”

(Dillard & Shen, 2013, p. 159). Hence, the speaker builds his speech on his authority

that he proves with his title, trustworthiness – showing his no interest or gaining

a personal benefit while the audience is in his favour, expertise, similarity –

highlighting the common concerns. Sometimes politicians can use Ad Hominem

arguments that are specified for their reasons of use. Ad Hominem arguments serve

politicians “for attacking the opponent's character, not his opinion or position”

and “with degrading the opponent's character the orator himself compels the audience

to take orator's side” (Dlugan, 2010). Browse (2018) presents the second form

of persuasive strategy called Ad Herrennium when “something honourable

is under attack or when something discreditable is being defended” and recommends

that “when the speaker pleads on behalf of a guilty party, rather than defend

the discreditable actions, they should instead emphasise the otherwise good character

of the defendant” (p. 29). Especially politicians while speaking on the stage

have to be able to use some techniques to gain the attention, interest and mainly

confidence of the audience. If the audience do not believe in speaker's credibility,

morality and authority, then the conviction of the audience is unfeasible. The strategies

by which the speaker builds his credibility, reliability, honesty and authority

24

are strategies depending on speaker´s narratives and sharing his personal experience,

usage of personal pronouns reference, or by direct appeal to the audience.

Pathos appeals to emotions and its aim is to convince the audience by evoking

an emotional response. It is said that emotions are “situated experiences that happen

when we evaluate our surroundings in accordance with our preferences” (Browse,

2018, p. 155). The emotional response can be positive or negative and the speaker

invokes the senses, memory, nostalgia, shared experience to appeal

to the audience's emotions. The orator is supposed to “harness the feelings

of the audience so as to move them to agreement” (Browse, 2018, 153). It is believed

that unpleasant or negative emotions work, they connect. The emotional appeal

goes straight for the audience's heart. Moreover, if the audience is emotionally

stimulated well, then it is willing to accept orator's appeals and act in the way the orator

prefers. So the orator's goal is to create a shared emotional experience

with the audience. The orator can evoke “seven kinds of emotions that Aristotle

put into these groups: (1) anger and calmness, (2) friendship and enmity,

(3) fear and confidence, (4) shame and shamelessness, (5) kindness and unkindness,

(6) pity and indignation, and (7) envy and emulation” (Dlugan, 2010).

To make emotions in the audience are not enough, there should be a connection

with speech arguments. In other words, if the anger in the audience is created,

the orator then is supposed to direct the anger at the opponent. This is the condition

for making the audience willing to pay attention to the orator's ideas. The skilful orator

is capable to change emotions in the audience, to feel the same emotions and make

the audience to act. The emotions have to be in balance with the context of the speech.

Quintilian himself classified that without this appeal “everything else is bare

and meagre, weak and unattractive” and he described this appeal as “the ability

to emotionally move and audience – to lead them to whatever frame of mind”

(Browse, 2018, p. 153). To do so, the speaker uses humour, irony, or exaggerated

irony – satire. He uses techniques where he can show his politeness, affects and express

25

his values. All the strategies are supposed to keep the rules of cohesive and coherent

speech, use of different kinds of speech acts depending on the purpose of the speaker,

and the lexis that is appropriate for the time, place and type of the audience.

Every mode of persuasion reinforces each other. They can be interlinked

with each other. Practically, a statement can contain all three modes or just two,

although “it has been argued that the most essential element of an effective speech

is ethos, sincerity and belief” (Pattison, 2014, p. 82). Pattison followed the idea

of Aristotle who himself considered the appeal of ethos as “one of the most

effective persuasive weapons in the speaker's arsenal” and was persuaded

that “without garnering the audience's good will, the speaker may not be taken

seriously, or could even be ignored altogether” (Browse, 2018, p. 28).

The main problem of contemporary politics seems to Wróbel (2015)

to be that it is rhetorical throughout, that happens only in speech and that speech

is primarily concerned with pathos where it is the emotions of the audience

that are addressed, not arguments, and where the art of persuasion narrows down

to catering to these emotions (p. 409).

4.1 Intertextuality

Politicians aim at raising trustfulness of the speech and their support

of their points of view by referring to other source because it is thought that citations

from the precedent texts have much more authority. Therefore they use intertextuality

as one of the persuasive strategies specialized in supporting the logical appeal or logos.

Except of the intertextuality, also figurative language represented by conceptual

metaphors will be studied in the following subchapters as the instruments of influential

strategies that help the persuader to find the supportive sources for logos.

26

Firstly, I will explain what intertextuality is and how it is linked with logos.

Intertextuality is perceived in two ways: “first, as our previous experience with other

texts of a similar kind; second, as the way in which one text echoes or refers to another

text” (Tárnyiková, 2002, p. 69). Any politician is obliged to follow historic, state,

moral and ethical traditions and customs of the county and that is why the best way

is to use reference to precedent texts called intertextuality. The intertextuality

is manifested in citations, quotations, allusions, metaphors from the juridical, religious,

and literary texts or ideas of the predecessors. Politicians use intertextuality to raise

trustfulness of the speech, and their support of their point of view by referring to other

sources because it is thought that the precedent texts have much more authority.

Intertextuality as our previous experience with other texts is linked

with “pragmatic dimension in text production and perception and builds

on the activation of our previous knowledge of particular text types” (ibid.).

Inter-textuality as “a reliance on other texts is associated with the notion of allusion,

an allusion occurs if one text makes either explicit or implicit reference to another text”

(ibid.). Allusion creates a relation to a cultural tradition by placing a given text

within the cultural framework and demands reader's or listener's ability to recognize

it. There are various ways by which texts may allude to other texts: for instance through

verbal reference, through names and characters or through choice of titles.

The second interpretation of the inter-textuality is organized in the way

that from the source text is taken the quotation, or there is the reference to the previous

text, or there is an echo in the text. Such a text is called pre-text while the text

in which there is an echo of the pre-text, or a quotation from the pre-text is called

an active text (Tárnyiková, 2002, p. 70).

The reference might be also in a form of evidence – factual assertions

and quantitative data – can serve as an effective device in political persuasion.

Candidates use evidence to bolster arguments or serve as peripheral cues,

although there is never a guarantee the evidence cited is factually correct (Dillard,

27

2013, p. 262). Regarding the persuasion, intertextual reference and evidence expressed

by facts is classified as a means for supporting arguments of the politicians in the role

of a persuader.

4.2 Figurative language

The other rhetorical tool that politicians use is figurative language. In contrast

to intertextuality where politicians take their support for their logical arguments

from the other texts and they refer to quotations of the other authorities, figurative

language in the form of conceptual metaphors is linked to the modern interpretation

of the current political situation. The importance of the metaphors is obvious during

election campaigns when politicians describe the political issues and situation by

means of figurative expressions. Their understanding lies on the correct interpretation

of the voters so the understanding is conditioned socio-culturally. To tell the truth,

there are a lot of categories of figurative language, but for the need of the thesis

I will focus only on conceptual metaphors and I will not discuss personification,

similes, metonymy, and alliteration, etc.

Thus, this chapter will present communicative functions of the metaphor

in a political discourse by using insights from Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT)

which was outlined by Lakoff and Johnson in their book Metaphors We Live

By (Musolff, 2016, p. 3). Both of them claim metaphor to be a fundamental

and persuasive element of human thinking. The first who outlined a theory

of metaphor was Aristotle, although his notion of metaphor is much broader

than the present-day metaphor. Aristotle defined metaphor “as just the transfer

of a word” and a good metaphor “achieves clarity by putting thing before your eyes

or making things vivid” (Leezenberg, 2001, p. 36). Lakoff is persuaded

that “most people are profoundly influenced by metaphors that frame their decisions,

28

including those about party registration and voting” and that politicians are aware

of “this human frailty and manipulate it to their advantage” (Parrott,

2009, p. 414). Likewise for Aristotle, “the main virtue of oratory prose is clarity

or perspicuity, because its purpose is convincing the audience; for this reason,

he considers it best to speak with a somewhat exotic or “foreign” air, while at the same

time hiding the artifice” and in Aristotle's opinion this effect is possible to create

by words that are “current, familiar or metaphorical” and in addition, a metaphor

is not taken as a “deviation from regular usage” but he “explicitly claims

that “everybody uses metaphors, current and familiar terms in conversations”

(Leezenberg, 2001, p. 39).

Perloff (2003) maintains that charismatic leaders, political activists,

and presidents of the United States use metaphors as language intensifiers which goad

an audience into changing its attitude towards the issue (p. 202). In the wake

of CMT's rise another branch of applied linguistics named Critical Discourse Analysis

(CDA) has started studying metaphors. As Charteris-Black confirms Critical Metaphor

Analysis (CMA) has become one of the main frameworks for analysing the persuasive

effect of metaphor used to promote the ideological goals of the persuader (Pelclová,

Lu, 2018, p. 66). Political leaders communicate their values and norms to the country

in order to persuade the citizens via a variety of linguistic and rhetorical means.

The metaphor to reach an impact has to comply with the condition that “the audience

not only understand its figurative meaning and identify its target referent as intended

by the speaker, but accept and believe it as a plausible and persuasive interpretation

of the social reality” (Musolff, 2016, p. 4). Within CMA the definition of metaphor

is as follows: “a linguistic device which can shape reality and frame it according

to the persuader's goals, thus connecting their ideological agenda with the addressee's

already deep-entrenched worldviews and beliefs on the basis of the pathos invoked

by the culturally embedded meanings of the metaphors” (Pelclová, Lu, 2018, p. 66).

Especially in politics, metaphors are not only used to denote specific target concepts.

29

As Musolff (2016) claims “they have pragmatic “added value”, for example, to express

an evaluation of the topic, to make an emotional and persuasive appeal,

and/or to reassure the public that a perceived threat or problem fits into familiar

experience patterns and can be dealt with by familiar problem-solving

strategies” (p.4). Thus, the ability of the metaphor to highlight and hide various aspects

of different concepts makes metaphors appealing for politicians.

In other words, politicians use metaphors as a persuasive device which helps

them de-legitimize some political entities or legitimize their own political goals.

Moreover, metaphors serve for creating a political myth that is based on “a system

of mental representations and processes of group members” called social cognition

(Pelclová, Lu, 2018, p. 68). And all of these myths represent legitimizing

and de-legitimizing strategies employed by politicians as simplifications

of their ideological goals. Typical vehicle for such myth creation is figurative language

in which metaphor acts as the centrepiece. For the need of this thesis, the metaphors

will be investigated in the part of logos because behind they present the ideological

simplification which the speaker has to identified, thus he needs to use the reason

and it is in fact the appeal to his reasoning.

There are two possible uses of metaphors as Pelclová (2018)

proposes: (1) to link political allies and the in-group with concepts that the persuader

perceives as positive or (2) to link political opponents and the out-group with concepts

that the persuader perceives as negative (p. 69).

One of the main framework for analysing the persuasive effect of metaphor

used to promote ideological goals of the persuader is Critical Metaphor Analysis

(Pelclová, Lu, 2018, p. 66) To sum up, the reason why politicians use metaphors

in public communication is that metaphors “draw on the unconscious emotional

associations of words and assumed values that are rooted in cultural and historical

knowledge and for this reason they have potential as a high persuasive force

and activate unconscious, often mythic, knowledge to influence our intellectual

30

and emotional responses by evaluating actions, actors and issues” (Browse,

2018, p. 160).

4.3 Sharing the personal experience

Perloff (2003) states that “narrative evidence is more compelling than statistics,

vivid case histories evoke stronger mental images” (Perloff, 2003, p. 183).

As well as Pattison (2014) supports the statement that stories are a vital mechanism

for persuasion when they are well conceived and delivered but speakers should

not be overtly trying to persuade or strongly stating their opinions, because listeners

then set up resistance in defence of their beliefs. In order to be most persuasive, stories

must appear to be inviting, not coercive. They invite the reader or listener to suspend

judgement, listen for their point or message, and then decide what measure

of truth they contain (p. 67). As it is presented, the narrative evidence supports

the ethical appeal – ethos and when stories are congruent with the listener's values

and attitudes, then the credibility and attractiveness of the speaker is ensured.

Stories have an enormous persuasive potential because within them the speaker

can show his sensitivity, sense of humour, his character, and moral values.

4.4 Direct appeal to the audience

Political communication is generally more persuasive when appeals

are emotional rather than rational (Wirz, 2018, p. 1118). However, in the context

of political speeches it is not completely true. In presidential speeches “the policy

31

is a more frequent topic because voters vote presidents who will run the government”

(Benoit, 2014, p. 21). The pathos's aim is to put the audience into a certain frame

of mind and it is possible by means of persuasive strategies that are based on direct

appeal to the audience, plus the use of speech acts. Politicians via direct appeal

encourage the audience to be involved. The persuader has to be aware of how to make

the emotions arise in the audience and also how to make the emotions calm.

4.5 Speech acts

As it was mentioned in the chapter called persuasion, the persuader's intention

is to change the addressee's worldview or the understanding of a state of affairs.

Charteris-Black (2005) considers an act of persuasion as a speech act

in which the persuader plays an active role and the addressee as a passive one

(p. 14-15). Alternatively, the politician acts as the persuader and his audience

as the addressee.

Aristotle's rhetoric has today its counterpart in the theory of speech

acts (Wróbel, 2015, p. 412). In the theory of speech acts that was invented

by John L. Austin and John R. Searle “speaking a language is engaging in a highly

complex rule-governed form of behaviour and to learn and master a language

is inter alia to learn and to have mastered these rules. But the unit of linguistic

communication is not, as generally has been supposed, the symbol, word or sentence,

or even the token of symbols, words or sentences, but rather the production or issuance

of the symbols or words or sentences in the performance of the speech act.

Speaking a language is performing speech acts, acts such as making statements, giving

commands, asking questions, making promises, and so on” (Wróbel, 2015, p. 407).

32

Searle proposes five macro-classes of illocutionary act: representatives,

directives, commissives, expressives and declarations. However, Willis points

out that the border for only representatives or only directives is difficult to classify

(Coulthard, 1985, p. 25). Thus, Searle invented other category called rogatives

to separate questioning items from directive ones (ibid.).

This thesis will investigate interrogative, imperative and exclamatory speech

acts in the political speeches because they provoke emotions in the audience, so they

deal with the pathos.

33

5. Summary

The theoretical part deals with Aristotle's rhetorical appeals that remain

powerful means for politicians and orators of any kind to persuade the audience

with their logical, emotional and ethical appeals. It is the source for the practical part

where the analyses are found. The first chapter explain the problematics of persuasion,

the second chapter focuses on the Aristotle's rhetoric. The third chapter deals

with the topic of persuasion in the sphere of politics. In the fourth chapter,

the individual appeal – logical, ethical and emotional are described with the particular

persuasive strategies that support the appeals. The individual chapters present

the pillars for the analyses in the practical part of the thesis.

34

Practical part

6. Methodology

The thesis is concerned with a contrastive analysis of presidential speeches

which is aimed at persuasive strategies according to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian

concepts logos, ethos, and pathos. Firstly, the compilation of corpora was needed.

The corpora involve 15 Barack Obama's speeches (number 15 is the goodbye speech)

and 15 Donald Trump's speeches. The corpora are included in appendices

and the political speeches are named as [oba-xx] for Barack Obama's political speeches

and [tru-xx] for Donald Trump's political speeches. The political speeches

are concerned with the topic of presidential elections because I was interested

in making the analysis cohesive. For the analysis I chose the presidential speeches

of the two American presidents whose presidential speeches led to the victory

but also to the defeat and I chose the presidents from different political

parties – the Democrats and the Republicans. The same topic of the presidential

elections but of different political background will be suitable for comparison.

The presidential speeches were collected from various websites focusing on the rhetoric

or politics but still available to any reader. The aim was to analyse contemporary

presidential speeches of the 44th and 45th American president. The presidential

speeches were pronounced in front of the audience of voters in different states.

To be precise, I will do not deal with logos, ethos and pathos fully

in the practical part of the thesis, but only with a selection of features for these three

appeals to audience. Within logos I will analyse intertextuality and figurative language

in the form of conceptual metaphors whose features politicians use to influence

listeners with proofs. Within ethos I will study the opinions, attitudes and experiences

shared in stories of both politicians. The last concept pathos will be investigated

35

on direct appeals to the audience and via speech acts, specifically on interrogative,

imperative and exclamatory speech acts.

7. Logos

As I mentioned in the theoretical part in Aristotelian triangle logos is concerned

on the rationality and logic of the audience. The politicians who are interested

in altering the attitude of the audience have to support their perseverance with cogent

facts. As a means for establishing the logos appeal in political speeches I will analyse

it via intertextuality and figurative language. Politicians persuade their audience

by statements/arguments which contain facts from their life, the world

and they present these examples. They appeal to the audience for making

them support, or think and that is why they present facts (also historical), numerical

evidence. Politicians present data to show to their voters or citizens that they fulfilled

the tasks of their political program or that they managed to change a law or contract.

The main misleading action of politicians is that they suppose using smart words,

long phrases, technical terms they think they help them to be credible.

Politicians exaggerate with facts and figures to convince the audience and they veer

to the manipulation with false information that the audience think is true.

7.1 Intertextuality

Politicians use intertextuality, or reference to other sources as a part

of their speeches because they intend to influence their listeners with proofs

that are part of the history, literature, laws, evidence and so on. In this chapter,

I will analyse the common intertextual features that appear the corpora of Barack

36

Obama and Donald Trump. Then, I will dedicate two subchapters for dealing

with the differences of promoting intertextuality in the speeches of Barack Obama

and Donald Trump.

The analysis of intertextuality in the corpora of political speeches of Barack

Obama and Donald Trump reveals that politicians refer to the Bible and to the God

as Almighty Creator. Essentially, political speeches are not religious texts

so the reference to spiritual entity is taken as a crucial part of intertextuality.

The Americans consider themselves as a glorious nation under God, as hardworking

American Patriots who believe in faith, family, God, and country, as mentioned

in [tru-06], [tru-07], [tru-08] and [tu-11]. Moreover they have a national motto

“In God we trust” cited by Donald Trump several times. Donald Trump's speeches

finish with a closing phrase “God bless America.” He highlights that America

is a country blessed by God. Barack Obama blesses the people with a phrase

“God bless you” or “may God Bless the United States of America”.

Moreover, Barack Obama propagates worshipping an awesome God

and his idea: “I am my brother's keeper” in [oba-01], [oba-04], [oba-08]

which is caused by his own Christian faith and work as a community organizer

for churches in Chicago. He several times mentions also the Scripture and in the speech

[oba-08] and [oba-11] where he confirms the hope that should be based on the words

of the Scripture. Both politicians appeal to live in unity under one God as it is present

in the following selected example:

(1) The Bible tells us how good and pleasant it is when God’s people live

together in unity. ….We will be protected by the great men and women

of our military and law enforcement and most importantly,

we will be protected by God. [tru-06]

(2) Now it is up to us to preserve the birth right of freedom and justice,

the birth right of prosperity that our ancestors won for us with their sweat,

with their blood, with their work, with their muscle,

37

with their brain. . . to finally come together as one nation

under god. [tru-07]

(3) …to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed

on from generation to generation: the God-given promise

that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full

measure of happiness. [oba-11]

The aim of the analysis is to study other intertextual references of the both

politicians, and to explore their persuasive force regarding the logical appeal.

The political speeches are focused on presidential candidacy. Therefore, the reference

of the political figure is involved in the speeches of both candidates. Mostly they refer

to “Founders” or to presidents like Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.

Barack Obama links the Founders with the dream of all Americans for a better

democratic future, such as in the speech [oba-10]. From the Founders for example

Donald Trump reminds Alexander Hamilton, founding father of the United States,

who fought in the American Revolutionary War, helped draft the Constitution.

The genius of the Founders is emphasised also by Barack Obama in [oba-01]

and he makes compliments as to the system of government that they had designed.

Also in [oba-11] the ancestors and forbearers are mentioned.

The speeches of both politicians contain references to George Washington

or Abraham Lincoln who was called by Donald Trump like Honest Abe. Donald Trump

a lot of times underlines that Republicans are party of the American worker,

the American family, the American dream, and great Abraham Lincoln. For Barack

Obama, America is the land of Lincoln. The ancestors are mentioned as a remark

of the struggles that the Americans went through to settle American liberty. In [tru-14]

there are mentioned presidents like Teddy Roosevelt (in a familiar way

instead of Theodor), Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, in speech [oba-05]

the legacy of Roosevelt, Kennedy and Truman = keeping America safe, general Ulysses

S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower who in [tru-14] are mentioned only

38

by their surnames. Several times Obama mentions that Democrats are the party

of Jefferson and Jackson, or of Theodore Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy.

He does not rely only on one politician. The only past president not mentioned

by his name but as “the father of our nation” is invoked by Barack Obama in his speech

[oba-11]. Every American listener knows that he spoke about George Washington.

The audience of the Obama's and Trump's political speeches is demanded

to have some knowledge of juridical documents, especially the Constitution

and the 2nd Amendment which protects the right of the people to keep

and bear arms that shall not be infringed. Trump's aim is to protect the Constitution

and to follow the laws as written. Trump protects the 2nd Amendment and the right

of the people for bearing a gun to protect them.

(4) We will support, protect and defend the constitution of the United States.

[tru-08, tru-09, tru-12]

(5) Don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping

AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. [oba-08]

Both politicians notify the audience of two dates: Donald Trump emphasizes

3rd November as the official Election Day and Barack Obama 4th November

and 20th January – Inauguration of the President.

Besides the dates or political figures, the both presidential candidates

emphasize pledging allegiance and the American flag is considered as a symbol

of patriotism. The Pledge of Allegiance is mentioned in speeches [oba-01], [oba-09],

[oba-14], [tru-07], [tru-08], [tru-09], [tru-13] and [tru-14]. In Barack

Obama's speeches with the interest to emphasize the unity of the nation and to show

that everybody is equal in front of the American flag while in contrary Donald Trump

underlines the respect to American flag and anthem and strict legislation for those

who burn or somehow destroy the American flag as it is present in the following

examples:

39

(6) …black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American; young, old; gay, straight;

men, women, folks with disabilities, all pledging allegiance, under the same

proud flag, tot his big, bold country that we love. [oba-14]

(7) We believe children should be taught to love our country, honour

our history, and to always respect our great American flag. [tru-09]

(8) We should have legislation that if somebody wants to burn the American

flag and stomp on it or just burn it, they go to jail for one year. [tru-13]

Together with the patriotism in political speeches of the presidential candidates

there was a high involvement of the encouragement of Americans to be proud

of them because they are admired by other nations for their success and no matter

what they remain the most powerful and respected country on the earth. This sense

of Americanism is seen in speeches [oba-07], [oba-12], [oba-14], [oba-15], [tru-07],

[tru-08], [tru-12], [tru-14]. Barack Obama names all the characteristics of America

or Americans as decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common

challenges and common hopes able to work harder and smarter than anyone else.

Both of them underlining the skills of the American people and the world's best

products as Obama classified as goods that are stamped with three proud words

“Made in America”. Trump's believes in American work for American workers,

American wages for American labourers, and American homes for American citizens

as he confirms in [tru-08] and to use American iron, American steel, American

aluminium.

As Barack Obama quoted Ronald Reagan's vision of America as “a shining city

on a hill” and Donald Trump's vision of America as “a divided crime scene that only

he can fix” in [oba-14] the truth is that both politicians see America as a country

with potential as it is present in the following examples:

(9) America is exceptional. Not that our nation has been flawless

from the start, but that we have shown the capacity to change, and make

life better for those who follow. [oba-15]

40

(10) No country is better equipped than America to handle new threats,

and no people are more skilled, talented, tough, or driven than Americans.

[tru-12]

In the next subchapters I will analyse the approaches of both politicians to take

intertextuality for supporting the logical arguments and to point out their different

approaches.

7.1.1 Intertextuality in Barack Obama's speeches

The analysis of intertextuality in Barack Obama's presidential speeches shows

that the corpora contain a huge amount of references to other texts that prove

the Obama's points and convince the audience that he is the right candidate

for the presidency.

Most of the speeches contain more than 5 references, only [oba-03]

and [oba-09] contain just 1 or 2 references. Speeches [oba-07] and [oba-13]

contain 3 references, [oba-04], [oba-05], [oba-05] contain 5 references, [oba-11]

contain 6 references, [oba-12], [oba-15] contain 7 references, [oba-10], [oba-14] contain

8 references, [oba-02], [oba-08] contain 9 references and [oba-01] contains

10 references.

Barack Obama refers to founding documents such as the Constitution,

the Declaration, then to the historical speeches. The interest of Barack Obama

is in the Constitution. He considers it as a “remarkable and beautiful gift”,

but in the same way “just a piece of parchment with no power on its own”

as he declares it in [oba-15]. Moreover, the exact quotation from the Constitution

about human right is found in [oba-11]:

(11) As Americans, we believe we are endowed by our Creator with certain

inalienable rights, rights that no man or government can take away.

41

We insist on personal responsibility and we celebrate individual initiative.

[oba-12]

Barack Obama quotes from the Declaration and refers to the date inexplicitly.

He derives the date from counting the year of the speech 2008 minus 232 years

which equals 1776 the year of the Declaration of Independence. He uses also other

prompts like that “the power” comes from those immortal declarations first put

to a paper right here in Philadelphia in [oba-14]. The same technique he uses in speech

[oba-15] with the description of 240 years from the important moment – the moment

of the Declaration:

(12) We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. [oba-01]

The citations from the founding documents serve for reminding the values

on which the United States was built and Barack Obama s appeal to Americans

for remaining faithful to the ideas of the forbearers as explained in [oba-11].

On the other hand, the purpose for the Constitution mentioned in Barack

Obama's speeches is to highlight the freedoms and liberties that America offers.

In [oba-10] he reminds the important date in American history when the Constitution

was created that since than (for two-hundred and twenty-one years) the American

nation faces all the challenges.

Barack Obama also cited George Washington's Farewell Address in 1796:

(13) George Washington wrote that self-government is the underpinning

of our safety, prosperity, and liberty, but “from different causes

and from different quarters much pain will be taken…to weaken

in your minds the conviction of this truth.” [oba-15]

The citation from Thomas Paine's pamphlet The American Crisis devoted

to the army in December 1776. In this part it is expressed the parallel

between the winter and the determination to cope with the struggles to win the war:

42

(14) Let it be told to the future world…that in the depth of winter, when nothing

but hope and virtue could survive…that the city and the country, alarmed

at one common danger, came forth to meet it. [oba-11]

Barack Obama quotes from Abraham Lincoln´s Inaugural Address Speech

the idea that the Americans „are not enemies, but friends who cannot break the bonds

of affection“ in [oba-10] and also from Abraham Lincoln's Speech at Chicago

on 10th July 1858 in [oba-02] just to encourage the citizens to have hope in future

because also in the past the people survived from “strange, discordant, and even hostile

elements and fought to battle through”. Barack Obama cites Abraham Lincoln

in speech [oba-02], [oba-12] when he intends to convince the audience

that they have not been divided any more. He refers to historical event of the Civil War

in [oba-07], specifically to the battles of Gettysburg and Antietam just to make

a parallel with the devotion of the people in past to save the union as to save

the situation in America in present, or with the comparison to the crisis in Franklin

Roosevelt time in [oba-12] to ask for the shared responsibility like at that times.

Barack Obama cites also the traditional motto of the USA “E pluribus

unum.” or “Out of many, one.” which appears on the Great Seal. In two speeches:

[oba-01] and [oba-10] just to reaffirm the fundamental truth – out of many, we are one.

Also in [oba-13] he emphasizes that “we are an American family, and we rise

or fall together as one nation and as one people.”

Except of the historical or political speeches, Barack Obama turns his attention

also to civil rights via the texts written by Baptist Minister Martin Luther King

in [oba-02] or [oba-08] or by Methodist Episcopal Minister the Reverend Charles

Albert Tindley with his “we shall overcome” in [oba-10]. This is caused by Barack

Obama's Afro-American roots and he plans to encourage people of every race

“to always march ahead”.

To support his opinion that the citizens should show comprehension

to everybody he uses also the quotation from a book called To Kill a Mockingbird

43

by Harper Lee in the form of the phrase that fictional character from the famous

American fiction Atticus Finch pronounced:

(15) You never really understand a person until you consider things

from his point of view, until you climb into his skin and walk

around in it. [oba-15]

The quotations from political documents, religious people serve to support

Barack Obama's ideas and he uses the phrases of the giants of the past to attach weight

to his own words.

Another type of the reference is through the mentioning of names of politicians.

Politicians who Barack Obama mentions are a Secretary of States John Kerry

who he admires for believing in America, a Democrat nominee for Vice-president

John Edward. Barack Obama speaks about his cooperation with the Republican

Senator Dick Lugar with whom he passed the law securing the world against some

weapons, he thanks to Joe Biden for being the very best Vice president

that he could have ever hoped for, and being a strong and loyal friend in [oba-12],

[oba-13]. Obama gives compliments to Hillary's choice of Vice President Tim Kaine

who will make her a better President in [oba-14]. Obama thanks to a National

Guardsman Pete Skidmore for service to his campaign.

It is natural to criticize the political predecessors and also Barack

Obama criticizes George Bush and John McCain (both of them Republicans)

because of their interest in Iraq and Afghanistan war and against bin Laden

in [oba-04], [oba-05], [oba-06] and [oba-08]. Using their names he shows his opinion

against the nonsense of the continuation in the war there.

Hillary Rodham Clinton is mentioned several times in Barack Obama's speeches

but we can see Barack Obama's character via logos too, that he does not diminish

the value of his opponent or co-candidate as you can see in the following examples:

(16) Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign

not because she’s a woman who has done what no woman has done before,

44

but because she’s a leader who inspires millions of Americans

with her strength, her courage (…). [oba-07]

(17) There has never been a man or a woman – not me, not Bill, nobody,

more qualified than Hillary Clinton to serve as President of the United

States of America. [oba-14]

To support the logic and reason Barack Obama uses also some statistics

or facts like figures. His factual knowledge is not hidden into a lot of numbers,

on the contrary in [oba-01], [oba-02], [oba-03], [oba-04] and [oba-06]

he does not use facts and statistics at all. One reference with statistics or figures

is in [oba-07], [oba-09], [oba-10], [oba-11], [oba-13], [oba-14] and [oba-15]. If he uses

statistics it is especially in his nomination speeches [oba-08] and [oba-12]

where he uses from 4 to 7 statistics that he uses for supporting his political party

and success and for supporting his political programme and future vision

of the country.

(18) We measure progress in the 23 million new jobs that were created

when Bill Clinton was President, when the average American family saw

its income go up 7,500 dollars instead of go down 2,000 dollars,

like it has under George Bush. [oba-08]

(19) I want to reform the tax code so it’s simple, fair, and asks the wealthiest

households to pay higher taxes on incomes over 250,000 dollars –the same

rate we had when Bill Clinton was President, the same rate we had

when our economy created nearly 23 million new jobs. [oba-12]

The topics of factual references are connected to jobs, health care, family

budget, and he efforts to show his understanding for struggles facing working families

via cutting the taxes for the middle-class families. He uses a convincing argument

for changing the political party because of wasting money in two wars in Iraq

and Afghanistan with usage of the figure like “trillions”.

45

(20) After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion

dollars, it’s time to do some nation building right here at home. [oba-12]

On the other side, Barack Obama prefers to use imaginable figures

and set into practical lives of the voters: college affordable with an annual $4,000 tax

credit in [oba-04], cutting taxes for 95 percent of all working families in [oba-08],

cutting oil imports in half by 2020 and supporting more than 600,000 new jobs

in natural gas alone in [oba-12]. In my opinion, he is persuaded that listeners

do not follow the numbers, plus there is always need to have a proof so he rather uses

figures like trillions, billions, etc. as you can see in the following example:

(21) It’s understanding that the struggles facing working families

can’t be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks

for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving the middle-class

a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure,

and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools,

and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. [oba-07]

The analysis of intertextuality in Barack Obama's speeches proves that Barack

Obama refers to the other sources with a high intention and he uses different sources

of juridical, political, historical and literary documents, including some factual

statistics. The references of the other sources raise the trustworthiness of Barack

Obama and make the logos part of the speeches highly-developed. Logos

in his speeches is rooted well and the persuasive strategy via intertextuality

accomplished its goals. The references via quotations and citations from other

documents accompanying the logical appeals of Barack Obama supported his efforts

to make the audience united, full of respect and understanding to each other

and hopeful for the future because he pointed out for the past events evaluated

in the historical and political documents. The references via statistics and figures

offered a support to his political programme ideas and made his logical appeal

46

trustworthy. To convince with no exact numbers or numbers that the listener

can imagine easily makes the logical arguments to sound like factual information.

7.1.2 Intertextuality in Donald Trump's speeches

The analysis of intertextuality in the corpus of Donald Trump's presidential

speeches shows that he does not use the strength of the persuasive strategy

at full capacity and that the intertextual reference is not extensive. The reference

and the citation of one literary text Speeches [tru-05] and [tru-06] contain

no reference, [tru-01], [tru-15] contain 1 reference, [tru-04] has 2 references,

3 references are in [tru-07], [tru-12]. The speech [tru-08], [tru-09] and [tru-13]

contains 4 references. The speech [tru-14] has 5 references. There are speeches

[tru-03], [tru-10] and [tru-11] with the range between 7 or 9 references.

Donald Trump does not quote from another political text except of the referring

to the name of Abraham Lincoln who is connected with the Republican Party

as it is seen in the following example:

(22) The Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln, goes forward united,

determined and ready to welcome millions of Democrats, independents

and anyone who believer in the greatness of America. [tru-14]

The reference and the citation of the song called The Snake written

by a civil-rights activist Oscar Brown is found in the speech [tru-09]. It is the song

that describes illegal immigration and this allegory fits perfectly to support

Trump's idea against the opening of the Mexican borders:

(23) On our way to work one morning, down the path, along the lake,

a tender-hearted woman saw a poor half frozen snake. His pretty

coloured skin had been all frosted, with the due, poor things she cried, I will

take you in, and I will take care of you. . .take me in, oh tender

47

woman. . .she wrapped him all cosy -- she hurried from work. . .She stroke

his pretty skin again and kissed him . . . but instead of saying thank

you, the snake gave her a vicious bite. I saved you, cried the woman

. . .you know your bite is poisonous, and now I’m going to die. Shut up,

silly woman, said the reptile with a grin. You knew damn well

I was a snake before you took me in. [tru-09]

As I mentioned in the previous chapter also Donald Trump refers

in his speeches to some names of the politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton

or the Clintons to refuting their arguments and showing the audience his truth. Donald

Trump criticizes his predecessor's bad decisions as well as Hillary's bad political

behaviour and her mistakes – incorrectness, making money for special interests

and taking money from special interests. He accused Hillary of perfected the politics

of personal profit and of doing favours to oppressive regimes. Donald Trump himself

refers to the book Clinton Cash by Peter Schweitzer which contains documents

about Bill and Hillary's efforts to enrich their family at America's expense, namely

4 references in [tru-02]. There are only two of them as examples:

(24) Together, she (Hillary) and Bill made $153 million giving speeches

to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years

since 2001. [tru-02]

(25) [Hillary] has even deleted this record of total support from her book –

deletion is something she is very good at – (at least 30,000 emails

are missing). [tru-02]

Not only about national budget is Donald Trump concerned like in the case

of Obama's government that the debt was more than $19 trillion as he states

in [tru-03], he is concerned also about family budget in [tru-03], [tru-08] and [tru-10].

He provides figures to support his logical arguments and the list of figures seem

like factual information:

48

(26) Median household income is now the highest ever recorded in our country.

President Bush, eight years, $450. President Barack Hussein Obama,

eight years, $975. President Donald Trump, three years, $10,000

per family a year. [tru-10]

As a proof of usage figures just for supporting Trump's logic I will mention

an example with blood tests where Donald Trump presents different prices.

More important than the price itself is the fact, that there are different blood tests

as you can see in the following examples:

(27) They take blood. We have one person, blood $39. Another place, the exact

same thing, $2500. Take blood, a blood test. One is $39 and one is $2500.

The same test. Maybe the $39 test is better. [tru-10]

(28) We have people that take a blood test in one place, it’s $26, and in another

place it’s $2000. Same blood test, maybe the cheap is the better,

who knows? Same blood test. [tru-12]

This situation only proves that politicians use statistics as an attempt to back

up their arguments. Then their logical appeals sound as persuasive. In Donald Trump's

speeches the topics of factual references are linked to criminality: homicide victims,

criminal aliens, traffickers, then to Afro-American employment, creating jobs, foreign

politician, Democrats and Republicans political aims and completing the tasks,

the famous Mexican wall, virus etc.

Donald Trump states these numbers as to the criminality: homicides last year

increased by 17% in America’s fifty largest cities in [tru-03], more than 2,600 people

have been shot in Chicago and almost 4,000 killed in President Obama’s hometown

in [tru-04], in 2018 the police arrested nearly 12,000 people for murder

and manslaughter, 25,000 people for rape in [tru-13], deported 20,000 gang

members and 500,000 criminal aliens were deported in [tru-14].

During the presidential campaigns Donald Trump had to travel to different

states and in every state he gave the exact numbers of the post jobs: since my election,

49

Americans made 7 million new jobs in [tru-09], another 225,000 new jobs were added

last month alone in [tru-10], over 125,000 new jobs have been created right here

in Nevada in [tru-10], over 121,000 new jobs have been created right here in South

Carolina in [tru-11]. He kept his voters from every state informed. The information

about job posts fit to his logical appeal still with the listener’s caution if the numbers

are true.

Except of jobs, Donald Trump focuses his attention to black communities:

almost 4 in 10 African-American men in Milwaukee between the ages

of 25-54 do not have a job in [tru-04], wages for African-American workers

have increased by $2400 per year in [tru-09], I’ve done more for the black community

in four years than Joe Biden has done in 47 years in [tru-13]. The figures in these

statements are not exaggerating and are supporting Trump's argument about taking

care of African-American and showing to the people that they are getting better

and better.

In his speeches he defends the administrative work of the Republican Party

and attacks the political decisions of Democrats. He names some concrete tasks

that he and his political party managed to do and offers some clue arguments

about results and previous work of the representatives from political parties

as it is present in the following examples:

(29) The Democrats don’t have to be, but we have to be. We’ve destroyed

the ISIS territorial caliphate 100%, we killed the founder and leader

of ISIS. Al Baghdadi is dead. Al Baghdadi is dead. 17 years. They looked

for him. 17 years. [tru-10], [tru-11]

There is the example of the bad political decision of the Democrats:

(30) This was just prior to the signing of the Iran deal, which gave back to Iran

$150 billion and gave us nothing – it will go down in history as one

of the worst deals ever made. [tru-03]

There are some examples of political success of the Republican Party:

50

(31) We’ve created nearly 4 million new jobs since the election and lifted almost

4 million Americans off of food stamps. [tru-08]

(32) Our NATO partners, as an example, were far behind in their defense

payments, but at my strong urging, they agreed to pay $130 billion

more a year – the first time in over 20 years that they upped

their payments. [tru-14]

Not only counting the jobs but Donald Trump's invests his efforts to counting

every kilometre of the “Wall” between the United States and Mexico.

(33) This is everything they wanted, 132 miles already. We’ll have 500 miles

built by very early next year sometime. [tru-14]

(34) The wall is now 380 miles long. It’ll soon be finished. [tru-15]

Donald Trump appeals his logical side through facts and he refers to some

beliefs that are commonly held and that are difficult to deny, like in the example

comparing the flu to the Covid-19:

(35) I was shocked to hear it, 35.000 people on average die each year

from the flu. 35.000, that’s a lot of people. It could go to 1000.000,

it could be 27.000. They say usually a minimum of 27, goes up to 100.000

people a year die. [tru-11]

To sum up, he is a communicator who relies within his logical reasoning

on figures, facts and statistics. The amount of references from other sources is low

in comparison to Barack Obama. However, the usage of statistics is extremely

extensive. Donald Trump does not forget to develop the logos, although his logical

appeals are supported unilaterally by statistics. He supports his opinions about the past

and present political situation only with statistics whose author might be him in person

so he does not have the support from the other authority. His detailed figures and data

support his logical arguments and from the point of persuasion could be more effective

if there were some references to economical documents and statistics. This means

51

that the intertextuality in Donald Trump corpora is not strictly perceived as authority

and therefore has a lower persuasive potential.

7.1.3 Results

The analysis of intertextuality in the corpora of Barack Obama's speeches

and Donald Trump's speeches indicates that the politicians' approaches to logical

appeals differ in the technique. It is influenced by the professional background

of the speakers. In the case of Barack Obama who was trained to become a lawyer,

he was a senator and he had a juridical knowledge and cultural awareness

which he assembles in the way of searching for the foundation of his logical appeal

in legal texts or political speech of the famous presidents or in texts of known sophists

or ecclesiastic men. In this way the listeners are assured that the candidate

for the presidency will not be a common person but an erudite one. The high amount

of references to other sources such as juridical, political, historical and literary

documents increases in trustfulness of Barack Obama and reveal a high persuasive

potential of the persuasive strategy via intertextuality. The citations from official

juridical, political and historical documents support the logical arguments

and via intertextuality the authority of the speaker is supported in the high level.

On the other hand, the references via statistics and figures do not have the support

in official document which means that the persuasion might not have the high effect.

In the case of Donald Trump his tendency of excessive usage of statistics

is caused by his profession as a business officer who is used to counting and working

with numbers. He uses the figures and the statistics to support his logical appeal

and it is visible that his reasonable arguments are accompanied with correct amount

of figures that his logical appeal accomplishes the goal to convince the audience.

However, there is no reference to other sources while presenting the numbers and data

52

to the audience. Therefore, the persuasive potential of the logical appeal is low.

The attentive listener needs to have proofs of the presented statistics. To have it,

the veracity of the arguments would be higher.

The analysis proves that Donald Trump's relies on facts, statistics references

with a rare reference of use of other sources such as historical texts, or political

speeches of previous presidents. He used at least 70 facts or statistic references

in comparison to 20 Barack Obama's facts or statistic references.

On the other hand, the analysis of Barack Obama's speeches confirms

that Barack Obama takes a variety of sources into consideration and offers external

proofs based on historical facts by which he intends to instruct the audience

in forerunners' capabilities dealing the situation just to motivate them and be strong

and deal with the present situation as successfully as them. To motivate the audience

he mentions the exact lines from the political speeches of the presidents of 18th century

mainly but also of preachers. The support of his arguments proved in precedent

texts shows not only that the arguments have much more authority, but also they have

higher persuasive potential.

The results prove that the variety of different types of references in both

speeches depends on candidates' decision which of them use because they count

with the interests of the audience and voters of the specific party, as well as the place

and time.

As explained above, the higher potential for the logical appeal is considered

to be in Barack Obama's speeches because of his various intertextual references.

This means that his persuasive strategies have higher potential to persuade

the audience more. However, the statistics proofs of Donald Trump sound like factual

information and serve to him as a means of effective persuasion or manipulation

of the listeners, without the proofs for checking out the veracity and without other

references to economical documents, the persuasive potential of the statistics is low.

53

7.2 Figurative language

This chapter is ordered by concept of major political metaphors. The metaphors

depict political entities in terms of history, light and darkness, natural elements,

human body, human activities, travelling, etc. I will focus on conceptual organization

and its interpretation. The analysis of figurative language was done in three

methodological steps in Critical Metaphor Analysis (CMA), which consists of metaphor

identification, interpretation, and explanation. Firstly, metaphor identification is based

on a manual search with intuition, and its organization according to the keywords.

Secondly, establishment of a relationship between metaphors and the cognitive

and pragmatic factors that determines them. And the last step, a description

of the social role of metaphor involved in metaphor production and the role

of metaphor in political persuasion.

The analysis of figurative language in the corpora of both politicians happened

to be the task of the following subchapters, specifically conceptual metaphors.

The other types of the figurative language will not be covered in this thesis. I will search

for the main concepts in the metaphors and I will find out what differences

and what similarities the speeches cover.

7.2.1 Figurative language in Barack Obama's speeches

In Barack Obama's speeches we can find a wide range of metaphors.

In all speeches there are about 120 metaphors. Speeches [oba-01], [oba-02], [oba-04]

contain between 12 and 16 metaphors. The amount of metaphors is influenced

by the motive of the speeches which were determined for official acceptance

of nomination and for the speech in front of the Convention, in other words

54

the speeches were supposed to be written stylistically and pronounced

for the demanding audience. Speeches [oba-05], [oba-06], [oba-07] and [oba-10]

have from 9 to 11 metaphors. The average amount of the metaphors

is about 5 to 7 metaphors for speeches [oba-08], [oba-09], [oba-11], [oba-14].

The lowest number of metaphors have speeches [oba-12], [oba-13] and [oba-15].

They have exactly 3 metaphors.

One of the used conceptual metaphors is related to the concept of history

in the source domain. Every politician evaluates the work of the previous political party

that was in incumbency. The politicians look at the past events that influenced

the national history. They call the present moment as the important moment to change

history. The metaphors frequently use words, such as past, turn the page, the arc

of history, etc. The concept of history is present in the following selected examples:

(36) But these priorities don’t address the real problems of the American people,

because they are bound to the failed policies of the past. [oba-04]

(37) Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. [oba-07]

(38) As we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices,

and meet the challenges that face us. [oba-01]

(39) …and doubtful of what we can achieve to put their hands on the arc

of history and bend it once more toward the hope of a better day. [oba-10]

Another type of the conceptual metaphor uses the concept of contrast

between light and darkness in the source domain. The politician describes the past

or previous electoral period as dark period whereas the light has the positive

connotation with the better future, more prosperity for the country. The metaphors

frequently use words, such as the light of opportunity, bright, shadow, beacon, a dark

chapter, dawn etc. The concept of light and darkness is present in the following

selected examples:

(40) This country will reclaim its promise, and out of this long political

darkness a brighter day will come. [oba-01]

55

(41) This election is about you – the American people – and whether we will

have a president and a party that can lead us toward a brighter future.

[oba-06]

(42) My father got a scholarship to study in a magical place, America

that shone as a beacon of freedom and opportunity to so many

who had come before. [oba-01]

(43) To all those who have wondered if America’s beacon still burns

as bright – tonight we proved once more (…) [oba-10]

(44) …because after 106 years in America, through the best of times

and the darkest of hours, she knows how America can change. [oba-10]

Political discourse concerns about concept of the conceptual metaphor

that is related to natural elements in the source domain. The politician describes

the decisions of the government by means of natural elements, especially the strength

of some elements express the amount of prosperity or economic decrease

or the political situation among the political members. The metaphors frequently

use words, such as water, tides, waves, storm, wind, etc. Examples of this conceptual

metaphor are listed below:

(45) We have the right wind at our backs. [oba-01]

(46) The next wave of economic dislocations won’t come from overseas. [oba-15]

(47) The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still

waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering

clouds and raging storms. [oba-11]

(48) I’ve seen it on the shores of New Jersey and New York, where leaders

from every party and level of government have swept aside

their differences to help a community rebuild from the wreckage

of a terrible storm. [oba-13]

Another example of a conceptual metaphor present in Barack Obama's speeches

is related to the concept of opportunity. It is natural for politicians to search

56

new ways how to govern and the opportunity might be discovered for a nation, political

party in a positive connotation or in a negative connotation the opportunity

of the individual which does not correspond with the common welfare but personal.

In the metaphors to get to the opportunity is advised through a lot of means,

such as through the door which symbolizes just choose the correct way,

through the ladder that is a symbol of effort or of work to get to the opportunity,

or even via a symbolic breaking the walls or barriers to gain the opportunity.

The concept of opportunity is present in the following examples:

(49) We can make sure that every child in America has a decent shot at life,

and that the doors of opportunity remain open to all. [oba-01]

(50) …that new schools can provide ladders of opportunity to this nation

of dreamers. [oba-12]

(51) ….a mother and grandmother who would do anything to help our children

thrive; a leader with real plans to break down barriers, and blast through

glass ceilings, and widen the circle of opportunity to every single American

–the next President of the United States, Hillary Clinton. [oba-14]

A conceptual metaphor related to the concept of war appears in the Barack

Obama's speeches. The concept of war is symbolic, in the field of political rallies,

debates that the participants lead to confront each other. The politicians want

to win the battle, in case of candidates for presidency to win the state. The metaphors

frequently use words: battle, battlefield, struggle, blood. The concept of war is present

in the following examples:

(52) We can’t keep driving a wider and wider gap between the few who are rich

and the rest who struggle to keep pace. [oba-04]

(53) Politics is a battle of ideas. [oba-15]

(54) When we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country,

she will be central to that victory. [oba-07]

(55) ….a charter expanded by the blood of generations. [oba-11]

57

As in the case of the conceptual metaphor with a concept of war there are some

similar concepts of taking a politics as a sport activity where politicians behave

like sportsman to win a match or a debate or election. The metaphors frequently use

words: game, player, result, playbook, etc. The conceptual metaphor is present in the

following examples:

(56) We can recognize that you can’t be the champion of working Americans

if you’re funded by the lobbyists who drown out their voices. [oba-05]

(57) We can’t keep playing the same Washington game with the same

Washington players and expect a different result – because it´s a game

that ordinary Americans are losing. [oba-04]

(58) And his plan to win in November appears to come from the very same

playbook that his side has used time after time in election after election.

[oba-06]

Another type of the widely-spread conceptual metaphors in Barack

Obama's speeches is related to the concept of human body in the source domain.

Every part of the body represents a different quality of the politicians, politics

or approach to a political issue. The metaphors frequently use words like hands, heart,

face, etc. The concept of human body appears in the following selected examples:

(59) The Democratic Party is in good hands. [oba-14]

(60) To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit

and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side

of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench

your fist. [oba-11]

(61) I still believe that (change only happens when ordinary people

get involved). And it’s not just my belief. It’s the beating heart

of our American idea. [oba-15]

(62) In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an empire to its knees.

[oba-02]

58

(63) And if a voice can change a room, it can change a city, and if it can change

a city, it can change a state, and if it can change a state, it can change

a nation, and if it can change a nation, it can change the world. [oba-09]

Very closely to human body in Barack Obama's speeches there is a conceptual

metaphor related to the concept of human body activities. The acceptance

or agreement is expressed by the gesture of embracing, the work on a political decision

or the defence against the decision by rolling up the sleeves etc. The types

of the metaphor appear in the following selected examples:

(64) ….by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change.

[oba-06]

(65) Our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling

up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle the big problems

of America. [oba-02]

(66) We come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises,

the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long

have strangled our politics. [oba-11]

(67) If you sense, that I sense, that the time is now to shake off our slumber,

and slough off our fears, and make good on the debt we owe past

and future generations. [oba-02]

Barack Obama's speeches contain metaphors related to the concept of contrast

between consumption and famine. The words like hunger, feed, consume, predator,

poison are contained in the metaphors. If we poison someone, we want him to die,

and the poisoned politics is unhealthy politics, all the negative connotations

are connected to starving, consuming or being a victim of a predator. In contrary,

if the politician intends to support some behaviour, it has to be fed to grow or to spread.

The metaphor is present in the following selected examples:

(68) We are hungry for change. [oba-03]

59

(69) We’re also up against forces that are not the fault of any one campaign

but feed the habits that prevent us from being who we want

to be as a nation. [oba-03]

(70) It’s easy to get caught up in the distractions and the silliness

and the tit-for-tat that consumes our politics. [oba-05]

(71) We do need a government that stands up for families who are being tricked

out of their homes by Wall Street predators. [oba-06]

(72) Let us resist temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness

and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long. [oba-10]

Nine speeches contain conceptual metaphors connected to travelling.

There are about twenty metaphors which is quite a high involvement of conceptual

metaphors with this theme. The metaphors use these words: a path, road, journey,

course, direction, crossroad, follow in the footsteps, walls, across the heartland,

forgotten corners, etc. In this context the path, journey or course mean following

a stated political program or offered solution of the situation. The road is the symbol

of the effort to satisfy the electoral promises. The metaphor appears in the following

selected examples:

(73) If we had chosen a different path, the right path, we could have finished

the job in Afghanistan. [oba-04]

(74) This time we can face down those who say our road is too long; that our

climb is too steep; that we can no longer achieve the change that we seek.

[oba-06]

(75) We make the end of one historic journey with the beginning

of another – a journey that will bring a new and better day to America.

[oba-07]

(76) Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love. [oba-07]

60

(77) It is now our turn to follow in the footsteps of all those generations

who sacrificed and struggled and faced down the greatest odds to perfect

our improbable union. [oba-05]

During political rallies and speeches politicians believe that their party

and their programme is the reply for solving the problems and the clue for a better

future. Thus, the conceptual metaphor related to the concept of hope is a must

in political speeches. The concept of hope is present in the following selected examples:

(78) This campaign must be the occasion, the vehicle of your hopes,

and your dreams. [oba-02]

(79) If you feel destiny calling and see as I see, the future of endless possibility

stretching out before us. [oba-02]

(80) No dream is beyond our grasp if we reach for it. [oba-04]

(81) The promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace

to bridge divides and unite in common effort. [oba-08]

The concept of religion as a form of conceptual metaphor is present

also in politics. Every nation has its own spirit to combat the difficulties. The verb rein

or reinstate is found originally in the Bible too. Examples of this conceptual metaphor

are selected in the section bellow:

(82) We will respond with that timeless creed that sums up the spirit

of the American people in three simple words: Yes, we can. [oba-03]

(83) We can bring both parties together to rein in their power so we can take

our government back. [oba-05]

(84) You know, John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin Laden to the gates

of Hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives. [oba-08]

Two of the Barack Obama's speeches contain a conceptual metaphor

with the concept money as the source domain. In the speeches Barack Obama

criticizes leading the country into the debts and bribery. The metaphors related

to the concept of money appear in the following examples:

61

(85) We can’t keep mortgaging our children’s future on a mountain

of debt. [oba-04]

(86) The truth gets buried under an avalanche of money and advertising.

[oba-11]

The relatively new kind of metaphor which appears in speeches

of both politicians is Trojan horse which represents somebody with evil intentions

or somebody whose ideology is considered as negative as shown in the following

examples:

(87) They claim that our insistence on something larger, something firmer,

and more honest in our public life is just a Trojan Horse for higher taxes

and the abandonment of traditional values. [oba-09]

The analysis of figurative language in the corpus of Barack Obama's political

speeches demonstrates a various types of representation of conceptual metaphors.

The conceptual metaphors are related to concepts of history, light and darkness,

natural elements, opportunity, hope, war, sports activities, human body

travelling, consumption and famine. Some of them are used in several speeches.

There are also some concepts that do not have a lot of examples, such as religion

and money. The most preferred concept for Barack Obama is the concept of light

and darkness and human body and travelling. The metaphors with path and road

appear in a several parts of the corpora.

To conclude, the frequent usage of conceptual metaphors in Barack

Obama's corpora proves that the speeches have persuasive potential developed

on the high level and that Barack Obama as a speaker uses this persuasive strategy fully

to appeal to the reason of his listeners.

62

7.2.2 Figurative language in Donald Trump's speeches

In Donald Trump speeches we cannot find a lot of metaphors. In all speeches

there are about 70 metaphors. Speeches [tru-02], [tru-04], [tru-05], [tru-07], [tru-09]

and [tru-15] contain only 1-3 metaphors. The lack of metaphors is influenced

by the motive of the speeches which were determined for voters and common listeners.

Speeches, that are rich for metaphors, are [tru-03], [tru-06], [tru-12] and [tru-14]

in which at least 10 metaphors are presented. The amount of the metaphors is due

to the purpose of the speeches which are as official speech for nomination

for the presidency, for inauguration, or for Super Tuesday or the speech [tru-14]

was read in front of the National Convention.

Also in Donald Trump's speeches there are conceptual metaphors

that are related to the concept of history. Donald Trump compares history

to a functional period or to the ideas of the political party. The political scene

is described as a history book and the voters are those who are supposed to vote

politicians who will accomplish the promises and create better situation for citizens.

This conceptual metaphor is present in the following examples:

(88) Tonight we close one chapter in history and we begin another.[tru-01]

(89) Biden is always on the wrong side of history. [tru-13]

(90) Together, we will write the next chapter of the great American story.

[tru-14]

Donald Trump uses as conceptual metaphors the metaphors that are built

on the contrast between light and dark. The light presents country that is wealthy

or politician who knows how to govern and has a vision for the future. When a political

issues are dark so they are not uncovered for the citizens, or when a city or country

is dark it means that it is not powerful or prosperous. For Barack Obama America

was described like a beacon and for Donald Trump America is described like a torch.

The concept of light and darkness appears in the following selected examples:

63

(91) Transformed the barren desert into a shining oasis, lit up the lights

of the Las Vegas strip and help to make this the greatest nation ever to exist

on the face of the earth. [tru-10]

(92) We understand that America is not a land cloaked in darkness, America

is the torch that enlightens the entire world. [tru-14]

(93) Joe Biden may claim he is an ally of the light, but when it comes

to his agenda, Biden wants to keep us completely in the dark. [tru-14]

A conceptual metaphor related to the concept of natural elements appears

also in Donald Trump's speeches in which he applies the force of water to depict

the economic and political situation in the USA. The metaphors frequently use words,

such as tides, waves, engulf, etc. Examples of this conceptual metaphor are listed

below:

(94) We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing

business in America and keeping our workers employed.

This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats. [tru-02]

(95) This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class

and our jobs. [tru-02]

(96) Syria is engulfed in a civil war and a refugee crisis that now threatens

the West. [tru-03]

In Donald Trump's speeches, there is a huge amount of conceptual metaphors

related to the concept of human body in the source domain. The metaphors

frequently use words, such as shoulders, heart, spine, face, breath, teeth, blood, cancer,

in a good shape, etc. The most frequent body part as a domain of the metaphor

was the part shoulders. These metaphors appeared in 5 speeches [tru-08], [tru-09],

[tru-11], [tru-12], [tru-13]. The shoulders present the base of the nation rooted

in patriot times. The second favourite body part in Trump's speeches is heart

presenting the emotions. The diseases or bleeding serves for explaining an unpleasant

64

situation, often frauds, bad political decisions. The concept of human body is present

in the following selected examples:

(97) We stand on the shoulders of generations of American patriots who knew

how to work, knew how to fight. [tru-08]

(98) Americans have steel in their spines, grit in their souls, and fire in their

hearts. [tru-14]

(99) I will fight for you with every breath in my body. [tru-06]

(100) When Congresswoman Ilhan Omar called the Minneapolis Police

Department “a cancer that is rotten to the root”. [tru-14]

(101) It looks like it’s in very good shape – our Second Amendment. [tru-07]

Related to the concept of human body activities the speeches contain

conceptual metaphors in which verbs typical for people are discovered. The physical

activity expresses the agreement or disagreement with the political situation or defines

the measure of acceptance. There are verbs like nod, turn an eye, embrace, bind

the wounds, grasp. This conceptual metaphor is present in the following examples:

(102) Those peddling the narrative of cops as a racist force

in our society - a narrative supported with a nod by my opponent – share

directly in the responsibility for the unrest in Milwaukee, and many other

places within our country. [tru-04]

(103) It’s easy for Hillary Clinton to turn a blind eye to crime

when she has her own private security force. [tru-04]

(104) They’ve embraced an extreme left wing agenda. [tru-12]

(105) Now it is time for America to bind the wounds of division, have to get

together. [tru-05]

(106) Any politician who does not grasp this danger is not fit to lead our country.

[tru-03]

One of the topics that a politician has to deal with is the topic of finances.

The excuses when the state does not have a balanced budget are hidden into conceptual

65

metaphors connected to the concept of money. The concept of money is present

in the following selected examples:

(107) I understand the responsibility of carrying the mantle. [tru-01]

(108) It’s a sad day in America when foreign governments with deep pockets

have more influence in our own country than our great citizens. [tru-01]

(109) When that same Secretary of State rakes in millions of dollars trading

access and favours to special interests and foreign powers I know the time

for action has come. [tru-03]

(110) It’s the lobbyists who know how to insert that perfect loophole into every

bill. [tru-04]

Another example of a conceptual metaphor present in the corpora of Donald

Trump is related to the concept of place. The place is not connected to travelling

but to a static geographical item, such as a globe, landscape, horizon, bedrock, swamp,

etc. The size of the place symbolizes the impact of the political issue. The concept

of place is present in the following selected examples:

(111) In Libya, our consulate – the symbol of America prestige around the globe

– was brought down in flames. [tru-03]

(112) Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities;

rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape

of our nation. [tru-06]

(113) We’ve made other countries rich while the wealth, strength, and confidence

of our country has dissipated over the horizon. [tru-06]

(114) At the bedrock of our politics will be a total allegiance to the United States

of America. [tru-06]

(115) We’re going to drain the swamp. [tru-08]

The concept of religion as a form of conceptual metaphor is present

also in political speeches of Donald Trump. The metaphors frequently use words,

such as a soul, spirit, faith, sin, saviour, sacred gift, altar, pulpit, crusade, evil, etc.

66

The metaphors with the source domain soul are widely-spread. The words like faith,

spirit and soul serve to depict the American character that is full of hope, wisdom.

Donald Trump's metaphors with the religious source domain belong to the most

sophisticated that's why I state more examples:

(116) Joe Biden is not a savior of America’s soul. [tru-14]

(117) They (Democrats) see a wicked nation that must be punished for its sins.

[tru-14]

(118) We will never stop fighting for the sacred values that bind us together

as one America. [tru-09]

(119) If the left gains power, they´ll launch a nationwide crusade against law

enforcement. [tru-15]

(120) One more child to sacrifice on the altar of open borders. [tur-03]

(121) The irresponsible rhetoric of our President, who has used the pulpit

of the presidency to divide us by race and colour, has made America

a more dangerous environment for everyone. [tru-03]

(122) And we took out the world’s top terrorist, Qasem Soleimani, ending his evil

reign on terror forever. [tru-12]

The concept of expressions from Greek mythology as a form of conceptual

metaphor is present in two metaphors. Audience has to have an awareness

of mythology or understand that in Pandora's box is hidden something unpleasant

that can cause problems for citizens and the similar danger expresses also Trojan horse.

Both items represent hidden danger, needless complications. These concepts

are present in the following examples:

(123) The Egyptian military has retaken control, but Clinton has opened

the Pandora’s box of radical Islam. [tru-02]

(124) Biden is a very willing Trojan horse for socialism. tru-13

To the metaphor with Trojan horse are close conceptual metaphors

with a concept of a war strategy. Trump uses different types of war strategy

67

to describe the process of elections and their results. He compares the political scene

to an arena. The metaphors frequently use words: surrender, save, fight, trap

and arena. The concept of war strategies is present in the following examples:

(125) This election will decide if we save American dream or whether we allow

a socialist agenda to demolish our cherished destiny. [tru-14]

(126) I have joined the political arena so that the powerful can no longer beat

up on people that cannot defend themselves. [tru-03]

(127) I always say if it’s permissible by law, because they have so many little

booby traps, but they only like getting the Republicans. [tru-11]

(128) The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back

from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence

to their total and complete control. [tru-02]

The analysis of figurative language proves that the corpus of Donald

Trump's political speeches contains a wide variety of conceptual metaphors

that are related to the concepts of history, light and darkness, natural elements, human

body and human body activities, money, place, religion, Greek mythology

and a war strategy. Only the concept of religion with source words soul and faith

is widely spread in other speeches. The existence as to the amount of conceptual

metaphors in this corpora is lower, thus the potential of this persuasive strategy

is lower too.

7.2.3 Results

The analysis of figurative language shows that both politicians communicated

via rhetorical means called figurative language in different extend.

The difference between the amount of metaphors used by Barack Obama

68

in his speeches that are 85 pages long and contain about 43, 000 words in comparison

to Donald Trump´s speeches with 165 pages and about 94,000 words was excessive.

The political metaphors were easily recognized in the text,

also with their hiding artifice, and understood the figurative meaning as a persuasive

element of political thinking. Barack Obama as well as Donald Trump used metaphors

to intensify their opinions on the issues and in the same way to goad the audience

into changing the attitudes towards the issues. They handled the process of using

these persuasive devices to the maximum and managed to de-legitimize some political

entities and legitimize their goals.

In the case of Barack Obama it is visible that his mental representation

of the political situation is described in figurative language and he considers

his metaphorically expressed ideas as a centrepiece in his speeches while in the case

of Donald Trump the figurative language is marginal or peripheral partly

proportionally and partly thematically. He puts more emphasis into another way – facts

to support his logical appeal.

Both of them performed well to promote their ideological goals and handled

the task to provoke the unconscious emotional associations in the listeners

because they are aware of high persuasive force in metaphors. Several conceptual

metaphors occur in the speeches of both politicians, and are related to the concepts

of history, light and darkness, natural elements, religion, money. Surprisingly, Donald

Trump uses metaphors with religious context extensively.

Conceptual metaphors are used as a tool of persuasive strategies by politicians

because with help of figurative language they can interpret the current political

situation and the description of the political scene might be hidden into the expressions

whose meaning has to be detected by the audience according their best abilities.

With this persuasive strategy politicians can hide, uncover, or even highlight

some problems or speak about sensitive issues and it is the task of the audience

to understand the arguments of the politicians as well as politicians appeal

69

to the audience in the way that the listeners are able to understand and identify

the target referent and accept it. Politicians use the metaphors for intensifying

their opinions and for goading into the attitude change of the audience. The persuasive

effects of the metaphors are revealed in promoting the ideological goals.

The corpora of both orators prove that Barack Obama's speeches are focused

on figurative language in the form of conceptual metaphors more than Donald

Trump's and that is why they are supposed to have the persuasive potential higher,

although as well as in the Donald Trump's speeches this persuasive appeal to reason

is covered. Both politicians use conceptual metaphors for de-legitimizing political

entities. The analysis of Barack Obama's conceptual metaphors shows that he acts

as a supporter or a coach whose aim is to prepare the nation for the moment

of the decision. He motivates the citizens that the moment of opportunity is arriving.

He describes the political scene, the situation in the party and government

and dishonest tactics. Within his metaphorical expressions he depicts

the post-electoral situation when finally the prosperity could come after combating

the difficulties. Barack Obama's positive attitudes are visible and understood

from his conceptual metaphors and the audience is capable to decipher them

so it is considered that the persuasive potential could be high.

Unlike Barack Obama, Donald Trump acts rather as a visionary, fighter

or predictor within his conceptual metaphors. He encourages the citizens to move

forward and not to be satisfied with the bad economic situation because America might

be again the powerful country. In the Donald Trump's case there is no difficulty

in identifying the meaning of the conceptual metaphors.

The involvement of the figurative language is in Barack Obama's corpus higher

than in Donald Trump's, however, the appeal to reason from both politicians could

be considered as the one with high persuasive potential.

70

8. Ethos

Ethos in political speeches is shown and presented in as an ethical appeal.

The politician uncovers his personality and puts all his emphasis into the credibility

and efforts to be trustworthy to the audience, or at least be esteemed as a trustworthy

orator. The candidate efforts to enhance desirability form the voters on the basis

of his or her persuasion as an honest person. They use acclaims – statements that stress

a candidate's advantages or benefits, or attacks – statements that stress undesirable

attributes of the opponent, or defences – the recipient of the attack chooses to defend

against it and creates a campaign message. Benoit (2014) emphasizes that not every

attack is persuasive with all voters (p. 14). However, more acceptable are attacks

on policy than on the character (Benoit, 2014, p. 15).

To be considered as a trustworthy orator, politicians share their personal

stories, mainly stories that highlight their virtues and draw them as experts.

In the political field it is appreciated by the audience when the politician shows his

disinterest or that his entrance is not conditioned by a personal gain. Not vainly,

the persuasion by character is considered as the most important and Aristotle

considered that three qualities a trustable person should have: good sense, good moral

character and good will.

8.1 Sharing the personal politician's experience

What makes the politicians close to the audience are the stories

that are connected to them, their family, or family members but mainly the stories

from the political background which for voters are the basis for their decisions

if to elect the candidate whose stories seem to be veracious. They know that via stories

they create a connection with their audience to talk about their reputation, expertise,

71

and while speaking to transform their personality. I will analyse two persuasive

methods in persuasion by character or in other words ethical appeal. The ethos

of the both politician will be studied through their (1) abilities to express their opinions,

attitudes and emotions, and (2) through their experience that will be transferred

to the audience via stories from their personal and professional life.

8.1.1 Barack Obama's personal experience in his speeches

Every Obama's speech contains a reference to personal experience or opinion

except of the speech [oba-03] in which he mentions the work of the political party

as a group work, he did not point out his individuality. On the other hand, some

of the speeches contain more phrases with opinions: [oba-06], [oba-07], [oba-08],

[oba-14].

Barack Obama expresses his personal opinions and shares his ideas using

the expressions: I think or I thought, I say, I believe, I trust, I know, I recognize,

I understand, I expect, I look forward to, I want, I insist, I intend, I promise, I honour,

I respect, I love, I face, I realize, I see, I am absolutely certain, I am grateful,

I am more optimistic, I will never hesitate, I will never forget, etc. Below are a few

selected examples:

(129) I know how hard it will be to make these changes. [oba-04]

(130) I trust the American people to understand that it’s not weakness,

but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but our enemies. [oba-06]

(131) I intend to win this election and keep our promise alive as President

of the United States. [oba-08]

(132) I realize that I am not the likeliest candidate for this office. I don’t fit

the typical pedigree, and I haven’t spent my career in the halls

of Washington. [oba-09]

72

(133) I believe we can build on the progress we’ve made and continue to fight

for new jobs and new opportunities and new security for the middle class.

[oba-13]

Barack Obama bolsters his ethical arguments by sharing his personal

experience. Only one speech [oba-12] does not contain a personal experience story

probably due to the speech of nomination acceptance. In speeches [oba-01], [oba-04],

[oba-06] and [oba-14] there are from 5 to 6 stories from personal or political life.

The average of the amount of stories is three per one speech. There are three groups

of stories: stories form family life, stories of different people that he met

or are somehow connected to his life, stories from his political life.

Barack Obama shares the stories from his own family where he points

out his origin, the story of his grandparents, the improbable love of his parents,

difficulties of his mother as a single parent values taught in the family, he spoke nicely

about his wife as his best friend for the last sixteen years, the rock of our family

and the love of his life, he honours his wife and his daughters Sasha and Malia.

In the speeches there are about twenty stories from his family life. The speech [oba-01]

contains at least 5 stories, speeches [oba-02], [oba-04], [oba-06] and [oba-14] have

two stories, and at least one story form a family life is in [oba-05], [oba-10], [oba-11],

[oba-13] and [oba-15]. Examples of his family stories:

(134) My grandparents valued were traits like honesty and hard work,

kindness, courtesy, humility, responsibility, helping each other out.

That’s what they believed in. True things. Things that last. The things

we try to teach our kids. [oba-14]

(135) I’m not a native of this great state. I moved to Illinois over two decades

ago. I was a young man then, just a year out of college. I knew no one

in Chicago when I arrived, was without money or family connections.

But a group of churches had offered me a job as a community organizer

for the grand sum of 13,000 dollars a year. I accepted the job. . .motivated

73

then by a single, simple, powerful idea: that I might play a small part

in building a better America. [oba-02]

(136) I became a civil rights lawyer, and taught constitutional law, and after

a time, I came to understand that our cherished rights of liberty

and equality depend on the active participation of an awakened electorate.

It was with this idea in mind that I arrived in this capital city as a state

Senator. [oba-02]

(137) Sasha and Malia – before our very eyes, you’re growing up to become

two strong, smart, beautiful young women, just like your mum. [oba-13]

Barack Obama uses stories of different people that he met or they contacted

him to point to some strategic political issues to be thought about. It is a proof

of his good intention to help people. There are about 15 stories of this character.

Sometimes he mentions the names of the people sometimes he gives only general

descriptions: a young man named Shamus, mother who can’t get Medicaid to cover

all the needs of her sick child, the teacher who works another shift at Dunkin' Donuts

after school just to make ends meet, the man who lost his job but can’t even afford

the gas to drive around and look for a new one, etc. Examples of the stories of different

people that he met or had the opportunity to speak to them:

(138) We’ re here because of the young man I met in Youngsville, North Carolina

who almost lost his home because he has three children with cystic fibrosis

and couldn’t pay their medical bills; who still doesn’t have health insurance

for himself or his wife and lives in fear that a single illness could cost

them everything. [oba-05]

(139) The mother in Wisconsin who gave me a bracelet inscribed with the name

of the son she lost in Iraq. [oba-06]

In the speech [oba-08] he compares the story of somebody else to a story

from his family because he intends to show people that the problems that they might

74

go through he has lived. In that way he is interested in creating a connection

to the audience.

(140) In the face of that young student, who sleeps just three hours

before working the night shift, I think about my mum, who raised my sister

and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree,

who once turned to food stamps, but was still able to send us to the best

schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships.

[oba-08]

(141) And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting

her own business or making her way in the world, I think

about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool

to middle management, despite years of being passed over for promotions

because she was a woman. [oba-08]

The third group of the stories that Barack Obama shares with his audience

are the stories from his political life or job experience. By showing his job experience

in politics he aims to convince the audience that he is an expert and the right candidate

for the presidency. The topics of the stories are related to the cooperation

with politicians from his party but also for a good thing also from the opposite party,

he names some political successes. The stories from his political life

are 15 in the corpora. There are a few examples:

(142) And I’ve worked with friends in the other party to provide

more children with health insurance and more working families

with a tax break. [oba-07]

(143) In my two decades of public service to this country, I have seen time

and time again that real change doesn’t begin in the halls of Washington,

but on the streets of America. [oba-05]

75

(144) You may remember Hillary and I were rivals for the Democratic

nomination. We battled for a year and a half. Let me tell you, it was tough,

because Hillary was tough. [oba-14]

The analysis shows that Barack Obama uses the persuasive strategy of sharing

personal experience. Moreover, he builds on the stories the support of his political

vision and program. He uncovers himself in front of the audience. His intention

is that the audience should know him better, his values. In his stories his respect

for his family and the opponents is expressed as well as the humility. Barack Obama

accomplished the task of the ethical appeal in persuasion via sharing the personal

stories with the audience. In the corpora there is an enormous amount of the stories

that he shares so it means that the ethical appeal is high within the persuasion.

8.1.2 Donald Trump's personal experience in his speeches

Donald Trump shares his personal experience and attitudes in the corpora.

The speeches rich for expressions of personal opinions and attitudes are [tru-10],

[tru-13] and [tru-11] and [tru-12]. He evaluates his four-year presidency.

The speech where there is no personal opinion is the speech [tru-06]. The reason

why there is the lack of his personal opinions in this speech is the motive for presenting

his presidential acceptance. It is an Inaugural Speech presented on 20th January.

In his speeches he expresses his personal opinions and shares his ideas using

the expressions: I know, I mean, I feel, I see, I think, I honestly don’t think, I just don’t

believe, I promise, I hope, I love, I say, I must say this, I admit, I understand, I agree,

I guess, I wonder, I recognized, I’ve got to be very accurate, I have to say, I have

to be honest, I hate to say, I can only say, the truth is, I’d like to share, I only want

to admit, I have a different vision, I came up with an idea, I’m truly honoured,

I’d like to begin, I want, I’m proud to say, I’m not part of, I’m not like, I don’t get

76

the whole thing, I am certain, I have pointed out, I’ll never get rid of, I will outline, etc.

Below there are a few selected examples:

(145) I know the corruption has reached a level like never before.[tru-03]

(146) I’m not part of the corrupt system. In fact, the corrupt system is trying

to stop me. [tru-04]

(147) I’m not part of the corrupt system. In fact, the corrupt system is trying

to stop me. [tru-09]

(148) I honestly don’t think he (Sleepy Joe) knows what office he’s running for.

And it doesn’t matter. [tru-12]

(149) I say, the fact is that I’ve done more for the black community

than any president since Abraham Lincoln. I say it. [tru-15]

Besides expressing the personal ideas, in most political speeches stories

from politician's life create the supporting part of the ethos. The stories are divided

according to the topics. Needless to say, Trump's personal stories from his political

activities and from his post of the president or as a presidential incumbent

who has to deal with other politicians are found in every speech. The stories

from his political life are found mainly in his speeches [tru-08], [tru-10], [tru-11].

However in every speech he mentions at least one or two stories from his political life.

The stories are about boasting about his political success as a president, about the laws

that he signed, about accusing of Democrats, about important politicians that he met,

criticizing Hillary Clinton and his opponent in candidacy for a presidency Joe Biden.

Below are a few selected examples:

(150) I’ll tell you, every foreign leader who comes to see me, almost, they walk

in and they start off, Mr. President, congratulations on the incredible

success you´re having with your economy. [tru-08]

(151) From the moment I left my former life behind - and it was a good

life - I have done nothing but fight for you. I did what our political

77

establishment never expected and never forgive, breaking the cardinal rule

of Washington politics. [tru-14]

(152) I thought he gave up the presidency the other day because he said

he’s running for the Senate. I looked at the First Lady, I said: “Hey,

he’s running for the Senate.” And today he just said Super Thursday,

he’s looking forward to Super Thursday. [tur-12]

There is a difference between Barack Obama and Donald Trump.

Unlike the stories from the political background the stories from Trump's personal life

are not involved in his political speeches. If he mentions his family members,

so then he puts them into a political situation. He often mentions his wife Melania

or Ivanka and he points out their abilities and political functions: Melania as the First

Lady and Ivanka as a business woman and involved into politics too. In his speeches

there are about 7 stories from his personal life with a political subtext.

Stories connected to his family are stated below:

(153) And she (Ivanka) left the company. And when you leave a company,

all of a sudden it doesn’t do as well. But she left the company, came

to Washington and she said 500,000 jobs. That was her goal.

And she did that in the first month. She actually did… She’s now

over 15 million jobs where they train people and bring

them into the companies. [tru-10]

(154) For her incredible service to our nation and its children, I want to thank

our magnificent first lady. I also want to thank my amazing daughter

Ivanka for introduction, and to all of my children. [tur-14]

In the Donald Trump corpora there are placed stories describing his business

background. The amount is not high, only 7 stories, however, they are used strategically

because they serve as a support of the ethical argument according to the persuasive

strategy. He uses his own reputation by describing himself as a businessman.

This tactics serves to support his possible future reputation of the president.

78

Thus, he convinces the audience by comparing leading the state to leading his firms.

These stories are present in the following examples:

(155) I have made billions of dollars in business making deals – now I’m going

to make our country rich. [tur-03]

(156) I built an extraordinary business on relationships and deals that benefit

all parties involved, always. My goal is always again to bring people

together. [tru-01]

A lot of Donald Trump's stories begin with: I’ve travelled, I’ve visited, I’ve met,

etc. Moreover, Donald Trump supports his credibility as to some serious topics

connected to criminality, he uses the stories of people, who were involved

into crimes, who were killed, murdered, as for example Sarah Root who was killed

by a border-crossed, or a young man who was murdered by a criminal alien,

a 92-year-old woman who was raped, beaten, brutalized, and murdered by an illegal

alien, etc. These stories are present in the following examples:

(157) One of incredible Americans was Detective Miosotis Familia. She was part

of a team of American heroes called the NZPD, or New York’s finest,

who I was very proud to get their endorsement just the other day. . . Three

years ago on the Fourth of July weekend, Detective Familia was on duty

in her vehicle when she was ambushed just after midnight

and murdered. . . two years ago, I stood in front of the U.S. Capitol

alongside those beautiful children and held their grandmother´s hand

as they mourned their terrible loss. [tru-14]

Apart from drastic stories Donald Trump uses stories that have to amuse

the audience that´s why he invites also for his rallies people that have something

in common with sport. He invited Mike Eruzione – a captain of the Vegas Knights,

Kelly Brooks – a daughter of a coach Herb Brooks to talk about her dad. These stories

are present in the following examples:

79

(158) Her dad was an amazing coach. He was a great teacher. He was a great

motivator at times, maybe too much of a motivator. He was demanding.

He was very difficult to play for. But trust me one thing, there never was

a day that we didn’t respect the man and never once was a day

that we didn’t trust him and what he was trying to do. [tru-10]

(159) Kelly Brooks: I’m honoured that this legacy still is alive today

and he would be proud to be here with you all. In my personal opinion,

he would have been a Trump fan. [tru-10]

Donald Trump to support his credibility invites on the stage other political

supporters of him to testify in his favour, such as Lindsey Graham Senator who gave

a compliment to him:

(160) Mr. President, thank you for being the best Commander in Chief

since Ronald Reagan. Thank you for killing the terrorists over there,

so they can’t hurt us over here. [tru-12]

Donald Trump understands well that the stories said by somebody else have

bigger credibility. It is the reason why he read a letter by Mary Ann Mendoza – a mum

that lost her son a police sergeant Brandon Mendoza. This letter defends Trump's idea

of closing the borders plus the same negative opinion about Hillary. Trump begins

the letter with the following words:

(161) Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands,

is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of four

lives in harm’s way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists

to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or, I, she is only

concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs

to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed

against this country. [tru-02]

In speeches [tru-08], [tru-11], [tru-13] Donald Trump shares the stories

of his experience with the media and fake news or hoaxes. He underlines several times

80

what fake news can cause. As a speaker in politics the media take an important part

and every politician should not attack the media.

(162) Our biggest obstacle and their greatest ally actually is the media.

You can believe it. We’ve got stories that are so big and the media

doesn’t pick them up. [tru-08]

(163) They (the media) don’t even like showing the crowd. They only show

my face. They never show the crowd. You know what? The people

can hear the crowd. The people can hear the crowd. They know.

That is not the sound of 200 people. [tru-08]

The analysis shows that Donald Trump has the same motives for sharing

personal experience as Barack Obama. By means of the stories he creates his reputation

as a person who is trustworthy and as the right person to be placed in the presidential

position. Also in Donald Trump's corpora there is a huge amount of the stories

that proves that the ethical appeal is high within the persuasion.

8.1.3 Results

The persuasion works better when the politician manages to describe himself

and have a good image in front of the audience as to his character, professional

background, skills. A good persuader is the one who highlights the nature

of his character so strongly that he persuades the audience about it. To do so,

the persuader uses sentences that emphasize his thoughts, opinions, comprehension

of the other people's problems. He introduces himself via sharing the experience.

If the personal experience is included in the speech, the listeners become accustomed

to know the speaker and they start believing him and are easier persuaded.

In the case of Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's corpora the analysis

proves that both of them use their personal stories to have good images

81

in front of the audience, although the analysis proves that Barack Obama uses

his personal experience in a larger extent than Donald Trump. Barack Obama's corpora

contain about 50 stories and Donald Trump's corpora contain 56 stories, however,

the extent of the Barack Obama's speeches is shorter almost in a half. The stories

of the both politicians work on the personal level, although the personal level in Barack

Obama's is presented in his family life and values. On the other hand, Donald Trump

uncovers his personal political stories. Barack Obama introduces himself as a father,

husband, grandson, community organizer, lawyer, Senator, and politician.

He tries to have a closer approach to his audience and he intends to share

with the audience common problems and struggles that he or his family had

to deal with. He also uses the other people stories in a non-violent and gentle way

to change opinions of his listeners. He puts emphasis on emotions of the audience.

Barack Obama's aim in his stories is to show to the audience that he has a good moral

character and that the audience could trust his judgement because he depicts himself

as an expert in law and a man who has have some experience in politics.

Regarding the use of personal experience as a persuasive strategy, Barack Obama

is successful orator endorsing the humility and calm approach. Donald Trump's stories

are focused on his business success and later on his political activities, especially

on his good results in politics in comparison to previous political parties. Unlike Barack

Obama his stories describe chaos, depict horror scenarios and dangerous world

and make people feel fearful. He depicts himself as capable to defend them and the only

one who can liberate world from the chaos. It is impossible to say which persuasive

strategy is better, although also Donald Trump uses his personal experiences

as a persuasive strategy. Moreover, to emphasize the persuasive aspect, he uses the help

of other speakers and other proofs for supporting his ethical arguments.

82

9. Pathos

Pathos is one of the three modes of persuasion by emotions. By the emotional

appeal politicians might evoke a wide range of emotions and via emotions provoke

the audience to actions. The action that is needed the most is if the politicians

are capable to persuade the audience to vote them. The aim of the speaker

is to get connected with the audience. The persuasive strategies that politicians

are allowed to use to appeal emotionally the audience are strategies like a direct appeal

to the audience and the use of speech acts. Both strategies are the subject

of the following analysis.

9.1 Direct appeal to the audience

For the appeal to the audience politicians use persuasive strategies

that are based on creating a relationship between the orator and the audience.

The politician builds emotional bridges in different ways: 1) by salutations, 2) by usage

of personal pronouns you and your, 3) by interrogative and imperative sentence,

4) by declaratives that are typical for political speeches and within pathos they points

to belief or judgement and evaluate strategies of the predecessors. They fulfil

the function of requests. In this chapter there will be analysed only salutations

and usage of personal pronouns, the other two points will be the subject of the analysis

in the next chapter.

This chapter will be focused on differences of the direct appeal in Barack

Obama's and Donald Trump's speeches, specifically on the use of salutations

and the use of personal pronouns you and your and how both politicians use them

in regards to the persuasion.

83

9.1.1 Barack Obama's direct appeal in his speeches

Barack Obama addresses to his audience by salutations at the beginning

of the speech just to create a contact or during the speech for giving the audience

to know that he speaks to them, he counts with them. Barack Obama addresses

to his voters by salutations such as: fellow Americans; my, fellow Americans;

the American people; fellow Americans, Democrats, Republicans, Independents;

Hello Springfield; Hello, America!; We, the people; thank you, South Carolina;

good people of South Carolina; hello, Indiana – the vocative of the state

where the rally is presented; hello, Chicago!; you guys; folks; to all my fellow

citizens of this great nation, or just my fellow citizens; citizens; to the rock

of my life – Michelle Obama or to the love of my love – the next First Lady,

Michelle Obama, to Mahlia and Sasha (Obama's daughters); America;

Michelle LaVaughn Robinson of the South Side; Madam Chairwoman; delegates;

and to all of you out there. Instead of vocatives he uses also at the beginning

of the speech: Thank you! Thank you very much! to express his gratitude.

It is not the rule that every speech begins with the salutation but also with: today,

tonight, I want to start or by a surprising phrase: what a scene! From the point

of the persuasion he is interested in creating a good atmosphere and the feeling of unity

or belonging. He expresses also a surprise about the amount of the followers

and that he feels that they have the same aim. There are following examples:

(164) Hello, Springfield!...Look at all of you. Look at all of you. Goodness.

Thank you so much. [oba-02]

(165) What a scene! What a crowd! Thank you for Virginia. [oba-09]

(166) My fellow citizens! I stand here today humbled by the task before us,

grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne

by our ancestors. [oba-11]

84

The other strategy of the direct appeal, is the use of personal pronouns

you and your which politicians use to attract attention to some topics or in fact just

to gain the attention of the audience. When having the attention of the listeners

a politician can create an emotional response in the audience and thus, the audience

is willing to adopt a particular belief presented by the orator. You can see

in the examples quoted below how Barack Obama catches the listener´s attention:

(167) This campaign is about you – about your hopes, about your dreams,

about your struggles, about securing your portion of the American Dream.

[oba-06]

(168) I’m hopeful because of you. [oba-12]

(169) And whether I earned your vote or not, I have listened to you.

I have learned from you. [oba-13]

(170) I’ve rejoiced with you and mourned with you, what I have also seen,

more than anything, is what is right with America. [oba-14]

(171) You made me a better president, and you made me a better man. [oba-15]

The politician uses the persuasive strategy to make listener to believe

that what the orator says is meant to be like that and the audience is pushed

to be emotionally connected to the orator and also incite to an action, as shown below:

(172) That is why I am in this race – not just to hold an office, but to gather

with you to transform a nation. [oba-02]

(173) Now it’s up to you, Indiana. You can decide whether we’re going to travel

the same worn path. [oba-05]

(174) I know you didn’t do this just to win an election and I know you didn’t do

it for me. You did it because you understand the enormity of the task

that lies ahead. [oba-10]

(175) I’m asking you to choose that future. I’m asking you to rally around

a set of goals for your country. [oba-12]

85

(176) I’m asking you to believe. Not in my ability to bring

about change – but in yours. [oba-15]

In the previous examples Barack Obama encourages the audience to change

their thinking, to be active in politics and especially in their decision who to vote.

The analysis of the direct appeal to the audience in the Barack

Obama's speeches shows that Barack Obama appeals to the audience by salutations

directly or just by thanks to be on the stage at the beginning of the speech. If the second

possibility happens he demonstrates his efforts to address the audience in the course

of the speech.

The analysis of personal pronouns you and your in the Barack Obama's corpora

shows that in some speeches [oba-02], [oba-08], [oba-12], [oba-13], [oba-14]

and [oba-15] the involvement of this type of appeal is high and except of the speech

[oba-12] the appeals using personal pronouns you and your are to be found

at the beginning, in the middle and at the end of the speech. It means that speeches

[oba-02], [oba-08], [oba-12], [oba-13], [oba-14] and [oba-15] because of their high

involvement of the pronouns you and your have the persuasive potential

as to emotional appeal higher than the other speeches. In these speeches the orator

evokes emotions by the usage of you and your and from the persuasive point

by these arguments based on pathos Barack Obama can influence or change political

behaviour of his listeners. The lower involvement of the appeal by means of pronouns

you and your is in the speeches [oba-01], [oba-03], [oba-04] and it means

that he does not control the emotions or guide the emotions so much, so the persuasive

potential of these speeches as to pathos will be considered as lower. In the speech

[oba-09] these appeals are at the beginning and at the end of the speech,

they are and completely missing in the middle and the situation is vice versa

in the speech [oba-10] where direct appeals in the form of pronouns you and your

can be found in the middle part of the speech. As a result of the analysis Barack Obama

does not use this form of the appeal equally in his speeches.

86

9.1.2 Donald Trump's direct appeal in his speeches

Donald Trump addresses to his voters by salutations such as: hello, folks;

my friends; fellow Americans; fellas; very special people; all people of the world;

delegates and distinguished guests; we, the citizens of America; warriors;

Rudy, really a friend to me; thank you, everybody; brave people; boy, oh, boy, oh, boy

– he called his politician's friend Reince, a good man; ladies and gentlemen.

In his speeches Donald Trump addresses the audience also with: hello, Manchester;

hello, Las Vegas; so we begin, Oklahoma. He salutes the audience to create a contact

and emotional response with the audience. There are following examples:

(177) Friends, delegates and fellow Americans: I humbly and gratefully accept

your nomination for the presidency of the United States. [tru-02]

(178) Hello, Manchester, I am thrilled to be in the great state of Hampshire

what thousands of hard working patriots, who believe in God, family

and country. [tru-09]

(179) Well, thank you very much. And hello, Las Vegas. Great to be with you.

[tru-10]

As well as Barack Obama also Donald Trump uses as a form of salutations

names of cities where the rally takes place. Sometimes the beginning of the speech

is with thanks to the audience. He uses also informal type of salutations, such as fellas,

folks, and friends.

Donald Trump uses as a form of salutations also nicknames for his opponents:

like “sleepy” Joe for Joe Biden, crooked Hillary for Hillary Clinton, Mini Mike for Mike

Bloomberg (Mayor of New York City), Pocahontas for Elizabeth Warren (Senator

of Massachusettes), “crazy” Bernie for Bernie Sanders and Bootedgeegde for Pete

Buttugieg (Mayor of South Bend), Trump calls him also like Howdy Doody or he refers

him to a fictitious character Alfred E. Newman, “Mister impeachment” for Tom Steyer

(Democratic nominee for president in 2020). The nicknames are both humorous

87

and offensive. His speeches thanks to his comedian talent are both ironic

and humorous, moreover with rhetorical “zingers” is capable to catch the audience's

attention. It is known that trying to use humour or present speech with jokes helps

to catch attention of the audience and guide their emotions in the directions

that are needed for the orator. On the other side, Donald Trump throws out insults

to his rivals and he mocks of the other candidates, which in some cases

is not appropriate but again his arguments based on pathos permit him to create

an emotional response of the audience and to attach them to the topic of the speech.

The other strategy that this analysis explores is the use of personal pronouns

you and your in the direct appeal. As it was written in Barack Obama's part

also Donald Trump tries to attract attention of the audience to some topics and incite

them to some actions on the basis of effecting their emotions. Using you and your

pronouns serves for creating a connection between the orator and the audience.

You can see it in the examples below where Donald Trump tries to catch the attention

of the audience:

(180) I’m with you: the American people. [tru-02]

(181) Tonight, I will share with you my plan of action for America. [tru-03]

(182) I say these words to you. [tru-04]

(183) That all changes starting right here and right now – because this is your

moment. It belongs to you. ….This is your day. This is your celebration.

[tru-06]

The listeners gain the feeling that they are unique. The analysis proves

that Donald Trump uses short phrases with pronouns you to attract the listeners.

In the following examples Donald Trump provokes the audience to some actions,

he let them believe that they will be taken care about in future by him,

that they will be important for him after the elections too and that they have a common

aim. See the examples below:

88

(184) I will never let you down – too much work, too many people, blood, sweat

and tears. I’m never going to let you down. I will make you proud

of your party and our movement, and that´s what it is, is a movement.

[tru-01]

(185) I am running for President to end the unfairness and to put you,

the American worker, first. [tru-02]

(186) In this election, you aren’t just voting for a candidate. You’re voting

for which party controls Congress. Very, very big vote. It’s very

close. [tru-08]

(187) If you want to protect your family and your loved ones, you must vote

Republicans in 2020, November. [tru-10]

(188) We’re returning power to you, the American people,

that’s what’s happening. With your help, your devotion, and your drive,

we are going to keep on working, we are going to keep on fighting. [tru-12]

In the speech [tru-01] there was a specific appeal to the audience

that could be interpreted as a warning, although in this context there was a description

of a political situation when the Democrats are in government that after the elections

they do not think about citizens. As I stated before, Donald Trump describes the horror

scenes and in this was he presents the change:

(189) You better hope I’m President. [tru-01]

In some political speeches the speaker expresses the direct appeal by using

humour, as shown in the following example:

(190) I am going to be discussing all of the things that have taken place

with the Clintons. I think you’re going to find it very informative and very,

very interesting. I wonder if the press will want to attend,

who knows. [tru-01]

(191) I’d ask whether or not you think I will someday be on Mt. Rushmore,

but, but here’s the problem. If I did it joking, totally joking, having fun,

89

the fake news media will say, “he believes he should be on Mt. Rushmore.”

So I won’t say it, okay? [tru-07]

The analysis of the direct appeal to the audience in the Donald

Trump's speeches shows some similarities to Barack Obama's speeches as to direct

appeals to the audience by salutations. Politicians are supposed to appeal directly

by a salutation or by thanks at the beginning of the speech. Donald Trump addresses

his listeners during his speech several times.

The analysis of personal pronouns you and your in the Donald Trump's corpora

shows that the speech with the highest involvement of the use of personal pronouns

you and your is the speech [tru-08]. The other speeches with the higher persuasive

potential because of higher presence of the personal pronouns you are [tru-07],

[tru-09], [tru-10], [tru-11], [tru-12], [tru-13] and [tru-15]. The reason why it is so could

be that the length of the speeches [tru-10], [tru-11], [tru-12], [tru-13] is excessive.

Direct appeals expressed by personal pronouns you and your serve for creating

the emotional attachment with the audience. The lower involvement of the appeal

by means of pronouns you and your is in the speeches [tru-02] and [tru-05].

Even though, the occurrence of the direct appeals using pronouns

you and your is proportionate to the length of the speeches.

9.1.3 Results

Both politicians address the audience with the salutations and using personal

pronouns you and your. The salutations are made with the sense of familiarity

when the aim of the speech is highlighting the political programmes and vision

of the government changes, but also with the sense of formality when the speech

is inaugural. While using personal pronouns you and your, they use similar techniques

for involving the audience into the discussion of the topic. The direct engagement

90

with the audience is proportionate. Both politicians use pronouns you and your

more after their first presidential period. The persuasive effect of Donald Trump

speeches is focused on attachment of the audience to the topic. He intends to incite

actions in the audience. The direct appeal of his speeches has also the persuasive effect

that might be classified as making his listeners to believe in the promises presented

at the stage. It is noticed that the usage of pronouns you and your have also the effect

of warning and reminding the audience to have as voters their tasks. The often used

phrase “you know” is used to announce the important information and to point

out that the listeners should concentrate on the passage of the speech.

Barack Obama uses direct appeal to the audience to point out the uniqueness,

exceptionality and magnitude of the voters. Voters being motivated positively by sense

of togetherness could be provoked and persuaded to change their way of thinking.

Both politicians tend to address the audience with the aim to make

their audience more attached to the contents of the speeches and to evoke the emotions

of self-importance, contentment, anxiety, etc. The truth is that when the politicians

manage to evoke these feelings in the listeners, the listeners can be persuaded easily.

9.2 Speech acts

This subchapter is focused on analysis of speech acts in both corpora.

The analysis will indicate some similarities or differences in the occurrence

of interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory speech acts. These acts were chosen

because they provoke the audience to actions and they stir the emotions.

As it is expected, they address the audience directly and that is the reason

why they are close to the direct appeal that was presented in the previous chapter.

Moreover, questions, commands, and exclamations evoke some feelings and cause

some actions in the audience and as we have known emotions are connected to pathos.

91

9.2.1 Speech acts in Barack Obama's speeches

Unexpectedly, interrogative speech acts with personal pronouns you and your

are not present in Barack Obama's corpora. There is only one example of informal

question quoted in the following example:

(192) You know what? [oba-12]

There is a scarce presence of the interrogative speech acts

with we and I in the Barack Obama's corpora, too. In 15 speeches only four examples

are found as you can see below:

(193) Are we serving Shamus as well as he is serving us? [oba-01]

(194) Do we participate in a politics of cynicism or do we participate in a politics

of hope? [oba-01]

(195) The question is not whether the other party will bring about change

in Washington – the question is, will we? [oba-05]

(196) How could I not be after that we’ve achieved together? [oba-14]

Speeches [oba-02], [oba-03], [oba-04], [oba-06], [oba-07], [oba-09], [oba-13]

do not contain an interrogative speech acts. Interrogative speech acts with questions

in a row are involved more in the speeches. Seven speeches out of 15 contain

at least 1 example of questions in a row, namely speech [oba-05], [oba-08], [oba-10],

[oba-11], [oba-12], [oba-14] and [oba-15]. These questions function like philosophical

questions or rhetorical, they do not need to answer, they provoke the listeners to think

about the issue presented, so they have an illusion of a false communication.

I chose these three examples:

(197) How many years – how many decades – have we been talking

about solving our health care crisis? How many Presidents have promised

to end our dependence on foreign oil? How many jobs have gone overseas

in the 70s, and the 80s, and the 90s? [oba-05]

92

(198) Does anyone really believe that a guy who’s spent 70 years on this Earth

showing no regard for working people is suddenly going

to be your champion? Your voice? [oba-14]

(199) And isn’t that part of what so often makes politics dispiriting?

How can elected officials rage about deficits when we propose to spend

money on pre-school for kids, but not when we’re cutting taxes

for corporations? How do we excuse ethical lapses in our own party,

but pounce when the other party does the same thing? [oba-15]

Imperative speech acts with verbs such as look, understand, recall, forget,

trust, etc. serve to the politicians to make the audience to think, or to stop to think

about the words of the politician or to pay attention that there will be an important

piece of information. The persuasive function is to engage the audience to use

their intellectual capacity. Below there are a few selected examples:

(200) Look, we have made some progress already. [oba-02]

(201) So understand this, South Carolina. [oba-03]

(202) Don’t ever forget that we have a choice in this country – that we can choose

not to be divided. [oba-06]

(203) Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism

not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring

convictions. [oba-11]

(204) Trust me, I know. [oba-14]

Then to the other group of imperative speech acts belong the imperatives

whose task is to make the audience to act or to change their manners. The imperative

speech acts encourage the audience to do or not to do something. Below there are

a few selected examples:

(205) Let’s get to work. [oba-02]

(206) Don’t tell me, we can´t change. [oba-03]

(207) Don’t boo – vote! [oba-14]

93

(208) Just ask the 20 million more people who have health care today. [oba-14]

(209) Embrace the joyous task! [oba-15]

Exclamatory speech acts are not highly involved into the Barack

Obama's corpora. Together, there are only 20 exclamations in 15 speeches.

In the peroration, there is found Yes, we can!, or God bless you and (may) God bless

the United States of America!, or its variety God bless these United States!

The exclamatory speech acts have a rhetorical and emotive force. Their main persuasive

effect is to emphasize the main electoral messages or slogans and to evoke the feelings

such as fighting for a better future or some changes in the society that could improve

the lifestyle of the citizens, simply they encourage to some actions mainly

for the political participants to keep the political programmes and their followers

to be acquainted with the ideas of the candidates, and to encourage citizens to change

their attitudes and to create a better future. The exclamatory speech acts are present

in the following examples:

(210) The audacity of hope! [oba-01]

(211) Yes we can reclaim that dream! Yes we can heal this nation! [oba-04]

(212) All this we can do! And all this we will do! [oba-11]

Instead of interrogative, imperative and exclamatory speech acts Barack Obama

uses declarative sentences with the pronouns we and they. He uses inclusive we,

he does not use pronoun I very often and in speeches [oba-01], [oba-02], and [oba-03]

at all. The we pronoun covers we as a nation, Barack Obama tries to be close

to the citizens and to express his understanding, but also we functions

as an encouragement. As it is known declarative sentences lower the potential

of emotional appeals but in the case of political speeches, they can be also persuasive.

Declaratives indicating pathos reveal as persuasive because they point to belief

or judgement about something, or as a hidden request. The declarative sentences

with we are present in the following examples:

94

(213) We cannot afford to keep doing what we’ve been doing. We owe our

children a better future. [oba-07]

(214) We have real anxieties about paying the bills, and protecting our kids,

caring for a sick parent. [oba-14]

(215) We are moving forward, America. [oba-12]

The second usage of we in Barack Obama's speeches is for expressing

the political unity within the democratic political party, their common ideas

about governing the country. The persuasive effects of declaratives might be seen

also in presenting an evaluative opinion, in predictions, or expectations.

These declarative sentences with we are present in the following examples:

(216) We Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress

in this country. [oba-08]

(217) To those who would tear this world down - we will defeat you.

To those who seek peace and security – we support you. [oba-10]

Politicians often use pronoun they as a reference for the opponents,

in case of Barack Obama as a reference for Republicans or much often as a reference

for people in general, which is really interesting. The declarative sentences

with they which refers to people as shown in the following examples:

(218) They (people) know we can do better. And they want that choice. [oba-01]

(219) They can’t afford another four years without good schools.

They can’t afford another four years without decent wages

because our leaders couldn’t come together and get it done. [oba-03]

Declaratives indicating pathos reveal as persuasive when they criticize

and blame and in fact they show the audience the differences between the political

party they follow and the opposite party. The declarative sentences

with they which refers to political opponents or the Republicans as shown

in the following examples:

95

(220) They (politicians in Washington) think they own this government,

but we’re here today to take it back. [oba-02]

(221) They didn’t have much to say about how they’d make it right. They want

your vote, but they don’t want you to know their plan. [oba-12]

The analysis of the speech acts proves that imperatives are the most used.

Surprisingly the interrogative speech acts are used scarcely. On the whole,

Barack Obama does not rely on the speech acts in his speeches, moreover

some speeches [oba-02], [oba-03], [oba-04], [oba-06], [oba-07], [oba-09] and [oba-13]

do not contain all three speech acts, the speeches miss interrogatives though.

To sum it up, with so low involvement of speech acts expressed by interrogative,

imperative and exclamatory sentences in the Barack Obama's corpora it is advised

to conclude that the persuasive potential of the speeches as to this strategy will be low.

Barack Obama uses declarative sentences in his speeches and they in general, lower

the potential of the emotional appeal to the audience.

9.2.2 Speech acts in Donald Trump's speeches

The analysis proves that in the corpora there is found a number of interrogative

speech acts that use personal pronouns you and your to appeal directly to the audience

and to evoke the emotions. Examples:

(222) Can you believe we have to do that? [tru-07]

(223) Can you imagine if they had to cover mini Mike? [tru-10]

(224) Do you see how many crooked ballots are being found and turned back

in and fraudulent? [tru-15]

In the corpora of Donald Trump it is visible his effort to be close to the audience

that he does not use auxiliary verbs in the interrogative speech acts. There is a high

involvement of the colloquial questions as you can see in the examples:

96

(225) And you know what? [tru-08]

(226) You ever see what happens? [tru-09]

In Donald Trump's political speeches there are also interrogative speech acts

with the use of pronouns we and I. The interrogatory speech acts with the personal

pronoun I Donald Trump uses scarcely, and if so, it is in the question tag. The following

examples present the inclusive use of pronoun we:

(227) After four years of Hillary Clinton, what do we have? [tru-03]

(228) How are we serving these American victims by attacking law enforcement

officers? [tru-04]

(229) Are we allowed to tell them who we would like them to vote for? [tru-11]

(230) I guess I’m good at getting things approved, aren’t I? [tru-11]

There are also several occurrences of question tags by which the politician

Donald Trump asks for affirmation, as in the following examples:

(231) So what’s happening, you do know who is paying for the wall, don’t you?

[tru-09]

(232) All I can say is that the fake news just doesn’t get it, do they? [tru-11]

There is also high occurrence of the questions with right, and the alternative

to the version with ok instead of the word right, as you can see in the following

examples:

(233) We won by a lot, right? [tru-09]

(234) You know about the death tax, right? [tru-12]

(235) Many of whom are not exactly what we are looking for, ok? [tru-12]

In the corpus of Donald Trump speeches, there are also several occurrences

of series of more questions in a row. In speeches [tru-09], [tru-10] and [tru-11]

there are three examples of questions in a row per speech. They are present

in the following examples:

(236) Aren’t you tired of a system that gets rich at your expense? Aren’t you tired

of big media, big businesses, and big donors rigging the system to keep

97

your voice from being heard? Are you ready for a change? Are you ready

for leadership that puts you the American people, first? That puts

your country first? [tru-04]

(237) What’s wrong with having the strongest military brand new in the world?

What’s wrong with having these great economic numbers? What’s wrong

with having to close it down? [tru-13]

In the corpus of Donald Trump speeches, there are found also several questions

that do not have a personal pronoun still with a potential of emotional appeal.

They are present in the following examples:

(238) Is there any place that’s more fun, more exciting and safer than a Trump

rally? [tru-07]

(239) Unemployment for Americans without high school diplomas has reached

the lowest rate ever recorded. Isn’t that beautiful? [tru-08]

(240) Was that the worst debate in history? [tru-12]

Imperative speech acts in the corpus of Donald Trump speeches can be divided

into two groups as well as in the corpus of Barack Obama's speeches. Firstly,

the imperative speech acts that make the listeners to think, to imagine or to use brain

skills, as it is presented in the following examples:

(241) Imagine how many lives could have been saved, all across this country,

if Democratic politicians hadn’t blocked in their cities what Rudy

did in New York City! [tru-04]

(242) Illegal immigration costs Nevada taxpayers, think of it, more than $1.6

billion every year! [tru-10]

(243) Listen, we have the best unemployment numbers in the history

of our country. [tru-10]

(244) Remember, they also said, „if you build the wall you’ll lose the Hispanic

vote.” [tru-10]

98

The other group of imperative speech acts involves the imperatives that make

the audience to act or to change their manners. Donald Trump gives them or a piece

of advice or a warning, it is a strong recommendation. It might be concluded

that Donald Trump's imperatives are more explicit. He uses forceful expressions

and that is why his imperative speech acts are coercive. Below there are a few selected

examples:

(245) Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge

can match the heart and fight and spirit of America. [tru-06]

(246) Don’t move. Don´t sell your house. Don’t sell your house. Remember,

I got a lot of credit. [tru-07]

(247) Vote for me, what the hell do you have to lose? [tru-07]

Every speech contains at least one exclamatory speech act except the speech

[tru-05]. The speeches [tru-06], [tru-07], [tru-08], [tru-11], [tru-12], and [tru-15]

contain at least two or three exclamations. They have a function of political slogans.

Below there are a few selected examples:

(248) We will bring back our jobs! We will bring back our borders! We will bring

back our wealth! And we will bring back our dreams! [tru-06]

(249) We are the party of equal opportunity for all Americans! [tru-09]

(250) Keep America great! [tru-10]

Like in Barack Obama's speeches the usage of declarative speech acts lowers

the emotional appeal to the audience and reduces the persuasive potential

of the pathos. Donald Trump uses more we in the declarative speech acts

where we is referring to the participants of the Republicans and this serves to express

the political programmes to the audience and to show them the unity

of the Republicans. Donald Trump's declarative speeches indicating pathos

within the persuasion have the effect of provoking the feelings of contentment,

expectation, belongings. Below there are a few selected examples:

(251) We’re going to start bringing back our jobs! [tru-07]

99

(252) We proudly welcome and embrace voters of all parties and political

persuasions who want to join our mission! [tru-09]

(253) We have all the love, we have all the enthusiasm, and we know

what we’re doing. We know what we’re doing. So we´re thrilled

to be joined tonight by many really great, terrific, brilliant, wonderful

warriors. [tru-12]

The analysis of the speech acts proves that Donald Trump uses interrogatory

speech acts the most. Not only that he uses different types of questions but he also uses

informal questions. All three speech acts are not present equally in the speeches,

mainly speeches [tru-02], [tru-05] and [tru-06] do not contain interrogatory speech

acts. Even though, the occurrence of the interrogatory speech acts equals

¾ in comparison to ¼ of imperative and ¼ of exclamatory speech acts.

On the one hand, the high occurrence of the interrogatory speech acts confirms

that the persuasive potential of the speeches is also high. On the other hand,

the questions with personal pronoun I are not used, there are a few exceptions.

The most typical question is the question with the pronoun you. To conclude,

there is a high involvement of the speech acts expressed by interrogative ones

so the speeches stir the emotions in the audience. Like Barack Obama also Donald

Trump uses declarative sentences in his speeches with the wide range of the pronoun

we and as in the case of Barack Obama's speeches also here the declaratives reduce

the value of the emotional appeal to the audience.

9.2.3 Results

The analysis of the corpora shows that both politicians use different amount

of the speech acts. Moreover, the proportion of the speech acts differs. In the case

of Barack Obama the speech acts are more balanced, although the most preferred

100

speech acts are imperatives, then exclamatory speech act, and the orator does not put

impact on the usage of questions. In the Donald Trump's speeches the proportion

is less balanced, the interrogatives tend to be used with a high involvement,

even 3 times more. Thus, the speeches can result with higher emotional appeal

and their potential of persuasion is increased.

In the corpora of Barack Obama's speeches there is a low occurrence

of interrogative speech acts. Moreover, the speaker prefers questions in a row

that function like philosophical questions with the aim to provoke the listeners to think

about the issue presented, so they have an illusion of a false communication.

Unlike Barack Obama, in the corpora of Donald Trump's speeches there is an extensive

amount of interrogative speech acts with the most common question in a form

of pronoun you and questions in a row and with a higher potential via emotional

appeals to create the importance in the audience to consider the issue and to adopt

an attitude. There is higher probability to persuade the audience with these questions.

The analysis of imperative speech acts reveals that Barack Obama's speeches

contain imperative speech acts that make the audience to think, or to show

the directions to pay attention to the highlighted pieces of information.

Their persuasive function is in encouraging the audience to some acts. They serve

as requests. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's imperative speeches occur in the corpora

in a lower amount, they are meant to be a forceful recommendation or strong advice

to act in a demanded way, thus their force is coercive. For both politicians

the imperative speech acts are taken as direct forms of persuasion with explicit

instructions what to do.

The analysis of exclamatory speech acts proves that the use of them in both

corpora is similar as to amount. The main purpose of the exclamatory speech acts

is to get acquainted with the electoral programs, to present slogans, and to encourage

citizens to change their attitudes and to create a better future.

101

In the corpora of Donald Trump's speeches the emotions are more influenced by

speech acts, the appeals of Donald Trump are stronger, so they have higher persuasive

potential.

102

Conclusion

The aim of the thesis was to provide a contribution to political persuasion

of two presidential candidates. The thesis investigated Barack Obama's and Donald

Trump's presidential electoral speeches using a contrastive analysis with a focus

on persuasive strategies according to three classical rhetoric Aristotelian concepts

logos, ethos, and pathos. In the theoretical part I explained the term of persuasion

in the first chapter. The second chapter was dedicated to rhetoric founded by a Greek

philosopher Aristotle in 4th century B. C. who introduced the rhetorical triangle: logos,

ethos, and pathos. The third chapter inquired into the language of politics connected

with persuasion and highlighted the features typical for a political communication

whose main aim is the presentation of the reasonable arguments. In the chapter four,

which I consider as the core part of the thesis, there were presented persuasive

strategies that politicians use for their persuasive speeches to persuade the audience.

In this chapter I tried to mention a detailed description of the strategies

that use persuasion by reason – logos, by character – ethos, and by emotions – pathos,

and I classified their typical features and means of the appeals. In the subchapters

I dealt with main supportive sources for the persuasive appeals. In the analysis I used

namely these strategies appropriate for revealing the three Aristotelian appeals

and to be discussed in the practical part: intertextuality, figurative language

within logos, within ethos I chose sharing the personal experience, and within pathos

I focused on direct appeal to the listeners and speech acts.

As I mentioned above, in the practical part I used a contrastive analysis

of Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's political speeches. The data were compiled

into two corpora that were found on the internet and their selection was conditioned

by the speeches that were prepared by these two politicians for the presidential

candidacy. In both corpora there are 15 political speeches – presidential speeches.

103

The aim of the analysis was to study selected persuasive strategies

in the corpora of presidential speeches and to compare the use of their persuasive

strategies in Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's speeches. In the analysis

the speeches were studied from the point of intertextuality, figurative language, sharing

personal experience of the presidential candidates, direct appeal to their audience,

and the use of speech acts, specifically on the interrogative, imperative,

and exclamatory speech acts. There persuasive strategies were analysed with regard

to logos, ethos and pathos, and their persuasive potential was discussed in every part

of the analysis. The results of the individual strategies in Barack Obama's and Donald

Trump's speeches were then compared and contrasted in the final evaluation of every

part.

The results of the analysis show that Barack Obama's speeches in some parts

contain stronger persuasive potential than Donald Trump's and vice versa.

The intertextuality part and sharing personal experience is highly developed in Barack

Obama corpora. Barack Obama refers to the other sources with a high intention

and he finds the sources for his arguments in juridical, political, historical, literary

documents, including some factual statistics. The references of the other sources raise

the trustfulness of Barack Obama and make the logos part of the speeches

highly-developed and these references serve for creating the unity among the citizens

and have a motivational effect. His references via statistics and figures support

his political programme ideas and contribute to trustworthiness of his logical appeal.

In Barack Obama corpora personal stories are involved in a huge amount

in comparison to Donald Trump's and their goal to gain credibility for the politician

is accomplished on a high level together with the emotional appeal to the audience.

Even though the analysis shows that the direct appeals of Barack Obama

are not in a larger extent, they have a strong effect on the audience

because of the familiar salutations, usage of personal pronouns you and your

for involving the audience into the political topic. The direct appeals are engaged

104

in a proportionate mode and he uses interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory speech

acts to the audience to point out their uniqueness, exceptionality and magnitude

as the voters. His speech acts effect their emotions and fulfil his persuasive intentions.

At the point of direct appeal Donald Trump's speeches have the similar function

and extension in the corpora. Moreover, his usage of pronouns you and your

have also the effect of warning and reminding the audience to have as voters their

tasks, and with his intention to incite actions in the audience the direct appeals are

classified as one with strong persuasive effect.

In some parts Donald Trump's speeches are more persuasive, especially

in speech acts. Speech acts in Donald Trump corpora are more extended than in Barack

Obama corpora, specifically in interrogative speech acts with the aim to stir emotions.

The analysis showed that Donald Trump puts more interest into the pathos appeal,

and there is higher probability to persuade the audience. Additionally, Donald Trump's

imperative speech acts have a persuasive potential and they are classified as coercive.

The focus was to investigate that Barack Obama's as well as Donald Trump

corpora used metaphors to intensify their opinions on the issues and in the same way

to goad the audience into changing the attitudes towards the issues. They handled

the process of using these persuasive devices to the maximum and managed

to de-legitimize some political entities and legitimize their goals. The corpora of both

orators prove that Barack Obama's speeches are focused on figurative

language in the form of conceptual metaphors more than Donald Trump's

and that is why they are supposed to have the persuasive potential higher,

although as well as in the Donald Trump's speeches this persuasive appeal to reason

is covered.

To sum up, both politicians balanced the three Aristotelian appeals

in their speeches. However, their approach to persuasive strategies differs.

The difference is caused by the character of the presidential candidates,

by their professional background and family values that could be seen in ethos part

105

the best. Both of the corpora confirms that the ethos part is interlinked and conveyed

with the personal stories as the most important part and with the stories the politicians

uncover their personality, character and they intend to be considered as credible

and trustworthy speakers and experts who are competent to carry out the function

of the president. If they gain the sympathy, if they convince the audience and evoke

the emotions in them, then they can build on the logical appeal.

These findings indicate that the logos and ethos is more convincing in Barack

Obama corpora while pathos is more convincing in Donald Trump corpora.

106

Bibliography

Sources of Barack Obama's electoral speeches

[oba-01]: Obama, B. (2004). Democratic National Convention Keynote Address (July

27th, 2004). Retrieved from

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2004/barackobama2

004dnc.htm

[oba-02]: Obama, B. (2007). Official Announcement of Candidacy for US President

(February 10th, 2007). Retrieved from

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobamacandidacyforpresid

ent.htm

[oba-03]: Obama, B. (2008). South Carolina Democratic Primary Victory Speech

(January 26th, 2008). Retrieved from

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barackobama/barackobamasout

hcarolinavictory.htm

[oba-04]: Obama, B. (2008). Potomac Primary Night (February 12th, 2008). Retrieved

from https://obamaspeeches.com/E03-Barack-Obama-Potomac-Primary-

Night-Madison-WI-February12-2008.htm

[oba-05]: Obama, B. (2008). Pennsylvania Primary Night Evansville (April 22nd, 2008).

Retrieved from https://obamaspeeches.com/E07-Barack-Obama-Pennsylvania-

Primary-Night-Evansville-Indiana-April-22-2008.htm

[oba-06]: Obama, B. (2008). North Carolina Primary Night Raleigh, NC (May 6th,

2008). Retrieved from https://obamaspeeches.com/E08-Barack-Obama-

North-Carolina-Primary-Night-Raleigh-NC-May-6-2008.htm

[oba-07]: Obama, B. (2008). Final Primary Night Presumptive Democratic Nominee

Speech (June 3rd, 2008). Retrieved from https://obamaspeeches.com/E09-

107

Barack-Obama-Final-Primary-Night-Presumptive-Democratic-Nominee-

Speech-St-Paul-Minnesota-June-3-2008.htm

[oba-08]: Obama, B. (2008). Democratic National Convention Presidential

Nomination Acceptance (August 28th, 2008). Retrieved from

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2008/barackobama2

008dnc.htm

[oba-09]: Obama, B. (2008). Night Before the Election (November 3rd, 2008).

Retrieved from http://obamaspeeches.com/E-Barack-Obama-Speech-

Manassas-Virginia-Last-Rally-2008-Election.htm

[oba-10]: Obama, B. (2008). Election Night Victory Speech (November 4th, 2008).

Retrieved from http://obamaspeeches.com/E11-Barack-Obama-Election-Night-

Victory-Speech-Grant-Park-Illinois-November-4-2008.htm

[oba-11]: Obama, B. (2009). Inaugural Speech (January 20th, 2009). Retrieved from

https://obamaspeeches.com/P-Obama-Inaugural-Speech-Inauguration.htm

[oba-12]: Obama, B. (2012). Second Democratic Presidential Nomination Acceptance

Speech (September 6th, 2012). Retrieved from

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2012/barackobama20

12dnc.htm

[oba-13]: Obama, B. (2012). Victory Speech (November 7th, 2012). Retrieved from

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/07/barack-obama-speech-full-

text

[oba-14]: Obama, B. (2016). Democratic National Convention Address (July 27th, 2016).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/convention2016/barackobamadn

c2016.htm

[oba-15]: Obama, B. (2017). President Obama´s Farewell Address (January 10th, 2017).

Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/obama-

farewell-address-speech.html

108

Sources of Donald Trump's electoral speeches

[tru-01]: Trump, D. (2016). Subdued Victory Speech After Winning New Jersey (June

7th, 2016). Retrieved from https://time.com/4360872/donald-trump-new-

jersey-victory-speech-transcript/

[tru-02]: Trump, D. (2016). NYC Speech on Stakes of the Election (June 22nd, 2016).

Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/transcript-trump-

speech-on-the-stakes-of-the-election-224654

[tru-03]: Trump, D. (2016). Nomination Acceptance Speech at RNC (July 21st, 2016).

Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/full-transcript-

donald-trump-nomination-acceptance-speech-at-rnc-225974

[tru-04]: Trump, D. (2016). Donald Trump Campaign Speech in Wisconsin (August

17th, 2016). Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/full-text-

donald-trumps-speech-on-227095

[tru-05]: Trump, D. (2016). Victory Speech (November 9th, 2016). Retrieved from

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-victory-

speech/index.html

[tru-06]: Trump, D. (2017). Presidential Inaugural Address (January 20th, 2017).

Retrieved from

https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/donaldtrumpinauguraladdress.ht

m

[tru-07]: Trump, D. (2017). Ohio Rally Speech (July 26th, 2017). Retrieved from

https://time.com/4874161/donald-trump-transcript-youngstown-ohio/

[tru-08]: Trump, D. (2019). President Trump´s Speech at the Evansville Rally

(December 12th, 2019). Retrieved from

https://eu.courierpress.com/story/news/local/2018/09/04/heres-transcript-

president-trumps-speech-evansville-rally/1191281002/

109

[tru-09]: Trump, D. (2020). New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary

(February 11th, 2020). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?468493-

1/president-trump-holds-rally-manchester-hampshire

[tru-10]: Trump, D. (2020). Las Vegas, Nevada Rally (February 21st, 2020). Retrieved

from http://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-las-vegas-nevada-

rally-transcript

[tru-11]: Trump, D. (2020). Charleston, South Carolina Rally (February 28th, 2020).

Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-

charleston-south-carolina-rally-transcript-february-28-2020

[tru-12]: Trump, D. (2020). President Donald Trump Hosts Rally on Eve of Super

Tuesday (March 2nd, 2020). Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/transcript-

editor/shared/7ENBtvcR3naHRD-

GgIJ6N0Tn4qrGFqmdc6CsWfRntSUqW_y4tXAB_GMeCwe_nshx-

wPJ6mu0OIlk1HAFh8LRrwEaapM?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=4033.66

[tru-13]: Trump, D. (2020). Donald Trump Holds a Political Rally in Tulsa, Oklahoma

(June 20th, 2020). Retrieved from

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdudxAZhJKM

[tru-14]: Trump, D. (2020). President Trump´s Republican National Convention

Speech (August 28th, 2020). Retrieved from

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/28/us/politics/trump-rnc-speech-

transcript.html

[tru-15]: Trump, D. (2020). Donald Trump White House Rally Speech (October 10th,

2020). Retrieved from https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-

white-house-rally-speech-transcript-october-10-first-event-since-covid-

diagnosis

110

References

Aristotle. (2006). Rhetoric. Poetics. Trans. S. H. Butcher & W. Rhys Roberts. New

Zork: Barnes&Noble Classics.

Benoit, W. L. (2014 ). Political Election Debates: Informing Voters about Policy and

Character. Plymouth: Lexington Books.

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Browse, S. (2018). Cognitive Rhetoric: The Cognitive Poetics of Political Discourse.

John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper

Collins.

Coulthard, M. (1985). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis. London: Longman Group

UK.

Dillard, J. P., & Shen, L. (2013). The SAGE handbook of persuasion: developments in

theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Dlugan, A. (2010). Ethos, Pathos, Logos: 3 Pillars of Public Speaking. Retrieved from

http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/ethos-pathos-logos/

Garsten, B. (2006). Saving Persuasion: A Defense of Rhetoric and Judgment.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hogan, J. M. (2013). Persuasion in the Rhetorical Tradition. In J. P. Dillard, & L. Shen

(Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and

Practice (2-19). Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/

Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive Power of

Metaphor, Basingstoke: Palgrave - Mackmillan.

Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. New York,

London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

111

Langston, C. A. (2016). How to Use Rhetoric to Get What You Want. [Video file]. TED-

Ed. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/?v=3klMMíBkW50

Leezenberg, M. (2001). Contexts of Metaphor. Oxford: Elsevier Science.

Miller, G. R. (2013). On Being Persuaded: Some Basic Distinctions. In J. P. Dillard & L.

Shen (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Persuasion: Developments in Theory and

Practice (70–81). Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/

Musolff, A. (2016). Political Metaphor Analysis: Discourse and scenarios. London:

Bloomsbury.

Parrott, J. B. (2009). George Lakoff´s New Happiness: Politics after Rationality.

Academic Questions, 22(4), 414-430.

Pattison, O. (2014). Outrage and Engage: A Story of Eminent Domani. Journal of Legal

Studies Education, 31 (1), 55-88.

Pelclová, J., & Lu, W. (2018). Persuasion in Public Discourse: Cognitive and

Functional Perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Perloff, R. M. (2003). The Dynamics of Persuasion. Communication and Attitudes in

the 21st Century. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Perloff, R. M. (2014). The Dynamics of Political Communication. Media and Politics in

a Digital Age. New York, London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

Reynolds, R. A., & Reynolds, J. L. (2002). Evidence. In J. E. Dillard & M. Phau (Eds.),

The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 427-444).

Ross, D. (1995). Aristotle. London: Routledge.

Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2001). The Handbook of Discourse

Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tárnyiková, J. (2002). From Text to Texture: An Introduction to Processing

Strategies. Olomouc: UP.

U.S. Constitution (repealed 1933)

112

Virtanen, T., & Halmari, H. (2005). Persuasion across genres: Emerging perspectives.

In Halmari, H. & Virtanen, T. (Eds.), Persuasion Across Genres: A Linguistic

Approach (3–24). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.

Wróbel, S. (2015). Logos, Ethos, Pathos. Classical Rhetoric Revisited. Polish

Sociological Review, (191), 401–421. Retrieved from

https://search.ebscohost.com/

Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wirz, D. S. (2018). Persuasion through Emotion?. International Journal of

Communication 12 (1114-1138), Switzerland: National Science Foundation.

Appendices

Contents of a CD-ROM enclosed at the back of the thesis.

The CD contains two corpora of political electoral speeches used in the analysis

(in .docx and .pdf format):

- Appendix A: Barack Obama's speeches

- Appendix B: Donald Trump's speeches