Intercultural aspects of argumentative reasoning (based on public speeches of american and russian presidents)
Communication theory. The role of argumentation in political discourse. Intercultural aspects of argumentation based on Russian and American national cultures. Research methodology and analysis of public speeches of American and Russian presidents.
| Рубрика | Иностранные языки и языкознание |
| Вид | дипломная работа |
| Язык | английский |
| Дата добавления | 18.07.2020 |
| Размер файла | 182,8 K |
Отправить свою хорошую работу в базу знаний просто. Используйте форму, расположенную ниже
Студенты, аспиранты, молодые ученые, использующие базу знаний в своей учебе и работе, будут вам очень благодарны.
The politician's speech operates with symbols (Rathmayr, 1995), and its success is determined by the extent to which these symbols are consonant with the mass consciousness: the politician must be able to touch the necessary string in this consciousness; statements of a politician should fit into the “universe” of opinions and assessments of his addressees - “consumers” of political discourse. Such a suggestion does not always take a form of a claim, because attracting listeners to the speaker's side does not require logically connected claims or statements. Sometimes it's enough just to make it clear that the position of the speaker is in the interests of the addressee. Protecting these interests, you can still influence emotions, play on a sense of duty, on other moral principles.
According to Horst Grьnert and Gregor Kalivoda, political discourse is only effective when built in accordance with the specific requirements. Speakers usually assume that the addressee knows which belief system they belong to, what role they play, what position they stand for (“affirmation”), what position, which party or opinion (“negation") (Grьnert, Kalivoda 1983). Party membership also indicates the reason for the speech, the plausible outcomes and standpoints of the speaker, emphasize the "representativeness" of the speech, indicating on behalf of which party this opinion is being expressed and avoid the manifestation of personal motives and intentions (Volmert 1989).
While interpreting the political discourse in its entirety, it must be viewed from more than just linguistic points, otherwise, the essence and purpose of the political discourse will go unnoticed. Understanding the political discourse requires knowledge of the background, the expectations of the author and audience, hidden motives, plot schemes and favourite logical transitions that exist in a particular era. Therefore, it should be recognized that a more interesting result can be achieved only by combining both political science literature and political science linguistics, that is, from political science philology (Grьnert, Kalivoda 1983).
Nevertheless, there is a belief that not all political figures follow the same structure in their communication with the people. According to many scientists in the field of intercultural communications and culture differences, depending on the culture the people live in their communication follows different patterns. The way they choose the words to address issues, in which order they are allowed to speak and how much of their own opinion is allowed in the conversation - all of this depends on the cultural background. However, in terms of political discourse, communicative techniques, including argumentative reasoning, is similar from country to country, as, because of the global component in the political sphere, there is a need in unanimity and cohesion.
Modern specialists of speechwriting note this peculiarity and try to follow a certain pattern in creating a speech for a political figure. The first aspect is the beginning of the speech - it has to be clear and attention-grabbing, reveal the main topic and establish the credibility and god will of the speaker right from the start. This step has to be constructed that way to build a relationship between the audience and the presenter in full trust - that way the persuasive aspect of the speech itself will be more influential. The next important point to keep in mind is the topic. It has to have a certain level of correlation with the interests of the audience, be clear and understandable, stay in the same field or sphere (some people tend to get carried away and expand the topic more and more, however, it is counterproductive, as the listener will lose the train of thought and, therefore, interest. The last aspect that has to be properly presented is the ending - final impressions will probably linger for a long time in the minds of the audience, that is why the conclusion has to fulfil two functions: to let the audience know the speech has come to an end and to reinforce in the minds of the listeners the commitment to the central idea of the speech. Jens Kjeldsen, Amos Kiewe, Marie Lund and Jette B. Hansen in their work “Speechwriting in Theory and Practice” call attention to the special importance of the ending in terms of reinforcing the central idea once again - there is a need in a concise summary of the speech itself, a dramatic statement to make the experience more memorable and a reference to the introduction to tie the whole communication act together (Kjeldsen, J.E., Kiewe, A., Lund, M., Barnholdt Hansen, J., 2019). Throughout the entire speech, there must be an abundance of attention-grabbing techniques.
It is worth mentioning that modern specialists of speechwriting are well-equipped with the knowledge of argumentative techniques and are advanced in the art of rhetoric. They are perfectly capable to construct such a speech that will not only be persuasive for a certain type of audience but also will support the public image of the speaker (in our case - a politician) the way it has been intentionally built. These specialists are basing their speeches primarily on Aristotle's theory of loмgos, paмthos and e?thos (also meaning that the construction of an argument has not changed from ancient times) and the use of hidden messages and motives behind the lines of the speech. Those principle of speechwriting are more or less universal, as they are based on the same history and rules of rhetoric, therefore, the speeches of different politics can be compared to see the cultural aspects that stand out.
As for argumentative techniques in political speeches, there are six that are distinguished by Robert Cialdini in his work “Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion” published in 1984 - reciprocity, commitment and consistency, social proof, liking, authority and scarcity. Those are the behavioural triggers that induce automatic and predictable reaction - compliance with the ideas and beliefs that are put onto a person.
The first one - reciprocity - is the idea of giving and taking, the impulse of returning the favour or give the value of the action or an object back. This rule is predominantly too overpowering for people to overcome the dislike for the request. The author specifies that reciprocation rule can also trigger an unfair exchange - after receiving a favour people tend to give back even more than the value they have received in the first place.
Commitment and consistency - the second-mentioned rule of persuasion - is closely connected to our inner morale, values and beliefs. People behave consistently, even in the smallest aspects of their lives, therefore, when we make a decision or a promise, we have to fulfil this obligation, otherwise, the feeling of guilt will appear. This accounts for the fact that, when someone completes the promised task or a favour, they are seen more favourably and get more endorsement from others for their good deeds.
Social proof has a strong connection to the tribal nature of a human being. People take their behavioural cues from the people they are surrounded with, particularly in situations where proper behaviour is vital for social identification. In this case, the key is to notice an opportunity to reinforce peer-to-peer endorsement on time, whether through showing the approval of the others or through quotes. It can also be related to culture - if the argument corresponds with the cultural norms and values, it will most likely be a success.
Liking is a rule that has a strong correlation to our personal preferences. We subconsciously chose to surround us objects according to the way they look. The same goes for people - in order for an argument to be a success, the speaker needs to find a way to make it a desirable visual or something prominent - either it bears similar features to the listener, or is objectively attractive, it has to be an association with something enticing.
The appeal to authority is twofold: there is a certain level of trust in the words of an authoritative figure, therefore, we are likely to follow purely out of the desire to choose something trustworthy; the second side to authority is fear when one will follow due to the lack of another choice. The appeal to authority is the most efficient persuasive technique, as it can be used in any situation - it is easy to fool the audience and appear more powerful or trustworthy that one actually is, all is needed is enough confidence.
The principles of scarcity work because of the desire to attain something unique or unusual. A promise of something exclusive will attract attention and followers, even if it has no real benefit for them.
To conclude, in terms of political discourse and political communication, the language is used with the intention of acquiring and retaining power, which includes an abundance of argumentative techniques. The structure of argumentation in the communication process is well-defined: there has to be a strong argumentation fact-based backing, as explained by Stephen Toulmin (1958), and an understanding of the structure of a persuasive speech itself, as defined by Robert Cialdini (1984). What is more, even though political communication and, therefore, political discourse are relatively new spheres of study, the argumentative part used by speechwriters in the communication itself has not changed since Aristotle's times, as persuasive techniques are still aiming (universally) at satisfying the audience's need for a reason (proof) and authority of the speaker; the only distinctive aspect is the appeal to the emotions of the audience, which can depend on cultural values (different values involve different emotional involvement). It is worth mentioning that modern specialists of speechwriting are using Aristotle's theory of ethos, pathos and logos, meaning that the construction of an argument has not changed from ancient times.
1.4 Intercultural aspects of argumentation based on Russian and American national cultures
The intercultural theory is a special section of the general theory of communication, exploring - in theoretical and practical terms - the communicative interaction of representatives of different cultures. According to Maria Guzikova and Polina Fofanova, representatives of different cultures interacted with each other since the beginning of socialized living of human kind - separate groups were distinguished in humanity, united in tribes, created new and distinguished cultures. The study of other cultures went on throughout the entire historical period of the development of mankind - it was contained in ancient chronicles and diaries of travellers and pilgrims, even thought it was most often unsystematic and, in some cases, partial or episodic.
The first raise in interest in interest in the study of other cultures was the middle of the 16th century during the era of great geographical discoveries. During that time more, people of the old world learned about the existence of a huge number of other, previously undiscovered lands with settlements with their own distinguished cultures, therefore, they began to learn about those cultures and beliefs (Guzikova, Fofanova, 2015). The history of the intercultural communication theory itself began in 1947 in the United States when the US government created the Foreign Service Institute (FSI) to prepare American citizens for service abroad, mainly under the influence of such spheres as business, politics and trade. The Institite hired well-known scientists - anthropologists Edward T. Hall, Ray Birdwistell and linguist George Trader and many others - whose task was to create a new scientific discipline to fulfil such practical tasks, as preparing diplomats, politicians and military specialists for more effective activities abroad. In 1959, Edward T. Hall published the book “The Silent Language”, in which he not only convincingly proved the closest connection between culture and communication but also focused the attention of scientists on the need to study the behavioural subsystems of each culture in particular.
Initially, the classical understanding of culture was “the beliefs and attitudes about something that people in a particular group or organisation share” (Oxford Dictionary, 2020), meaning norms, values, structures and rules facts that make up a national or ethnic culture, mainly meaning the stereotyping in the understanding of representatives of different cultures. Nowadays, the understanding of culture became more dynamic, as it studies a system of norms and values and behavioural patterns of any social group and their way of life and concentrates on the possibilities of changing the cultural system depending on a particular social situation. Because if that shift the manner of communication adjusts, therefore, the argumentative and persuasive techniques change with it.
The process of globalization, including the increased rates of migration, highlights the importance of research on intercultural communication. As a scientific discipline, intercultural communication is only in its early stages of development and has two characteristic features: applied character (the goal is to facilitate communication between representatives of different cultures and, if possible, reduce the possibility of a possibly arising conflict) and interdisciplinarity.
Now we are moving to the parts of this thesis work connected with two particular countries and their cultures - American and Russian. The culture of the United States of America was formed under the influence of the ethnic and racial diversity of the country. A significant influence was exerted by immigrants from countries such as Ireland, Germany, Poland, Italy, descendants of slaves brought from Africa, as well as American Indians and the indigenous inhabitants of the Hawaiian Islands. However, a decisive contribution was made by the culture of immigrants from England, who spread the English language, the legal system and other cultural achievements.
There are certain historical events that are considered to be the most influential for the culture of the modern-day United States. The emergence of American culture was associated with a difficult and long period of exploration of a new continent. Three periods can be distinguished in the cultural history of America, each of them either transformed the culture and personal characteristic of “an American” or added a new spin to the already existing ones (Shestakov, 2012).
The first is the Colonial period. The colonization and the formation of the America signified the formation of new moral and political ideals, ideas about the national identity and of the new American nation. Individual colonies and settlements started to transform and unite as a new, independent state, and it was during this period that the Americans became a single nation with a distinctive national character, political system and an independent language - American English. During the Colonial period, entrepreneurship, practicality, propensity for invention, optimism, full faith in progress, high appreciation of success, initiative, practicality and individualism were the qualities of an American. This historical period was a hard time for the country and its citizens, as they had to build something grand and new with a common cultural ideal and some regard to main European cultures - such as British, German, Irish, French and Spanish - that were the countries-origins for the majority of the newcomers; this accounts for the developments of the characteristics mentioned above. Moreover, this idea was supported by Frederick J. Turner in his work “The Frontier in American History” (1921), where he stated that the U.S. was created by individualistic pioneers with strong desires for exploration and personal growth.
The second period is the period of the formation of American democracy. This historical period is characterized by the creation of the Declaration of Independence, leading to the transformation of colonial America into a democratic state. This period in history encompasses flexibility of character and the desire to be heard. Citizens knew their rights and became more political in their beliefs - the predominant feature of the period was the desire to participate in politics and all other law-making activities.
The third period is associated with the industrialization of the country and the following development of American culture and civilization, the transformation of agrarian America into industrial America with well-developed infrastructure. During this time, the automotive industry was thriving, guaranteeing every American a cheap and affordable car, the purely American style of clothing, entertainment, food, media and advertising became known all over the world. America has become a pioneer of popular culture, which has become the dominant type of culture of the twentieth century in Europe and other countries of the world. At this stage, the national character took the appearance of optimism, stability and security in the following day (Turner, 1921).
All those aspects of American culture are supported by one of the most famous models of culture identification - the “Six Dimensions” model described by Geert Hofstede in his book “Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind” (2010). According to him, representatives of this culture are very individualistic, tend to have less inequality and more respect to each person in spite of their position in society (which shows democratic tendencies in communication and interpersonal relationships), are likely to take risks, care more about satisfying their needs even if it costs them and are likely to care less about the future than the present.
Russian culture is also shaped by its more than a thousand-year-old history. From the year 862 more and more lands and communities with their contrasting value systems were united under the common and undivided governance. The middle position of Russia between Europe and Asia is also considered to be the reason for the combination of signs of eastern and western civilizations in Russian culture, again, two opposite belief systems. A similar idea was voiced by V.O. Klyuchevsky in his work “Russian History” (2005), where he argued that the character of Russian people was shaped by the location of Russia on the border of the forest and prairies - elements that are opposite in all respects.
Such a combination of opposites gave rise to instability, which could at any moment explode in a conflict - the whole Russian culture is based on contradictions, such as collectivism and authoritarianism, universal agreement and despotic arbitrariness, self-government of peasant communities and strict centralization of power associated with the Asian mode of production - which explain constant instability in Russia (Klyuchevsky, 2005). The inconsistency of Russian culture was also generated by a specific mobilization type of development because of the overconcentration of material recourses and human force in conditions of a shortage of necessary resources, which was also the result of immaturity of internal development factors due to a large number of wars, coups and overall turmoil. As a result, the idea of the priority of political development factors over all others was formed, and a contradiction arose between the competence of the population and the tasks of the state. This largely explains the dislike of the Russian people for the state.
Another consequence of the mobilization type of development in Russia was the primacy of a social, communal beginning, which is expressed in the tradition of subordinating personal interest to the tasks of society. This lead to the formation of such features of the national character as the lack of a strong core, led to its ambiguity, binarity, duality, constant desire to combine the incompatible (Asian and European influence, for example). These points formed a specific Russian national character that cannot be unambiguously assessed. Among the positive qualities kindness, sincerity, sympathy, warmth, mercy, generosity, compassion and empathy can be mentioned.
This idea was supported by Hofstede's theory of cultural differences. The distance in communication between the rich and the poor (just as the ruling elite and the rest of the citizens) is grand, people prefer collectivistic communities to the individualistic style of life because they tend to feel comfort and protection of the crowd against the despotism of the state, indicators of “uncertainty avoidance” and “long term orientation” are high, again, influenced by a large number of wars, these indicators show the public desire for stability and progress.
The qualities gained throughout time are kept in the character of a modern-day American and a modern-day Russian and have a significant influence on their behaviour. They also influence the argumentative and persuasive techniques chosen by the representatives of the respective cultures.
In general practice, the structure of argumentation and argumentative speeches or writings is unchanging: it consists of a thesis, an argument and a demonstration. A thesis is a statement that is subject to justification with the help of an argument (a reason) and a demonstration. Arguments are well-known notions that help to increase validity and persuasiveness of the thesis. The demonstration is a logical connection between the thesis and arguments through an example. The nature of the demonstration determines the coercive power of an argument and aims to influence the logical and the emotional side of human consciousness.
In this process, the likeness of cultural backgrounds plays an important role for both parties. Due to the fact that argumentation can differ from culture to culture, as it is dependent on the worldview, ideological and cultural attitudes, the level of education and the specific context of the process of argumentation, the selection of arguments can be quite a creative matter. In the process of argumentation, the speaker realizes themselves as a linguistic personality and demonstrates their communicative and linguistic competence. Their knowledge, emotional state, common sense and value system, as well as social status and social roles, are involved. Argumentation is successful only if its participants form a “unity of minds” (Eemeren, Grootendorst, 1984).
The difference in composing the argumentative speech by representatives of different cultural backgrounds has not been studied properly yet. However, by analysing the common characteristics of a certain culture we can assume the intensity of arguments.
Americans tend to be individualistic, their primary goals are prosperity, success, development and showing initiative, therefore, it is expected of them to fight for their opinion; an American will try and win an argument, persuade the opponent to take their point of view as the right one. They would use examples that show the benefits of choosing their standpoint, some probable gain in finance, career prospects or personal development.
In contrast, a Russian would strive to come to an agreement or find a compromise, as Russians as a culture tend to be more collectivistic: it is more important to preserve the community and protect the common belief and stability in society than to prove a point and express a different opinion. People are less likely to stand out.
Nonetheless, this thesis paper is addresses argumentation in the communicative process in politics, therefore, there can be expected a divergence from the cultural norm. This divergence appeared because the modern political sphere is immensely influenced by the process of globalization, that is why the choice of techniques and the expected outcome from a debate or an argumentative communication process is more universal. In the next chapter of this thesis paper President Trump's and President Putin's campaign speeches and abstracts from President Putin's election campaign will be analysed according to the argumentation techniques, rhetoric theories and cultural distinctiveness to outline the similarities and differences and prove or deny the presence of common argumentative structures.
2. Research methodology and analysis of public speeches of American and Russian presidents
Based on the previous research, we have taken Aristotle's theory on lуgos, кthos and pathos and the basic principles of using logical (credible), emotional and ethical proof in an argument, Yakovlev's theory on the necessity of common dominator and Cialdini's classification of argumentative techniques used in public speeches on one hand, and Eemeren and Grootendorst's idea about the importance of the “unity of minds”, the theories on cultural diversifications and the influence of the common cultural background on the perception of argumentation on the other hand to create our parameters for the analysis of President Trump's and President Putin's campaign speeches. We have identified eight persuasive techniques to be our parameters, including those that illustrate the representation of the culture as an amplifier for an argument. They are:
1. Appeal to authority. Taking its root in the theory if the importance of кthos in public speeches, the appeal to authority increases the credibility and qualification of the speaker by stating their high rank.
2. Appeal to reason. It stems from Aristotle's logos and requires the support of factual data and logic in the constructed speech for it to be believable.
3. Appeal to emotion. This technique originated from Aristotle's theory of pбthos and its importance in persuasion; tricking people into developing positive emotions is a crucial skill that the speaker has to acquire to maximize the influence of the persuasive and argumentative techniques and to improve the overall response.
4. Appeal to trust. Building trust is an important step in terms of persuasion, as the higher people's belief in the speaker is, the more likely they are to persuade the audience. The level of trust primarily depends on the interpersonal connections build on common culture, rather than on personal preferences.
5. Common ground. One of the most used techniques in modern politics, as people are more likely to put their trust in a person they believe to be “just as any other guy”, to whom they can relate and whose experience they can find similar to what they are used to.
6. Rhetorical question. These questions are intended to be answered in the way the speaker wants, as they are constructed to lead the listener in a certain direction and to a specific answer. They are a way to state the “obvious”.
7. “Bandwagon”. In this case, the speaker will reference a recent event that affected the community, a popular topic of discussion or emphasize the popularity of the method, belief, way of life or any other aspect they promote, and people will believe them, because, as social creatures, we tend to follow the lead of the society and fear to stand out.
8. Repetition. All information that is presented in a certain repeating pattern will have a higher chance of being remembered.
Another important aspect is the selection of the right speeches to compare. It was imperative for the speeches to be compatible in its purpose, status and the scale of the event itself, therefore, President Trump's campaign speech of 18 August 2016 in Charlotte, North Carolina, and President Putin's campaign speech of 23 February 2012 at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow were chosen. The size of the analyzed data had to be equal, therefore, we have also taken into account President Putin's election campaign from the website Putin2012.ru. Both these speeches are campaign speeches for the first term of the presidency (for President Putin it was not the first presidential campaign ever, but it was his first one after the break) that were presented in front of a massive live audience.
In the following table, we will indicate, if these persuasive techniques were used by the respective parties at all and see if they differ from each other or not.
1. Appeal to authority. In our case, both presidents used this technique to reinforce their claim equally, making concise but prominent references to authority. However, the appeal itself differs, as President Trump reinforces his own authority and, therefore, the weight of his opinion and argumentation, while President Putin mentions one of Russia's famous poets.
|
President Trump's speech |
· “I have worked in business, creating jobs and rebuilding neighborhoods my entire adult life.” - Trump lists his qualifications and previous experience to showcase his knowledge and skill of creating and sustaining business that supports and patrons citizens of the US. |
|
|
President Putin's speech and written election program. |
· “И Есенина будем помнить” (tr.: “And we will remember Esenin”) - one of the prominent Russian poets and a small abstract from his work is mentioned to, first of all, show the intelligence of the speaker, second of all, to show the connection that the speaker, the audience and the poet share. |
|
|
Comparison |
President Trump chose to reference his personal experience and qualifications, the achievements in business, whereas President Putin referenced the words of a poet. This signifies the importance of factual information and physical evidence for the American culture and spirituality and immaterial possessions for Russian culture. |
2. Appeal to reason. This technique is the most used by both presidents. President Trump and President Putin reference political and social spheres, national safety and immigration laws, economy and financial aid, healthcare, education and help for families with children. However, when President Trump presents all these points in his speech, President Putin placed the majority of his future agenda as the new president in his election campaign on his website. Another difference is the fact that President Trump repeatedly provides evidence to criticize his main opponent, while President Putin does not reference any of the other candidates.
|
President Trump's speech |
· “I laid out my plan to bring jobs back to our country… […] I laid out my plan to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism… […] I talked about how we are going to restore law and order…” - Trump states his agenda and a course of action that will be taken if he is elected. · “I will not rest until children of every color in this country are fully included in the American Dream. Jobs, safety, opportunity. Fair and equal representation. This is what I promise to African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and all Americans.” - another list of reasons to choose him. · “I am running: to end the decades of bitter failure and to offer the American people a new future of honesty, justice and opportunity.” - he provides, once again, a list of reasons to be elected as the president. · “We are going to put the American people first again.” - the promise of a better life for the American people. · “She never tells the truth… […] President Obama lied about the $400 million dollars in cash that was flown to Iran… […] Bill Clinton put China into the World Trade Organization - another Hillary Clinton-backed deal… […] the Wall Street investors are throwing their money all over Hillary Clinton because they know she will make sure the system stays rigged… […]” - in this case, the reasoning in the speech moves to all the reasons other candidates and predecessors are not worthy of being elected. · “We are going to end the era of nation-building and, instead, focus on destroying ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism… […] We're going to get rid of regulations that send jobs overseas […] make it easier for young Americans to get the credit they need [...] to repeal and replace the disaster called ObamaCare […] I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information… […] going to forbid senior officials from trading favors for cash… ” - a straightforward declaration that states the plan for further work if Trump is elected. · “Our open border has allowed drugs and crime and gangs to pour into our communities.” - this statement is used to point out the dysfunctional governance that needs to be tackled and improved for the better. |
|
|
President Putin's speech and written election program. |
· “Мы не допустим, чтобы кто-то вмешивался в наши внутренние дела, не допустим, чтобы кто-нибудь навязывал нам свою волю, потому что у нас с вами есть своя воля” (tr.: “We will not let others interfere in our internal affairs, we will not let others impose their will on us, because we have our own will”) - a promise to take action in protecting domestic politics. · “Несправедливость, мздоимство, хамство чиновников, это бедность и неравенство…” (tr.: “Injustice, misappropriation, impertinence of the bureaucrats, it is poverty and inequality…”) - the list of problems that will be tackled if Putin is elected. · “Приоритетом государственной политики является ускоренное развитие отраслей, определяющих качество жизни людей, прежде всего, образования, здравоохранения, жилищно-коммунального хозяйства, социального обеспечения. […] Мы наведём порядок в жилищно-коммунальном хозяйстве. […] Мы вернём российскому образованию лидирующие в мире позиции. […] Будут разработаны чёткие правила оказания медицинской помощи… […] Государство будет поддерживать крупные инфраструктурные проекты. […] Приоритет - транспортным и инфраструктурным проектам в регионах Сибири и Дальнего Востока. Не менее важное направление - местная дорожная сеть.” (tr.: “The priority of state policy is the accelerated development of industries that determine the quality of life of people, primarily education, healthcare, housing and communal services, social security. [...] We will put things in order in the housing and communal services. [...] We will return the leading positions in the world to Russian education. [...] Clear rules for the provision of medical care will be developed so that patients are aware of the responsibilities of doctors and medical... […] The state will support large infrastructure projects. [...] Priority - transport and infrastructure projects in the regions of Siberia and the Far East. An equally important area is the local road network.”) - a list of spheres and problems that will be improved if Putin is elected. · “Наши населённые пункты мы сделаем благоприятными для жизни инвалидов. […] Будем расширять сеть центров реабилитации для детей-инвалидов…” (tr.: “We will make our settlements favorable for the lives of people with disabilities. [...] We will expand the network of rehabilitation centers for children with disabilities…”) - a promise to take care of the disabled, which attracts the vote of this social group. · “Будущая российская экономика должна отвечать потребностям общества. […] обеспечить более высокие трудовые доходы, более интересную, творческую работу и создавать широкие возможности профессионального роста, формировать социальные лифты. […] Мы намерены увеличить финансирование науки, усилить помощь малому инновационному бизнесу и прорывным проектам, прежде всего за счёт наращивания спроса на инновационную продукцию.” (tr.: “The future Russian economy must meet the needs of society. It should provide higher labor incomes, more interesting, creative work and create ample opportunities for professional growth, shape social elevators. [...] We need a massive investment growth. [...] We intend to increase funding for science, to strengthen assistance to small innovative businesses and breakthrough projects, primarily due to increasing demand for innovative products.”) - a promise to create economically stable society with opportunities and means for every citizen. · “Мы обеспечим подотчётность власти обществу… […] Все государственные и муниципальные услуги будут предоставляться людям в соответствии со стандартом нового поколения… […] Плохо работающий чиновник должен быть не просто уволен, а на несколько лет лишён права быть государственным или муниципальным служащим.” (tr.: “We will ensure that the authorities are held accountable by the community for which they work. All state and municipal services will be provided to people in accordance with the new generation standard... [...] A poorly working official should not only be fired but deprived of the right to be a state or municipal employee for several years.”) - an intention to tackle misappropriation in the field of municipal work. · “Мы будем налаживать тесные связи с другими странами, расширять своё экономическое и культурное влияние в мире. […] Необходимо на порядок повысить качество миграционной политики государства. Нелегальная иммиграция должна быть минимизирована…” (tr.: “We will establish close ties with other countries, expand our economic and cultural influence in the world. […] It is necessary to improve the quality of the state's migration policy by an order of magnitude. Illegal immigration should be minimized...”) - there an intend to work on foreign politics and to tackle the problems correlated to migration policies is stated. · “Мы проведём глубокую модернизацию Вооружённых сил… […] Боеспособность армии и флота будет расти […] благодаря повышению качества подготовки военнослужащих, использованию современных технологий.” (tr.: “We will carry out a deep modernization of the Armed Forces… […] The combat effectiveness of the army and navy will grow […] due to an increase in the quality of training of military personnel and the use of modern technologies.”) - here the desire to further develop and reinforce the Armed Forces is stated, which give the people an impression that under the guidance and rule of this candidate the country will be safe from any foreign intervention. |
|
|
Comparison |
President Trump stresses the topic of safety - financial, physical, the safety of choice - in his speech and uses an abundance of arguments., listing them one by one to achieve an escalating effect. President Putin, on the contrary, builds his argumentation around trust - he uses stereotypes to create a contrast between himself and his rivals by using negative associations of fraudulent bureaucrats and binding them to the opposition; he also promises to protect national and cultural identity from interference from the “enemies” of the state who threaten to undermine it and reinforces the idea of traditional family (financial aid for families with children). |
3. Appeal to emotion. Both representatives use this technique in their speeches. In President Putin's speech (and written election program) there can be found more examples of this technique than in President Trump's speech. More to this point, the American president uses this technique at the very beginning, very and the middle of his speech, while the Russian president uses the appeal to emotion throughout his speech.
|
President Trump's speech |
· “Our prayers are with the families who have lost loved ones in Louisiana…” - references to religion and prayers signify strong emotion, therefore, it shows care and involvement in the situation and invokes sympathy from the audience. · I speak on behalf of the factory worker who lost his or her job… […] of the Veteran who has been denied the medical care they need… […] of the family living near the border that deserves to be safe in their own country...” - shows speakers empathy to the less fortunate. · “I've embraced the crying parents who've lost their children to violence spilling across our border. Parents like Laura Wilkerson and Michelle Root and Sabine Durden and Jamiel Shaw whose children were killed by illegal immigrants… […] Kate Steinle killed - she was gunned down by an illegal immigrant…”- the mention of killed children and their grieving parents urges the audience to sympathize with them and the speaker for thinking about this situation as worth to mention. · “Young people are destroyed before they even start. We are going to work closely with African-American parents and children.” - mentioning underrepresented social groups, especially the youth, positively influences the opinion about the speaker. |
|
|
President Putin's speech and written election program. |
· “Мы хотим, чтобы у нас было больше детей в России, чтобы они были здоровы, чтобы получали хорошее образование, а потом и достойную работу.” (tr.: “We want to have more children in Russia, for them to be healthy, to be well-educated, and later have a good job.”) - a reference to traditional national values - family, children, education, regular job - something that the majority desires. · “Нам нужно победить и преодолеть большое количество проблем, которых у нас, собственно говоря, как и везде, хватает.” (tr.: “We have to defeat and overcome a large number of problems, which we have, in fact, as elsewhere, in abundance.”) - a reference to the need to unite against other countries that desire to overpower and defeat us, to the problems inside the country (poverty, inequality, misappropriation, boorishness). · “… я мечтаю о том, чтобы каждый человек в нашей стране, и большой начальник, и рядовой гражданин, жили по совести. […] чтобы в душе каждого человека была надежда, надежда на лучшую долю и на счастье. […] чтобы все мы были счастливы, каждый из нас.” (tr.: “… I dream that every person in our country, a big chef and a fellow citizen, lives an honest live. […] that there is hope in a soul of every person, a hope for a better life and for happiness. […] for all of us to be happy, each and every one of us.”) - wishful thinking about the “better life” that Russian people may get if Putin is elected. · “Мы помним эти слова еще с детства, со школы, помним этих воинов, которые перед битвой за Москву клялись в верности отечеству…” (tr.: “We remember these words from our childhood, from our school years, remember the soldiers who swore loyalty to the Fatherland before the battle for Moscow… ”) - a reference to World War II as a bitter-sweet memory and an experience that we all share to invoke strong feelings and make an unconscious correlation between a strong emotional reaction and Putin. · “Мы создадим современные условия для жизни на селе. Важно, чтобы молодёжь смогла реализовать себя, занимаясь делом, которому посвятили жизнь их отцы и деды.” (tr.: “We will create modern conditions for living in the countryside. It is important that young people be able to realize themselves by doing the work to which their fathers and grandfathers dedicated their lives.”) - this is a reference to national and personal history, which attracts attention and invokes positive emotions (towards one's family) and ties this feeling to Putin himself, his campaign and his public image. |
|
|
Comparison |
In this case, both representatives use a fair amount of “appeal to emotion” technique, however, in the context of the entirety of two speeches, President Putin's speech relies much more on this technique that President Trump's speech. The only difference is in the message behind it - for American culture, it is the emotional response to the more recent events (natural disasters, terrorism etc.) and for Russian culture, it is the strong memory of the past events. |
4. Appeal to trust. Both representatives use this technique to strengthen the influence of the argumentation on the audience in the same amount. The message behind it, however, is different, as the American president asks the audience to put the trust in him personally, while the Russian president reinforces the idea of him and the audience being a team in which they both should believe.
|
President Trump's speech |
· “Fourteen months ago, I declared my campaign for the Presidency… […] I've worked to repay the loyalty and the faith that you have put in me. […] This isn't just the fight of my life, it's the fight of our lives… […] I refuse to let another generation of American children be excluded from the American Dream.” - the trust is built by showing the improvement and the fulfilled promises that were made prior. · “I will never put personal profit before national security. I will never leave our border open to appease donors and special interests. I will never support a trade deal that kills American jobs. I will never put the special interests before the national interest. I will never put a donor before a voter, or a lobbyist before a citizen.”- this use of the construction “I will” sounds like an oath to the people of American, therefore, urges the people to put trust into this candidate. · “We will use military, cyber, and financial warfare and work with any partner in the world and the Middle East that shares our goal in defeating terrorism.” - again, the use of “I will” strengthens the intend. |
|
|
President Putin's speech and written election program. |
· “… мы просим всех не заглядывать за бугор, не бегать налево, на сторону, и не изменять своей Родине. А быть вместе с нами, работать на нее и на ее народ, и любить ее так, как мы, всем сердцем.” (tr.: “… we are asking you all to not look behind the border, not to betray your homeland. But stay with us, work for it and its people, and love it, just like we do, with your whole heart.”) - they (Putin and his team) place their trust in us as a society to stay true to Russia and fulfil the promises and duties people owe to their country. On the other hand, they, as citizens, are committed to doing the same. · “Мы не позволим низкопробным продуктам массовой культуры калечить нравственное и психическое здоровье наших детей… […] будем поддерживать создание и продвижение качественных отечественных программ и передач.” (tr.: “We will not allow low-grade products of mass culture to cripple the moral and mental health of our children… […] we will support the creation and promotion of high-quality domestic programs and programs.”) - this is a promise of cultural growth that will be possible only by supporting Putin's presidency claim. · “Борьба с коррупцией должна стать подлинно общенациональным делом… […] Демократия должна иметь механизмы прямого действия, постоянного участия граждан в политике и управлении, эффективные каналы диалога, общественного контроля, коммуникаций и «обратной связи».[…] Общество будет успешным, только когда у наших граждан не будет сомнений в его справедливости.” (tr.: ““The fight against corruption should become a truly nationwide affair… [...] Democracy should have mechanisms of direct action, continuous participation of citizens in politics and governance, effective channels of dialogue, public control, communications and “feedback.” […] Society will be successful only when our citizens have no doubt about its justice.”) - these statements have a feel of personal promise to create a fair system of governance, and, taking into account Russia's problem with corruption, the one people want to her form the candidate, which creates trust and sympathy. |
|
|
Comparison |
In both speeches the audience is asked to put trust in the speaker and their future actions; all shows future agenda. However, when President Trump askes to trust in him personally, President Putin asks listeners to trust in them together, as a group, therefore, creating a unified image in the listeners' heads. |
5. Common ground. This technique is used more by President Putin than by President Trump. What is more, it can be found primarily in his speech rather than written presidential election program, which attracts attention, as President Trump's speech is three times as long and yet has two times less “common ground” techniques in it.
|
President Trump's speech |
· “We are one country, one people, and we will have together one great future.” - points out the common dominator - same citizenship, the same interest in the country's well-being and future development. · “Our campaign is about representing the great majority of Americans - Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives and Liberals…” - the mentions of major political affiliations and common activities, once again, erase the line between the speaker and the audience. |
|
|
President Putin's speech and written election program. |
· “Дорогие друзья” (tr.: “Dear friends”) - used to create a meaningful connection between the speaker and the audience. · “… 23 февраля, в День защитника отечества…” (tr.: “February 23rd, the Defender of the Fatherland Day…”) - the Defender of the Fatherland Day is mentioned as a tribute to the protectors and armed forces of Russia and a common celebration they all share. · “Мы с вами народ-победитель. Это у нас в генах… […] передается у нас из поколения в поколение. Мы и сейчас победим …” (tr.: “We are victorious people. It is in our genes… […] It is passed on from generation to generation.”) - a reference to the victorious past of Russia needed to emphasize the strength that comes from unity. It is used as a straightforward invitation to unite once again, but also as a reminder of a great force Russian people can be. By using this reference Putin makes the audience like and respect him, as they like and respect themselves because of his words. · “… опираясь на талант нашего народа, на нашу великую историю, которая написана потом и кровью наших предков.” (tr.: “based on the talent of our people, on our great history, written with sweat and blood of our ancestors.”) - another reference to the great history to signify similar background and experience. |
|
|
Comparison |
The reference to common ground is much more noticeable (used more often) by President Putin. He also brings up events from the past, rather than recent ones, whereas President Trump refers to present-day America and its daily life. |
6. Rhetoric question. This technique is used more by the American president than the Russian president due to the shortness of President Putin's speech and the lack of such a technique in his written election program.
...Подобные документы
Identification of the main features of a subject in the sentence which is based on theoretical and scientific works of Russian, English, American and Romanian authors. Research of a subject and its features in works of the American and English fiction.
курсовая работа [59,5 K], добавлен 05.05.2011Historical background, basic standards. A Brief Account of American Education: Differences and Similarities. American School from the Point of View of Russian Teenagers. What American Students think their Educational System. Alumni’s Experience.
реферат [23,1 K], добавлен 22.11.2010Loan-words of English origin in Russian Language. Original Russian vocabulary. Borrowings in Russian language, assimilation of new words, stresses in loan-words. Loan words in English language. Periods of Russian words penetration into English language.
курсовая работа [55,4 K], добавлен 16.04.2011The study of political discourse. Political discourse: representation and transformation. Syntax, translation, and truth. Modern rhetorical studies. Aspects of a communication science, historical building, the social theory and political science.
лекция [35,9 K], добавлен 18.05.2011Wedding traditions, ceremony in Great Britain and the USA. Similarities and differences between British, American and Russian wedding, British and American ceremonies and find out what parts of ceremonies are going from long-ago and what is new in them.
курсовая работа [39,1 K], добавлен 15.02.2011American Culture is a massive, variegated topic. The land, people and language. Regional linguistic and cultural diversity. Social Relationships, the Communicative Style and the Language, Social Relationships. Rules for Behavior in Public Places.
реферат [35,1 K], добавлен 03.04.2011Russian Revolution and its influence on communist party of Australia. Association of communist organization of Australia and United States of America. Activity of the American students. Activity of group of commissions on a maintainance and access.
эссе [39,2 K], добавлен 23.06.2010The development of American English pronunciation. English changes in which most North American dialects do not participate. Eastern and Southern American English. Australian speech as a subject to debate. Long and short vowels. Canadian pronunciation.
реферат [62,2 K], добавлен 14.05.2011The literary and art bohemia sharply opposing to weight, singularity and sharpness of experiences. The magic, spiritism and theosophy for works of art. The statement on a boundary of centuries. The role in the "Silver age" of Russian symbolists.
реферат [16,3 K], добавлен 24.11.2010A conservative-protective or right-monarchist as one of the most influential trends in Russia's socio-political movement of the early XX century. "Russian assembly", "Russian Monarchist Party, the Union of Russian people" and "Union of Russian People".
реферат [12,0 K], добавлен 14.10.2009Governmental theory - one of important and perspective directions of modern political ideas. Political sphere from complete. The political phenomena are in structures, prevailing over paradigms in connection with the complex of the public phenomena.
реферат [24,3 K], добавлен 22.11.2010Basic approaches to the study of the English language. Intercultural communication and computerization of education. The use of technical means for intensification of the educational process. The use of video and Internet resources in the classroom.
курсовая работа [333,1 K], добавлен 02.07.2014In spite of being exclusively regional phenomenon, Double Modals are significant and commonly acknowledged realia of Modern American English. Like the other multiword modals they are taking their own function in human communication processes.
реферат [25,1 K], добавлен 31.05.2008The peculiarities of American history in the early XX century. The novel by Dreiser "An American tragedy" - mirrors the bourgeois American society. Dreiser’s Biography. The Roaring Twenties. Clyde’s Character and Love Story, Aspirations for High Society.
курсовая работа [23,7 K], добавлен 01.02.2012Lexical and grammatical differences between American English and British English. Sound system, voiced and unvoiced consonants, the American R. Americans are Ruining English. American English is very corrupting. A language that doesn’t change is dead.
дипломная работа [52,2 K], добавлен 21.07.2009Public choice is an application of neoclassical economic tools. James Buchanan the developer of the Theory of the Public choice. The most important contribution of Public Choice Theory is that it recognizes that politicians are motivated by self interest.
презентация [273,0 K], добавлен 03.04.2012Business relationships in American business: fair play, sober business experience and good will, confidence in the company, the ratio of own and partner's reputation, and women in business. Psychology businessman - an exaggerated public friendliness.
презентация [1,2 M], добавлен 24.09.2012Moscow is the capital of Russia, is a cultural center. There are the things that symbolize Russia. Russian’s clothes. The Russian character. Russia - huge ethnic and social mixture. The Russian museum in St. Petersburg. The collection of Russian art.
реферат [12,0 K], добавлен 06.10.2008About basic education in the USA today. Public, private schools in the USA. Course content and teaching methods in educating students. Early childhood education, elementary school and high school. Criticism of American education, problems and solutions.
реферат [22,5 K], добавлен 26.11.2010The history of football. Specific features of English football lexis and its influence on Russian: the peculiarities of Russian loan-words. The origin of the Russian football positions’ names. The formation of the English football clubs’ nicknames.
курсовая работа [31,8 K], добавлен 18.12.2011
