7. "Bandwagon". Both representatives use this technique, not extensively but enough to influence the audience. The American president uses “Bandwagon” referencing topics popular not only in the United States but in the Western World in general (a problem of migration, racism, oppression of the minorities etc.), while the Russian president references topics that are more important for the Russians, their history and culture.

8. Repetition. This technique can be found in both speeches, however, due to the fact that President Trump's speech is longer, there are more cases of repetition in his speech. In President Putin's election program there are no cases of repetition, as this technique is commonly used in spoken speech, not written one.

Taking into consideration the information in the table above, a conclusion can be drawn. First and foremost, all of the techniques were used by both parties in their speeches, therefore, it is safe to say that argumentative and persuasive techniques used in speechwriting are universal for these two countries. The distribution of the techniques along the speech differs, however, the fact that all of them were used denotes the similarity between the two speeches and proves the versatility of the argumentative techniques and the globalized manner of speech composition.

Secondly, there can be found a difference that can be explained by national character and culture. In the speech of President Trump, there are more “Appeal to reason” points than in President Putin's speech. This phenomenon demonstrated the cultural influence, as Americans are more straightforward, more individualistic in their choices, therefore, concrete data and information (in this case, on why the candidate should be elected) are more important for them than the emotional aspect of the speech. President Putin's speech, on the contrary, focuses on the “Appeal to emotion” and “Common ground” aspects to showcase similarities between the speaker and the audience, as Russian culture is more collectivistic and socially driven, that is why it is crucial for them to see the candidate as one of them.

Thirdly, it can be noted that President Trump used recent events and modern opinions to support his speech. Culturally speaking, it is an expected move, as an American values quick thinking, understanding of the current situation, modern and innovative solutions, therefore, references of the present-day events showed President Trump in the best possible light in this retrospect. President Putin, on the other hand, gave preference to the events of the past - most of the examples referred to the past glory of the country and its people, old victories and great and complicated history. It can be explained through culture, as it is common in Russia to teach the youth about the past and remind them of the connection they have with the people of Russia, due to the constant confrontation, rivalry and hostility between Russia and countries of the Western block. By referencing past glory, the speaker inspires people to unite and move forward together because that is the way it worked before. To this also speak President Putin's words of not letting others interfere and influence the countries internal politics. The speaker, through a smart wordplay, created a common enemy, shows the public that he recognizes the threat and is willing to tackle it.

The last observation is the difference in the choice of information that is presented in a campaign speech. The American president included in his speech his future agenda, his personal opinions, reasons to turn down other candidates and some emotionally charged parts to show his humanity and understanding of the struggle ordinary people go through. The Russian president did not, however, express his future agenda in such detail in the speech itself - all argumentation is given in such a way to create an emotional response, rather than a thought-through choice of the candidate. Putin's presidential program is posted on the official web-site for his 2012 election campaign (Putin2012.ru) for every person to see, however, in a campaign speech only emotionally charged messages make the cut, because a candidate, who remembers the history, understands the value of unity and inspires by providing historical examples, is more likely to be chosen, as it is in Russian culture to choose with emotion but not the reason.

Conclusion

In our research, we have analyzed the literature on communication theory, the use of argumentative and persuasive techniques and cultural peculiarities of two countries - the United States of America and Russian Federation - and tried to construct a comparative model for the analysis of the public speeches of political representatives from each country. In the empirical part we have conducted a comparative analysis of the speeches on eight criteria, deduced from the analysis of the literature on the use of argumentation and speechwriting: appeal to authority, appeal to reason, appeal to emotion, appeal to trust, common ground, rhetoric question, bandwagon and repetition. Both presidents used all these techniques in their speeches, which shows the versatility of the argumentative techniques throughout cultures; however, there was a slight difference in the proportion of the use of these techniques due to the cultural influence. Our main conclusion is that the structure of an argumentative speech does not vary depending on the culture. This is probably due to the fact that both President Putin and President Trump are used to working with a multicultural audience, therefore, they have adapted their speeches and chose a more universal structure to suit an audience with any type of cultural background. There is, however, a slight difference in the reasoning behind the argumentative points itself - the American president chooses to reference more recent events, while the Russian president mentions historical events. This can be explained through the national character of each president and their audience - the importance of up-to-date information for the American culture and the significance of the past and traditional mindset for the Russian culture.

This method of comparison can be further used in analyzing the difference and similarities in the use of argumentation by a larger group of cultures. For example, later research can focus on the countries of G7 (Group of Seven - the international intergovernmental economic organization that consists of the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom).

References

Bacon, F. (1901) The Advancement of Learning. (Ed. Devey, J.). New York: P.F. Collier and Son.

Bell, V. (1995) Negotiation in the workplace: The view from a political linguist. Oxford.: Pergamon,

Binkley, R.A., Lipson, C.S. (2004) Rhetoric before and after the Greeks. New York: State University of New York Press.

Bizzell, P., Herzberg, B. (2001) The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. Boston, MA: Bedford / St. Martins.

Brockhaus, F.A., Efron, I.A. (1907) The Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. Moscow: Kniga po Trebovaniyu.

Carpenter, F.I. (1898) Leonard Cox and the First English Rhetoric. Modern Language Notes, vol. 13.

Cialdini, R.B. (1984) Influence: the Psychology of Persuasion. New York: HarperCollins Publisher Inc.

Cooley, C.H. (1937) Social Organization. New Jersey: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Craig, R.T. (1999) Communication Theory as a Field. International Communication Association.

Donges, P., Jarren, O. (2002) Politische Kommunikation in der Mediengesellschaft. Eine Einfьhrung. Darmstadt: VS Verlag fьr Sozialwissenschaften.

Eemeren, F. H., Grootendorst R. (1984) Speech Acts in Argumentative Discussions. Dordrecht: Foris Publications

Evtushina, T.A., Kovalskaya N.A. (2014) Economic discourse as an object of linguistic studies. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, vol. 6 (335).

Freese, J.H. (1964) The “Art” of Rhetoric. London: William Hinemann.

Gavra D.P. (2011) Basic theories of Communication. St. Petersburg: Piter.

Gehrke, P.J. (2009) The Ethics and Politics of Speech: Communication and Rhetoric in the Twentieth Century. Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Gnatyuk, O.L. (2017) The Basics of Communication Theory. Moscow: Knorus

Gorbunov A.G. (2013) Discourse as a new linguistic paradigm. Present tasks of pedagogy: Materials of the III International Scientific Conference. URL.: https://moluch.ru/conf/ped/archive/67/3484/ Accessed: 08.04.2020.

Grachev, M.N. (2012) Political Communication: Theory, Methodology and Practice. Moscow: Russian Association of Political Science.

Grьnert, H., Kalivoda, G. (1983) Politisches Sprechen als oppositiver Diskurs: Analyse rhetorisch-argumentativer Strukturen im parlamentarischen. Tьbingen: Narr.

Guzikova, M.O., Fofanova P.U. (2015) The Basic Theories of Intercultural Communication. Ekaterinburg: Publishing House of the Ural University.

Hall, Edward T. (1959) “The Silent Language”. New York: Doubleday.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. and Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Homer (1960) Iliad. Moscow: State Publishing House. (Original work published in 1260-1180 BC)

Hutto, D.L. (2002) Ancient Egyptian Rhetoric in the Old and Middle Kingdoms.

Inzhechik, A.A. (2016) Persuasive function of linguistic means of german political discourse. Molodoi Uchoniy, vol. 9

Issers, O.S. (1999) Communicative strategies and tactics in Russian speech. Omsk: Omsk State University Press.

Kjeldsen, J. E., Kiewe, A., Lund, M., & Hansen, J. B. (2019). Speechwriting in theory and practice. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kluchevskiy, V.O. (2005) Russian History. The Entire Course of Lectures. Moscow: Olma-Press.

Kuzmina, S.V. (2011) Political discourse as a part of political communication. Izvestiya saratovscogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya sociologiya, politologiya, vol. 2.

Manuwald, G. (2007) Cicero: Philippics 3-9. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Oxford Learner's Dictionary [Electronic resource] URL.: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/culture_1?q=culture

Parshina, O.N. (2005) Strategies and tactics of speech behaviour of modern political elite. Saratov: Saratov State University.

Plato (1968) Gorgias. Moscow: Publishing House “Thought”. (Original work published in 380 BC)

Rathmayr, R. (1995) Neue Elemente im russischen politischen Diskurs seit Gorbatschow. Wien: Passagen.

Rozhdestvenskiy, U.V. (1997) Rhetoric theory. Moscow: Dobrosvet.

Schrotta, S., Visotschnig, E. (1982) Neue Wege zur Verstдndigung: Der machtfreie Raum. Hamburg: Zsolnay.

Shannon, C. (1948) A Mathematical Theory of Communication. The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 27.

Shestakov, V.P. (2012) American Culture: Searching for the National Identity. Journal of Cultural Research, vol. 10.

Solovyov, A.I. (2004) Political Communication. Moscow: Aspent Press.

Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1985) Relevance. Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.

Sprat, T. (2016) The History of the Royal Society. (Ed. Engel, W.E.). Tennessee: University of the South. (Original work published in 1667)

Toulmin, S.E. (1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, F.J. (1921) The Frontier in American History. New York: Henry Holt & Co.

Volmert, J. (1989) Politikrede als kommunikatives Handlungsspiel: Ein integriertes Modell zur semantisch-pragmatischen Beschreibung цffentlicher Rede. Mьnchen: Fink.

Wierzbicka, A. (1995) Dictionaries and ideologies: Three examples from Eastern Europe. Tьbingen: Niemeyer.

Yakovlev, I.P. (2006) Keys to Communication. The Basics of Communication Theory. St. Petersburg: Avalon.

Appendix