The dimension of presidential discourse: genre and linguo-rhetoric aspect

Размещено на http://www.Allbest.Ru/

Hryhorii Skovoroda University in Pereiaslav

Department of foreign philology, translation and teaching methodology

The dimension of presidential discourse: genre and linguo-rhetoric aspect

V. Savchuk, instructor

Annotation

Electoral rhetoric is aimed at persuasion and mobilization of the electorate, characterized by a high level of a gonality, manifested in the use of pejorative and invective lexical units. Administrative speeches are oriented towards reporting, expressing emotions, and demonstrating leadership qualities. The analysis of speeches demonstrates the use of various rhetorical and stylistic devices to enhance emotional impact and persuade the audience.

The main genres of presidential rhetoric include epideictic and agonistic speeches, each with its own characteristics and functions. Epideictic speeches are typically used in ceremonial contexts, have a low level of formality, and an integrative orientation. Agonistic speeches, common in pre-election debates, are marked by high levels of agitation, argumentativeness, and informativeness.

The study also reveals the use of topoi such as achievements, fear, justice, and democracy, which help justify actions and emotionally engage the audience. Each topos in the text serves its functional purpose, enhancing the arguments' effectiveness through the application of various linguistic devices that emphasize importance, provide emotional coloring, and increase credibility. Rhetorical devices such as interruptions, rhetorical questions, personal attacks, and hyperbole are employed to enhance the competitive nature of debates and assert dominance in the discourse. Thus, the analysis confirms that presidential rhetoric adapts to specific situations and communicative goals, utilizing a wide range of linguistic and rhetorical means to achieve its objectives, whether it is mobilizing support during elections or addressing the nation in times of crisis.

Key words: presidential discourse, language means, stylistic devices, types of speeches, topoi, communication

Анотація

Виміри президентського дискурсу: жанровий і лінгво-риторичний аспект

В. Савчук, викладач кафедри іноземної філології, перекладу та методики навчання, Університет Григорія Сковороди в Переяславі

У статті здійснюється детальний аналіз ситуаційно-контекстуальних вимірів президентської риторики, зосереджуючи увагу на виборчий та адміністративний періоди. Дослідження розглядає жанрові та комунікативні цілі президентських промов, підкреслюючи їхню залежність від конкретних комунікативних ситуацій.

Ключові слова: президентський дискурс, мовні засоби, стилістичні засоби, типи промов, топоси, комунікація

Statement of the Problem

Presidential discourse is a significant component of the political communication process, influencing public opinion, political decisions, and international relations. Taking into account its importance, the study of presidential discourse in terms of genre and linguo-rhetorical aspects is particularly relevant as examining the aspects contributes to a deeper understanding of the mechanisms by which language means impact the audience and helps develop effective political communication strategies. This, in turn, is crucial for both scientific research and practical tasks in political communication.

Analysis of Recent Research and Publications. Presidential discourse, as a means of interaction between a leader and society, becomes the subject of meticulous study from several key perspectives where numerous scholars have dedicated their research to analyzing the impact of presidential speeches on public opinion and the formation of sociocultural values. In this regard, it is J. Walton's contributions which are of great significance. His research gives a framework for understanding how leaders shape and guide societal views through their discourse [15].

A comprehensive examination of how political leaders use language to shape public perception and influence its values is provided by N. Fairclough [4]. To understand the impact of presidential discourse on a country's language policy S. Jaworska delves into the interplay of power and language in political contexts, shedding light on how language policies are influenced and shaped by presidential rhetoric [8].

Also, it is strategic aspects of presidential discourse which are widely explored, revealing how political tactics are employed to achieve strategic objectives. In this context, the contributions of T. van Dijk are essential. The author investigates the interaction between language and power in political discourse, offering valuable insights into the mechanisms political leaders use to assert authority and control [14].

Examining the cultural aspects of presidential discourse reveals how political speeches reflect the cultural and identity-related dimensions of a country. One of the key works in this area [16] explores how political figures construct identity through linguistic strategies, demonstrating the deep connection between political rhetoric and cultural identity, while other important studies unveil such significant aspects of political discourse analysis as genre characteristics of presidential speeches [13], stylistic devices and rhetorical strategies used in these speeches [9], and their impact on shaping public narratives [2].

Overall, the study of presidential discourse encompasses a rich and diverse field of inquiry, integrating perspectives on public opinion, strategic communication, language policy, leadership influence, and cultural identity. These scholarly contributions collectively enhance our understanding of the profound role that presidential speeches play in shaping political landscapes and societal norms.

However, despite the significant interest in this topic, some aspects remain underexplored. Specifically, there is a lack of a systematic approach to analyzing the linguo-rhetorical characteristics of presidential discourse in different socio-cultural and political contexts.

The aim of the article is to fill these gaps by providing a comprehensive analysis of the genre and linguo-rhetorical characteristics of presidential discourse, examining the genre features of presidential speech texts and identifying leading and differentiating characteristics of presidential addresses which most fully reflect the institutional properties of this sphere of political communication. The task of the study is to investigate the specific language means and rhetorical devices used in presidential speeches and their impact on the audience.

Presentation of the results

One of the primary forms of presidential discourse is the public speech, which is understood as an unlimited in volume, structured expression with an inherent unity of communicative purpose, relative autosemanticity, and explicitness of linguistic means at all levels of language organization [14; 13]. At the same time, the concept of a public speech acquires an isomorphic character due to the diversity of texts it encompasses, a significant portion of which belongs to the genre of presidential addresses. This is evident even from the list of well-known varieties such as the inaugural address, special address to Congress, address to the nation, annual presidential address to Congress, acceptance speeches at the national convention, addresses on special occasions, farewell addresses etc.

Considering the assertion that speeches of this type are communicative acts oriented toward listeners who are not directly subordinate to the speaker and contain a detailed argumentative call to perform a socially significant action [5, p. 295], it is appropriate to consider practically any public speech intended to attract listeners' attention as an address. Consequently, it is natural that there is a range of multi-level features for differentiating such speeches: semantic content, stylistic structure, type of addressee, spatio-temporal conditions of communication, circumstances, and topic of the speech, etc. Unfortunately, the large number and diverse nature of these features significantly complicate the practical identification of texts related to the genre of addresses. Therefore, considering the general understanding of the above concept, it seems reasonable to examine the stratification features of the genre diversity of presidential speeches.

Analysis of sources [3; 5; 13] indicates the existence of a significant body of data on this issue. Foreign authors differentiate genres associated with established forms of the political system (party programs, debates, political documents, etc.), those mediated by the media (press conferences, talk shows, advertisements, etc.), and those related to the sphere of public activity (meetings with citizens, political forums) [5, p. 294]. R. Wodak examines two axes of pragmatic orientations of speech texts, distinguishing between two broad domains: the sphere of action, where public opinion is formed and the politician's self-presentation (press conferences, interviews, talk shows, etc.), and the sphere of control (declarations, decrees, etc.) [16, p. 211].

Research on the genre peculiarities of political communication in recent decades [2; 5; 8] is quite naturally based on the differentiation of genres in three basic dimensions: epideictic (ritual), orientational, and agonistic, depending on the intensity of the main intention of political communication, namely the struggle for power, most fully realized during election campaigns. Other intentions, such as the realization, maintenance, or redistribution of power, are subordinate to it and are manifested by the necessity to support the existing system of relations, effectively exercise power, or maintain their place in this system.

These considerations naturally reflect the two situational-contextual dimensions of presidential discourse: electoral and administrative. The former is aimed at creating a basis for persuasion and inducement, while the latter is characterized by a rhetorical nature, where the dominance of appeals gives way to reporting or expressions of joy, sorrow, etc. The starting point for the functioning of public speeches during the administrative period is considered to be the president's demonstration of their leadership qualities [3, p. 137].

The review of sources allows us to affirm the appropriateness of understanding the genre palette of presidential speeches as a form of organizing a speech act and the corresponding speech creation by a figure of authority, characterized primarily by certain communicative goals and organized according to a specific communicative situation. Moreover, we can note their direct connection with the vector of increasing agonality, understood in terms of speech activity as a mode of communication under conditions of competitive struggle between two sides.

Its features are reflected in the linguistic organization of the speech, such as a direct correlation with the increase in the share of lexical units with pejorative, invective, and similar semantics, and in the motivational-activity aspect, with the speaker's verbal behavior focused on the desire to gain electoral advantage [9, p. 415]. Correspondingly, the weakening or complete negation of agonality leads to the manifestation of compromise rhetoric, constructive proposals, analysis, evaluation, and guidelines for problem solving, increasing the share of epideictic and deliberative rhetoric features, often presented as a synthesized unity of both. Hence, the illocutionary goal of presidential addresses during the administrative period should be considered the act of persuasion through the description of the state of affairs in the country, issues, or events using representative and directive speech acts characteristic of orientation genres.

It is known that the basis of an epideictic speech is a ceremonial event where the combination of reflections on the past and future of the nation against the backdrop of the present is intended to honor and commemorate a particular event [Hundarenko], resulting in a lack of novelty of the message and minimizing the share of polemical statements. This generally endows them with the status of a means of verbalizing national consciousness through the realization of universal cognitive-pragmatic attitudes expressed in the dominance of concepts such as life, prosperity, dignity, morality, family, patriotism, and tolerance. Unlike agonistic speeches, where the dominant functions are recognized as agitational-motivational and influential, characterized by electoral orientation and drawing attention to existing events, which are embodied in informational-prescriptive and regulatory functions in orientation genre speeches, their specific function is integrative as a means of establishing a unified national, conceptual and value identity [11, p. 162]. A low level of formality is also noted, associated with appealing to the emotional sphere of listeners and their value orientations. Thus, the features of ritual genres include integrative orientation, low informativity (phatic function), and ritualization. Further consideration of this issue [6] revealed their inherent inspirational, declarative, and retrospective nature.

The prototype of agonistic speeches is traditionally considered to be pre-election debates, whose constitutive features include high levels of agitation, driven by the need to influence the direct audience; apologia of the speaker's image and negativization of the opponent's image as a manifestation of confrontation; informativeness necessary to provide adequate information about the candidate; argumentativeness expressed in the deliberate and carefully presented content of the pre-election process with its significant manipulative potential. The most significant features are persuasiveness and argumentativeness.

These features are sufficiently traced in the nature and types of topoi referred to conventional ideas or arguments that can be used to develop persuasive or effective speeches. The analysis of the pre-election debates between Joseph Biden and Donald Trump has revealed their nomenclature.

One of the most common is the topos of achievements used to justify the legitimacy of actions and decisions. For instance, the phrase «We won the election. Elections have consequences» [1] emphasizes the importance of elections and underscores that winning grants the right to make certain decisions. To reinforce this argument, repetition is used to highlight the significance of the election, while a rhetorical question invokes internal agreement from the listener.

Two examples below illustrate the topos of fear. The fragment «He wants to get rid of the Affordable Care Act which will strip 20 million people from having health insurance» [1] with hyperbole exaggerates the severity of the situation and creates a sense of danger. Additionally, statistics are employed to provide specific numbers, enhancing the credibility of the argument. Another example, «200000 dead. As you said over seven million infected in the United States» [1] underscores the importance of health and the catastrophic consequences for society. Here, statistics are again used to quantify the scale of the problem, while emotional appeals evoke sympathy and concern.

The topos of justice points to societal injustice and discrimination, particularly towards certain ethnic groups. For instance, the phrase «African Americans are super-predators and they've never forgotten it» [1] employs epithets to emotionally intensify the impact, while historical references remind listeners of past events, enhancing the argument's relevance. Another good example of how important these ideas for the U.S. voters are, we can see in the phrase «The people of this country want and demand law and order» [1]. On the one hand, it quite obviously stresses the necessity of maintaining public order and legality, however, the combination of the noun the people and two semantically strong verbs want and demand creates a sense of widespread support, and emphasizes the need for immediate actions to meet expectations and needs.

The topos of achievements demonstrates successes in the economic sphere and their significance to voters. The phrase «We built the greatest economy in history» [1] highlights achievements through the use of superlatives, stressing the highest levels of comparison, while an appeal to patriotism evokes pride in the country's accomplishments.

One of the crucial elements of practically any speech is the topos of democracy where candidates emphasize the importance of adhering to democratic procedures to ensure fairness. In the phrase « We should wait and see what the outcome of this election is because that's the only way the American people get to express their view» [1] logical arguments are built on a sequence of reasoning to increase persuasiveness, and inclusive language through the use of personal pronoun we to foster a sense of unity.

Another commonly used topos is the topos of obligations, which focuses on actions legality and correctness. The following example «The Constitution is clear about your obligation and the Senate's to consider a nominee to the Court» [1] shows an appeal to authority lending weight and credibility to the argument by citing the Constitution as the highest law.

Also, the analysis has shown a specific range of language means, both rhetorical and stylistic devices, related to the competitive nature of the debate, and employed to enhance conflict, opposition, emphasize superiority etc.

One prominent feature is interruptions. Donald Trump frequently interrupts Joseph Biden and the moderator to take control of the conversation and assert his viewpoint. For instance, when Wallace tries to ask a question, Donald Trump interjects:

Wallace: I didn't ask sir.

Trump: Chris that was the worst part of Obamacare [1].

This helps D. Trump dominate the discourse and disrupts the flow of his opponent's arguments. The use of abrupt interjections and overlapping speech serves to assert dominance and control, making the interruptions more impactful.

Rhetorical questions are another means used by D. Trump to underscore his arguments and cast doubt on his opponent's competence. When D. Trump asks, « What did he do to deserve it? What did he do with Burisma?» [1] he is not seeking answers but aiming to highlight perceived weaknesses in J. Biden's position. The direct address in these questions makes them more confrontational and challenging, adding to the agonistic tone of the debate.

Personal attacks further intensify the competitive atmosphere. Mutual accusations between the candidates, such as when Joseph Biden says, «Well it's hard to get any word in with this clown. Excuse me this person» [1] aim to undermine the opponent's credibility and character. The use of derogatory terms and pejorative language enhances the aggression and hostility, making the attacks more cutting and personal. situational contextual presidential rhetoric electorate

Hyperbole is employed to emphasize achievements or the opponent's shortcomings. Donald Trump uses exaggeration effectively, claiming, «We're going to allow our Governors now to go to other countries to buy drugs because when they paid just a tiny fraction of what we do» [1]. This makes his points more dramatic and memorable. The use of amplified language and superlatives enhances the impact of hyperbole, making the statements more striking.

Both candidates frequently use statistics and figures to support their arguments and criticize their opponent. For example, Joseph Biden asserts, «And by the way our military - they've been voting by ballots for since the end of the Civil War in effect» [1]. Citing data lends authority to their statements and provides a factual basis for their claims. The precision of numerical data and specific references to historical events or current statistics strengthen their credibility, making their arguments more persuasive.

The use of examples and analogies helps illustrate their arguments clearly. Donald Trump references real-life situations, saying, «If you look at Chicago if you look at any place you want to look Seattle, they heard we were coming in the following day and they put up their hands and we got back Seattle» [1]. These examples make their points more relatable and vivid. The use of bright imagery and concrete details brings their arguments to life, making them more compelling.

Discrediting the opponent through accusations of dishonesty is another common means. Both D. Trump and J. Biden accuse each other of lying and corruption, as seen when D. Trump says, «Joe, you 're the liar. You graduated last in your class not first in your class» [1]. These accusations aim to erode trust in the opponent. The use of categorical statements and emphatic language intensifies the force of these accusations, making them more damaging.

Irony and sarcasm are used to subtly undermine the opponent's arguments. Joseph Biden employs sarcasm effectively, saying, «I'm not going to listen to him. The fact of the matter is I beat Bernie Sanders» [1]. This approach diminishes the opponent's statements and adds a layer of scorn. The use of tone and inflection in delivery enhances the ironic and sarcastic effect, making the sarcasm more cutting.

The field of orientation genres, in addition to the regulatory function of shaping public opinion, is distinguished by a high level of formality and the rhetoric of explanation, instructions, outlining prospects, and unification around the political course of the state leader [10, p. 33, 38], highlighting the importance of such features as appeal, prescriptiveness, and tradition. Furthermore, these types of speeches are characterized by factual, problem-oriented, and commentary information, reflected in three interrelated processes: reflection on values, evaluation of important issues, and political recommendations.

The above-mentioned characteristics are demonstrated in the analyzed speech of Barack Obama, where the president employs various topoi, rhetorical and stylistic devices to persuade his audience of the necessity of action against Bashar al-Assad's regime. He begins with the humanitarian topos, describing the dire situation in Syria: «...has turned into a brutal civil war. Over a hundred thousand people have been killed. Millions have fled the country» [12]. The emotional impact is heightened by a detailed depiction of the chemical attack: «...Assad's government gassed to death over a thousand people, including hundreds of children. The images from this massacre are sickening, men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas, others foaming at the mouth, gasping for breath, a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk [12]. The fragment is rich with emotionally charged words used to evoke a sense of outrage and empathy and outrage in the listener. The president employs epithets «gassed to death» (describing the brutal method of killing) and «sickening» (evoking strong emotions of disgust), metaphor «foaming at the mouth» (conveying the agony of the victims), hyperboles «over a thousand people» and «hundreds of children» (emphasizing the large number of child victims and the scale of the tragedy), anaphora «a father clutching his dead children, imploring them to get up and walk» (repetition of the verb structure highlights the father's despair), parallelism «men, women, children lying in rows» creates rhythm and emphasizes the equality of victims in the face of brutality, to underscore the horror and inhumanity of the events.

President Obama also employs the topos of national security, explaining that inaction in the face of chemical weapon use poses a threat to the safety of the United States and its allies. He makes a moral and ethical appeal by employing rhetorical questions: «What kind of world will we live in if the United States of America sees a dictator brazenly violate international law with poison gas and we choose to look the other way?». This way he emphasizes that the United States has a moral obligation to act to protect the innocent and uphold international law.

Of particular note is the view on the potentially high level of suggestiveness of addresses to the nation and speeches in Congress, intended to generate the image of a leader in public consciousness. Even comments on tragic events, such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, are presented in a way that leaves no contradictions regarding the existing political course. The connection between the nature of the speech in Congress and the level of rating underscores the significance of the feature of image orientation.

This feature is also characteristic of electoral rhetoric, but in this case, it is primarily about creating and imposing an image on the listener closely associated with the desire to win, whereas the genres of the administrative period are characterized by maintaining and strengthening that image.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the analysis has revealed that presidential discourse is deeply rooted in its situational context, with distinct features in electoral and administrative periods. The genre and communicative goals significantly influence the linguistic and rhetorical strategies employed. In high-agony contexts like pre-election debates, there is a prevalence of aggressive, persuasive, and argumentative speech, while in administrative contexts, the focus shifts to reporting, emotional expressions, and leadership demonstrations.

The use of specific topoi and rhetorical devices in speeches serves to enhance the effectiveness of the message, whether to justify actions, evoke emotions, or emphasize moral obligations. The analysis of presidential speeches illustrates the strategic use of these devices to create a powerful and persuasive narrative.

Understanding these dimensions and strategies provides insight into how presidential discourse functions to achieve its communicative goals, whether in rallying support during elections or addressing the nation in times of crisis.

References

1. Biden, J., Trump, D. (2020). Presidential Debate at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio (September 29, 2020).

2. Brown, L. (2019). Impact of Presidential Discourse on Public Narratives. Communication Research Reports, 36(2), 145-160.

3. Campbell, K., Jamieson, H. (2008). Presidents Creating the Presidency: Deeds Done in Words. University of Chicago Press.

4. Fairclough, N. (2007). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. Routledge.

5. Fairclough, N. (2009). Genres in Political Discourse. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics. Oxford, 293-298.

6. Horvath, J. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis of Obama's Political Discourse. Language, literature and culture in a changing transatlantic world. International conference proceedings. University of Presov, 45-56.

7. Hundarenko, O. (2007). The means of Expressing Emotionally-Expressive Nomination in the Texts of American Ceremonial Speech. Scientific Notes of Tavricheskyi V.I. Vernadskyi National University, 20(59), 161-166 [in Ukrainian].

8. Jaworska, S. (2009). The Mediation of Power: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan.

9. Jones, A. (2018). Stylistic Devices and Rhetorical Strategies in Presidential Speeches. Discourse Studies, 30(4), 401-417.

10. Kelley, C. (2007). Post-9/11 American Presidential Rhetoric. Lexington Books.

11. Koval, I.O. (2012). Presidential Discourse: Essence, Structure, Functions and Objectives. Strategic Priorities: Quarterly Collection of Scientific Works, 3(24), 158-164 [in Ukrainian].

12. Obama, B. (2013). Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Syria (September 10, 2013).

13. Smith, J. (2017). Genre Characteristics of Presidential Speeches. Journal of Political Communication, 22(3), 213-229.

14. van Dijk, T.A. (2008). Discourse and Power. Palgrave Macmillan.

15. Walton, J. (2011). Political Leadership: Towards a General Analysis. Cambridge University Press.

16. Wodak, R. (2004). The Discourse of Politics in Action: Politics as Usual. Palgrave Macmillan.

Размещено на Allbest.Ru