LITHUANIAN UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES

FACULTY OF PHILOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY

INGRIDA STAUGAITĖ

LINGUISTIC REALIZATION OF RHETORICAL

STRATEGIES IN BARACK OBAMA AND DALIA

GRYBAUSKAITĖ’S POLITICAL SPEECHES

MA Paper

Academic Advisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Linas Selmistraitis

Vilnius, 2014

2

LIETUVOS EDUKOLOGIJOS UNIVERSITETAS

FILOLOGIJOS FAKULTETAS

ANGLŲ FILOLOGIJOS KATEDRA

RETORINIŲ STRATEGIJŲ KALBINIS REALIZAVIMAS BARAKO

OBAMOS IR DALIOS GRYBAUSKAITĖS

POLITINĖSE KALBOSE

Magistro darbas

Humanitariniai mokslai, filologija (04H)

Magistro darbo autorė Ingrida Staugaitė

Patvirtinu, kad darbas atliktas savarankiškai,

naudojant tik darbe nurodytus šaltinius

_____________________________

(Parašas, data)

Vadovas doc. dr. Linas Selmistraitis

_____________________________

(Parašas, data)

3

CONTENT

ABSTRACT 4

INTRODUCTION 5

1. THE ART OF RHETORIC 7

1.1 Rhetoric and communication 7

1.2 History of rhetoric 9

1.3 Rhetorical strategies 13

1.3.1 Argumentation 14

1.3.2 Persuasion 16

2. LINGUISTIC MANAGEMENT IN POLITICAL SPEECHES 17

2.1 Stylistic approach in political speeches 17

2.2 Functions and classification of stylistic devices 20

2.2.1 Metaphor 24

2.2.2 Epithet 27

2.2.3 Hyperbole 28

2.2.4 Rhetorical questions 29

3. BARACK OBAMA’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR LINGUISTIC

REALIZATION

30

3.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches 30

3.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches 34

3.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches 37

3.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches 39

4. DALIA GRYBAUSKAITĖ’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR LINGUISTIC

REALIZATION

41

4.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches 41

4.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches 46

4.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches 49

4.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches 51

5. JUXTAPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INVENTORY 53

CONCLUSIONS 60

SUMMARY 62

REFERENCES 63

4

ABSTRACT

The principal objective of this study was to explore what rhetorical strategies and stylistic

devices Presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and Barack Obama use in their political speeches and

how these devices help them to gain the audience’s attention and render the message. The

speeches of the two Presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and B. Obama were analyzed in order to

highlight the patterns of the usage of rhetorical strategies and to investigate the stylistic devices

which are aimed at making speech more emphatic, expressive and persuasive. The method

chosen for the study was content analysis including generalization and evaluation of the

results. The results of the research showed a significant contribution of stylistic means to

persuade the listeners on an emotional level or even to manipulate them. The next step of the

study must be conducted to determine stylistic means which can influence rhythmical feature

of the speech.

5

INTRODUCTION

Since the ancient times political rhetoric was the attention of many orators. Rhetoric was

considered as a valuable skill of communication. Nowadays, political leaders are concerned

about their use of language, too. They often pay attention to various rhetoric techniques how to

enhance their ideas and due to this, to glamorize their public image. In the process of time,

rhetoric has become a crucial way to spread their ideology, to manipulate the audience’s

emotions and to become more prominent figure among other rivals in everyday interactions.

Actually, language is the significant tool of persuasion. Therefore, to gain a favorable

public opinion, politicians employ appropriate linguistic recourses in their political speeches.

Stylistic devices help to embellish the speech and to attain success in public debates or in

political discussions. Political leaders apply stylistic devices in their remarks in order to

strengthen their thoughts and arguments on an issue or to create an impression of an

authoritative leader. So, language is a powerful instrument in gaining public support in

elections or to achieve any political interests.

The aim of this research was to investigate, compare and contrast rhetorical strategies

and the use of stylistic devices such as metaphor, personification, epithet, rhetorical questions

and hyperbole in political speeches by two presidents, i.e. Dalia Grybauskaitė and Barack

Obama.

The objectives of the research are as follows:

1. to overview the theoretical material under the question;

2. to analyse the speeches of D. Grybauskaitė and B. Obama; to highlight the patterns of

the usage of rhetorical strategies;

3. to investigate the stylistic devices which are aimed at making speech more emphatic,

expressive and persuasive.

The research questions of the paper are: What rhetorical strategies and stylistic

devices do presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and Barack Obama use in their political speeches and

how these devices help them to gain the audience’s attention and render the message?

A research is carried out through comparison and contrast of the speeches of the two

presidents. The methods of the analysis are: comparative, content and discourse, including

generalization and evaluation of the results.

The scope of the research – 100 D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches consisting of 104 pages

and 30 randomly taken speeches of President B. Obama that makes 110 pages.

6

As for significance of this research, the analysis of the rhetorical persuasion will help to

conceive how these stylistic devices and rhetorical strategies help presidents to seize the

political power and position. Besides this, it is a valuable contribution to the teaching and

learning rhetoric and stylistics.

The MA paper consists of Introduction in which the purpose, objectives, the research

questions, methods and significance of the research are presented; Theoretical part in which

theoretical aspect of the art of rhetoric and linguistic management in political speeches are

discussed. The Practical part analyzes the two Presidents B. Obama and D. Grybauskaitė’s

rhetorical strategies and their linguistic realization. It is also deals with the juxtaposition of the

Presidents’ linguistic inventory. The research includes conclusions and the list of references.

7

1. THE ART OF RHETORIC

1.1. Rhetoric and communication

Rhetoric is the ability to use language effectively. It is the art of persuasion. For

centuries rhetorical study was considered as a clincher of a gentleman’s education. Every

individual, who wanted this communication to have impact, had to study rhetoric. Rhetoric

was considered as the cornerstone of communication. Rhetoric should be used to make ideas

clear and concise and to make issues essential or important for people. Rhetoric concerns

itself with language and how people use it. The good rhetorician had to be proficient to

control arguments according to the rules of art of persuading.

“The English word “rhetoric”, and its various forms in European languages, is derived

from the Greek word rhētōr, a speaker in a public meeting or court of law, sometimes

equivalent to us might call a “politician”. Before and after “rhetoric” came into use there were

other terms current. One was peithō, which means “persuasion”; more common was use of the

word logos, meaning word or speech, in combination with other words: a dēmiourgos logōn

was a “worker of words”, and thus an orator; tekhnē logōn “art of words” was used to describe

the technique or art of speech and became the common title for a handbook of public speaking”

(Kennedy 2007, 08).

There are plenty of different thoughts regarding what rhetoric is, but the main

components of rhetoric can be:

The purpose of the speech, what the orator wants to say;

The audience, because different audience needs different rhetorical strategies (e.g., an

audience of soldiers or doctors);

The appeals (Aristotle’s logos, ethos, and pathos).

Indeed, Aristotle’s rhetorical strategies logos, ethos, pathos are three basic ways to

persuade an audience. Using logos (logic) in the speeches rhetoricians appeal to the mind and

seeks to persuade the listener intellectually. He uses facts and statistics, definitions of terms,

explanation of ideas, details that come from objective reporting. When orator uses logos, he

appeals to the audience’s rational side and involves building arguments through evidence

inferring logical conclusions from the evidence. However, Aristotle understood that humans

are emotional beings who sometimes make decisions based upon emotions. Using pathetic

appeals, rhetoricians attempted to move the audience by taking into their emotional side. Many

political decisions have an emotional (pathos) motivation. Pathos (emotion) appeals to the

one’s emotions in other words, seek to persuade listeners emotionally. The speaker sometimes

8

uses stories or testimonials; personal connections, visual images or words that inspire people to

empathize or have compassion towards the idea or topic. Using imagery and figurative

language that provokes an emotional response is very effective, too. Next, ēthos (ethics, but a

more accurate translation might be “image”) appeals to ethic and character. It seeks to persuade

the listener that the speaker can be trusted and believed to his noble character on ethical ways

in which he is presenting ideas. It appeals to the speaker’s believability, qualifications and

character. The next example of ethos is the use of appropriate language – language of

discipline. The orator uses appropriate tone, knows the audience, context of situation. In other

words, ēthos is arguments made by rhetoricians that are designed to build his trustworthy with

his audience and create the impression that he is a person of intelligence and fairness. So, if

people believe that a speaker has good sense, good moral character, is not arrogant, they are

inclined to believe what the speaker says.

According to Roberts, “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned

with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and belong to no

definite science. Accordingly all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent all

men attempt to discuss statements and to maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack

others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit.

Both ways being possible, this subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible

to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and others spontaneously;

and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art” (Roberts 2008,

04). It should be mentioned that rhetoric was adapted to a multitude of different applications,

ranging from architecture to literature. Kennedy claims that “classical rhetoricians – that is,

teachers of rhetoric recognized – that many features of their subject could be found in Greek

literature before the invention of rhetoric as an academic discipline, and they frequently used

rhetorical concepts in literary criticism” (Kennedy 1994, 03-04). He claims that, “the teaching

of rhetoric in the schools, ostensibly concerned primarily with training in public address, had a

significant effect on written composition and thus on literature” (Kennedy 1994, 04).

Rhetoric has become a major interest in a variety of discipline such as literary study,

sociolinguistics, science studies etc. However, Kock says that “Rhetoric is not just a subject

about how each individual can do his or her own thing with words, sometimes at the expense

of others. It also holds that we have language and communication to perform certain vital

functions in society. Rhetoric has always been seen by some of its practitioners as the ongoing

public discourse that has helped establish human societies and hold them together” (Kock

2004, 103). According to Yoos, “In speaking we need to be more reiterative for emphasis and

9

compensate for the limited uptake of less-attentive listeners who are having trouble hearing

exactly what our words mean” Yoos (2009, 60). Briefly, people should pay attention that every

situation in which they communicate is a unique experience; the meaning is always particular,

depending upon the unique location of space and time.

Political rhetoric is a device of government in the political system of any society.

Rhetoric contains the variety of cultural and linguistic expressions as a part of the process of

social communication. A good orator knows that words are a powerful tool. The appropriate

choice of words is similarly important as the distribution of the purpose in the speech. In order

to convince the people, politicians try to select clear, accurate, descriptive and short words that

best convey ideas, as well as the words are arranged efficiently, coherent and correctly. Every

word contains value meaning and performance in their speeches. Indeed, rhetoric is not just

empty words in political speeches. Rhetoric concerns itself with language and how politicians

use it. Aristotle’s extensive comments on the use of emotion in oratory provide the basis for

Cicero’s claim that “Nothing in oratory is more important than to win for the orator the favor

of his hearer, and to have the latter so affected as to be swayed by something resembling a

mental impulse or emotion, rather than by judgment or deliberation” (Connolly 2007, 146).

1.2 History of rhetoric

Rhetoric as a science and an art last more than 3,000 years and combines almost all the

sciences and the arts. In ancient times, a good orator was considered as an educated man who

was a charismatic person, and without a doubt, was able to model voice and gestures as an

actor. The orator acquired knowledge of psychology, logic, architecture, history, literature,

medicine, and the most essentially law and philosophy.

“Rhetoric has its origins in the earliest civilization, Mesopotamia. In ancient Egypt,

rhetoric existed since at least the Middle Kingdom period (2080-1640 B.C.). In ancient Greece,

the earliest mention of oratorical skill occurs in Homer’s Iliad. The Iliad and its companion

poem the Odyssey, place a high value on eloquent speech, almost equal to military prowess,

and contain many poetic versions of debates and speeches that already utilize features of

argument, arrangement, and style later described in rhetorical handbooks” (Kennedy 2007, 08).

This use of language was of interest to philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato. Plato

perfectly put differences between true and false rhetoric in a number of dialogues. He focused

on holding high standards of rhetorical communication. Aristotle, as Plato, was firmly

10

convinced that rhetoric had the task of teaching and inculcating truth neither about ethico-

political values in general nor about particular truths or values.

The study of rhetoric began in Greece in the fifth century B. C. Democratic government

was emerging in Athens, so all the citizens had an equal right to speak in public. “The Greeks,

already as seen in the Iliad, were a highly argumentative, contentious people; their city states

were almost constantly at war with each other, and in times of peace they turned their energies

into competitive athletics. Their rivalries and arguments contrast with values commonly found

in Middle Eastern and Far Eastern cultures, where strong central government discouraged or

prevented public debate. Under democratic governments in Athens and some other Greek cities

in the fifth and forth centuries B. C., all important decisions about public policy and actions

were made after debate in assembly of the adult, male citizens, any one of whom could speak”

(Kennedy 2007, 09). Some people seem to have a natural gift for communication but others

had to develop these skills by studying the principles of speech.

Aristotle was the first person who recognized rhetoric as an art of communication. He is

the father of speech communication. He was a strong believer in logic. Aristotle said that

persuasion depends on three things: the truth and logical validity of what is being argued, the

speaker’s success in conveying to the audience a perception that he or she can be trusted and

the emotions that a speaker is able to awaken in an audience to accept the views advanced and

act in accordance with them.

In the Roman period, the rhetoric was a powerful political tool, too. So as to fully

understand the rhetorical traditions of people, orators had to know the culture of country and

people. As a consequence, people were required to study the art of persuasive speech. But this

education was based in the Greek tradition and the tutors in Rome were actually from Greece.

Rhetoric studies included techniques of letter-writing, poetry, preaching and argumentation.

People learned how to manage the logic in argumentation and how to say what he had to say

persuasively. At that time Cicero was best known for refining and clarifying not new rhetorical

theories but those developed by the Greeks. Cicero, a well known lawyer and politician,

believed that communicators needed extensive knowledge to be effective and attaining true

eloquence required a strong liberal education.

According to Duchan, “Cicero’s view of speech included not only articulation and voice

but also gestures and intonation. He believed that nature had endowed every word spoken with

an appropriate hand and facial gesture as well as tone of voice. He introduced the idea that the

text of every speech be delivered with attendant physical movement and fullness of emotion”

(Duchan 2011, 02).

11

Quintilian was the second well known teacher of rhetoric. He developed a course of

rhetorical education. However, his contribution was more practical and more concerned for his

students. Quintilian wanted to make a good speaker into the perfect speaker. His phrase “a

good man speaking well” means that the audience needs to perceive the speakers as believable

and trustworthy. Quintilian opened a public school for rhetoric in Rome. Perhaps for that

reason he paid more attention than did Cicero to education and the teaching of rhetoric whereas

Cicero called for a broad, general education. Duchan says that “Quintilian’s suggested a

programme of education in rhetoric that was more focused. He laid out the educational process

step by step, from birth to adulthood” (Duchan, 2011, 02).

The history of the medieval arts of discourse begins in the 5th

century. Augustine was the

only significant name of this era. He incorporated classical “pagan” rhetoric with the goals of

the Catholic Church. According to Murphy, “Augustine attempted the marriage of rhetoric and

Christianity in his De doctrina christiana, and Martianus used his Du nuptiis Philogiae et

mercurii to transmit the Roman concept of the liberal arts into the medieval period” (Murphy

1981, 43). So, the rhetoric in the middle ages had some results (Murphy 1981, 43), They

produced sets of rules for the art of preaching and the legal letters of the church and secular

governments. It was recognized the study of the uses of rhetoric by people in informal kinds of

political interaction. Even though, rhetoric would not regain its classical heights until the

renaissance.

During the Renaissance period (beginning in Italy in the 1300’s and ending in England in

the early 1600’s) the main goal of rhetoric was the excellence of spoken and written language

in order to affect the audience. Besides, the listeners was differentiated and grouped according

to their interests in a given situation or problem. Rhetoric’s greatest influence over a

civilization was achieved during the Renaissance. It was the time when the rhetorical material

was flourishing again. Most books followed Aristotle, Cicero and Quintilian’s ideas. Rhetorical

terms found their way into the new science of vernacular grammar: colon, comma, apostrophe

and parenthesis. There was a great emphasis on style and it was impossible to speak without

using rhetoric in the Renaissance.

With reference to Schmitt and Skinner “rhetoric distinguished five stages of

composition: inventio, the discovery of material; dispositio, its structuring and arrangement;

elocutio, its formulation in language; memoria and pronunciatio, its memorizing and

appropriate delivery. Rhetoric also distinguished three kinds of oration (and, by extension, any

literary work): the judicial or forensic type, concerned with proof and disproof, as in a court of

law; the deliberative type, involving persuasion and discussuasion, as in politics; and the

12

demonstrative or epideictic type, devoted to praise and blame. Each type of speech had a style

appropriate to itself, as did the various literary genres, the choice of which was governed by the

principle of decorum. Writers and readers were trained to observe the constituent parts of an

oration, in one popular version exordium, narratio, divisio, confirmatio, confutatio, conclusio.

Rhetoric also had a detailed lore of linguistic devices, the tropes and figures of speech that

made language more effective in its appeal to the mind and emotions” (Schmitt & Skinner

1988, 715-716)

Later, in the 19th

century schools changed their curricular: added mathematics and

science courses where typically a classical education of Greek and Latin language, philosophy

and rhetoric made up the curriculum. Education was more available to people, and rhetoric

became simply composition and speech courses. Scientists claim that, “the classical tradition

was the growing influence of rhetoric in American colleges. College or university presidents

frequently delivered the lectures on rhetoric, in fact, the first American “rhetoric” was written

by the president of Princeton, John Witherspoon” (Connors & Lunsford 1984, 02).

In the 20th

century, Burke was one of the significant names in this period. The most

important thing he considered was the speaker’s identification with the audience. In his book

Burke says “Here is perhaps the simplest case of persuasion. You persuade a man only insofar

as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea,

identifying your ways with his” (Burke 1969, 55). According to Irwin (2012), Burke’s

rhetorical pentad is the element of act, scene, agent, agency, and purpose is perhaps one of the

most familiar concepts to arise from 20th

century rhetoric.

So, at the beginning of 20th

century, the rhetorical study has been steadily increasing.

Indeed, the reason for a significant rising of the study was the renewed importance of language

and persuasion in the increasingly medial environment and with the media focus on wide

variations and analysis of political rhetoric and its consequences. According to Miller

“Rhetoric has become a prominent feature of contemporary thought, with critics willing and

eager to discuss the rhetoric of history, of economics, of anthropology, of fiction, even of

mathematics” (Miller 1993, 211). Needless to say, that rhetoric has become a major interest in

a variety of discipline such as literary study, sociolinguistics, science studies etc.

Taking everything into a consideration, rhetoric originated in ancient Greece, due to

practical needs of people who were learning how to manage democratic government, but

despite the fact that the classical art of rhetoric is still significant today. Johnstone & Eisenhart

claims that ‘the focus of rhetoricians’ attention is widening, however, from public to private

spheres, from official to vernacular rhetoric, from oratory to written and multimedia discourse,

13

from the carefully crafted to spontaneous discourse emerging from fleeting everyday rhetorical

situations” (Johnstone & Eisenhart 2008, 04). Actually, the five criterions of classical rhetoric

invention (inventio), arrangement (dispositio), style (elucutio), memory (memoria), delivery

(pronunciatio), are present in everyday communication, especially in technological

environment.

So, not surprisingly that such phrases of rhetoric arises “political rhetoric”, “rhetoric of media”,

“rhetoric of music” etc. According to Lunsford, “We need the art, theory, and practice of

rhetoric if we are going to survive and flourish in this 21st century” (Lunsford 2013, 01).

1.3 Rhetorical strategies

Rhetorical strategies are the ways that writers and speakers use words and language in

order to persuade the audience. In other words, rhetorical strategies help to find all methods

that allow us to convey the most convincingly our point on a given topic. These strategies help

effectively, efficiently and coherently present our material on a chosen subject also, to connect

facts into a sequence, provide clusters of information necessary for conveying a purpose or an

argument. Rhetoricians use sounds, objects and behaviors, especially gestures as well as words,

to say what they would like to say. “Rhetoric is a much more comprehensive art, especially as

one finds it going on in the art of negotiation in politics that aims to bond and interact with

others in shaping a community”(Yoos 2009, 55).

Politicians participating in debates and in public speaking activities usually construct

arguments that explain or persuade, proving those arguments. Moreover, speakers who truly

want their words to be memorable employ a variety of stylistic devises to figuratively illustrate

their ideas. What is more, a good orator’s speech depends not only on a collection of

statements worthy of belief, but also on appropriate arguments, logical and progressive

arrangement and an effective style. In order to make an influence on the listeners, speakers use

one of the rhetorical strategy-rhetorical devices. According to Harris, rhetorical devices can be

distinguished into 3 categories: 1. involving emphasis, association, clarification, and focus

(antithesis, asyndeton, simile, etc.); 2. involving physical organization, transition, and

disposition or arrangement (polysyndeton); 3. involving decoration and variety (metaphor,

personification, etc.). He claims that “sometimes a given device or trope fall mainly into a

single category, but more often the effects of a particular device are multiple, and a single one

may operate in all three categories e.g. parallelism, helps to order, clarify, emphasize and

beautify a thought” (Harris 2013, 01-02).

14

Indeed, politicians use rhetorical strategies and devises to win the support of their desired

constituency. The type of their rhetoric used, oral or written, usually depends on the goals of

the speakers producing the messages. Their public speeches have a great number of form e.g.

charming, insulting, inviting, and humorous, etc. Similarly, the use of symbols or slogans

always inspire people to join or support the movement as well as inducing individuals to spread

the message.

Sometimes, not only the language is the one of the main ways to influence people.

Nowadays, increasing media is exploited in successful political communication. Dress, gesture

and voice quality are important in face–to–face communication. Non verbal language, e.g.

facial expressions, body movement, gestures, eye contact are also important in maintaining the

flow of speech and for estimating the audience’s response. With reference to Antczak (2002),

“a real, living, growing language has always been a collection of spoken sounds. The sounds

that accompany our thoughts, the prosodic features that join them in a complex “melody”, and

the gestures that accompany any speech are moulds into which we power our own thoughts. It

is our voice that gives form and direction to our ideas” (Antczak 2002, 77). So, politicians

realize that nonverbal image is important, too.

However, despite the body language, an argumentation speech is a form of persuasive

public speaking. Argumentation can play an important role in presenting ideas and influencing

others.

1.3.1 Argumentation

With reference to Collins English Dictionary (2009), an argument is “a discussion in

which reasons are put forward in support of and against a proposition, proposal, or case;

debate”. Argumentation is understood as evidence of any statement based on other statement of

which the justice is already known. In other words, an argument is attempt to persuade

someone of something, by giving reasons or evidence for accepting a particular conclusion.

Fahnestock & Secor pointed out, that “arguments addressed to favorably inclined audiences

can have other practical consequences aside from such immediate ones as creating enough

votes for a new community park or starting a letter campaign. They can also create group

cohesiveness, solidarity among those who find themselves agreeing with the appeals cast at

them. The person who articulates the reasons that hold the group together may of course

become its leader. But more important is the fact that the argument that meets with agreement

has created a human community ready to act together” (Fahnestock & Secor 1988, 6-7).

15

Aristotle separated two main parts of arguments: inductive and deductive. Inductive

reasoning starts with a specific case and progresses toward generalization. The speaker/writer

begins with specific observations; formulate some hypotheses to explore, and finally ends up

developing some general conclusions or theories. Deductive reasoning starts with a

generalization and progress to a specific case. That is to say, deductive reasoning is when a

speaker/writer starts at the top with a very broad spectrum of information and they work their

way down to a specific conclusion.

Fairclough (2012, 38) claims, that sometimes a third type of argumentation is recognized,

namely, conductive argument. He says that “In conductive arguments, the support pattern is

said to be convergent and the premises are put forward as separately or independently relevant

to the claim. One difference is that the “even-if” characteristic of conductive reasoning takes

into account the arguments on both sides of a disputed issue, the pro and contra”.

According to Crawford, political argumentation can be classified into four ideal-type

categories that vary in terms of their content: practical/instrumental, ethical, scientific and

identity. She says that “in complex situations that demand complex arguments, more than one,

in some cases all these types of arguments may be deployed” (Crawford 2002, 23).

The role of practical or instrumental argument is more to persuade rather to prove,

demonstrate or refuse. Crawford claims that “these arguments involve beliefs about cause and

effect relations among individuals; they are about how to do things in the social world”

(Crawford 2002, 23). Scientific arguments are about natural world, the laws of science and

technology. A scientific argument must persuade the audience that the date you present, and

your arguments are strong enough to support your theory or proposed action. Ethics focuses on

a specific thing is either morally right or wrong; within the field of ethic, applied ethics looks

at real-life issues. People should base their arguments on a principle that is self-evident; a

principle that is so basic and widely accepted that it needs no proof. Crawford (2002, 24)

states, that “Identity arguments posit that people of a certain act or don’t act in a certain ways

and the audience of the argument either positively or negatively identifies with the people in

question. Identity arguments may apply to groups or to individuals, but they are specifically

about the characteristics of those individuals and what those characteristics imply in terms of

actions or reactions.”

Politics is supposed to be an incredibly emotional subject. According to Nauckūnaitė

(2007), “it is evident that logical arguments have the strongest direct effect on the mind,

emotional arguments influence feelings and aesthetic arguments stimulate imagination;

however, any argument mentioned above makes stronger or weaker peripheral effect on the

16

addressee (Nauckūnaitė 2007, 94). To put it another way, arguments more or less depend on

the emotional status of the audience and the emotional content of the argument. Logical

argumentation is often difficult, time consuming and has not the obvious power to push people

to action. So, it is a fact, that people’s emotions often carry much more force than their reason.

Political argumentative discussions can be found on social media sites. Politicians are

obsessed with the media. Actually, digital media have changed patterns of communication.

Politicians have their own social sites or use photo –sharing service, so, it allows them to

contact many people at once. Walton (2007, 05) claims that, “From political speeches to TV

commercials to war propaganda, it can appeal to emotions that mobilize political action,

influence public opinion, market products, and even enable a dictator to stay in power”. So,

mass media used as a political argumentation is undeniable.

1.3.2. Persuasion

Rhetoric and persuasion go together. Rhetoric may fail if it is not persuasive.

Actually, the measure of a successful rhetoric is its ability to persuade. According to Frezza

(2011), a good start of persuading is acknowledging the prevalence of moral diversity, because

each of us has different viewpoints of life.

Roberts points out that “Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any

given case the available means of persuasion. This is a function of any other art. Every other

art can instruct or persuade about its own particular subject-matter; for instance, medicine

about what is healthy and unhealthy, geometry about the properties of magnitudes, arithmetic

about numbers, and the same is true of the other arts and sciences” (Roberts 2008, 10).

Needless to say, that the persuasion is an art, too. The good orators always try to

identify people that at a given time are persuadable to your point of view and then try to focus

the energy and attention on them. In other words a good orator understands not just how to

communicate with audience, but also how to influence and persuade others. Persuading

involves being able to convince others to take appropriate actions.

According to Walton, “persuasion involves some sort of change of opinion or

acceptance of a belief from an initial state to a new state that is the outcome of the act of

persuasion. The transition from the one state to the other takes place within an agent, and is

brought about by a second agent. The two agents, it is presumed, are engaged in a conversation

interaction. Thus the speech act of persuasion is based on a conversational or dialogue

structure, and can best be understood within such a structure. One party persuades another

17

party normally through some sort of verbal communication with the other” (Walton 2007, 46-

47). Moreover, he states that “the fundamental structure of the persuasion dialogue can be

stated very simply. The central notion is that there are two participants, and one is trying to

persuade the other to accept a designed proposition as true” (Walton 2007, 53).

Roberts says that “there are three kinds of modes of persuasion furnished by the

spoken word. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on

putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof,

provided by the words of the speech itself. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal

character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible” (Roberts 2008, 10).

It is popularly believed that persuasion is an essential part of politics. Political

persuasion is a process in which speakers try to convince other people to change their attitudes

or behavior regarding a political issue through messages.

During the political campaigns politicians usually try to persuade the people of why

they should vote for them. So, the politicians understand that it is important to conciliate the

audience using persuasion. Needless to say, that sometimes politicians want to create fear in

something that most of the people would be worrying about for example, unemployment. But

at the same time they use another tactic-flattering and praising them for being such hard

workers. Another way of persuasion is generating new ideas and promise that the changes will

benefit the people. It is a fact, that politicians trying to get the audience’s attention establishing

trust evoke emotions and attempt to make themselves seem more compassionate.

It is true that an argumentation speech is a form of persuasive public speaking.

Argumentation can play an important role in presenting ideas and influencing others.

2. LINGUISTIC MANAGEMENT IN POLITICAL SPEECHES

2.1 Stylistic approach in political speeches

Speech is human communication through spoken language. With reference to Oxford

Advanced Learners Dictionary, speech is “a formal talk that a person gives to an audience”

(OALD 2000, 1241). It is not easy to define the political speech. However, according to Rice, a

political speech is “any oral presentation that sets forth a proposal of a political position,

particularly one in which the speaker hopes to influence others” (Rice 2007, 18). For this

reason, a good speech is essential for a politician to have a powerful stage presence.

Politicians all over the world vivify their speeches in a unique way, by using stylistic

devices and giving extra effect to their ideas. It can be called linguistic management and it is

18

based on the idea of persuading people. That is to say, politicians’ linguistic manipulation is a

basic instrument to become apparent and to implement the corresponding communicative

strategies. Nowadays, according to Rozina & Karapetjana, “to convince the potential electorate

in present time societies, politics basically dominates in mass media, which leads to creating

new forms of linguistic manipulation, e.g. modified forms of press conferences and press

statements, updated texts in slogans, applications of catch phrases, phrasal allusions, the

connotative meanings of words, a combination of language and visual imagery” (Rozina &

Karapetjana 2009, 113).

Ritter & Medhurst claim that “the fact is that presidents have requested and received

assistance with their speeches, messages, letters, bills, memoirs, and the like since the

beginning of Republic” (Ritter & Medhurst 2002, 04). Seeing that, politicians preparing

persuasive speeches need to think about what they are going to say and how. Some politicians

simply try to deliver a clear or expressive message. According to Matkevičienė, “economic and

political issues are discussed in more sophisticated ways in comparison with discussions of

social policy issues which are presented in a very simply, clear way with the arguments that

stress the aspects important for society or for some specific groups of citizens” (Matkevičienė

2011, 83). However, “speeches, agitation themes depend very strongly on society’s political

consciousness and ideology which dominate in particular decade” (Bucevičiūtė 2010, 166).

Hariman claims that “a political style is a coherent repertoire of rhetorical conventions

depending on aesthetic reactions for political effect” (Hariman 1995, 04). Moreover, Bourdieu

claims that “we are aware of the many ways in which linguistic exchanges can express

relations of power. We are sensitive to the variation accent, intonation and vocabulary which

reflect different positions in the social hierarchy. We are aware that individuals speak with

differing degrees of authority, that words are loaded with unequal weights, depending on who

utters them and how they are said, such that some words uttered in certain circumstances have

force and conviction that they would not have elsewhere” ( Bourdieu 1991, 01).

Not only the personality of the speaker, such as charismatic qualities or a good reputation

is the center of performance, but it is also the style of the speech. Actually, the style of the

speech depends on many factors: the occasion of the speech, how the speaker organizes the

material, how the speaker uses persuasive devices and which points of the speech he/she wants

to highlight. According to Prime, “with the growing popularity and use of the major news

media and the Internet, the general public currently has an utterly unprecedented level of

access to reports, transcripts and even videos of every word that passes through a public

speaker’s lips. The public scrutiny is generally turned towards the meaningful content of these

19

speeches rather than the manner of their expression. Nevertheless, a great volume of

information is conveyed by these political figures, not only at semantic level, but also on the

level of syntax, morphology and even phonetics” (Prime 2008, 01).

Reynolds beautifully compares a great speech with a symphony. He claims, that “there

are different kinds of symphony, but a symphony — like a good speech — takes you some

place. It has a shape, it has forms. Fast/slow, loud/quiet, all of which may be separated by a

short pause or silence. A symphony has different movements and forms, and yet it has a

harmonious whole. Symphony has much in common with story as well. A well crafted and

delivered speech and a powerful symphony, in their own ways move the listener” (Reynolds

2008, 01). That is why, the speakers use a great number of figurate language and try to make

the speech more approachable for the audience and very often full of rhetoric. Broadly

speaking, when the speeches are delivered in style to the audience, motivates and inspires

them, then they are known as great speeches. So, when the speech is stylish and rich in content

then are very powerful and effective that can have a long lasting impact on the audience.

Stylistics is a discipline which has been considered from many perspectives. It should be

noted that the term ‘stylistics’ is an extensive term that has assumed various meanings from

different linguistic scholars. Actually, it can be understood as a study of the linguistic items in

actual language use. In fact, all texts have style. According to Childs et al, “a style is a manner

of expression, describable in linguistic terms, justifiable and valuable in respect of non-

linguistic factors” (Childs & Fowler 2006, 228).

Leech defines stylistics “as the (linguistic) study of style, is rarely undertaken for its own

sake, simply as an exercise in describing what use is made of language” (Leech 2007, 11). He

states that people study style in order to explain something and in general, literary stylistics

has, implicitly or explicitly, the goal of explaining the relation between language and aesthetic

function. The scientist says that from linguistic angle it is “Why does the author here choose

this form of expression?” From the literary critic’s view point, it is “How is such – and – such

an aesthetic effect achieved trough language?” (Leech 2007, 11).

Naturally, stylistics is concerned about different range of language styles and varieties

which are feasible in different spoken or written, forma or informal etc., texts. Similarly, the

scientists claim that “styles may be seen as characteristic of an author, of a period of a

particular kind of persuasion (rhetoric), or a genre” (Childs & Fowler 2006, 228). Nowadays,

stylistics is considered as the modern version of the ancient discipline known as ‘rhetoric’

which taught students how to structure the argument, how to make effective use of figures of

20

speech and how to create a speech in a way which can have an absolute influence on listeners

or readers.

However, the possibility of stylistics for taking insights from other disciplines means that

it is a subject that is always expanding and developing. While it is true to say, that “stylistics is

neither theoretically nor in practice limited to study the language of literature” (Jeffries &

Mclntyre 2010, 193). The scientists claim, that “there are many outside the field who consider

stylistics and literary stylistics to be identical”. That is to say, “speeches, gas bills, love letters,

committee minutes etc. can be analyzed for their stylistic features in just the same way as

poems, plays and novels” (Jeffries & Mclntyre 2010, 193).

2.2 Functions and classification of stylistic devices

As it was mentioned above, stylistics is a branch of general linguistics. Stylistics

deals with: functional styles, stylistic devices and figures of speech.

It should be mentioned that, there are two branches of stylistics: lexical and grammatical.

Lexical stylistics focuses on studies functions of direct and figurative meanings and how the

contextual meaning of a word is realized in the text. It is also studies various types of

connotations e.g., expressive, evaluative, emotive; neologisms, dialectal words and their

behavior in the text. Grammatical stylistics has two parts: morphological and syntactical.

Morphological stylistics deals with stylistic potential of grammatical categories of different

parts of speech (numbers, pronouns etc.). Syntactical stylistics analyzes syntactic, word order,

expressive means, and word combinations. It is also studies different types of sentences and

types of syntactic connections. Moreover, phono-stylistics is concerned about phonetical

organization of prose and poetic texts. It examines rhythm, rhyme, correlation of the sound

form and meaning. Next, functional stylistics analyzes functional styles and their possible use

in communicative situation. The fact of the matter is that there exist a number of classifications

of functional styles, but the most common one was introduced by Galperin. So, he

distinguishes five groups of functional styles:

1. official style (all kinds of documents);

2. scientific (academic publications);

3. publicist (public speeches, essays);

4. newspaper (articles printed in newspapers);

5. belles-letters style (emotive prose, poetry, drama).

21

However, according to Arnold, “there are four functional styles: poetic, scientific,

newspaper and colloquial style” (Arnold 1986, 241). Besides, there are two more styles

included: poetic style and oratorical. Poetic style is concerned about verbal forms particular for

poetry and oratorical style, which was specifically important in ancient Greece where it was a

basic instrument in rhetorical speeches. It should be noted that belles-letters style is the richest

register of communication. This style is so many colored and has the aim to impress the

listener aesthetically. With reference to Walter “if there are more functional styles or registers

in a language, it shows the suitability and elaborateness of language structure for different

forms of discourse such as scientific, semi-scientific, technical, literary, popular, journalistic,

formal, etc” (Walter 1989, 136). So, in a language one particular style or register may be more

developed than others. In addition to this, Yule claims that “a register is a conventional way of

using language that is appropriate in a specific context, which may be identified as: situational

(e.g. church), occupational (e.g. among lawyers) or topical (e.g. talking about language” (Yule

2010, 259). Furthermore, Walter characterizes the criterion of language production for setting

up functional types: “creative literature, scientific and technical literature, literature in social

sciences, journalistic literature, and production of text books” (Walter 1989, 137). Similarly, as

the scientists mentioned above, Weihs & Gaul claim that “a functional style thus relates to

particular discourse spheres such as everyday, official-administrative, scientific, journalistic, or

artistic communication” (Weihs & Gaul 2005, 57). The scientists distinguish these functional

styles “everyday style, scientific style, official style, journalistic style and artistic style -

prosaic, poetic, dramatic” (Weihs & Gaul 2005, 57). However, Bakhtin says that “functional

styles are nothing other than generic styles for certain spheres of human activity and

communication” (Bakhtin 1986, 64). He claims that “it is no generally recognized

classification of language styles, because existing taxonomies are extremely poor and

undifferentiated” according to Bakhtin “there are the following stylistic subcategories of

language: bookish speech, popular speech, abstract-scientific, scientific-technical, journalistic-

commentarial, official-business, and familiar everyday speech, as well as vulgar common

parlance” (Bakhtin 1986, 64).

Galperin all political speeches puts into publicistic style. He claims that “the general aim

of publicistic style, which makes it stand out as a separate style, is to exert a constant and deep

influence on public opinion, to convince the reader or the listener that the interpretation given

by the reader or the speaker is the only correct one and to cause him to accept the point of view

expressed in the speech, essays or article not merely by logical argumentation, but by

emotional appeal as well”. According to the scientist, political speeches can be divided into

22

“parliamentary debated, and speeches at rallies, congresses, meetings and election campaigns”

(Galperin 1977, 263).

Stylistic devices considered to be an instrument for politicians’ to strengthen their image,

help to realize ideas and emphasize certain issues. Therefore, many politicians try to find the

best way to make a great and memorable speech. It is important to seize the moment in which

the politicians try to present the facts convincingly. So, it is an excellent politician’s maneuver

to use stylistic devices in their speeches.

Stylistic devices ensure persuasion. It is obvious that the author’s style of language

consists of selecting and using certain stylistic devices. Galperin pointed out, that “the

oratorical style of language is the oral subdivision of the publicistic style” (Galperin 1977,

263). It has been mentioned that rhetorical devices are literary techniques used to heighten the

effectiveness of expression. It is a fact that the stylistic devices employed in oratorical style are

determined by the conditions of communication. If the intention of the speaker is to invoke the

audience and to keep it in uncertainty, he will use various traditional stylistic devices. Indeed,

the audience relies only on memory and the orator often relies on repetition of words or

phrases or the use of intentional exaggeration in order to create an effect and to force his

listeners to follow him and retain the main points of his speech. Repetition has a convincing

and strong effect, too. Some techniques commonly are found in poetry and songs for ex. rhyme

and repetition can make sentences more memorable than actual words. Moreover,

speechwriters often use irony when they have the purpose to create a contrast or discrepancy

between what is said and what is meant. Political irony is usually related to humor when they

want to criticize the out – party in a polite and amusing way. In addition to this, political

speeches, especially those delivered at party conventions are generally are uttered in the first-

person plural. It should be mentioned that rhetorical questions are frequent, too, because

rhetorical questions inspires the audience to contemplate about important issues. Rhetorical

questions are important because of the intonation which change the monotony of the speech

and awakes the listeners’ attention. According to Dlugan, “repeating a word or phrase in

different parts of the speech helps the audience make connections as if you were sewing your

speech elements together with a thread” (Dlugan 2008, 03). A device like alliteration can be

used for slogans. Stylistic devices which change word meaning especially imagery (metaphors,

personification, simile) contribute to the effect of the utterance. Moreover, these stylistic

devices which can enhance the speakers’ influence for ex. devices such as metaphors,

personification, epithets can also be used in order to embellish to what is being said.

Metaphors, personification and simile together with connected concepts such as symbolism

23

and analogies are often the core of speeches as an effective means of communication. Indeed,

metaphors used by an orator make an impression on his listeners by expressing the ideas in

some way extraordinary. While it is true to say that using these stylistic devices in speeches the

oratorical style, is closely related on the context of the speech and the level of the audience.

Stylistic devices are important to anyone who gives speeches, writes articles or studies.

Using stylistic devices in an appropriate way, the author can create strong, logical and

compelling speeches. Generally speaking, a stylistic device is a literary pattern which semantic

and structural features are combined so that it represents a generalized model. In other words, it

is a generative model which through use in language is transformed into a stylistic device e.g.,

metaphor, epithet, etc. According to Galperin, stylistic devices “necessarily touches upon such

general language problems as the aesthetic function of language, synonymous ways of

rendering one and the same idea, emotional coloring in language, the interrelation between

language and thought, the individual manner of an author in making use of language and a

number of other issues”(Galperin 1977, 06). Stylistic devices can be in spoken or written texts

where an author tries to emphasize an idea or to make an impression on listeners or readers by

using language.

Galperin’s classification of stylistic devices is based on the level-oriented approach:

phonetic stylistic, lexical stylistic, lexico-syntactic, and syntactical stylistic. Phonetic stylistic

devices play an important role in certain type of communication. This is the way a word, a

phrase or a sentence sounds. The aesthetic effect of the text is composed with the help of

sounds and prosody together with the meaning. They are: onomatopoeia, rhyme alliteration and

rhythm. Galperin claims that “words in a context may acquire additional lexical meanings not

fixed in the dictionaries, what we have called contextual meanings” (Galperin 1977, 125). The

scientist distinguishes 3 groups of lexical stylistic devices:

1. The interaction of different types of lexical meaning:

Dictionary and contextual (metaphor, metonymy, irony).

Primary and derivative (zeugma and pun).

Logical and nominative (antonomasia).

2. Intensification of feature (simile, hyperbole, periphrasis)

3. Peculiar use of set expressions (clichés, proverbs, epigram, quotations).

Syntactical stylistic devices add logical and expressive information to the utterance but

there are certain structures which focus on lexico-semantic aspect of the utterance. They are

called lexico-syntactical stylistic devices. Lexico-syntactic devices are oxymoron, zeugma,

simile, periphrasis, euphemism, hyperbole and litotes. Next, syntactic stylistic devices depends

24

on the completeness of the structure or on the arrangement if its member. So, syntactic stylistic

devices can be put in this order:

The interaction of syntactical constructions (parallelism, chiasmus, anaphora, and

epiphora);

The transposition of syntactical meaning in context (rhetorical questions);

The transformation of types and forms of connection between clauses and sentences

(parcellation, coordination instead of subordination, subordination instead of

coordination).

Using stylistic devices in the speech, an author enhances the arguments of the text. For

this reason, the utterances became vivid, organized and structured. Simpson claims that “to do

stylistics is to explore language, and, more specifically, to explore creativity in language use”.

According to Simpson, “the reason why language is so important to stylisticians is because the

various forms patterns and levels that constitute linguistic structure are an important index of

the functions of the text” (Simpson 2004, 02-03).

The main function of stylistic devices is to produce an effect in an audience. Sometimes,

in order to emphasize important aspects, the orators use: repetition, parallelism or alliteration.

Fahnestock claims that “a stylistics drawn from the rhetorical tradition also adds to the

vocabulary of language analysis”. According to the scientist “the richest source of descriptive

concepts comes from the figures of speech. The list of such devices appears as early as the first

century B.C. and catalogues of the figures expanded dramatically in the early modern period”

(Fahnestock 2011, 09).

Taking everything into consideration, stylistic devices have an aesthetic function of

language. For all the above mentioned reasons their function is to intensify the speaker’s

utterance and to make the speech more figured and emotional.

2.2.1 Metaphor

Metaphors are one of the most frequently used stylistic devices. The purpose of using

metaphors is to create a vivid picture in the audience’s mind and to arouse imagination for

example “She has a heart of stone” or “We are all shadows on the wall of time”. Rhetoricians

or poets use metaphors in an imaginative way to show that the two things have the same

qualities and to make the speech more persuasive and more powerful. With reference to Lakoff

& Johnson (2008, 04), “metaphor is pervasive in every life, not just in language but in thought

25

and action. Our ordinary conceptual system, in terms of which we both think and act, is

fundamentally metaphorical in nature”.

Anderson groups metaphors into two categories: live and dead metaphors. A live

metaphor is “a phrase that is not part of our everyday use of language, so when we hear it we

know that it is a metaphor, e.g. black holes in the economy”. Similarly, the scientist says that “a

dead metaphor is a phrase or a word that was once a live metaphor but it has become so

frequently used that it has become a part of our everyday language, e. g. a helping hand”

(Anderson 2005, 06).

According to Galperin the term “metaphor” means transference of some quality from one

object to another. He says that “a metaphor becomes a stylistic device when two different

phenomena (things, events, ideas, actions) are simultaneously brought to mind by the

imposition of some or all of the inherent properties of one object on the other which by nature

is deprived of these properties”(Galperin 1977, 126). Moreover, Yoos claims that “metaphor

brings to our attention things difficult to summarize or express in literal words, flatter a

reader’s sensibility and sensitivity and bind author’s and readers together in shared feelings and

in familiar held agreements” (Yoos 2009, 104).

It is popularly believed that to understand politicians’ ideas people should be more

accurate and to pay more attention to what is said. That is what politicians’ speeches are

considered as monotonous and difficult to perceive the ideas which are presented by

politicians. For this reason the speakers were interested in various forms of figurative or

symbolic language which can be effective persuasive device in order to catch the audiences’

attentions. Linguists have considered that metaphors are the most persuasive devise and that it

is the easiest way to reach peoples’ consciousness. With reference to Mio, “metaphors allow

the general public to grasp the meanings of political events and feel a part of the process. They

are also effective because of their ability to resonate with latent symbolic representations

residing at the unconscious level” (Mio 1997, 130).

Hayes claims that “politicians have also recently started to show an interest in metaphor

as a mean of engaging with people. Of course political speech writers have long been aware of

the power of metaphors, but what seems to be different now is the way in which metaphor-

laden speeches are being constructed to appeal to the emotions of the audience” (Hayes 2011,

05). With reference to published article on presidential leadership and charisma, the author

discusses what makes a leader charismatic. He claims that “the charismatic leader can use

metaphors as a tool to clarify meaning, to inspire, and to motivate followers (Mio 2005, 288).

So, that means that “metaphor is a tool of inspiration”. According to him “speeches that

26

contain more metaphors may be perceived to be more inspiring because they can stir up

emotional connections with the topic or with the speakers while also conveying the message of

action” (Mio 2005, 288).

To sum up, the stylistic devise like metaphors are the core of the persuasion and the most

widely used in political speeches. However, not all speeches are based on metaphors. There

are some other widely used stylistic devises such as personification and epithets.

A stylistic device in which human characteristic are attributed to an abstract, quality,

animal, or an inanimate object is called personification. In other words, personification as a

sub-category of metaphor when a human trait (the ability to show emotions and take part in

activities) is given to non-living objects e.g. her life passed by. According to Sinnott, the term

‘personification’ with its variety of connotations in the English language, denotes the literary

convention of attributing human characteristics and personality to an element or abstract

quality. This convention has featured in poetry and songs since ancient times. Rhetorically it

may be described as a means of taking hold of things that appear startlingly uncontrollable and

independent” (Sinnott 2005, 19-20). The difference between metaphor and personification is

that a metaphor replaces a person or an object with another, whereas in personification, an

inanimate object or animal is given human characteristics. As metaphors, personification adds

vividness and creates visual imagery to literary texts.

First of all, with reference to Smith, “during Athens’ democratic era, personifications or

representations of things, places, or abstractions by human form appeared at first on vase

paintings and eventually on publicly displayed monuments such as free-standing statues, wall

paintings, etc.” Afterwards, according to the scientist, “whereas few personifications in the

archaic period (before 480 BC) were political in nature, the use of personifications and

mythological figures in a politically abusive manner, in early classical period (4480-450 BC),

paved the way for the explicit use of political personifications during the Peloponnesian War

(431-404 BC) and in the fourth century” (Smith 2003, 01). Moreover, ancient Greeks

considered that every natural thing to have a spirit. So, the spirits with which such ‘things’

were attached usually took the names of those things and if these named spirits attained human

characteristics e.g. voice, appearance, or activity then they were personified.

Nowadays, especially in political speeches using personification gives a break from the

monotonous language. Politicians frequently use metaphors to personify the nation in order to

emphasize some issues or to appeal to the listeners’ emotions.

It should be noted that personification is a very common way of creating metaphors.

Lakoff pointed out that “personification is a general category that covers a very wide range of

27

metaphors, each picking out different aspects of a person on ways of looking at a person.”

According to the scientist, “metaphors and that they allow us to make sense of phenomena in

the world in human terms that we can understand on the basis of our motivation, goals, actions,

and characteristics” (Lakoff 1980, 34).

2.2.2 Epithet

An epithet (from the Greek word epithetos, means ‘added’) is defined as a word or a

comparison that describes a person or an object which strengthens emotional expression. It is a

lexical stylistic device that depends on the emphasizing of the emotive meaning. Actually, an

epithet provides us information about the person or thing to which it is being attached. Some

famous historical people are usually recognized with the epithets e.g., Alexander the Great,

William the Conqueror or nowadays well known the Iron Lady (Margaret Thatcher) etc. Many

fixed epithets are closely related to folklore, so, due to this through long and repeated use

epithets become fixed e.g. ‘true love’, ‘dark forest’, ‘green wood’ etc.

Galperin says that “the epithet is a stylistic device based on the interplay of emotive and

logical meaning in an attributive and logical meaning in an attributive word/phrase or even

syntactically used to characterize an object and pointing out to the reader, and frequently

imposing on him, some of the properties or features of the object with the aim of giving an

individual perception an evaluation of these features or properties” (Galperin 1977, 143).

The epithets are classified semantically and structurally. Semantically are divided into

two groups: associated and unassociated. Associated epithets convey emotional evaluation of

the object of the speaker for ex. unbelievable story, incredible experience. Unassociated

epithets have an attribute which characterizes the object by giving a feature which it does not

have and can surprise the reader for ex. thoughtful moon, soft grass. Structure epithets are

divided into: simple for ex. she looked astonished, compound for ex. almond-shaped eyes,

phrase for ex. the blue-eyed woman, and reversed for ex. a slim figure of a girl. However,

Kukharenko divides epithets into fixed, e.g. Merry Christmas, dead silence and figurative or

transferred that can be metaphorical, metonymic, ironical, etc., e.g. the tobacco-stained smile.

Due to epithets compositional structure, they can be distinguished into simple,

compound, phrase and a sentence. Simple or phrase epithets are ordinary adjectives e.g. wild

wind. Compound epithets are like compound adjectives e.g. almond-shaped eyes. According to

Kukharenko, “phrase epithets always produce an original impression e.g. the sunshine-in-the-

breakfast-room smell” (Kukharenko 2000, 31). Moreover there are some more epithets such as

28

metaphorical or reversed epithets (devilish woman) strings of epithets (apple-faced young

woman) and transferred epithets which often involve shifting a modifier from the animate to

the inanimate e.g. discreet silence, cheerful money.

2.2.3 Hyperbole

Hyperbole is a figure of speech when the speaker exaggerates and overemphasizes some

words or phrases in order to produce more noticeable effect or to stress a specific point of the

speech. The word ‘hyperbole’ has its origin in the Greek language and means exaggeration.

Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines hyperbole as “a way of speaking or writing that

makes sth sound better, more exiting, dangerous, etc than it really is” (OALD 2000, 639).

According to Claridge, “hyperbole as a term has a long tradition. In the sense of

‘exaggeration’ it was already used in classical Greece”. The scientist says that Roman

rhetoricians, such as Quintilian, dealt with the figure of overstatement in their handbooks and

used in diverse sources such as love poetry, sagas, tall tales, classical mythology, political

rhetoric and advertising as texts containing hyperbole. Furthermore, Claridge points out that

“hyperbole is not only arcane rhetorical figure, but rather, similar to metaphor, it is common

feature of everyday language use. Just like metaphor, it may be wired in the cognitive

structuring of our experience: the concept of size, to which exaggeration must primarily be

connected, is very basic and salient one” (Claridge 2011, 01).

In many cases, hyperbole is commonly used in everyday spontaneous language.

According to Kukharenko, “when we describe our admiration or anger and say I would gladly

see this film a hundred times – we use trite language hyperboles which, through long and

repeated use have lost their originality and remained signals of the speaker’s roused emotions”

(Kukharenko 2000, 33). In other words, hyperbole may lose its quality as a stylistic device

through frequent repetition. Similarly, Galperin states that “in its extreme from this

exaggeration is carried to an illogical degree, sometimes a kind of absurdum e.g. He was so tall

that I wasn’t sure, if he had a face” (Galperin 1977, 161). Also, hyperbole can be expressed by

all notional parts of speech as all, every, everybody; numerical nouns a million, a thousand;

adverbs of time ever, never” (Kukharenko 2000, 33).

Politicians’ speeches contain a number of classic rhetorical devices, but hyperbole is the

one of the most powerful device to express their ideas and manipulate the audience’s feelings.

Actually, according to Baker, “telling manipulative “lies’— intentionally deceptive, knowingly

false, statements of facts as a mean for getting others to behave other than they would

29

otherwise — is not included within the realm of protected expression but that protected

expression includes unintentional falsehoods, metaphor, and hyperbole in the strong expression

of opinion or perspective” (Baker 1992, 02). In the same way, Claridge claims that “the

persuasive or even manipulating aspect of hyperbole may come to the fore in public speeches

and debates.” According to the scientist, “politicians use overstatement for purposes which are

often regarded as manipulative and deceiving by the public at large, such as denouncing the

political opponent or praising their own achievement” (Claridge 2011, 02). Also, they may use

it for producing points in quotable catchphrases, which are very memorable but through their

briefness often implausibly exaggerated.

2.2.4 Rhetorical question

Rhetorical devices and literary techniques are closely connected to tone and style.

Rhetorical question is defined as any question which not intended to be answered. So, it is

normally used for rhetorical effect with a presumption that only one answer is possible or it is

asked without needing or intending to be answered. According to Galperin, “the rhetorical

question is a special syntactic stylistic device the essence of which consists in reshaping the

grammatical meaning of the interrogative sentence” (Galperin 1977, 222). Similarly, Nozan

claims that “rhetorical questions are infelicitous or false questions in that the answer to the

question is already known to the questioner and a rhetorical question may or may not have the

illocutionary force of questioning but always bear the force of an indirect assertion.” (Niazi

2010, 270). Furthermore, Han says “a rhetorical positive question has the illocutionary force of

negative assertion, and a rhetorical negative question has the illocutionary force of a positive

assertion” (Han 2000, 202).

There are various kinds of rhetorical questions. According to Athanasiadou, “using

rhetorical questions is the intention of the speaker is to give emphasis to some particular point.

Moreover, in a rhetorical question, the speaker considers the propositional content he/she is

going to utter to be trivial or well-known. In a rhetorical question a constituent is given

emphatic prominence and gets a universally valid touch and finally, rhetorical questions

express wonder in an exclamative way” (Athanasiadou 1990, 108-109).

Rhetorical questions have a persuasive power in political speeches. Due to this, rhetorical

questions are frequently used in political speeches and like other stylistic devices can be used

in varieties of ways, depending on the orator and the purpose of the speech. It is obvious that a

rhetorical question is a great way to get the audience’s attention and to encourage the listener

30

to think about what the answer to the question must be. In addition to this, Dlugan claims that

“if your entire speech is a series of statements, the audience may passively listen and absorb

little” (Dlugan 2013, 01). That is to say, using a rhetorical question the orator can make the

listeners active participants in the speech by inviting to think about the arguments. Similarly,

rhetorical questions may be framed as topics for discussions in political forums or debates, too.

However, the main reason of using rhetorical questions in political speeches is that it has the

psychological benefit for the speaker. It shows that the orator shares experience with the

audience and understands the people’s situation or problems which creates a psychological

bond between the speaker and the listener.

3. BARACK OBAMA’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR LINGUISTIC

REALIZATION

3.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches

Obviously, one of the greatest linguistic tools of political persuasion is the metaphor. It is

popular to believe that the President of the United States Barack Obama delivers emotional

speeches, full of stylistic devices. Besides, by putting ideas into metaphors the President

presents himself as a strong leader who is responsible for his country. So, B. Obama masterly

uses metaphorical phrases in order to gain people’s attention.

The length of the speeches performed by B. Obama is enormous. However, the speeches

make people want to listen, because they create a situation in which people feel that they are in

the presence of a great political leader.

Similarly, as Lithuanian President D. Grybauskaitė, B. Obama uses the word ‘heart’ in

his speeches metaphorically in order to arouse people’s emotions. Poetically, the ‘heart’ is

thought to be the organ of human emotion. Due to this, B. Obama resorts to metaphorical

language to focus on preservation of peace in the world.

(1) That's where peace begins -- not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of

people.

The stylistic device supports the President’s wish that people all around the world live

peacefully and secure liberty across the globe. He metaphorically claims that the values of

freedom, heritage and principles depend on people’s internal value.

(2) We carry all that history in our hearts.

31

The President B. Obama through metaphors strengthens the main arguments about

security and peace in his speech in Jerusalem. He shows his friendship and deep understanding

for Israel people’s dilemmas. Moreover, despite the faith and creeds the President figuratively

invites the people to love their neighbors, sisters and brothers, inspires to think about the values

of the nation.

(3) Of course, those values are at the heart not just of the Christian faith; but of all

faiths. From Judaism to Islam; Hinduism to Sikhism; there echoes a powerful call to serve our

brothers and sisters. To keep in our hearts a deep and abiding compassion for all. And to

treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves.

According to President, our world is changing every minute. So due to the fact, he

argumentatively points out that the authorities need to think about the change of educational

standards and methods. He strongly criticizes educational systems, various policies and

procedures of institutions and draws the importance of the interaction between students and

employees.

(4) So all along that education pipeline, too many people – too many of our young

talented people – are slipping through the cracks. It's not only heartbreaking for those

students; it's a loss for our economy and our country.

In his eulogy for Nelson Mandela, the President Obama metaphorically describes

Mandela’s charismatic personality and powerful influence on the people. Besides, Obama

glorifies Mandela’s ideas how to struggle to equality and justice, how to uphold freedom and

that in spite of our differences people can create more beautiful place to live. He draws the

audience’s attention to Mandela’s ability to be a skillful and righteous for everyone.

(5) He changed laws, but he also changes hearts.

(6) Let us search for his largeness of spirit somewhere inside of ourselves. And when the

night grows dark, when injustice weighs heavy on our hearts, when our best-laid plans seem

beyond our reach, let us think of Madiba and the words that brought him comfort within the

four walls of his cell.

(7) It is hard to eulogize any man- to capture in words not just the facts and the dates that

make a life, but the essential truth of a person- their private joys and sorrows; the quiet

moments and unique qualities that illuminate someone’s soul.

President B. Obama emotionally uses image of ‘heart’ to stress an importance of

Palestinian human rights and the significance of peace between Israel and Palestine.

(8) No one -- no single step can change overnight what lies in the hearts and minds of

millions.

32

In the speeches which dealt with the economic situation, the president compares crises

with the worry and the source of sleepless night. He tries to convince and to calm the people

that there is the way to get away from recession and to strengthen the country.

(9) It's the worry you wake up with and the source of sleepless nights. It's the job you

thought you'd retire from but now have lost, the business you built your dreams upon that's

now hanging by a thread, the college acceptance letter your child had to put back in the

envelope.

The President metaphorically compares the work with the backbone of foreign policy. He

appreciates the extraordinary role of the state department employees for the tireless work they

do.

(10) You are the backbone of American foreign policy – especially those of you who are

serving far away from home during the holidays.

In his remarks at Yad Vashen in Jerusalem, the President passionately tries to persuade

the people to think about changing themselves inside. B. Obama points out that empathy is the

core of the humanity. People should not ignore what happens to others and should not be

indifferent to the cruelty.

(11) To succumb to our worst instincts or to summon the better angels of our nature.

(12) We have to work for it around the world – to tend the light and the brightness as

opposed to our worst instincts.

The President’s expressions ‘icy currents’ and ‘storms’ emotionally inspires people to

believe that the nation is strong enough to combat any difficulties.

(13) America: In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us

remember these timeless words. With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents,

and endure what storms may come.

Finally, in his political speeches the President demonstrates how certain ways of seeing a

policy problem and reacting to it can be emphasized through the use of metaphors. Beside this,

metaphors help the president to develop a prospect on a problematic situation. Similarly, as in

President D. Grybauskaitė’s political speeches, B. Obama frequently uses root metaphors

“keep in our heart”, “lies in the heart”, “backbone of American foreign policy”. Extended

metaphors are noticeable in his speeches, too. In his speeches the President uses extended

metaphors that are meant to be memorable.

Among the widely used figures of speech the president often employs personification,

one of the types of metaphors, as another symbolic way to emphasize his main messages. The

President of the United States B. Obama often personifies America. The President gives human

33

characteristics to America in order to show his concern about the country. In his inspirational

speeches the President tries to convince the audience that they can seize the future together and

addressing his arguments to America as a human.

(14) America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight

for new jobs and new opportunity and new security for the middle class.

(15) That is not just my promise; that’s America’s promise.

The President of the United States emphasizes that people should not forget the past. Due

to political considerations, the President invites the people to renew American leadership in the

world and to expand opportunity for the next generation.

(16) In words and deeds, we are showing the world that a new era of engagement has

begun. For we know that America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, but the

world cannot meet them without America.

Furthermore, personification enhances the arguments about the importance of every

person in helping to promote the economy. B. Obama gives a human trait to America by

emphasizing what should be done in order to improve the financial situation.

(17) We know that can happen. We know that in the global economy -- where there's no

room for error and there's certainly no room for wasted potential America needs you to

succeed.

At the same time, the President B. Obama presents the solution to the economic

problems, so he vividly uses imagery and personifies the jobs.

(18) More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our

roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; lying broadband and

expanding mass transit.

There are a great number of speeches where the President B. Obama personifies

countries. He assigns the qualities of a person to Israelis and South Africa. In his fiery speech

the President shows his intolerance to violence and at the same time he shows his worries

about the countries’ freedom and using this stylistic device creates a persuasive situation that

no nation can build a safer, better world alone. The President convinces the people that only

work can bring the hope of democracy and development of the country.

(19) Over the last 65 years, when Israel has been at its best, Israelis have demonstrated

that responsibility does not end when you reach the Promised Land, it only begins.

(20) For young Israelis, I know that these issues of security are rooted in an experience

that is even more fundamental than the pressing threat of the day.

34

(21) South Africa shows that is true. South Africa shows we can change, that we can

choose a world defined not by our differences, but by our common hopes.

B. Obama personifies the world, too. According to the President, the world as a human

can be cruel and selfish. Due to this, B. Obama invites the people to join together to solve the

national problems.

(22) In a world that can be cruel and selfish, it’s this knowledge – the knowledge that

we are inclined to love one another, that we’re inclined to do good, to be good – that causes us

to take heart.

The president feels sorrow for Joplin people for aftermath of the storm. Through

personification power, as the head of the State, B. Obama brightly shows his responsibility for

the people and shows his charity to the people of Joplin.

(23) In the last week, that’s what Joplin has not just taught Missouri, not just taught

America, but has taught the world.

In his political speeches the President B. Obama takes personification for granted as an

important aspect of rhetorical strategy. The President uses stylistic device to express strong

concern about the country and to stress the importance of National unity. Moreover, through

the appeal to the audience’s emotions he inspires people to believe that the nation is strong to

combat any difficulties. So, B. Obama uses personification when a phenomenon is associated

with human actions. Sometimes, the president applies the type of personification when a thing

is personified and portrayed to have human emotions. In addition to this, he personifies not

only America but also other countries. Sometimes, the President gives human traits to jobs.

3.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches

The President B.Obama uses a great number of epithets, too. Describing people, events or

things he tries to strengthen his arguments and to create emotional atmosphere. The President

likes to share his personal life in order to convey a message that he is friendly for everyone and

to show his closeness. Talking about his personal life he appeals on the audience’s emotions.

As well as that, B. Obama opens his inner life and shows how much he loves his family.

The strategy of being frank is used to gain the audiences warm feelings. It is obvious that the

President includes personal experience, to make his speech livelier and establish a ‘personal’

relationship to become well-liked.

(24) Sasha and Malia, before our very eyes you're growing up to become two strong,

smart beautiful young women, just like your mom.

35

Argumentative force of epithets is seen when he praises other people, shows his pride and

trust of them and at the same time tries to inspire the audience to believe in government and

politics.

(25) That’s who the American people are. Determined, and not to be messed with. Now,

we need a strategy- and a politics- that reflects this resilient spirit.

Furthermore, the epithet supports the President’s message of the unity, the strength of

the troops and the power of the State.

(26) Even as we stand here tonight, we know there are brave Americans waking up in the

deserts of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan to risk their lives for us.

His speeches contain epithets describing young people and the importance of education.

So, he vividly embraces his concern about education system.

(27) But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most

supportive parents, the best schools in the world – and none of it will make a difference, none

of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities, unless you show up to those

schools, unless you pay attention to those teachers, unless you listen to your parents and

grandparents and other adults and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

However, B. Obama reinforces his arguments by saying that people must find the

solutions for the financial problems and draws attention to political awareness. Besides, the

President intends to persuade the audience claiming that education is one of the most important

things in life because without education young people cannot contribute to the world’s

prosperity.

(28) Now, to achieve this goal, we're going to need motivated students, motivated

families, motivated communities, local leaders who are doing their part, state leaders who are

doing their part.

(29) But because she had worked hard and her parents understood the value of

education, and she had great teachers and great opportunities, and because the country was

willing to invest to make sure that she was able to pay for college, she ended up going to some

of the best universities in the country.

Furthermore, B. Obama’s speeches are full of epithets describing America. He boosts the

strength of American military. Using these epithets the president wants to emphasize that those

who intends to confront with America, they are ready to fight for safety.

(30) We want to pass on a country that's safe and respected and admired around the

world, a nation that is defended by the strongest military on earth and the best troops this –

this world has ever known.

36

(31) We have the most powerful military in history, but that's not what makes us strong.

The President B. Obama rhetorically concentrates people’s attention and again appeals to

their emotions when he talks to people with a pride about America. He emphasizes particular

aspects of living in America and shows his devotion to American country and to its people.

(32) This is a nation of museums and patents, timeless holy sites and ground-breaking

innovation.

(33) And together with your help and God's grace we will continue our journey forward

and remind the world just why it is that we live in the greatest nation on Earth.

At the same time, the president points out that America is a friendly country and it is a

place for everyone. Moreover, he creates persuasive situation that everyone has an opportunity

to have more prosperous life and invites to make a progress together.

(34) Let’s make sure we’re giving America a raise. One thing that Americans across the

board agree on is if you work full-time in the wealthiest nation on Earth, you shouldn’t be in

poverty.

However, speaking about enemies and terrorism, he rhetorically shows his strong anxiety

about terrorism and appeals to collective awareness. Being decisive and confident political

leader, B. Obama lets the audience to understand that he will have no use for fierce people.

(35) And long after the current messengers of hate have faded from the world’s memory,

alongside the brutal despots, deranged madmen, and ruthless demagogues who litter history

– the flag of the United States will still wave from small – town cemeteries, to national

monuments, to distant outposts abroad.

(36) Make no mistake: There will be difficult days ahead. We know that the violence in

Iraq will continue – we see that already in the senseless bombing in Kirkuk earlier today.

Similarly, B. Obama emphasizes difficult and uncertain times in order to show his

responsibility and represents himself as a powerful and attentive president of the United States.

(37) So we're helping states get through some very tough times without having to

drastically cut back on the critical education infrastructure that's going to be so important.

(38) And finally, I want to thank all of you here today for everything you're doing to find

new solutions to some of our oldest, toughest problems.

In order to arouse the people’s feelings to inefficient politicians’ decisions, he criticizes

their good intentions and problem solutions.

(39) Here in Washington, we’ve all seen how quickly good intentions can turn into

broken promises and wasteful spending.

37

(40) That is why I have asked Vice President Biden to lead a tough, unprecedented

oversight effort – because nobody messes with Joe.

To sum it up, associative epithets are the most significant type in President B.

Obama’s speeches. That is to say, associated epithets describe the idea which inherits the

concept of the object “difficult day”, “brutal despots”. Furthermore, from the point of

composition, the President mainly chooses simple epithets. So, the President resorts to

epithets in order to enhance the arguments of the speech.

3.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches

As it was mentioned above, stylistic means play a crucial role in B. Obama’s speeches.

As a rule, the President’s speeches contain a great number of stylistic devices, still hyperbole is

not very often used for emphasizing ideas. However, B. Obama likes using hyperbole in order

to transfer strong expression of opinion or perspective.

In his inspiring victory speech the president emotionally thanks voters’ for their loyalty

and trust in him as a leader, as a father figure of all Nation.

(41) Thank you for believing all the way, through every hill, through every valley.

In his passionate speech, B. Obama describes Mandela as a ‘giant’ of a history. The

President of America uses magnification in order to inspire the audience to struggle for racial

freedom in Africa and America.

(42) How much harder to do so for a giant of history, who moved a nation toward

justice, and in the process moved billions around the world.

To emphasis the importance of foreign policy B. Obama employs hyperbole to boast

ambassador Holbrooke for his devotion to his job and that he was extremely hard-working

man. Due to this, the stylistic device supports the author’s message of his responsibility for

every person.

(43) He is simply one of the giants of American foreign policy.

The American President sensuously resorts to figurative language to show how much he

outlives National tragedies. So, he emphasizes the importance of the unity, cooperation and

self-devotion among the people.

(44) You’ve banded together. You’ve come to each other’s aid. You’ve demonstrated a

simple truth: that amid heartbreak and tragedy, no one is a stranger. Everybody is a brother.

Everybody is a sister.

(45) Now, there have been countless acts of kindness and selflessness in recent days.

38

Moreover, B. Obama concentrates and accentuates the audience’s attention to new

policies about developing and improving technology in schools. By saying ‘huge’, he

exaggerates the significance of connection between science and economy.

(46) We also need folks who are studying the arts because our film industry is a huge

generator of jobs and economic power here in the United States, and it tells us our story and

helps us to find what’s – our common humanity.

At the students’ film festival, the President B. Obama uses hyperbole to create a

friendship atmosphere and to make his speech livelier and to become well-liked.

(47) And today, the Oscar goes to – all of you.

Speaking at the Yad Vashen Holocaust Memorial Museum, the use of hyperbole gives

the strength to communicative tension. Similarly, B. Obama shows his firm attitude towards

tragic history and figuratively expresses his sorrow.

(48) We could come here a thousand times, and each time our hearts would break.

(49) So may God bless the memory of the millions.

Furthermore, to enlarge his concerning about aggression and terrorism, B. Obama

stresses his strong attitude to National security and at the same time he tries to show to the

audience that he is a responsible and forceful leader of a country.

(50) Thousands were taken from us, as clouds of fire, metal and ash descended upon a

sun-filled morning.

In order to draw the audience’s attention to important issues, B. Obama employs

numerical nouns such as, ‘millions’, ‘thousands’. So, he uses hyperbole to inspire the people to

believe in America’s successful economy and prosperous future.

(51) It would lift millions of Americans out of poverty, and help millions more work their

way out of poverty – without requiring a single dollar in new taxes or spending.

(52) He not only embodied Ubuntu, he taught millions to find that truth within

themselves.

(53) We’ve been able to provide millions of young people additional grants and loans so

that they can go to college.

(54) We will soon lay down thousands of miles of power lines that can carry new energy

to cities and towns across this country.

Taking everything into consideration, Obama employs hyperboles in his speeches where

he shows his feelings, intensifies rhetorical effect and focuses on the main arguments of the

speech. In many cases certain types of hyperbole is used repeatedly. The main group of

hyperbole which the President applies in his speeches is numerical nouns ‘a million’, ‘a

39

thousand’. Furthermore, B. Obama sometimes uses quantifiers ‘everybody’, ‘all’, ‘every’. As

one might expect that through the usage of hyperbole, the President achieves impressive effects

on the listener. So that is why, he exaggerates the size of the phenomenon by saying ‘giant’. B.

Obama overstates something because of his intention to highlight some very important points.

3.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches

It was noticed that in his speeches, the President B. Obama mostly uses wh-question

form. The American President expresses himself by using questions that are asked and at the

same time immediately answered. These types of questions allow the President to highlight the

reason why he is expressing his worriment.

(55) Now, you may ask, why are we here at Hudson Valley? We're here because this is a

place where anyone with the desire to take their career to a new level or start a new career

altogether has the opportunity to pursue that dream.

In order to force the audience to thing about the future possibilities of the country, the

President seeks to break the stillness and to probe the audience’s opinion.

(56) So today, I want to ask all of you, what's your contribution going to be? What

problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a President who

comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?

Moreover, by asking questions B. Obama encourages young people to think about their

future and evokes their personal awareness. In order to create a communicative tension of the

speech he uses incorrect Yes/No questions.

(57) You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or

an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military?

Similarly, the President invites to think about other possibilities of the future that people

may or can change. By using rhetorical device he stimulates the audience’s emotions and

arouses their imagination.

(58) So tonight, let us ask ourselves – if our children should live to see the next century;

if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they

see? What progress will we have made?

(59) Is that who we are? Is that something that our Founders foresaw? Is that the

America we want to leave to our children?

By highlighting the everyday problems and showing his worry, the President expresses

his strong criticism towards unpleasant situation.

40

(60) What are we doing to hire more cops? What are we doing to make sure that they're

getting the training that they need? What are we doing to make sure our sheriff's offices in

rural counties have access to some of the resources that some of the big cities do in order to

deal with some of these emergencies?

However, not only the President uses rhetorical questions to show his strong criticism,

but also when he shows his closeness to the people. That is why he sometimes starts or ends

the speeches using rhetorical questions and seeks to attract attention by conspicuous behaviour

or to become more well-liked.

(61) Oh, this is a good-looking crowd here. Are you fired up? Are you ready to go?

(62) All right? Thank you very much, everybody.

Furthermore, to express his great sorrow for a terrible storm that stroke the country the

president uses rhetorical questions for dramatic effect. So, he shows his personal touch and

brings the people to self-reflection.

(63) And as Reverend Brown alluded to, the question that weighs on us at a time like this

is: Why? Why our town? Why our home? Why my son, or husband, or wife, or sister, or

friend? Why? We do not have the capacity to answer.

The President B. Obama again appeals to the audience’s emotion and it seems that the

president tries to provoke though and encourages taking some actions.

(64) I just walked through some of the neighborhoods that have been affected, and you

look out at the landscape, and there have to be moments where you just say, where to begin?

How to start?

Instead of getting into immediate declaration, the President figuratively achieves

impressive effects on the listener. The stylistic device affirms the author’s message that the

people should stop for a while and to find time for self-evaluation.

(65) How well have I applied his lessons in my own life?

In conclusion, the President B. Obama’s speeches often contain rhetorical questions

showing his closeness to the audience and compelling them to find right solutions. In addition

to this, rhetorical questions help the President to support already expresses views and to

influence further thought. It was noticed that B. Obama uses questions at the beginning or the

end of discourse to enhance the audience’s emotions. Similarly, series of questions weight

ideas and support the arguments of the text. This rhetorical device helps the President to spread

the main arguments of the text by saying why he is expressing his worrying or delight against

something and somebody. For this reason, he President sometimes asks questions and

immediately answers.

41

4. DALIA GRYBAUSKAITĖ’S RHETORICAL STRATEGIES AND THEIR

LINGUISTIC REALIZATION

4.1. Stylistic peculiarities of metaphors in the speeches

In President D. Grybauskaitė’s political speeches metaphors played a crucial role used for

the purpose of persuasion. Similarly, the President used metaphors as a powerful

communication tool to spread the ideas and concepts.

The research deals with the speeches delivered by Dalia Grybauskaitė at the beginning of

her presidency. It was noticed that the president appeals to the feelings and emotions by

figurative use of the word ‘heart’. Instead of saying directly, she makes a sentence thrilling by

conveying strong imagery and creating a colourful picture in the audience’s mind.

(1) Laisvės ir demokratijos troškimas. Širdyje- prasideda ir valstybė.

D. Grybauskaitė uses ‘heart’ as a symbol of emotion, to convey a vivid people’s desire

for free nation. President D. Grybauskaitė highlights that people who work towards a common

vision can create a better life in the future.

The President also mentions the strength of the little country and that the world was

stunned by people’s civic courage to stand against military power. She glorifies people whose

hearts were beating in unison for the same ideals. The power of unity, D.Grybauskaitė

figuratively describes as the nation’s one heart

(2) Ir ta jėga sudrebėjo – neišdrįso pakelti ginklo prieš vaikus, senelius, vyrus ir moteris,

kurių širdys plakė kaip viena.

Similarly, she uses the image of a ‘heart’ showing the sense of human unity celebrating

Lithuanian Independence Day.

(3) Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės Aktas- tai laisvės liudijimas kiekvieno lietuvio širdyje.

Dalia Grybauskaitė vividly describes The Baltic Way: A Chain for Freedom. This way

she compares with the ‘way of hearts’. The President figuratively emphasizes the peoples’

protest against the Soviet rule and how the world was stunned by peoples’ civic courage and

determination to resist a military power peacefully and democratically.

(4) Baltijos kelias, grįstas širdimis, buvo ir vedė ne tik į laisvę, bet ir į žmogaus bei

visuomenės išsivadavimą.

The President beautifully tried to persuade the people by using word ‘heart’ the

advantages of the opportunities offered by the European Union.

42

(5) Atveriame savo širdis ir protą tam, kad kurtume bendrą Europos ateitį.

The power of metaphorical persuasion is obvious in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches where

she tries to establish a ‘personal’ relationship to become well-liked.

(6) Čia, Lietuvos širdyje, matau susirinkusiųjų veidus, kuriuose daug šviesos ir išminties.

(7) Nuoširdžiai dėkoju bibliotekose dirbantiems žmonėms, kurie įdeda daug širdies į savo

darbą, skatina skaityti, padeda savo bendruomenei.

Similarly, the president wants to show the unity of the nation and that only freedom could

preserve our homeland and independence. Dalia Grybauskaitė's affirmation that Lithuanians all

over the world will join together in singing the national anthem - one voice, one heart

symbolizes that Lithuania is free, recognized and respectable nation.

(8) Sausio 13-toji yra mūsų vienybės šaltinis. Tegul jis niekada neišsenka ir maitina

mūsų širdis laisvės dvasia.

(9) Kad visi kartu vakare susibursime giedoti Lietuvos himną, išvien sujungdami savo

balsus ir širdis.

Moreover, the President in her speech emotionally inspires sportsmen and referees and

invites them to have a sense of national pride and calls glorify the country proudly.

(10) Sportininkams, treneriams ir visai sporto bendruomenei turėčiau du palinkėjimus.

Pirma – saugokite savo širdyje – Lietuvą!

Metaphorical use of the word ‘heart’ also creates a situation in which the President wants

people to think about new opportunities. Moreover, she metaphorically invites people to open

their homes and hearts to spring and to rejoice in the good and wonderful things that life has to

offer.

(11) Bundanti gamta ir sugrįžtantys paukščiai suteikia mums vilties ir jėgų naujiems

darbams. Įsileiskime pavasarį į namus ir širdis.

However, not only the word ‘heart’ the President uses metaphorically. Talking about the

crisis she draws attention to everyday troubles and invites to think about the future.

(12) Šiais nelengvais laikais, kasdien girdime sakant: krizė. Gesindami gaisrą šiandien,

galvokime apie rytojų.

According to D.Grybauskaitė, knowledge plays an important role as an integral part of

national growth and development. Both freedom and education can make a nation strong.

(13) Prisiminkime, kokias dideles aukas ant žinių ir laisvės aukuro sudėjo mūsų

protėviai. Knygnešiai ir daraktoriai, kariai ir artojai, mokslininkai ir menininkai. Visi jie

sunešė tą didelį aruodą, iš kurio mes dabar semiame.

(14) Mokslo ir žinių diena-tai ne tik šventė. Tai slenkstis prieš tobulėjimo erdves.

43

Furthermore, in her speech about human right situation, the President draws her

audiences’ attention to understanding the role women play or could play in furthering the cause

of the societies. She points out that people have hundreds of international and national

declarations and regulations on human rights and gender issues in particular. So, she

figuratively expresses her thoughts by invoking people not to get lost in the forest of

documents on gender issues.

(15) Manau, kad mums reikia kritiškai įvertinti, ką turime, kad nepasiklystume

dokumentų lyčių klausimais miške.

Dalia Grybauskaitė perfectly illustrates the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the

European Union comparing it with a choir where different voices come together. This

metaphorical expression shows that the president wishes to stress the task to seek an agreement

among member states and to strengthen European’s financial posture.

(16) Mieli europiečiai, manau, kad viskas jau pasakyta šiuo muzikiniu pasirodymu. Jis

puikiai atspindi, kas yra pirmininkavimas Europos Sąjungos Tarybai. Tai choras, kuriame

susilieja ir dera skirtingi balsai.

In the same way, D. Grybauskaitė conveys the message that Lithuania has many artists

and the audience has the opportunity to know Lithuania and its culture better. So, the culture

she compares with the community orchestra.

(17) Todėl sveikindama „Klara“muzikos festivalio dalyvius ir klausytojus, džiaugiuosi,

kad šiandien yra puiki proga Jums visiems daugiau sužinoti ir apie Lietuvą, ir apie jos

kultūrą- išgirsti, kaip ji skamba Bendrijos orkestre.

The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania is compared with a wreath. It

symbolizes the nation’s fights, victories and losses, connecting them back to their deep roots,

national wisdom and experience.

(18) Nepriklausomybės aktas- tai ilgamečių tautos kovų už laisvę vainikas.

In D. Grybauskaitė’s political speeches metaphors are the most significant device among

other rhetorical tools used for purpose of persuasion. From the point of usage ‘heart’ is

considered as the site of a room of emotions. In her political speeches ‘heart’ is associated with

feelings. It could be stated that the President’s speeches are based on model of emotions. Root

metaphors, are the most prevailing rhetorical device in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches. They are

embedded within a language that it is often not realized as being a metaphor “įdeda daug

širdies į darbą”, “troškimas gimsta širdyje”. Furthermore, complex metaphors where a simple

metaphor is base on a secondary metaphor element, quite often emerge in her speeches

<…krizė. Gesindami gaisrą šiandien, galvokime apie rytojų.>, <…pirmininkavimas Europos

44

Sąjungos Tarybai…choras, kuriame susilieja ir dera skirtingi balsai>. So, it is obvious that all

metaphors have a positive connotation and arouse positive feelings in the addressees.

Personification is a frequent means of creating metaphors. The president Dalia

Grybauskaitė uses this artful form of speaking when she wants to make her speech more

imaginative. It is obvious that personification helps the audience to understand better the

speeches when the president gives those human qualities or characteristics. In the same way,

she uses imagery in order to make speeches stronger and to influence people by using this

stylistic device.

The President personifies Lithuania many times. She usually gives to Lithuania human-

like qualities. According to D. Grybauskaitė, Lithuania is a militant and suffering, but at the

same time, independent, proud and stable woman.

(19) Į Vasario šešioliktosios parašą kiekvienas įspaudė savo Tėvynės viziją - kovojančios,

galbūt net kenčiančios Lietuvos, tačiau nepriklausomos, išdidžios, nepalenkiamos, savos

Lietuvos.

The President usually speaks with the intention of getting the audience’s support to the

policies of Lithuania and to share the sense of communality. For this reason, D. Grybauskaitė

gives to Lithuania human attribution when she rhetorically claims that Lithuania awakes and

speaks about independent and democratic state.

(20) Dienos, kai prieš devyniasdešimt ketverius metus Lietuva prisikėlė ir pasakė: būsim.

Būsim laisva, nepriklausoma ir demokratiška valstybė. Ji paskelbė tai pasauliui ir patvirtino šį

siekį dvidešimties iškiliausių signatarų parašais.

According to the President, Lithuania, as a human, knows the value of the liberty. She

draws the people’s attention to the friendship and unity of the neighborhood. So, personifying

Lithuania D. Grybauskaitė shows her solidarity with Polish nation.

(21) Lietuva žino laisvės kainą, todėl supranta ir lenkų jausmus šiandieną.

The President of Lithuania figuratively invites the school authorities and parents to work

together in the community and emphasizing the importance of cooperation and again gives a

human trait to Lithuania. According to her, the school is the place where Lithuania can come

into the world.

(22) Mokykla turi tapti bendru mokytojų, tėvų, bendruomenės, valdžios rūpesčiu, nes joje

gimsta ateities Lietuva.

Furthermore, D. Grybauskaitė seeks to create and to be in a credible family where the

nations as the family members can share values and common vision. Through this emotional

45

effect, she seeks to arouse the audience’s feelings of civic duty and expresses ideas about

collectivism and creativeness.

(23) Lietuva siekia telkti ir jungti Bendriją kaip atvirą, patikimą ir kūrybingą šeimą,

kurią sieja vertybės ir bendra vizija.

A national personification is noticeable in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches, too. Personifying

the nation the president represents her strong trust in people, the power of the nation and tries

to create an impression of national unity. As well as that, the nation as a woman gave birth to

prominent people.

(24) Tad būkime ir mes atsakingi už savo šalies valdymą ir ateitį. Dalyvaukime valstybės

reikaluose, neleiskime abejingumui tvarkytis mūsų šalyje.

(25) Tauta gimdė iškilius kūrėjus. Jų padedama kėlėsi ir ėjo. Tikėjo ir išsaugojo savo

gyvastį.

In the Olympic awards ceremony, the president appeals to the audience’s emotion by

saying that during the Olympic competition whole nation looked to the teams in expectation of

winnings. Indeed, D. Grybauskaitė uses personification to convey a lively impression of ability

to unite the nation and to inspire the people to the new challenges.

(26) Olimpinėmis dienomis visa Tauta viltingai žvelgė į Jus. Ir Jūs su kaupu pateisinote

lūkesčius. Kovėtės netausodami savęs.

Moreover, in order to establish a ‘common sense’ Lithuanian President humanizes three

Baltic States, by naming them ‘sisters’. She uses this stylistic device to emphasize the

importance of a good relationship between countries and to show solidarity by possible attacks

from military countries.

(27) Mūsų tautos - ne tik kaimynės, mes dar ir sesės.

(28) Į jį stojusios trys Baltijos sesės apstulbino pasaulį pilietiniu brandumu ir laisvės

troškimo jėga.

To sum up, personification allows the President D. Grybauskaitė to express her

national feelings and it makes the speeches more enjoyable. In her remarks, the President

personification applies to many things i.e. personifies countries, nations.

46

4.2. Stylistic peculiarities of epithets in the speeches

In D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches epithets are is focused on attracting attention of the

listeners. Due to this, the President describes the characters, places and things brightly.

Actually, she applies a great number of epithets to bring out the typical characteristic in

persons, places and things and she attempts to describe suitable imagery in a fewer words.

Lithuanian’s President largely uses epithets characterizing people. Similarly epithets

employed by a president are the force which argumentatively expresses ideas and shows a

close contact with people. At the Gaudeamus Festival D. Grybauskaitė beautifully

welcomes singers, dancers and musicians.

(29) Džiaugiuosi sveikindama Jus, susibūrusius iš visų Baltijos šalių. Šauniuosius

dainininkus, šokėjus, muzikantus, visą Baltijos šalių studentiją.

However, she shows her attention not only to the youth, but also mentions elderly who

can sing together with all.

(30) Ne tik studentijai, bet ir žilagalviams seneliams.

In the speeches, the President appeals to the people’s patriotism and always rhetorically

invites the youth to stand together on the path to freedom and glorify the independence.

(31) Valstybės laisvei reikalingi laisvai ir drąsiai mąstantys žmonės, girdintys vieni kitus,

gerbiantys savo istoriją ir mylintys savo kalbą.

Moreover, in the Mother’s Day speech D. Grybauskaitė shows honour to mothers with

many children. She nicely expresses about their children and uses many epithets in order to

show her responsibility for harmonious families.

(32) Šiandien, Motinos dienos proga, Jūs apdovanojamos už tai, kad užauginote gražų

būrį vaikų, išauklėjote juos dorais žmonėmis ir piliečiais, gerbiančiais savo tėvus, mylinčiais

Tėvynę ir atjaučiančiais savo artimą.

Consequently, figurativeness of speech is achieved due to epithets used in speeches

where the President draws significance of smart, talented and creative youth.

(33) Mieli olimpiadų dalyviai, sveikinu Jus - išsilavinusios ir pažangios Lietuvos kūrėjus.

(34) Visi kartu toliau stenkimės, kad jaunieji protai ir talentai turėtų visas sąlygas

tobulinti savo gebėjimus.

She shows her respect to people who are willing to enjoy politics. Similarly, D.

Grybauskaitė mentions the risky profession by emphasizing its importance and demands to

perform noble and fair actions.

47

(35) Ne tiek ir daug jaunų, kūrybingų ir pažangių žmonių nori dalyvauti politikoje.

Politikas - rizikinga profesija.

(36) Matydami Jūsų gražų, širdimis jaunų kovotojų būrį, gyventi Lietuvoje galime

ramiau.

The arguments of the importance of economic, infrastructural and scientific strategies the

President transfers through characterizing people. In the same way, accentuating the

importance of success for the State, D. Grybauskaitė stresses the importance of youth

education, brave and active young people.

(37) Tik savita, išsilavinusi, dėmesinga kiekvienam savo nariui visuomenė - valstybės

ateities garantas, didžiausias mūsų valstybės turtas.

(38) Tačiau apie visus galima pasakyti – esate darbštūs, drąsūs, principingi, atsakingi ir

ištikimi savo pašaukimui.

Addressing her sympathy to young people, Lithuanian President uses impressive epithets

in order to make the youth believe that it is possible in Lithuania to work successfully and

profitably.

(39) Džiaugiuosi, kad mūsų šalyje jau užaugo veržlių ir drąsių profesionalų karta, iš

kurios galime mokytis sėkmingo, novatoriško ir etiško verslo pagrindų.

(40) Kviečiu Jus, jaunuosius mokslininkus, burtis ir garsiai išsakyti savo poreikius – ko

reikia, kad galėtumėte sėkmingai ir naudingai dirbti Lietuvoje.

Furthermore, she tries to inspire and to encourage the youth for new challenges to sports

by describing them as ‘golden Lithuanian youth’.

(41) Linkiu, kad ir toliau išliktumėte kovotojais. Kad pateisintumėte auksinės jaunimo

kartos vardą ir profesionalaus krepšinio pasaulyje.

The Lithuania’s President appeals to audience’s feelings and emotions when she

describes Lithuania, its towns and other countries.

(42) Nuoširdžiai džiaugiuosi, kad Palanga, vienas brangiausių Lietuvos perlų, kasmet

vis gražėja.

(43) Palangiškių išradingumas ir darbštumas padeda kurti gyvą ir spalvingą kurortą

ištisus metus.

At the State dinner in Reykjavik D. Grybauskaitė starts her speech figuratively by

describing Island, in order to create a friendly atmosphere and show the friendship.

(44) Norėčiau padėkoti Jums, Jūsų Ekscelencija, ir visiems, padėjusiems surengti šį

vizitą, už tokį šiltą mano ir visos Lietuvos delegacijos sutikimą Jūsų gražioje ledo ir ugnies

šalyje.

48

Furthermore, conveying her intentions to force the people to contemplate the tasks, the

president nicely describes Lithuania. Here an implied comparison shows to the audience D.

Grybauskaitė’s wishes of modern and tolerant State.

(45) Galime atidžiau įvertinti save ir savo darbus. Apmąstyti, ką kiekvienas nuveikėme,

kurdami atvirą, tolerantišką ir teisingą Lietuvą.

(46) Lietuva - kūrybiška ir imli naujovėms valstybė.

Speaking about the time of changes she illustrates her arguments by saying that people

should not waver but they should trust in progressive and unconcealed country.

(47) Tik skleisdama demokratijos idėjas bei atverdama mūsų tautos kūrybinį potencialą,

Lietuva tampa atvira, modernia, tolerantiška valstybe.

However, in her speeches D. Grybauskaitė strongly criticizes Lithuanian legal system,

unfair judges but she rhetorically claims that the courts are changing and new judges will be

appointed to serve justice.

(48) aplaidžiai dirbantiems ir nesąžiningiems

teisėjams – ženklas, kad teismų savivaldos institucijos pradėjo veikti ne kaip savigynos

organizacijos, o kaip reikli ir reali savivalda.

(49) Pirmiausia, tai neprasidedantys arba stringantys teismai.

Similarly, she uses some negative epithets about government and policy. The Lithuanian

President shows her strong concern about corruption and austerity. She tries to suggest what

should be done in order to improve the situation and presents solutions to the problems. D.

Grybauskaitė encourages fighting against corruption and unfair officials.

(50) Todėl noriu atkreipti dėmesį ir į tai, kas labiausiai trukdo užtikrinti mūsų žmonėms

teisę į greitą, teisingą ir nešališką teismą.

(51) Tik taip pajėgsime ištrūkti iš nešvarios politikos, korumpuotos valdininkijos ir

nesąžiningo verslo rato.

All things considered, from the point of view of their compositional structure, the

President D. Grybauskaitė uses simple (adjectives, nouns) epithets. It should be noted that

semantically the president applies associated epithets with the noun following it and pointing to

a feature which essential to the objects they describe “žilagalviams seneliams”,

“šauniuosius dainininkus”. Furthermore, the biggest group of epithets serves to convey the

emotional evaluation of the object by the President. So, the most qualifying words are used as

affective epithets “nesąžiningiems teisėjams”, “nešvarios politikos”. It is a fact that the

President seldom uses figurative epithets “gražioje ledo ir ugnies šalyje” , “auksinės kartos

vardą”, “brangiausių Lietuvos perlų”. In addition to this, there are some chain construction in

49

her speeches “atvira, modernia, tolerantiška valstybe”, “darbštūs, drąsūs, principingi, atsakingi

ir ištikimi”. Also, the President employs pair structure epithets “gyvą ir spalvingą kurortą”,

“veržlių ir drąsių profesionalų karta”.

4.3. Stylistic peculiarities of hyperbole in the speeches

In most cases, as other stylistic devices, hyperbole is used to create a strong impression of

the speech. As well as that, D. Grybauskaitė uses hyperbole in order to dramatize ideas or

convey strong emotions. In her speeches, the president employs this figure to overstate things,

to make things bigger or smaller, better or worse, etc. So, as one might expect, this stylistic

device of exaggeration quite often appears in D. Grybauskaitė’s remarks.

The impressive and imaginative example of hyperbole the President uses in her speech at

the Ceremony of Presentation of State decorations. To impress the audience and to praise the

citizens for their courage the president names them the titans of modern Lithuania.

(52) Didžiuojamės valstybės ir visuomenės veikėjais, mokslininkais, verslininkais,

nuoširdžiai tarnaujančiais Lietuvai. Visi Jūs esate šiuolaikinės Lietuvos milžinai.

Similarly, by exaggeration of oat, the President vividly describes her responsibility to the

Nation and Homeland.

(53) Lietuvos piliečių valia, šios dienos priesaika man – milžiniška atsakomybė savo

Tautai ir Tėvynei

In order to increase emphasis on the issue, D. Grybauskaitė uses word ‘titanic’ very

often. It is obvious, when she speaks about the significance of the military service.

(54) Kiekvieną tarnybos dieną skirti „Tėvynės labui” yra milžiniškas įsipareigojimas.

Furthermore, the President of Lithuania uses overstatement for the purpose to praise the

international community for their achievement.

(55) Jos turi sukaupusios milžinišką patirtį, kuria gali pasidalyti su visais, išgyvenančiais

panašią transformaciją.

However, the frequent use of hyperbole is not just manipulation or self– presentation.

The President employs simply to make some aspects more prominent or highlight important

issues. Beside this, D. Grybauskaitė draws her audience’s attention to conflicts in the world

and due to this many people suffering of this violence. So, as a result, this leads to stagnation

of global economy.

(56) Pastaraisiais metais pasaulyje konfliktų vėl daugėja. Dėl jų tūkstančiai žmonių

miršta, yra sužalojami ar praranda pastogę.

50

Moreover, the President rhetorically enlarges things by using numerical nouns such as a

‘million’, ‘a hundred’ to create a positive atmosphere and impression. In addition to this, she

often uses this emotive technique to evoke strong feelings and to create a strong emotive

response.

(57) Vidaus rinka sukūrė milijonus darbo vietų.

(58) Galima būtų išvardinti šimtus atvejų, kai Jūs išgelbėjote gyvybę, užkirtote kelią

nusikaltimui ar padėjote jį išaiškinti, sulaikėte pavojingus nusikaltėlius, kontrabandininkus,

kitus įstatymo pažeidėjus.

(59) Jūs suteikiate sceną šimtams atlikėjų, o tūkstančiams muzikos gerbėjų atveriate

duris į stulbinantį muzikos pasaulį.

(60) Ne tik milijonai žmonių, stovėjusių Baltijos kelyje prieš dvidešimt metų, yra jo

dalyviai.

In the same way, at the State Awards Ceremony, D. Grybauskaitė praise people who

made a significant contribution to raising civic awareness. So, by saying that human life is the

most precious asset of all, she figuratively magnifies the future.

(61) Išgelbėta gyvybė - tai išgelbėtas pasaulis, išgelbėta ateitis.

The President illustrates her arguments by exaggeration the sustainable future of the

planet. She intends to persuade the audience by emphasizing the importance of being smart,

sensitive and responsible. So, the people who are listening the speech are likely to believe of

successful and stable future.

(62) Būdami pažangūs, atsakingi ir jautrūs, mes galime žengti didžiulį žingsnį pirmyn

link tvaresnės mūsų planetos ateities.

To summarise, the President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaitė employs hyperbole for

emphasis of current issues, for rhetorical effect or for drawing the audience’s attention to more

salient problems. Beside this, the most frequent device of overstatement is aimed at

exaggeration of quantity when the size of the objects is intentionally overstated. The President

D. Grybauskaitė quite often uses trite language hyperbole i.e. numeral nouns ‘a hundred’ ‘a

thousand’ ‘a million’. In spite of the fact that through long and repeated use hyperbole lost its

originality but still remained as a tool of compelling.

51

4.4. Stylistic peculiarities of rhetorical questions in the speeches

Lithuanian President D Grybauskaitė uses different stylistic means by which she

provokes people for further debate or inspires to find the right solutions together. One of

them still not mentioned is rhetorical question. This solidarity device the president not very

often use as a strategic tool to involve the audience into a communication. Through

rhetorical questions the president seeks to establish a communicative atmosphere and to

involve the audience into unreal dialogue.

Generally, D. Grybauskaitė employs rhetorical questions to give a thought and

emphasize the status of the female leader in the world. She rhetorically argues that women

leaders work hard and take a huge responsibility to improve lives and work to ensure

successful future.

(63) Ar žinote, jog tai prilygtų Europos gyventojų skaičiui pasaulio bendruomenėje?

Ar galite įsivaizduoti tiek daug moterų pasaulyje, prisiimančių atsakomybę ir gerinančių

gyvenimą sau ir savo šalims?

Similarly, to express strong feelings of the audience and make the speech more

influential she calls to think about women’s rights, human rights situation and gender

equality. She asks a provocative question in order to inspire people for further debate.

(64) Todėl leiskite užduoti vieną provokacinį klausimą - kada paskutinį kartą

peržiūrėjome visus dokumentus prieš priimdami dar vieną?

(65)Pavyzdžiui ,jeigu turime internetinius žemėlapius, atspindinčius pasaulinę pajamų

nelygybę, kodėl neturėti žemėlapio, kuriame būtų parodyta lyčių nelygybė?Mes kviečiame

gyventojus internete pranešti apie kyšininkavimo atvejus, tad kodėl nesukūrus tinklalapio,

kuriame būtų galima informuoti apie lyčių diskriminacijos atvejus?

The use of rhetorical question helps the President to express strong feeling of outrage.

This method of manipulation allows provoke the audience’s awareness.

(66) Ar tūkstančio metų pakako, kad suvoktume, kokios valstybės norime, kokie esame

patys?

However, sometimes, criticizing Lithuanian Constitution, the President rhetorically

expresses her vehement indignations. Due to this, she masterly shows her fairness to the

audience through stylistic devise.

(67) Tačiau Konstitucija - ne tik teisės ir laisvės, bet ir pareigos. Ar visuomet tinkamai jas

vykdome? Ar padarėme viską, kad nuolat didėtų pagarba Konstitucijai? Ar Konstitucija ir

52

šiandien mums padeda sumažinti socialines ir politines įtampas? Ar paisome Konstitucijos

galios, glūdinčios ne tik jos tekste, bet ir pačioje jos dvasioje?

Moreover, using this persuasive tool D. Grybauskaitė seeks to embellish the speech

and at the same time figuratively expresses her anxiety about social upheaval in Ukraine.

(68) Gerbiami nariai,ko pasaulyje galėjo nejaudinti vaizdai paprastų įvairaus amžiaus

žmonių šąlančiame Kijevo Euromaidane, taikiai besipriešinančių gausiai riaušių policijai;

o tarp jų - vienišas pianistas, grojantis Europos Sąjungos vėliavos mėlyna spalva su

geltonomis žvaigždėmis dažytu pianinu?

In order to highlight a new topic, the President uses rhetorical questions so that people

can realize the importance of the discussing issues. Consequently, the President asks the

audience’s a piece of advice how to get out of the difficulties and D. Grybauskaitė shows

that she is open to amendments.

(69) Ką reikia daryti?

(70) Kokių konkrečiai veiksmų reikėtų imtis?

(71) Taigi ką pasiekėme?

Beside this, the President figuratively invites to debate the audience about the

importance of reading books. She tries to inspire the young readers do not forget the book

and the national language.

(72) Visi kartu pasvarstykime, ar šiandien pakanka rankų, nešančių knygą, statančių pilį

toliau?

In conclusion, Lithuanian President D. Grybauskaitė employs rhetorical questions mostly

as a thought provoking the way to stimulate discussion and expressing displeasure against

somebody or something. Sometimes, she uses a string of questions in order to highlight crucial

problems or to express strong resentment against dishonesty. It should be mentioned that in her

speeches the President emphasizes a common understanding and at the same time demonstrates

the strength of her own position of power.

53

5. JUXTAPOSITION OF THE PRESIDENTS’ LINGUISTIC INVENTORY

In order to analyze the ways of rhetorical strategies and the use of stylistic devices, 100

speeches delivered by President D. Grybauskaitė making up 104 pages were taken for the

analysis and 30 randomly taken speeches of President B. Obama that make 110 pages.

It should be noted that D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches are really short. The shortest speech is

one page and the longest one is two pages. Whereas the length of the political speeches

delivered by B. Obama are much longer: the shortest speech is one page and the longest is nine

pages.

The analysis of presidents’ speeches revealed how both Presidents using the same

rhetorical strategies but different stylistic means influence the audience and convince people

the benefits that can arise from their leadership. The analysis of stylistic devices showed how

political leaders apply these powerful tools to strengthen their arguments of the speech.

51

30

20

11

42

35

22

1814

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Metaphors Personification Epithets Hyperbole Rhetorical

questions

Stylistic devices

B. Obama

D. Grybauskaitė

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

The target stylistic devices were counted and presented in Figure 1. According to Figure 1, the

President B. Obama uses significantly more stylistic devices than the President D.

Grybauskaitė. From this data, we can see that the speeches contain many stylistic devices, still

metaphors and epithets are the most prominent. It is apparent from this Figure 1 that the

rhetorical questions are the least dominant stylistic means in their remarks.

54

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

Both speakers resort to metaphorical language. Figure 2 shows that in B. Obama’s speeches

metaphors make 63% while in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches the percentage is equal to 37%.

The purpose of the usage of the metaphors is presented in Table 1. The table below illustrates

that this persuasion technique is employed by the Presidents’ differently.

Table 1. The usage of metaphors in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė

1. To focus on preservation of the peace in

the world

1. To glorify the National power of unity

and the national pride

2. To criticize educational system 2. To inspire people to think about the

future

3. To emphasize economic situation 3. To highlight the human rights situation

4. To appeal to people’s internal value

A comparison of the two results revealed that in persuading people, B. Obama uses more

logical arguments than emotional when he criticizes economic situation and enhances the

importance of new technologies. Whereas, D. Grybauskaitė employs pathos when glorifies the

National power of unity and the national pride. As can be seen from the Table 1, the President

D. Grybauskaitė’s metaphors have positive effects on the audience’s when appeals to people’s

rational side by highlighting the human rights situation. Another interesting observation is that

both presidents establish credibility so arguments bring stronger logical than emotional appeal.

55

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

Figure 3 deals with personification. As Figure 3 shows, there is a substantial difference of the

percentage of personification. The proportion of usage is seen in their speeches. Much more

personification is applied in B. Obama’s speeches 65 % than in D. Grybauskaitė’s speeches

35%. It can be clearly seen that the amount of epithets in B. Obama’s speeches is bigger than

in D. Grybauskaitė’s.

Focusing on the personification in Table 2, one of the rhetorical strategies pathos (emotions) in

the Presidents’ speeches is essential.

Table 2. The usage of personification in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė

1. To express strong concern about the

country

1. To emphasize the value of liberty

2. To stress the importance of National

unity

2. To share the sense of commonality

3. To inspire the audience to believe that

the nation is strong to combat any

difficulties

3. To show the importance of solidarity

4. To appeal to the audience’s emotions

4. To inspire people to new challenges

Table 2 indicates that personification is one of the influential ways to express emotional

attitude of the speakers. From Table 2 above, it can be seen that the President D. Grybauskaitė

uses pathos emphasizing the value of liberty, sense of commonality and the importance of

56

solidarity. However, the President B. Obama applies to ethos, when he tries to build an image

of a strong leader of the State. Due to this, personification enhances the arguments of the

speeches when B. Obama expresses strong concern about the country, the importance of

National unity and forces to believe that the nation is strong to combat any difficulties.

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

According to Figure 4, both presidents try to embellish their remarks employing epithets. There

is a slight difference in usage of epithets: B. Obama 55%, D. Grybauskaitė 45%. So it can be

clearly seen that slightly more epithets are used in B. Obama’s speeches than in D.

Grybauskaitė’s.

Table 3 compares the results obtained from the analysis of epithets in the speeches. It

illustrates why the Presidents employ epithets for persuasive effect.

Table 3. The usage of epithets in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė

1. To enhance the significance of the ideas

1. To contemplate the tasks

2. To show responsibility to people 2. To express dissatisfaction about

corruption and austerity

3. To establish ‘personal’ relationship

3. To show a close contact with people

4. To reinforce the people to find right

solutions

4. To appeal to people’s patriotism

57

What is interesting in this data is that the President B. Obama relates his speeches with

personal life. The results as shown in Table 3, indicate that he employs epithets to establish a

‘personal’ relationship with the audience. However, D. Grybauskaitė does not try to gain the

audience’s feelings through the personal life. The President uses ethos creating the impression

that she is a person of intelligence and fairness. Epithets support D. Grybauskaitė’s message

which conveys her strong dissatisfaction about corruption and austerity. Similarly, the

President tries to make people believe that she is not arrogant thorough showing a close contact

with people.

Figure 5. The distribution of hyperbole in the Presidents’ speeches

The Figure 5 deals with hyperbole. From the data in Figure 5 it is seen that the distribution of

hyperbole by B. Obama and D. Grybauskaitė is not the same. Hyperbole is more preferred in

B. Obama’s speeches than in D. Grybauskaitė’s.

Table 4 compares the reasons of employing the hyperbole in the speeches. The examples in the

Table 4 below show the differences of the usage between two Presidents.

Table 4. The usage of hyperbole in Presidents’ speeches

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė

1. To inspire the people to struggle for

racial freedom

1. To draw attention to conflicts in the world

2. To emphasize the importance of

cooperation and self-devotion

2. To show the significance of the military

service

3. To enhance the importance of new

technologies

58

The President B. Obama resorts to hyperbole in order to inspire people to struggle for racial

freedom and emphasizes the importance of cooperation and self-devotion. However, D.

Grybauskaitė through hyperbole focuses on conflicts in the world and shows the significance

of the military service. The Table 5 above shows that both presidents employ hyperbole to

provoke emotional response of the audience.

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

As figure 6 shows that there is not noticeable difference in proportion of rhetorical questions.

However, comparing speeches the usage of rhetorical questions by B. Obama 54% employs

slightly more than and D. Grybauskaitė 46%.

The use of hyperbole throughout the speeches is also significant. The results obtained from the

analyses of the hyperbole are presented in Table 5.

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

President B. Obama President D Grybauskaitė

1. To show closeness to the audience 1. To express vehement indignation

2. To support already expressed views 2. To express displeasure against something

or somebody

3. To influence further thought 3. To provoke the audience’s awareness

59

From the data in Table 5, it can be seen that the nuances of usage of the rhetorical questions are

not the same. B. Obama puts the emphasis on personal connections to the audience. He

attempts to gain the audience’s attention through people’s emotions. Rhetorical questions help

him to show closeness to the people and to influence further thought. However, D.

Grybauskaitė refers to logic. In other words, her arguments are more logical than emotional.

So, through she rhetorical questions strengthens the main arguments of the speeches when she

expresses vehement indignation and displeasure again something or somebody.

60

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study conduced to achieve the aims of the study, which were to

examine what rhetorical strategies and stylistic devices Presidents Dalia Grybauskaitė and

Barack Obama use in their political speeches and how these devices help them to gain

audience’s attention and render the message.

The analysis of Presidents’ speeches showed that both Presidents through stylistic

means transmit a valuable information and express their vision of the political situation.

So, from the results it became evident that both Presidents use tactical manipulation of

rhetoric to obtain the target aims, still B. Obama employs more stylistic means in his

speeches than D. Grybauskaitė.

In the course of analysis it became evident that metaphors are the most prominent

stylistic device in the Presidents’ remarks. It is obvious that Presidents employs

metaphorical language in their speeches because metaphors have a huge influence on

people and help them to gain votes. Due to this, the amount of metaphors, which were

found in the target speeches in the Presidents speeches, is considerably more: B. Obama

employs 63% metaphors and D. Grybauskaitė 37%. However, the Presidents use them to

strengthen their arguments differently. Through metaphorical language B. Obama appeals

to logos (logic) that means B. Obama appeals to the audience’s mind when he emphasizes

economic and educational issues in the country, whereas D. Grybauskaitė attracts people

through emotional side by indicating National unity.

The techniques of classical rhetoric are seen in the further analysis of the linguistic

features of the speeches. Pathos (emotions) is expressed through personification. That is to

say that through humanizing things D. Grybauskaitė persuades listeners by highlighting the

inner value emotionally. It should be noted that this stylistic device D. Grybauskaitė

employs 35 % and B. Obama uses significantly more, i.e. 65%. However, B Obama use

ethos (ethics) in order to build his trustworthy with his audience when he emphasizes the

strength of the country.

Rhetoric, especially pathos causes people to feel sympathy. That is why B. Obama

through epithets shows his thoughts based upon pathos (emotions). Epithets relieve the

President to characterize the people and describe places or things. So, he employs speeches

55% still D. Grybauskaitė 45% of epithets. The President D. Grybauskaitė draws attention

to the moral principles. So that is why she resorts to epithets to strengthen her image and

uses ethos (ethics). The President D. Grybauskaitė exposes herself as a strong leader of the

61

Nation and that people worth listening to her opinion. Moreover, epithets help the President

to show her strong fundamental values of fairness.

The way of seeing situation, B. Obama transfers through rhetorical questions.

Political message delivered here is more grounded pathos (emotions). The analysis

revealed that B. Obama’s often expresses his personal touch with the people. By asking

rhetorically he stresses the issues such as storm that stroke the country and at the same time

bringing the people to self-reflection. However, political rhetoric in D. Grybauskaitė’s

speeches appeals to logos (logic). In other words, rhetorical questions help her to persuade

the listener intellectually when she expresses her displeasure about problems in the country.

The results indicated that the quantity of rhetorical questions in both Presidents’ speeches is

not significant: B. Obama 54%, D. Grybauskaitė 46%.

Furthermore, in order to stir the audience’s emotions both presidents use pathos

(emotions). Through the use of hyperbole both Presidents emphasize the significant issues

of the countries such as conflicts in the world, importance of cooperation and significance

of the military service. The results showed that B. Obama uses more hyperbole 55% than

D. Grybauskaitė 45%. Indeed, these catchphrases are memorable and help the Presidents’

to achieve the target goals.

All things considered, both Presidents are masters of linguistic realization of

rhetorical strategies in their political speeches. As well as that the Presidents support

arguments proficiently according to the rules of persuading.

62

SANTRAUKA

Magistro darbe yra nagrinėjamos retorinės strategijos: argumentacija ir įtikinėjimas, taip pat

stilistinės priemonės: metafora, personifikacija, epitetas, retorinis klausimas ir hiperbolė. Jos,

naudojamos prezidentų Dalios Grybauskaitės ir Barako Obamos politinėse kalbose, padeda

įgyti auditorijos palankumą, iškelti svarbias problemas ir kartu įtikinti visuomenę savo

idėjomis emociškai manipuliuojant. Darbo tikslas – išryškinti retorinių strategijų modelius ir

ištirti stilistines priemones, kuriomis siekiama padaryti kalbą išraiškingesnę ir įtikinamesnę.

Analizuojant kalbas buvo atliktos lyginamoji, turinio, diskurso, taip pat apibendrinimo ir

vertinimo analizės. Tyrimo rezultatai parodė, kad visuomenės palankumui įgyti abu prezidentai

naudoja tas pačias retorines strategijas, tačiau skirtingas stilistines priemones. Pastebima, kad

metafora yra dažniausiai vartojama stilistinė priemonė. D. Grybauskaitė savo politinėse

kalbose proporcingai mažiau vartoja metaforas nei B. Obama. Amerikos prezidento kalbose

metaforos simbolizuoja iššūkius ir problemas, su kuriomis susiduria šalis, taip pat prezidentas

siekia jomis pabrėžti tautos vienybės svarbą. D. Grybauskaitė metaforomis išreiškia šalies

stiprybę ir tuo pačiu parodydama savo kaip stipraus tautos lyderio poziciją. Personifikacija

padeda D. Grybauskaitei pabrėžti dvasines žmogaus vertybes, o B. Obama siekia parodyti

tautai, kad jis yra patikimas lyderis, taip pat pabrėžia tautos stiprybę. Abu prezidentai vartoja

epitetus norėdami solidarizuotis su publika ir perteikti savo idėjas paveikiant žmones

emociškai. Politinėje retorikoje B. Obama retoriniais klausimais išreiškia asmeninį ryšį su

publika tuo pačiu priversdamas žmones susimąstyti apie keliamas aktualias problemas. D.

Grybauskaitė keldama retorinius klausimus išreškia nepasitikėjimą teismų sistema ar valdžios

organais. Hiperbolizuodami svarstomas esamas politines aplinkybes, abu prezidentai siekia

emocijų pagalba perteikti savo tvirtus įsitikinimus apie kariuomenės svarbumą, šalies

bendradarbiavimą ir kitas keliamas problemas. Apibendrinant reikia pasakyti, kad gauti

rezultatai patvirtina, jog prezidentai, siekdami savo tikslų per politinę retoriką, bando

manipuliuoti auditorijos įsitikinimais ir taip paveikti visuomenės veiksmus.

63

REFERENCES

1. Anderson, I. 2005. American Political Rhetoric: A study of selected speeches by

George W. Bush. Lulea University of Technology.

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

школа.

3. Antczak, F., Coggins, C., K Frederick, J., Antczak Cinda Coggins & Geoffrey D.

Klinger. (eds.) 2002. Professing Rhetoric: Selected Papers from the 2000 Rhetoric

Society of America Conference. University of Iowa &University of Utah. Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, publishers: Mahwah, New Jersey& London.

4. Athanasiadou, A. The Discourse function of Questions. Congress of Applied

Linguistics, accessed 15 March 1990, available from

http://elanguage.net/journals/pragmatics/article/viewFile/332/266

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

Press.

6. Bakhtin, M. 1986. Speech Genres & other Late Essays. University of Texas Press.

Printed in the United States of America.

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

America.

8. Bucevičiūtė, L. Seimo rinkimai Lietuvoje 1920-1926 metais: Politinės retorikos

ypatumai. ISSN 1392-0588 2010 53.

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

California Press.

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

London and New York.

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

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

Rome. Princeton University Press.

13. Connors, R. Lunsford, A. 1984. Essays on classical rhetoric and modern discourse.

Southern Illinois University: United States of America.

14. Crawford, N. 2002. Argument and Change in World Politics. Ethicists, Decolonization,

and Humanitarian Intervention. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

15. Dlugan, A. How to Use Rhetorical Questions in Your Speech. Six minutes, accessed 29

August 2013, available from http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/rhetorical-questions/

64

16. Dlugan, A. Speech preparation: Add Impact with Rhetorical Devices. Six minutes,

accessed 5 March 2008, available from http://sixminutes.dlugan.com/speech-

preparation-6-rhetorical-devices/

17. Duchan, J. Ancient Rome. A History of Speech- Language Pathology. Ancient History:

3500BC-50AD, accessed 05 December 2011, available from

http://www.acsu.buffalo.edu/~duchan/new_history/ancient_history/rome.html

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

Oxford University Press.

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

20. Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. 2012 Political Discourse Analysis: A method for

advanced students. London and New York: Routledge.

21. Frezza, B. Revitalizing the Art of Political Persuasion. Forbes, accessed 17 May 2011,

available from http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2011/05/17/revitalizing-the-art-

of-political-persuasion/

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

23. Han, Chunh-hye. Interpreting interogatives as rhetorical questions. Lingua, accessed 7

August 2000, available from http://www.sfu.ca/~chunghye/papers/lingua112-3-2.pdf

24. Hariman, R. 1995. Political Style — The Artistry of Power. University of Chicago

Press. Printed in the United States of America.

25. Harris, R. A Handbook of Rhetorical Devices. Virtual Salt, accessed 19 January 2013,

available from http://www.virtualsalt.com/rhetoric.htm

26. Hayes, P. The political use and abuse of metaphor: Spiked, accessed 25 Fefruary 2011,

available from http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/10230#.UnN-LfLCzuM

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

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

Press.

29. Irwin. R. 20th

-Century Rhetoric, Symbolically Speaking. Rhetoric Click. Composition,

Rhetoric, and Pedagogy, accessed 11 September 2012, available from

http://rhetorclick.wordpress.com/2012/09/11/20th-century-rhetoric-symbolically-

speaking

30. Jeffries, L. & Mclntyre, D. 2010. Cambridge Textbooks in Linguistics. Stylistics.

United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

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

Benjamins Publishing Company.

65

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

University Press.

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

University Press.

34. Kock, C. 2004. Rhetoric in Media Studies. The Voice of Constructive Criticism.

Plenary Session IV Rhetorics in Media Studies-Media Studies in Rhetorics.

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

Вінниця

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

Chicago Press.

37. Leech, G. & Short, M. 2007. Style in Fiction. A Linguistic Introduction to English

Fictional prose. United Kingdom: Person Education Limited.

38. Lunsford, A. The Role of Rhetoric (and Social and Other media) Writing in 21 st

Century Universities. California University. Long Beach, accessed 4 January 2013,

available from http://www.csulb.edu/colleges/cla/departments/english/andrea-lunsford-

presents-the-role-of-rhetoric-and-social-and-other-media-writing-in-21st-century-

universities-2/

39. Matkevičienė, R. Rizikos komunikacija Lietuvos prezidentų inauguracinėse kalbose.

ISSN 1392-0561. INFORMACIJOS MOKSLAI. 2011 55

40. Miller, C. R. 1993. The Polis as Rhetorical Community, The International Society for

the History of Rhetoric, Rhetorica , XI-3

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

42. Mio, J. S. 2005. Presidential leadership and charisma: The effects of metaphor. The

Leadership Quarterly, 16:287-294.

43. Murphy, J. 1981. Rhetoric in the Middle Ages: A history of Rhetorical Theory from

Saint Augustine to the Renaissance. University of California Press.

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

Žodis, 2007 I

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

Approaches. New Delhi.

46. Prime KT Yahoo Contribution Network. 2008. Characteristic Linguistic Features of

Modern American Political Speeches. Yahoo voices.

66

47. Reynolds, G. Obama delivers speech like a symphony. Presentation Zen, accessed 02

September 2008, available from

http://www.presentationzen.com/presentationzen/2008/09/obama-delivers-his-speech-

like-a-symphony.html

48. Ritter, K. & Medhurst M. J. 2003. Presidential Speech-writing: From the New Deal to

the Reagan Revolution and Beyond. Texas A&M University Press College Station.

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

United States of America.

50. Roberts, W. R. 2008. Aristotle. The Art of Rhetoric [book on -line] Megaphone;

eBooks., available from:

http://www.wendelberger.com/downloads/Aristotle_Rhetoric.pdf

51. Rozina, G. & Karapetjana, I. 2009. The Use of Language in Political Rhetoric:

Linguistic Manipulation. SDU Fen Edebiyat Fakültesi: Sosyal Bilimber Dergesi.

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

Routledge.

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

54. Smith, C.A. Athenian Political Art from the Fifth and Fourth Centuries BCE: Images of

political personifications: Demos , accessed 18 January 2003, available from

http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_personifications?page=all&greekEncoding

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

Printed in Germany.

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

Cambridge University press.

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

Printed in Germany.

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

USA.

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

SOURCES

The presidents’ speeches are available at:

http://www.prezidentas.lt/lt/prezidento_institucija/lietuvos_respublikos_prezidentas.h

tml

http://www.whitehouse.gov/