Resident barack obama’s style of rhetorical figures in the state of the union addresses from 2010 to 2016

Therefore, the recurring rhetorical figures of the selected speeches delivered by President Obama, namely the State of the Union Adresses, throughout his tenure were chosen for this pape

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING

HO CHI MINH CITY UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY

-

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA’S STYLE OF

RHETORICAL FIGURES IN THE STATE OF THE

UNION ADDRESSES FROM 2010 TO 2016

Submitted to the Faculty of English Language

in partial fulfillment of the Master’s degree in English Language

Course code: 60220201

By

NGO BINH ANH KHOA

Supervised by

NGUYEN THI KIEU THU, PhD

HO CHI MINH CITY, DECEMBER 2018

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY i

RETENTION AND USE OF THE THESIS ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii

ABSTRACT iv

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background to the study 1

1.2 Rationale of the study 3

1.3 Aim and objectives of the study 4

1.4Research question 5

1.5 Scope of the study 5

1.6 Significance of the study 6

1.7 Definitions of key terms 8

1.8 Organization of the thesis 8

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 10

2.1 Introduction 10

2.2 Discourse 10

2.2.1 Discourse Analysis 11

2.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis 13

2.3 Genre 14

vi

2.3.1 The characteristics of the State of the Union Address genre 14

2.4 Rhetoric 16

2.4.1 Canons of rhetoric 18

2.4.2 Style 18

2.4.3 Stylistics 19

2.5 Rhetorical figures (figures of speech) 20

2.5.1 Schemes 21

2.5.1.1 Phonological schemes 21

2.5.1.2 Grammatical and lexical schemes 21

Antithesis 23

Asyndeton 23

2.5.2 Tropes 23

2.5.2.1 Figures by comparison 25

Metaphor and simile 25

Personification 27

2.5.2.2 Figures by association 27

2.5.2.3 Figures by contrast 28

2.5.3 Other types of figures of speech 28

2.5.3.1 Climax 29

2.5.3.2 Definition 29

2.5.3.3 Description 29

2.5.3.4 Paromologia 30

vii

2.5.3.5 Parenthesis 30

2.5.4 The function of rhetorical figures 30

2.5.5 The rhetorical figures in the selected speeches 31

2.6 Previous studies 33

2.7 Conceptual framework 34

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 36

3.1 Introduction 36

3.2 Research instrumentation 36

3.3 Sample and sampling method 37

3.4 Data collection procedures 39

3.5 Data analysis procedures 40

3.6 Validity and reliability 42

3.7 Pilot Study 43

3.8 Summary 45

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 47

4.1 Introduction 47

4.2 Results and discussion 48

4.2.1 Antithesis 48

4.2.2 Asyndeton 50

4.2.3 Climax 53

4.2.4 Definition 55

4.2.5 Description 59

viii

4.2.6 Metaphor and simile 61

4.2.7 Parenthesis 63

4.2.8 Paromologia 64

4.2.9 Personification 66

4.3 Major findings 69

4.4 Summary 72

CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 74

5.1 Conclusion 74

5.2 Implications 75

5.3 Limitations of the research 77

5.4 Recommendations for further research 78

References 79

Appendices 87

Appendix A: State of the Union Address 2010 87

Appendix B: State of the Union Address 2011 111

Appendix C: State of the Union Address 2012 133

Appendix D: State of the Union Address 2013 156

Appendix E: State of the Union Address 2014 177

Appendix F: State of the Union Address 2015 198

Appendix G: State of the Union Address 2016 223

Appendix H: Definitions of all recurring rhetorical figures indentified 242

Appendix I: Metaphors in the selected speeches 246

ix

Appendix J: Antirrhesis – Entities whose opinions Obama rejected 261Appendix K: Comparison – Countries which Obama compared the US to 265Appendix L: Exemplification – People presented as examples by Obama 266Appendix M: Metonymy – A list of metonyms used by Obama 268Appendix N: Paromologia – A list of problems admitted by Obama 271Appendix O: Results from Plagiarism Checker X 277

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1: President Obama’s State of the Union Addresses (2010-2016) 39

Table 3.2: The results of the pilot study 44

Table 4.1: The tokens of antithesis 48

Table 4.2: The tokens of asyndeton 50

Table 4.3: The tokens of asyndeton (three listed elements) 53

Table 4.4: The tokens of climax 53

Table 4.5: The tokens of definition 55

Table 4.6: A list of American values in the selected speeches 56

Table 4.7: Token counts of personal pronouns 57

Table 4.7: The tokens of description 59

Table 4.9: The tokens of metaphor and simile 61

Table 4.10: The tokens of parenthesis 63

Table 4.11: The tokens of paromologia 65

Table 4.12: The tokens of personification 67

Table 4.13: The most frequently used recurring rhetorical figures 69

Table 5.1: Recurring rhetorical figures by category 74

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual framework 35Figure 2: Data analysis procedure 46

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background to the study

The world of politics is an extremely sophisticated domain in which language plays a decisively pivotal role in helping politicians persuade and influence others to understand their ways of thinking and to implement political, social and economical ideas via carefully written and meticulously presented speeches Hence, it is important that politicians know well the necessary tools and use them in their speeches so as to convince others and to win over their supporters, and one of such tools which are ever

present in such oratory presentations is rhetoric, which is an area of study whose origin

can be traced back to ancient Greece (McCroskey, 2006, p 5) and which has

consistently endured for more than two millenia since its conception

One of the most well-known rhetoricians is Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), whose

compositions, entitled Rhetoric, form the enduring foundation on which later texts and

studies conducted on the subject were based (“Aristotle’s Rhetoric,” 2010, para 1) Rhetoric, hence, continues to be a relevant area of linguistics which is still heavily studied and extensively applied in the modern days because, as stated by Beard (2000), rhetoric skills are instrumental in capturing the attention of the others and in

convincing the audiences to follow the orator’s views (p 36) Furthermore, as posited

by Fafner (2000), classical rhetoric is still employed at present when writing or

analyzing a speech (as stated in Nielson, 2009, p 9)

Successful politicians, according to Jerit (2004), therefore incorporate a

multitude of rhetorical figures in their speeches in order to obtain affiliative responses from the people to whom they speak, thus consolidating their images as competent, charismatic and trustworthy leaders who deserve the people’s votes A number of studies have therefore been conducted on the interactions between politicians and their audiences via the thorough analysis of video footages, specifically on the rhetorical figures used to evoke applause and positive responses from the audiences (Atkinson,

1984; Bull, 2006; Bull & Miskinis, 2014; Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986) Furthermore, there is also a large volume of studies conducted specifically on the rhetoric of various powerful politicians, namely the heads of state, many of which applied Aristotle’s three main means of persuasion – ethos (the persuasive appeal of the orator’s character), pathos (the appeal to emotion), and logos (the appeal to logical arguments and reason) – to analyze the rhetoric of prominent figures in the world of politics (Andersen, 2008; Lim, 2002; Assmundson, 2008; Menz, 2008; Nielsen, 2009; O’Connell et al., 2010; Batluk, 2011; Eriksson, 2011; Bird, 2011; Alvi & Baseer, 2011; Alvi & Baseer, 2012; Baseer & Alvi, 2012)

Among the most accomplished politicians in the world, Barack Obama – the forty-fourth president of the United States of America and the first one to be of

African-American descent – is without a doubt one of the most respected names in the field of poltics for a variety of reasons, including his humanitary and optimistic

messages which remained consistent throughout his two terms in office Like every politician, to persuade the people to support him and to vote for him, Barack Obama made use of multiple rhetorical figures in his speeches to soothe the concerns of the people and at the same time touch upon subjects which were at the time, and some of which are still, controversial in the United States throughout his career as a senator and then as the President, among which are the topics of gay rights, gun control, racial segregation, war, economic development and many more

To achieve his agenda, to win the support of the people, and to stay in power, Barack Obama times and again displayed his mastery of the art of rhetoric and his oratory skills, which have been highly praised and even compared to those of speakers

of high calbier such as John F Kenndy and Ronald Reagan – outstanding names in the world of American politics themselves (Mendell, 2008) To be compared to such

important and outstanding personalities in history is a great honor; thus, it stands to reason that President Barack Obama’s linguistic style – namely his style with rhetorical

figures for this particular study – should be considered and studied further so that more can be revealed as to what makes him so successful a speaker who could persuade the mass to follow his ideas and ideals

Additionally, another reason why President Barack Obama was chosen for this study is due to the fact that he is a former President in the modern day whose speeches and works still have their influence around the world Hence, President Obama’s

speeches are worth studying because they can still be considered contemporary and, therefore, suitable for the modern context Moreover, as there are not many studies which focus on the rhetoric of President Obama, specifically on his use of rhetorical figures, and no study is yet available from the perspective of a Vietnamese researcher, this study is believed to be a new contribution to the existing pool of knowledge on political rhetoric in general and on President Obama’s rhetoric in specific

For this research paper, some speeches by President Obama were chosen for analysis, namely his State of the Union Addresses during his two terms, which were annually delivered from 2010 to 2016 The State of the Union Addresses were selected for this study due to their significance to the nation and their compulsory nature that is explicitly mandated in the US Constitution, Article II, Section 3, clause 1, which states that the President “shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State

of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient” (Shogan, 2016, p 1), along with the fact that, because of their significance and influence, they can best showcase the President’s use of

rhetorical figures and, especially, the recurring ones

1.2 Rationale of the study

As previously mentioned, what makes Obama so succesful as a public speaker and as a charismatic leader is his mastery of the art of rhetoric as well as his skillful administration of the rhetorical figures when addressing the people (Leith, 2011) His speeches are designed to convince the mass, and the means of persuasion are apparent

in each of his oratory sessions However, that does make one wonder about his style of utilizing rhetorical figures in his speeches, which makes his oratory ability comparable

to those of exceptional stars in the political field such as John F Kennedy and Ronal Reagan (Mendell, 2008) Additionally, the rhetorical figures which Obama frequently employed in his speeches to increase his appeals with others, make the people support him and cast their votes for him are also interesting points worth considering

Therefore, the recurring rhetorical figures of the selected speeches delivered by President Obama, namely the State of the Union Adresses, throughout his tenure were chosen for this paper because so far, despite the large number of studies available on the rhetorical figures of individual speeches by any President, little attention has been paid to the recurring appearances of such figures in a series of speech of the same Presidential category throughout a specified period of time Hence, this study is

relevant because it focuses on President Obama’s recurring rhetorical figures in his State of the Union Addresses throughout his time in office, which is a topic that, to the researcher’s knowledge, was not yet tackled at the time of this thesis’s composition, nor had it been carried out by a Vietnamese researcher yet Furthermore, this paper contributes to the existing knowledge of the persuasive side of the language used in political speeches in particular and in public speeking in general

1.3 Aim and objectives of the study

This research paper aims to manually identify President Barack Obama’s

repeatedly used, or recurring, rhetorical figures (also known as figures of speech) in all

of his selected State of the Union Addresses from 2010 to 2016 based on their

frequencies (the number of tokens) of such figures to find out the most popularly used ones (along with their frequencies) To meet that aim, specific steps were taken

Firstly, the transcripts of the chosen State of the Union Addresses were retrieved

from a reliable source (The White House, 2016), which is an official website managed

by the White House itself, for authenticity (https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov)

Secondly, relevent materials and literature, epscially those which provided the definitions and examples of rhetorical figures for reference, were employed to ensure that the identifications of the figures in the selected speeches were accurate

Thirdly, by carefully consulting such materials, all of the recurring rhetorical figures found in all seven speeches (through the careful reading of the retrieved

transcripts) would each be identified by name and compiled for the pilot study

Fourthly, the transcripts would be thoroughly read and the instances whereby the previously identified recurring rhetorical figures appeared would be manually counted and recorded to illustrate the frequencies of such figures for the pilot study

Lastly, based on the findings in the pilot study, the recurring rhetorical figures with the highest counts of tokens would subsequently be selected for the main content

of this paper, and only those figures (along with their token counts) would be further exemplified with extracts from the transcripts for later discussion in the paper, from which implications and recommendations for future studies would later be drawn

1.4 Research question

This exploratory study seeks to answer the sole following research question:

“What recurring rhetorical figures did President Barack Obama employ most

frequently in his State of the Union Addresses from 2010 to 2016?”

1.5 Scope of the study

When considering Barack Obama and his long political career, one has to also take into account the different roles which he has played, as a senator and later, as the President of the United States Throughout his political journey, Barack Obama had made hundreds of speeches on a multiple topics, from the Democratic National

Convention Keynote Address in 2004, which brought his name into the limelight as a young and rising star in the world of politics (Olive, 2008), to his Presidential Farewell Address in 2016; hence, it would be virtually impossible to analyze the rhetoric and the rhetorical figures employed by Barack Obama in every speech he had made within the

limited length of and time frame for this thesis As a result, it is decided that the scope

of this paper should be narrowed down For the sake of consistency, the chosen

samples for analysis are based on the genres (or category) of presidential speeches provided by Campbell and Jamieson (1990)

The category selected for this study – the State of the Union Address – is the one which is considered to be of tremendous importance, because every President of the United States of America is required to make speeches of this category annually during their term or terms in office, as mandated in Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the US Constitution, to update Congress as well as the American people on the state of affairs (Hoyt, 2015, p 10)

Throughout President Obama’s eight-year terms in office, he delivered a total of eight speeches of this genre However, the one in 2009 right after he first became President was not deemed an official State of the Union Address yet (Diaz, 2017) Therefore, that address in 2009 was not included in this paper while the remaining seven State of the Union Addresses during the period from 2010 to 2016 were selected

as the samples for this thesis, and particularly attention was paid to the most frequently used recurring rhetorical figures which appeared in all of the seven addresses along with their frequencies, for up to now, no study has been produced on this topic yet

Hence, this study is limited only to the identification of the most frequently employed rhetorical figures by name that appeared in all of the seven chosen addresses alongside their frequencies (counts of tokens) alone Other elements such as the effects, the effectiveness, the reasons why, and the manners with which President Obama employed such figures in his State of the Union Addresses would not be considered

1.6 Significance of the study

Barack Obama’s speeches throughout his career have been the subjects of

various articles and studies (Andersen, 2008; Assmundson, 2008; Menz, 2008; Batluk, 2011; Alvi & Baseer, 2011; Alvi & Baseer, 2012; Baseer & Alvi, 2012) However, the

Inaugural Address genre generally receives the most attention (Hoyt, 2015, p 10) Scarcer attention has been given to the State of the Union Addresses made by any President, much less to a series of speeches of that particular genre throughout a

President’s political career The same can be said about the amount of attention paid to the State of the Union Addresses of a President throughout his tenure in power,

creating a gap in the literature that should be filled

Therefore, this present research is theoretically significant because it may serve

to fill the existing gap mentioned above Additionally, it examines the rhetorical

figures which were used repeatedly in a series of the State of the Union Addresses instead of an individual speech of any category, thus making it different from other past and contemporary studies focusing on President Obama’s rhetorical figures as well Also, it can serve as a reference for future studies on the same topic, as well as contribute to the existing pool of knowledge political rhetoric and rhetorical figures by

a prominent world leader Additionally, this is a study relevant to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), which is still rare in the Vietnamese context, due to the political nature of the selected speeches, so it may be able to generate more interest in this particular discipline as well as in the field of linguistics as a whole in Vietnam

Furthermore, in terms of practicality, this study can potentially help learners of English in presentations and public speaking sessions by incorporating some of the identified rhetorical figures into their speeches to better attract and retain the attention

of the audiences, and make their delivery more impressive, for those figures were also employed by an individual well versed in the art of public speaking Moreover, both teachers and students of English can also benefit from this study, for it can help them understand more about English stylistics and rhetoric, both in theory and in practice, through the examples set by President Obama Consequently, this paper could

potentially encourage more individuals to take an interest in rhetorical figures in

specific and in linguistics in general

1.7 Definitions of key terms

In the research question, there are certain terms which require explanation for the sake of clarity and convenience for the reader, which are “State of the Union

Address,” “rhetorical figures,” and “recurring.”

Firstly, as previously mentioned, a State of the Union Address is, according to Hoyt (2015), a mandatory speech delivered annally in the United States by the

President in office, which keeps Congress and the people up-to-date with the events of the previous year and outlines the President’s policy for the upcoming one (p 10)

Secondly, rhetorical figures in the context of this research are to be understood

as figures of speech, referring to the usage of words or phrases which effectively draw the attention of the reader to those instances either through the deviation from their literal meanings or through their unusual structures

Thirdly, the term “recurring” should be defined clearly as it is the most

important criterion for identifying the rhetorical figures that are featured in this paper

In the specific context of this study, the word “recurring” henceforth is understood as

“appearing in all cases.” This means that in order for a rhetorical figure to be

considered “recurring” here, that figure must appear repeatedly in all of the selected State of the Union Addresses without any exception Should a figure be found missing

in one of the chosen speeches, that figure is therefore not qualified for inclusion

1.8 Organization of the thesis

Chapter 1: Introduction includes the basic information about the present

research regarding its background, the rationale, the aim, the research question, the scope, and the significance Additionally, in this chapter, the reason why this topic was chosen for the thesis was also explained, specifically stating that there is still a gap in the literature as there has yet been a study similar to this present one in general and in the Vietnamese context in particular, which focuses on the rhetorical figures repeatedly used throughout a series of speeches of a specific Presidential genre, which is the State

of the Union Address in this case, during a President’s tenure, justifying its relevancy

Chapter 2: Literature Review includes the definitions of the key concepts related

to discourse, discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis before moving on those on

rhetoric and, most importantly, rhetorical figures Furthermore, in this chapter, only the

relevant rhetorical figures which would later be analyzed and exemplified in Chapter 4

would be mentioned, and the reason why those specific figures were chosen would be

provided in details in Chapter 3 At the end of this chapter, a conceptual framework

would also be provided, which would sum up the major points of the literature review

Chapter 3: Methodology details the information on the research process,

including the instrumentation, sample and sampling method, and the procedures for the

data collection and data analysis A brief discussion regarding the study’s objectivity,

validity and reliability is also included in this chapter Last but not least, in the final

part of the chapter, the results obtained from the researcher’s own pilot study, namely

the token counts of each selected speech in each year, would be presented, from which

the most frequently used rhetorical figures would be chosen for this paper

Chapter 4: Results and Discussion includes the researcher’s findings regarding

the most frequently used recurring rhetorical figures based on the results of the

aforementioned pilot study in Chapter 3 Section 4.1 Introduction would provide the

reader with an outline of the chapter Then, in section 4.2 Results and discussion, the

indentified figures would be illustrated and accompanied by their respective tables

detailing the counts of the token (which represent the number of times those figures

appear in a speech) in each year Along with the results, the researcher would also

discuss the findings regarding those identified figures before briefly summarizing the

major points of the entire chapter in section 4.3 Major findings

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications summarizes the findings, discusses the

implications of such findings as well as presents the limitations of the present research,

which would allow for future studies on the same of related topics

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Introduction

This chapter includes the literature review of the concepts which are relevant to this present study Specifically, the chapter includes theories on the concepts of

discourse, rhetoric, and most importantly, rhetorical figures, which are the main focus

of the research

2.2 Discourse

Discourse is presently a term which is receiving more and more attention in a

wide range of fields and disciplines, both academic an non-academic alike (Blommaert,

2005; Gee, 2005; Phillips & Jørgensen, 2002) As a result, the term discourse itself has

more than one definition Gee (1991) defines the term discourse rather simply as

“language in use” (p 7) This means that discourse, of course, refers to the use of language, but this language has be to put in action, which means it has to be produced within a specific context The language of discourse, as stated by Fairclough (1995), is either spoken or written (p 5) However, the definition of discourse provided by Gee (1991) is still too short and too general, and it still does not satisfactorily provide the reader with other characteristics of discourse other than the fact that language has to be used to perform an act or achieve an end

According to Halliday and Hasan (1989), discourse – a text – is a type of

“functional” language which performs a particular role within a specific context (p 10) Additionally, as stated by Crystal (1992), discourse is defined as a continuous string of language, especially the verbally realized type, which is bigger than a

sentence and which usually comes together to form a single unit such as in the case of a sermon or an argument (p 25) Similarly, Ogden (2002) states that discourse

encompasses more than the singular words orally produced by people; instead,

discourse refers to the type of language which is used to describe the different aspects

of life, and this language is contextualized based on a sociological perspective The

context, defined by Widdowson (2007) as the conditions regarding the time and place, and the circumstance that the people involved are in, is of great importance in

discourse and discourse analysis Without context, there is no discourse For example,

if a person says, “It is time,” one will undoubtedly have difficulty in understanding what the speaker is trying to convey because one lacks the necessary information regarding the time, place and the background of the particular situation However, if the speaker elaborates, “My cab is here It is time I have to go now,” the listener, now equipped with the necessary information regarding the context of the language in use, can easily grasp the meaning of the message being conveyed

From the given definitions of the term discourse, it is apparent that there are

certain characteristics which the language, either oral or written, must possess in order for that type of language to be characterized as a discourse Such characteristics are:

• A discourse must be longer than a sentence,

• A discourse must form a coherent unit,

• A discourse must be meaningful,

• A discourse must achieve an end or be used to perform an act,

• A discourse must be contextualized

2.2.1 Discourse Analysis

As discourse itself is a broad term, the discipline designed to study it is

consequently diverse in essence as well As stated by Brown and Yule (1983),

discourse analysis is the term used to refer to the activities that encompass a variety of fields and disciplines, including “sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, philosophical linguistics and computational linguistics” (p viii) As a consequence, the aims of different studies vary greatly

As stated in the Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics (Richards &

Schmidt, 2010), discourse analysis refers to the study of how sentences, either spoken

or written, produce meaningful units such as paragraphs, conversations or interviews

(p 174) However, this definition seemingly fails to include the social and

contextualized nature of discourse analysis According to Do Minh Hung (2012),

discourse analysis is understood as the approach to comprehending social interactions (p 22) Furthermore, as postulated by Alba-Juez (2009), there are generally four

different models of discourse analysis, which include:

• The model which focuses on patterns (language is viewed as a system),

• The model which focuses on interactions (language is viewed as a

process rather than a product),

• The model which focuses on patterns in a predetermined topic or activity,

• The model which focuses on patterns in a social or cultural context (pp 14-15)

Likewise, discourse analysis, as stated by Gee (1991), refers to the process in which the speakers and writers assign specific meanings to their language in

accordance with the specific circumstances (p 40) Also, Gee (ibid.) postulated that the process of discourse analysis is likened to a building process in which the speaker or writer concurrently constructs six aspects of reality (p 12) These six areas – or

buildings of reality – include the:

• semiotic building (meaningful communication),

• world building (reality making),

• activity building (describing present activities),

• socio culturally-situated identity and relationship building (feelings, beliefs or attitudes),

• political building (power relations),

• connection building (relations between the past and future as well as their impacts on the present) (Gee, 1991; pp 85-86)

These buildings of discourse analysis are inextricably connected to one another, thus allowing the reader or listener to understand the meaning of the message

Due to the nature of political speeches and their relevance to power relations as well as in persuading the public to follow the orator’s point of view, it is thus necessary for the author to employ a subcategory of discourse analysis to analyze such speeches, which is known as critical discourse analysis (CDA)

2.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis is, as previously mentioned, a subcategory of

Discourse Analysis, and it is also a concept which is defined in a multitude of ways

CDA is defined in the Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics as:

…a form of discourse analysis that takes a critical stance towards how language is used and analyzes texts and other discourse types in order to identify the ideology and values underlying them It seeks to reveal the interests and power relations in any institutional and socio-historical context through analyzing the ways that people use language (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p 145)

Another definition of Critical Discourse Analysis is provided by Fairclough (1992) as follows:

Critical approaches differ from non-critical approaches in not just describing discursive practices, but also showing how discourse is shaped

by relations of power and ideologies, and the constructive effects discourse has upon social identities, social relations and systems of knowledge and belief, neither of which is normally apparent to discourse participants (p 10)

Likewise, CDA is defined by Dijk (1998) as a category of research of discourse analysis which chiefly studies the manners in which texts and speeches can perform, reproduce and defy “social power abuse, dominance and inequality” in the social and political contexts (p 352) From the given definitions, it can be understood that CDA offers its own unique perspective as well as the aim and the means to analyze texts, either written or spoken, to unveil the sources of power relations in society and in politics The definition of CDA provided by Wodak (2001), too, states that CDA

focuses on power relations, specifically on how such relations are executed and

negotiated in discourse in society (as cited in Desta, 2012, p 75) Hence, it can be

argued that based on the provided definitions of CDA, the discipline in essence is concerned with power and ideology in the social and political settings, which are hidden in the language either orally conveyed or in writing

Different orators or writers have different stances; thus, their ideals are likewise diverse When following CDA, the analysts have to be aware of the biases found

within the analyzed texts and, as advised by Widdowson (2007), examine “not only with ideational but also ideological representations of reality” (pp 71-72) to determine whether or not a studied speech is biased

2.3 Genre

Genre, as defined by Campbell and Jamieson (1990), is a type or a category According to the authors, the speeches delivered by the Presidents are categorized by the setting (the time and place where the speeches take place) along with the audiences (e.g Congress, the people, or other nations), which means that a genre of the

presidential speeches is defined based on the function which it serves (p 7) The

presidential genre which this present study focuses upon is that of the State of the Union Addresses

2.3.1 The characteristics of the State of the Union Address genre

As stated by Shogan (2016), the State of the Union Address is “a

communication between the President and Congress in which the chief executive reports on the current conditions of the United States and provides policy proposals for the upcoming legislative year” (p 1)

A State of the Union Address is normally delivered in the House chamber of the Capitol at the start of a new year in which the President still holds office, from January

3 to February 2; the delivery of the Address normally takes place at nine o’clock in the evening (in the Eastern Standard Time) so as to receive more television viewings nationwide (ibid., p 4)

The State of the Union Address, whose annual delivery is mandated in Article

II, Section 3, clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, is pivotal to Congress and to the President in office For Congress, the delivery of the State of the Union Address is especially important, for it is a scheduled communication directly between the members of Congress and the President each year; the latter on this

occasion establishes priorities and proposes policy for the upcoming year For the President, the occasion of the Address is an opportunity to present his (for there has never been a female President before) entire policy in one speech and at the same time fully showcase his complete authority as the leader of the nation – a role which is a combination of many others such as “chief of state, chief executive, chief diplomat, commander-in-chief, and chief legislator” (ibid., p 1) As stated by Shogan (2016),

“[b]esides delivering the State of the Union, there is no other annual opportunity for the President to showcase his entire arsenal of constitutional powers” (p 1)

Due to the significance of the State of the Union Address, it is considered to be

a presidential genre in its own right, which includes the following characteristics:

• Public meditations on values,

• Assessments of information and issues

• Policy recommendations (Campbell & Jamieson, 1990, pp 54-63)

The first characteristic – public mediations on values – in the State of the Union Address reaches out to the members of Congress as well as the general American population as a whole, communicating with the entire nation as one collective entity This characteristic mainly focuses on the history of the United States, including the summary of and reference to the work done by the past Presidents as well as presenting the current state of affairs for the current President in office

The second characteristic – the assessments of information and issues – serves

as a bridge between the current presidency to those of the past as well as the future presidencies After references to previous State of the Union addresses are provided, the current President will then strive to establish, with the appropriate approaches,

changes that can potentially be effective based on the experience and lessons extracted from what once proved ineffective in the past The president, therefore, establishes the need for change in the present administration by referring to the current state of affairs and talking about the how times have changed

The third characteristic, which is policy recommendations, talks about the future legislative implementations which are logically based on the information previously detailed in the second characteristic above This characteristic places a focus on the manners in which the United States can become better with the changes that can be made with the proposed legislation (Hoyt, 2015, pp 10-11)

Regarding the linguistic aspects of the State of the Union Addresses, there are some recurring elements which have been identified by Shogan (2016), which include (1) the use of the past and future tenses in the contents, (2) the unique tone of

bipartisanship – the support of two political parties whose ideas are in opposition, namely the Republicans and the Democrats in the United States (Esbaugh-Soha & Rottinghaus, 2013), and (3) optimism (pp 6-7) Another linguistic aspect found in the genre is related to the use of collective pronouns such as “we” and “our” (Shogan,

2016, p 2) Other linguistic elements depend on each distinctive President and how that President chooses to deliver the Address

2.4 Rhetoric

Rhetoric has a long history of development, but in brief, it can be divided into different and opposite approaches, specifically the Sophistical approach and the

Aristotlian approach

As stated by Crick (2014), the Sophists were teachers of the people who

employed rhetoric to, through the experiment and manipulation of language as well as their own ingenuity, turn a weaker argument into a stronger one, regardless of ethics;

as a result, their approach to rhetoric was seen as deceptive rather than ethical (p 4)

Different from the Sophists, Aristotle approached rhetoric from a completely

new perspective, one which is more advanced, complicated and, of course, more

ethical As postulated by Aristotle in the distant past, rhetoric is defined as “an ability,

in each [particular] case, to see the available means of persuasion” (Aristotle &

Kennedy, 2007, p 37) Furthermore, as stated by Charteris-Black (2011), the skills in rhetoric can be further developed by participating in debating contests which are based upon real-life situations (pp 1-5); hence, according to the Aristotelian view, rhetoric is

no longer considered as something deceitful or manipulative in essence; instead, it is seen as a skill which can be obtained and honed, and a skill which proves useful to those who possess it As stated by Cicero, a renowned Roman writer and orator,

rhetoric is seen as more than a study, and instead is referred to as an “art or talent” (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p 499)

According to classical rhetoric of Aristotle, the orator has three means with which he or she can utlize to persuade the listeners in any given speech situation, and

these means of persuasion are referred to as pisteis, including (a) the presentation of the

speaker’s trustworthy character (ethos), (b) the logical argument in the contents

(logos), and (c) the emotional effects which the speaker and text have on the audience (pathos) (Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 20) These three means of persuasion,

conceived more than two-thousand years and still enduring till the present days, form the three classical pillars on which future studies on rhetoric are based (as stated in Nielson, 2009, p 9)

Essentially, these three means of persuasion allow a speaker to appeal to the audience’s understanding, feelings and trust (Corbett, 1990, pp 23-24) The three means of persuasion are especially important to politicians because, as stated by

Aristotle, they provide the orator with the foundation on which to build the arguments for the perceived “truth” through the knowledge of politics and ethics, the manners with which to employ such knowledge to establish arguments, and an understanding of psychology (Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 15)

2.4.1 Canons of rhetoric

On the five canons of rhetoric, Pseudo-Cicero concisely summarized as follows:

The speaker should possess the faculties of Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery Invention is the devising of the matter, true

or plausible, that would make the case convincing Arrangement is the ordering and distribution of the matter, making clear the place to which each thing is to be assigned Style is the adaptation of suitable words and sentences to the matter devised Memory is the firm retention in the mind

of the matter, words, and arrangement Delivery is the graceful regulation

of voice, countenance, and gesture (Pseudo-Cicero & Caplan, 1964, p 7) Since this thesis focuses mainly on the use of recurring rhetorical figures by President Obama in the selected State of the Union Addresses, it is the third canon which the author would like to pay the most attention to: the Style

2.4.2 Style

The third canon of Style can be a broad concept, which encompasses such

elements like the manner in which the orator’s thought is conveyed via the use of words, sentences and even an entire speech as a whole, but it is also defined by

Aristotle in a more restricted sense as diction, or more specifically “the choice of

words” in a specific context (Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 197)

It is believed that, according to the classical view, nouns and verbs – whose meanings are contemporarily in popular usage – establish clarity while other categories

of words play a more ornamental role to make the speech become more elevated

(Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 198) The use of words which seem to be out of the ordinary, which are foreign from convention and norm is encouraged, for such choice

of words is, as stated by Aristotle, would warrant more admiration from the audience than the normal and mundane (Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 198) When examining style, the classical view holds that there are two elements which are considered to be the most important and solely useful; these are “[a] word in its prevailing and native meaning and metaphor” (Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 199)

Therefore, to analyze the rhetorical figures which are prevalent in President

Obama’s style regarding the State of the Union Addresses, it is necessary that the choices of words he employed along with the metaphor he incorporated into the speech should be more closely examined and identified alongside the recurring figures of speech present in the selected texts, all of which come together to increase the orator’s three appeals of ethos, pathos and logos

There are four main stylistic categories in the checklist designed by Leech and Short (2007, pp 61-64): (1) the lexical category includes features such as nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs and general features (either formal or informal, visual or auditory,

etc.); (2) the grammatical category examines elements such as sentence types, sentence

complexity, clause types, clause structure, noun phrase, verb phrase, word class and others; (3) the next category includes every type of figures of speech available (tropes and schemes); and (4) lastly, the final category deals with the context and the cohesion

of the texts, such as the use of linking adverbials and pronouns (pp 61-64)

As stated by Leech and Short (2007), while the list itself is not perfect in the way that it omits a large number of other elements, it is useful as it allows the reader to grasp the most relevant and significant features for analysis While in theory, the

checklist provided by Leech and Short (ibid.) is originally meant to be used for the analysis of literary works to determine the artistic principles of writers and poets

through their choices of words and style, it can also be used to analyze the stylistic features of political speeches as well, because political speeches are, in essence,

carefully composed texts which incorporate different rhetorical figures and features which effectively make them distinctive and interesting in terms of style

Hence, the use of the stylistic checklist is still highly relevant even to this

particular study of President Obama’s style of rhetorical figures in the chosen speeches

2.5 Rhetorical figures (figures of speech)

As the main parts of the research paper, rhetorical figures should be clearly defined and thoroughly understood beforehand

A rhetorical figure, also known as a figure of speech (Reich, 2010, p 1), refers

to a word or phrase whose usage deviates from the literal or commonly used meaning (Richards & Schmidt, 2010, p 219) Likewise, a rhetorical figure can also be referred

to as a “rational change in meaning or language from the ordinary and simple form” (Quintilian & Butler, 1921, p 353) This opinion regarding its definition is also shared

by Leech and Short (2007), who state that figures of speech depart from the norms when communicating and that the use of figures of speech is to emphasize a point in a manner different from the usual sense of the language used Basically, figures of

speech are employed for the purpose of stating something in a fresh and unusual

manner, and, as stated by Arp, Johnson and Perrine (2005), figures of speech cannot be understood literally

Figures of speech are vast, including a wide variety of figures such as hyperbole

(e.g I’m so hungry, I can eat a horse), sarcasm (e.g someone saying “Good idea!” to a

bad idea), synecdoche – the use of a component of something to refer to the thing in its

entirety (e.g someone saying “I have some new wheels” to refer to a new car), and

metonymy – the use of an associated word to refer to something else (e.g the use of

The Crown to refer to The Royal Throne in a monarchy) (Richards & Schmidt, 2010,

pp 219-220)

Leech (1968) classified two subcategories of figures of speech, which are

schemes and tropes (pp 74-76) To further expand on the definition of figures of

speech, Znamenskaya (2004) stated that not only do figures of speech include schemes and tropes, but they also cover other syntactical means of expression

2.5.1 Schemes

Schemes refer to the category of figures of speech which are concerned with elements such as the structure, sounds (such as rhymes or repetition), word order, letter, sounds, and syntax rather than with meaning (Znamenskaya, 2004, p 22) As stated by Leech and Short (2007), to analyze schemes, there are two subcategories to consider – phonological schemes, and grammatical and lexical schemes (p 77)

2.5.1.1 Phonological schemes

Phonological schemes, as stated by Abrams and Harpham (2015), talk about the elements related to phonology in a literary work such as rhyme or alliteration – the repeated use of the same consonant at the start of two or more words which are

positioned close to each other (Znamenskaya, 2004) However, these features are believed to be more prominent in verses (or poetry) than in prose; hence, in this study, the phonological schemes are not considered Rather, the second category –

grammatical and lexical schemes – is considered more relevant and thus receives more attention

2.5.1.2 Grammatical and lexical schemes

Grammatical and lexical schemes are those employed to capture the audience’s attention via the use of repeated structures which can be seen in the cases of anaphora whereby a word or group of words serves as the initial element in each subsequent clause, or in the instances of antithesis, in which contradictory ideas are expressed through the choice of words Some examples of figures belonging to grammatical and lexical schemes can be seen in the examples provided as follows

In Winston Churchill’s famous speech which is more commonly known as We

Shall Fight on the Beaches and which was delivered on June 4, 1940, the following

part contains repeated elements, “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the

landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills;

we shall never surrender.” The repetition of a certain initial element, which is the “we shall fight” phrase in this case, is an instance of anaphora, a rhetorical figure which provides more emphasis to the point being made Additionally, since there is a distinct absence of connecting elements such as “and” between the clauses, a second rhetorical figure known as asyndeton is used (Reich, 2010, p 11)

Similarly, another example of scheme can be found in the famous quote by John

F Kennedy, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country” (Watt & Israel, 2000, p 314) The figure of antithesis is employed in this case, which states two ideas which are opposite with one another (Aristotle &

Kennedy, 2007, p 313) Another figure known as chiasmus, or mirror-image pattern as defined by Leech and Short (2007), is also present in the example above, which shows two ideas expressed in transposition that the second thought follows the first and is opposite to the first

In this study, as previously mentioned, grammatical and lexical schemes would

be the main focus, for the phonological schemes are believed to be more relevant in the analysis of verses and poems rather than speeches, which are written in prose

Therefore, for this study, only the rhetorical figures related to the unusual structures and words (such as antithesis or anaphora as seen in the provided examples) were identified and examined

Based on the researcher’s pilot study, the recurring schemes which appeared in all of the selected speeches include anaphora, antithesis, and asyndeton, all of which have already been defined and exemplified above However, in the main content of this thesis, only (1) antithesis and (2) asyndeton would be presented and exemplified, for these figures were found in the pilot study to be among the top nine most frequently used rhetorical figures in all of the speeches in general

Antithesis

Antithesis is the rhetorical figure which features contradictory ideas, as seen in the example, “Flattery has pleasant beginnings, but also brings on bitterest endings” (Pseudo-Cicero & Caplan, 1964, p 283) The opposing ideas at the same time create a rhythm which further attract the attention of the listeners and make them pay more attention to what is being expressed (as stated in Reich, 2010, p 70)

2.5.2 Tropes

Tropes are the types of figures of speech which would result in the change in meaning (Simpson, 2004, p 41) Also, as defined by Quintilian, a trope is referred to as the “artistic alteration of a word or phrase from its proper meaning to another”

(Quintilian & Butler, 1921, p 301) Basically, tropes are the figurative language used,

in which a word or phrase will undergo a change in meaning rather than be literally understood Tropes can be exemplified through figures such as metaphors, similes, metonyms, personification, litotes and the like

An example of tropes is the metonym “Wall Street,” the name of a real street in Lower Manhattan in New York City, which is commonly used to collectively refer to the financial markets of the United States as a whole because that street is famously the

location where many big banks and financial institutions are situated and operate The opposite of “Wall Street” is “Main Street,” which refers to locations which are not dominated by financial institutions Additionally, both of these terms can be seen appearing multiple State of the Union Addresses delivered by President Barack Obama through the years

Arp, Johnson and Perrine (2005), some types of figures of speech can be

categorized into three different groups, including figures by comparison (e.g

metaphor, simile, personification, apostrophe), figures by association (e.g metonymy, synecdoche, symbol, allegory), and figures by contrast (e.g litotes, irony, hyperbole, paradox)

Since the list of figures of speech is an extremely extensive one and not all of them are relevant to this study, it is neither possible nor practical to include the

definitions of every figure in this literature review However, based on a previous study conducted by Szczesny (2017) on the stylistic features of President Obama’s State of the Union Addresses from 2009 to 2016, it was found that in those speeches, President Obama used some rhetorical figures, including antithesis, which is a scheme that has already been previously defined, metaphors and similes, which are tropes and figures

by comparison, and metonymy, which is also a trope and a figure by association Also, based on a pilot study conducted by the researcher, other recurring tropes which

appeared in the selected speeches include personification, apostrophe (figures by

comparison), and litotes (figure by contrast)

Therefore, for this part of the paper, the researcher only provides the definitions

of the aforementioned figures of speech identified in the previous study and in the pilot study conducted by the researcher, the detailed results of which would be presented later in the upcoming Chapter 3: Methodology For this thesis, the researcher only focused on the nine most popularly used recurring rhetorical figures which appeared in the selected speeches of President Obama, while the findings regarding the remaining

ones would be briefly summarized in the Appendices if necessary

Metaphor and simile

Both metaphors and similes are figures of comparison according to Arp,

Johnson and Perrine (2005) Among the rhetorical figures, metaphors and similes are also extremely interesting and warrant consideration First of all, it would undoubtedly

be to the interest and beneficial of the readers that the concept of metaphor should be defined Viewed as a rhetorical phenomenon according to the classical Aristotelian view, metaphor is defined as the transference of a name of a particular item – its

common or literal meaning – into something else more unusual and figurative in nature (Kirby, 1997, p 532)

According to Ricœur (1993), a metaphor is the result of the assimilation of three different ideas, namely the deviation from a word’s common usage, the borrowing of

an original usage, and the substitution for a word which is unavailable through the use

of one that is available and in use Likewise, Ritchie (2013) defines metaphor as the

“substituting one word for another word with an apparently different meaning,

comparing one idea to another, or creating an implicit analogy or simile” (p 4)

Metaphor, as stated by Charteris-Black (2011), reflects one’s personal experience, so the meaning of the metaphor may also differ based on the differences in experience

Hence, if a speaker uses metaphors which are familiar and which are understood

by the audience, there is a high chance that the speaker will be perceived as someone

who has the same experiences as the ones to whom he or she is addressing, thus

increasing his or her own emotional appeal that would aid the speaker in persuading the audience

A famous example of metaphor in literature can be found in the play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare, such as in the quote “Juliet is the sun.” The

transference of meaning from Juliet – a girl – into a different name, one which is more extravagant, more figurative and more beautiful – the sun – is itself a metaphor, which

is used to elevate the beauty and radiance of the girl in question, making the discourse more refined and impressive to the audience as a result

Charteris-Black (2004) states that the use of metaphor in politics is a common practice, and it is practiced due to its effectiveness in promoting the speaker as

someone who is agreeable – thus increasing the appeal of ethos – and who shares similar views, goals and values with those who are addressed – thus increasing the appeal of pathos (p 87)

Additionally, Semino (2008) postulates that by speaking metaphorically when discussing something by substituting it with something else, the speaker can highlight some aspects of what is being discussed while at the same time downplaying others, consequently influencing the perspective of the audience (p 86) Moreover, Charteris-Black (2011) argues that the use of metaphor can also allow politicians to demonstrate their ability and penchant for rational thinking by applying familiar experiences to

discuss the new topics – thus increasing the appeal of logos to a certain extent An

example of this is the relationship between Scotland and England, which is often

described by politicians as a “marriage” – a more familiar expression which is more closely associated with any individual’s normal daily life

Therefore, metaphor is one of the tools which politicians use in their speeches and arguments so as to influence their audiences and further increase their three

appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos Generally, however, the main effectiveness of

metaphor lies in the way it is used by politicians to better arouse emotions and feelings

in the audiences rather than for the sake of presenting a series of logical arguments, especially when the audiences may not readily have access to every piece of data and information offered in the speech in order to be optimally inclined in terms of logic (Scott & Katz, 1996, p 133)

In his study, as explicitly stated by Aristotle, a simile – the likeness between two

nouns which is expressed through words such as like or as (e.g He is fast like/as the

wind) – is also considered to be a metaphor and, furthermore, there is little distinction between the two concepts except for the form in which they are expressed (Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 205)

Personification

As briefly defined by Znamenskaya (2004) as well as byKövecses and Benczes (2010), personification refers to the assignment of human-like characteristics to

inanimate objects and even non-human entities (such as abstract concepts) Basically,

in personification, such objects and concepts would possess traits normally associated with humans such as feeling, behaving, or carrying out a task

An example of personification can be seen in the sentence, “Physics hates me.” Normally, physics is a subject and a scientific discipline, so it does not have the

capability to feel anything However, in the complaint given, the concept of math is personified, thus turning it into something that can feel hatred, and this personified entity is then used to show that the speaker is not good at learning math

speeches Hence, the analysis of metonymy would not be included in the main content

of the paper Instead, it would be included in the Appendices (see Appendix M)

2.5.2.3 Figures by contrast

Based on the categorization provided by Arp, Johnson and Perrine (2005) and

on the researcher’s own pilot study, the figures of speech by contrast which appeared in the selected speeches include litotes That being said, litotes, for the same reasons as metonymy above, would not be included in the main content of the paper

2.5.3 Other types of figures of speech

Besides the schemes and tropes which have been defined above and categorized

by Arp, Johnson and Perrine (2005), there are, according to Znamenskaya (2004), other syntactical means of expression which are also considered to be figures of speech in the context of this study However, since they do not match any of the aforementioned categories of schemes and tropes, they would be identified as “Others” in this paper, and these other figures would belong to the category of schemes (the grammatical and lexical arrangements) or to that of tropes (the deviation from the usual meaning);

rather, these figures in the “Others” category would be identified based on the contents

of the selected speeches with careful reference to relevant materials

The five most popular recurring rhetorical figures of this category which were identified in the pilot study and which would be included in Chapter 4 later on are, in alphabetical order, (1) climax, (2) Definition, (3) Description, (4) Paramologia, and (5) Parenthesis

These five, in combination with the aforementioned figures of (6) Antithesis, (7) Asyndeton, (8) Metaphor and Simile, and (9) Personification are, according to the results of the pilot study (the details of which would be provided in Chapter 3 later on), the nine most frequently employed recurring rhetorical figures which appeared in all of the selected speeches in general, for each had a total token count of at least 200

2.5.3.1 Climax

When the figure of climax is applied, the speaker arranges his or her ideas in a sequential way with the subsequent element being more important and weighty than each precedent one, and the last element mentioned is considered the most significant,

as seen in the example provided, “The industry of Africanus brought him excellence, his excellence glory, his glory rivals” (Pseudo-Cicero & Caplan, 1964, p 315)

2.5.3.2 Definition

In rhetoric, definition refers to the figure whereby the speaker assigns specific attributes or characteristics to something or someone in a clear and descriptive manner which shows the essence of the object referred to, as seen in the example, “That is not economy on your part, but greed, because economy is careful conservation of one's own goods, and greed is wrongful covetousness of the goods of others” (Pseudo-Cicero

& Caplan, 1964, p 317)

2.5.3.3 Description

The rhetorical figure of description is used when the speaker provides the

listeners with an impressive and clear account of the consequences arising from an act,

as seen in the following example: “But, men of the jury, if by your votes you free this defendant, immediately, like a lion released from his cage, or some foul beast loosed from his chains, he will slink and prowl about in the forum, sharpening his teeth to attack every one's property, assaulting every man, friend and enemy, known to him or unknown, now despoiling a good name, now attacking a life, now bringing ruin upon a house and its entire household, shaking the republic from its foundations” (Pseudo-Cicero & Caplan, 1964, p 357)

However, this definition does not mention whether the consequences described are to be in the past, present, or future tenses Therefore, for this paper, all instances in which the consequences of actions appeared in the contents were counted, regardless of whether they took place in the past, at the time the speeches were made, or in the

President’s predictions

2.5.3.4 Paromologia

The figure of paromologia takes place when the speaker admits to a mistake or

a shortcoming which, instead of allowing it to negatively affect the speaker’s case, provides a foundation on which a stronger point is presented, as seen in the example,

“Yes, I may have been a petty thief, but I am no felon” (Burton, 2016) However, it should be noted that this definition does not specifically mention whether the mistake admitted belongs to the speaker personally or someone else associated with him or her

As a result, when identifying the tokens of paromologia in the selected

speeches, the researcher counted the instances where President Obama admitted not only his own faults, but the shortcomings which occurred in the nation under his own administration as well

2.5.4 The function of rhetorical figures

According to Aristotle, there are four virtues of style which include

“correctness, clarity, ornamentation, and propriety” (Aristotle & Kennedy, 2007, p 307) Figures of speech, according to Pseudo-Cicero, fall under the umbrella of the virtue of ornamentation due to the fact that such figures offer the language a “fine polish” (Pseudo-Cicero & Caplan, 1964, p 275)

Hence, the primary function of the figures of speech, especially the ones which

appear in President Obama’s State of the Union Addresses, serve as ornament to make his language more refined, thus attracting the attention of the listeners and compelling the audiences to pay attention to what is being conveyed

On the virtue of ornamentation, Quintilian stated that the role which rhetorical ornament plays is not a small one and this also serves to further the effect of the orator has on the audiences, for ornament makes what is being spoken pleasant for the

audiences to listen to, hence increasing their attention to what is being said as well as their willingness to believe what is being conveyed (Quintilian & Butler, 1921, p 213)

As a result, it can be argued that one obvious function which rhetorical figures seem to play is to captivate the audiences’ attention and make them more receptive to what they hear

2.5.5 The rhetorical figures in the selected speeches

Rhetorical figures, or figures of speech, are stated to be extremely crucial to orators, as they help attract and captivate the attention of the audience (Mcquarrie & Phillips, 2014, p 26) Likewise, Mcquarrie and Phillips (2014) further assert that

figures of speech make the addressed audience become more receptive and attentive to the message being conveyed, enabling them to analyze and process the presented

arguments more thoroughly (pp 26-30)

Hence, the use of figures of speech can promote the three appeals of persuasion and help the orator to better connect with the audience, allowing them to better

convince the latter of what is being expressed In a political context, Leith (2011)

argues that the presence of figures of speech in sentences makes them more memorable

as a result; thus, the speaker is able to make a more lasting impression on the audience

Due to their significance, it is worth identifying the rhetorical figures employed

by President Obama in the selected speeches to better understand his style However, it would be extremely difficult to identify and examine each and every figure of speech present in President Obama’s State of the Union Addresses due to the sheer amount of

data and words each one contains Furthermore, such a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this paper, which mainly seeks to identify the rhetorical figures used by

President Obama which appear in all of the selected speeches rather than in each

individual one

Some of the most prominent rhetorical figures of speech (both schemes and tropes) in Obama’s selected speeches which would be examined include, for example, the figures of repetition, which are very commonly employed in speeches, as they are,

as stated by Corbett (1990) effective in generating rhythm as well as creating an effect

of emphasis on the emotions of the audience (pp 437-439) Therefore, the figures of repetition directly affect the emotional appeal (pathos) On the other hand, the figures

of contrast are used to create either similarity (parallelism) or contrast (antithesis) to make the points of argument more memorable to the audience

However, it should be noted that the topic of figures of speech is an enormous one, which is made even more difficult due to the fact that there is no comprehensive list which contains the details and definitions of all the figures in existence, no

authoritative on this subject, and different books on the topic use different terms to refer to the figures (Reich, 2010, p 6)

That being said, there are reliable sources which could be used to define and understand the figures to be identified later on during the analysis For this paper, the terms used to refer to the identified rhetorical figures in the selected speeches as well as their definitions, for the sake of uniformity and clarity, would be taken mainly from the

Rhetorica ad Herennium (Pseudo-Cicero & Caplan, 1964), which was also employed

as one of the main materials for reference by Reich (2010), who composed a paper on the rhetorical figures used by Jesus in the Gospel of Luke, and the website known as

Silva Rhetoricae (http://rhetoric.byu.edu/), which is run by Gideon Burton at Brigham Young University , specifically at the section known as “Figures of Speech: Groupings

by Rhetorical Categories,” and which was also used as an encyclopedia for reference