rhetorical devices used in political speeches

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 11 December 2023

The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis

• Nisreen N. Al-Khawaldeh 1 ,
• Luqman M. Rababah   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3871-3853 2 ,
• Ali F. Khawaldeh 1 &
• Alaeddin A. Banikalef 2  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  10 , Article number:  936 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

5477 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Language and linguistics

This research investigated the main linguistic strategies used in President Biden’s inauguration speech presented in 2021. Data were analyzed in light of Fairclough’s CDA framework: macro-structure (thematic)—intertextually; microstructure in syntax analysis (cohesion); stylistic (lexicon choice to display the speaker’s emphasis); and rhetoric in terms of persuasive function. The thematic analysis of the data revealed that Biden used certain persuasive strategies including creativity, metaphor, contrast, indirectness, reference, and intertextuality, for addressing critical issues. Creative expressions were drawn highlighting and magnifying significant real-life issues. Certain concepts and values (i.e., unity, democracy, and racial justice) were also accentuated as significant elements of America’s status and Biden’s ideology. Intertextuality was employed by resorting to an extract from one of the American presidents in order to convince the Americans and the international community of his ideas, vision, and policy. It appeared that indirect expressions were also used for discussing politically sensitive issues to acquire a political and interactional advantage over his political opponents. His referencing style showed his interest in others and their unity. Significant ideologies encompassing unity, equality, and freedom for US citizens were stated implicitly and explicitly. The study concludes that the effective use of linguistic and rhetorical devices is important to construct meanings in the world, be persuasive, and convey the intended vision and underlying ideologies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Media bias through collocations: a corpus-based study of Egyptian and Ethiopian news coverage of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam

A multi-dimensional analysis of interpreted and non-interpreted English discourses at Chinese and American government press conferences

Constructing cultural integration through rhetoric in modi’s speech in lumbini, nepal, introduction.

The significance of language in political and academic realms has gained prominence in recent times (Iqbal et al., 2020 ; Kozlovskaya, et al., 2020 ; Moody & Eslami, 2020 ). Language serves as a potent instrument in politics, embodying a crucial role in the struggle for power to uphold and enact specific beliefs and interests. Undeniably, language encompasses elements that unveil diverse intended meanings conveyed through political speeches, influencing, planning, accompanying, and managing every political endeavor. Effectiveness in political speeches relies on meeting criteria such as credibility, logic, and emotional appeal (Nikitina, 2011 ). Credibility is attained through possessing a particular amount of authority and understanding of the selected issue. Logical coherence is evident when the speech is clear and makes sense to the audience. In addition, establishing an emotional connection with the audience is essential to capture and maintain their attention.

Political speech, a renowned genre of discourse, reveals a lot about how power is distributed, exerted, and perceived in a country. Speech is a powerful tool for shaping the political thinking and political “mind” of a nation, allowing the actors and recipients of political activity to acquire a certain political vision (Fairclough, 1989 ). Political scientists are primarily interested in the historical implications of political decisions and acts, and they are interested in the political realities that are formed in and via discourse (Schmidt, 2008 ; Pierson & Skocpol, 2002 ). Linguists, on the other hand, have long been fascinated by language patterns employed to deliver politically relevant messages to certain locations in order to accomplish a specific goal.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is a crucial approach for analyzing language in depth so as to reveal certain tendencies within political discourse (Janks, 1997 ). CDA is not the same as other types of discourse analysis. That is why it is said to be “critical.” According to Cameron ( 2001 ), “critical refers to a way of understanding the social world drawn from critical theory” (p. 121). Fairclough ( 1995 ) also says, “Critical implies showing connections and causes which are hidden; it also implies intervention, for example, providing resources for those who may be disadvantaged through change” (p. 9). In short, it can be applied to both talk and text delivered by leaders or politicians who normally have a lot of authority to reveal their hidden agenda (Cameron, 2001 ) and decipher the meaning of the crucial concealed ideas (Fairclough, 1989 ). Therefore, it is a useful technique for analyzing texts like speeches connected with power, conflict, and politics, such as Martin Luther King’s speech (Alfayes, 2009 ). Fairclough concludes that CDA can elucidate the hidden meaning of “I Have a Dream,” the speech that has a strong and profound significance and whose messages concerning black Americans’ poverty and struggle have inspired many people all around the world. The ideological components are enshrined in political speeches since “ideology invests language in various ways at various levels and that ideology is both properties of structures and events” (Fairclough, 1995 , p. 71). Thus, meanings are produced through attainable interpretations of the target speech.

CDA has obtained wide prominence in analyzing language usage beyond word and sentence levels (Almahasees & Mahmoud, 2022 ). CDA, also known as critical language study (Fairclough, 1989 ) or critical linguistics (Fairclough, 1995 ; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999 ), considers language to be a critical component of social and cultural processes (Fairclough, 1992 ; Fairclough, 1995 ; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999 ). The goal of this strategy, according to Fairclough ( 1989 ), is to “contribute to the broad raising of consciousness of exploitative social connections by focusing on language” (p. 4). He also claims that CDA is concerned with studying linkages within language between dominance, discrimination, power, and control (Fairclough, 1992 ; Fairclough, 1995 ) and that the goal of CDA is to link between discourse practice and social practice obvious (Fairclough, 1995 ). The CDA is a type of critical thinking which means, according to Beyer ( 1995 ), “developing reasoned conclusions.” Thus, it might be viewed as a critical perspective and interpretation that focuses on social issues, notably the role of discourse in the production and reproduction of power abuse or dominance (Wodak & Meyer, 2009 ). Furthermore, the ‘Sapir–Whorf hypothesis’ indicates that the goal of critical discourse interpretation is to retrieve the social meanings conveyed in the speech by analyzing language structures considering their interactive and larger social contexts (Fairclough, 1992 ; Kriyantono, 2019 ; Lauwren, 2020 ).

Political communication is generally classified as a persuasive speech since it aims to influence or convince people that they have made the right choice (Nusartlert, 2017 ). Persuasive discourse is a very powerful tool for getting what is needed or intended. In such a type of discourse, people use communicative strategies to convince or urge specific thoughts, actions, and attitudes. Scheidel defines persuasion as “the activity in which the speaker and the listener are conjoined and in which the speaker consciously attempts to influence the behavior of the listener by transmitting audible, visible and symbolic” ( 1967 , p. 1). Thus, persuasive language is used to fulfill various reasons, among which is convincing people to accept a specific standpoint or idea.

Political speeches are considered eloquent pieces of communication oriented toward persuading the target audience (Haider, 2016 ). Politicians often use many persuasive techniques to express their agendas in refined language in order to convince people of their views on certain issues, gain support from the public, and ultimately achieve the envisioned goals (Fairclough, 1992 ). Leaders who control uncertainty, build allies, and generate supportive resources can easily gain enough leverage to lead. This means that their usage of language aims to put their intended political, economic, and social acts into practice. The inaugural speech is a very political discourse to analyze because it marks the inception of the new presidency, mainly focusing on infusing unity among people. In light of the scarcity of research on this significant speech, this study aims to investigate the main linguistic persuasive strategies used in President Biden’s inauguration speech presented in 2021.

Literature review

Political speeches are a significant genre within the realm of political discourse in which politicians use language intentionally to steer people’s mindsets and emotions in order to achieve a specific outcome. Since politics is mainly based on a constant struggle for power among concerned individuals or parties, persuasive techniques are crucial elements politicians use to manipulate others or make them accept their entrenched ideas and plans. Persuasion involves using rhetoric to convince the target audience to embrace certain ideologies, adopt specific attitudes, and control their behavior toward a particular issue (Van Dijk, 2015 ). The inaugural speeches are quite diplomatic and rhetorical, as they constitute a golden chance for the leaders to assert their leadership style. Thus, they are open to different types of interpretations and form a copious source of data for politicians and linguists. The linguistic choices politicians make are rational because of the underlying ideologies that determine the way their speeches should be structured. Considering this idea, it is vital to study the rhetoric of the American presidential inaugural speech since it was presented at a time full of critical political events and scenarios by a very influential political figure in the world, marking the inception of a new phase in the lives of Americans and the world. The significance of studying such a piece of discourse lies in the messages that the new president seeks to deliver to the American nation and the world at large.

Biden’s speeches have attracted researchers’ attention. For example, Renaldo & Arifin ( 2021 ) examined Biden’s ideology evident in his inaugural speech. The analysis of the data revealed three types of presuppositions manifested in his speech, i.e., lexical, existential, and factive, where lexical presupposition is the most frequent one. The underlying ideology was demonstrated in issues regarding immigrants, healthcare, racism, democracy, and climate change.

Prasetio and Prawesti ( 2021 ) analyzed the underlying meanings based on word counts considering three subcategories: hostility, use of auxiliaries, and noun-pronoun discourse analysis. The results revealed Biden’s hope of helping Americans by overcoming problems, developing many fields, and enhancing different aspects. It was evident that his underlying ideology was liberalism and his cherished values were democracy and unity.

Pramadya and Rahmanhadi ( 2021 ) studied the way Biden employed the rhetoric of political language in his inauguration speech in order to show his plans and political views. Each political message conveyed in his inauguration speech revealed his ideology and power. Sociocultural practices that supported the text were explored to view the inherent reality that gave rise to the discourse.

Amir ( 2021 ) investigated Biden’s persuasive strategies and the covert ideology manifested in his inaugural speech. Numerous components including “the rule of three,” the past references, the biblical examples, etc., were analyzed. The results emphasized the strength of America’s heroic past, which requires that Americans mainly focus on American values of tolerance, unity, and love.

Bani-Khaled and Azzam ( 2021 ) examined the linguistic devices used to convey the theme of unity in President Joe Biden’s Inauguration Speech. The qualitative analysis of this theme showed that the speaker used suitable linguistic features to clarify the concept of unity. It revealed that the tone of the speech appeared confident, reconciliatory, and optimistic. Both religion and history were resorted to as sources of rhetorical and persuasive devices.

The review of the literature shows a bi-directional relationship between language and sociocultural practices. Each one of them exerts an influence on the other. Therefore, CDA explores both the socially shaped and constitutive sides of language usage since language is viewed as “social identity, social relations, and systems of knowledge and belief” (Fairclough, 1993 , p. 134). It shows invisible connections and interventions (Fairclough, 1992 ). Consequently, it is significant to disclose such unobserved meanings and intentions to listeners who may not be aware of them.

Despite the plethora of critical discourse analysis research on political speeches, few studies were conducted on Biden’s inauguration speech. Thus, this study aims to enrich the existing research by complementing the analysis and highlighting some other significant aspects of Biden’s inauguration speech. Therefore, it is expected that this study will enrich critical discourse analysis research by focusing mainly on political speech. It can be a helpful source for teachers studying and teaching languages. They will learn how to properly analyze discourses by following a critical thinking approach to fully comprehend the relationship linking individual parts of discourses and creating meaning. Besides, the study casts light on distinctive features of societies manifested in political speech.

Methodology

The present study analyses President Biden’s inauguration speech (Biden, 2021 ). Data were analyzed in light of the CDA framework: macro-structure (thematic)—intertextually; microstructure in syntax analysis (cohesion); stylistic (lexicon choice to display the speaker’s emphasis); and rhetoric in terms of persuasive function. Fairclough’s discourse analysis approach was adopted to analyze the target speech in terms of text analysis, discursive practices, and social practices. The main token and the frequency of the recurring words were statistically analyzed, whereas the persuasive strategies proposed by Obeng ( 1997 ) were analyzed based on Fairclough’s ( 1992 ) CDA mentioned above.

Results and discussion

In the United States, presidents deliver inaugural speeches after taking the presidential oath of office. Presidents use this occasion to address the public and lay forth their vision and objectives. These speeches can also help to unify the United States, especially after difficult times or conflicts. Millions of people in the United States, as well as millions of people throughout the world, listen to the inaugural speeches to gain a glimpse of the new president’s vision for the world. This speech is particularly intriguing to analyze using the CDA framework in many aspects. Fairclough ( 1992 ) emphasizes that language must be regarded as an instrument of power as well as a tool of communication. Actually, there is a technique for utilizing language that seeks to encourage individuals who are engaged to do particular things.

The analysis of the ideological aspect of Biden’s inaugural speech endeavors to link this speech with certain social processes and to decode his invisible ideology. From the opening lines, it is apparent that Biden’s ideology is based on inclusiveness and a citizen-based position. At the beginning of his speech, he uses the first few minutes of his inaugural speech to thank and address his predecessors and audience as ‘my fellow Americans,’ lumping all sorts of nationalities and ethnicities together as one nation.

Biden then continues to mark a successful and smooth transition of power with an emphasis on a citizen-based attitude. He underlines that the victory belongs not only to him but to all Americans who have spoken up for a better life in the United States, saying “We celebrate the triumph not of a candidate, but of a cause. The cause of democracy. The people, the will of the people has been heard and the will of the people has been heeded.” With this victory, he promised to take his position seriously to unify America as a whole, regardless of its diversity by eliminating discrimination and reuniting the country’s divided territories in order to rebuild fresh faith among Americans. People of all races, ethnicities, sexual orientations, faiths, and origins should be treated equally. There is no difference between red and blue states except for the United States. Through this technique, he tries to accentuate that the whole American system depends on grassroots diplomacy, rather than an exclusive system of presidency. The beginning and the end of his speech successfully emphasize the importance of the oath that he took on himself to serve his nation without bias where he begins with “I have just taken a sacred oath each of those patriots took” and reminds the audience of the holiness of this oath at the end of his speech; as he says “ I close today where I began, with a sacred oath ”.

This section is divided into seven parts. Each of these parts analyses the speech in light of the selected persuasive strategies, which are creativity, indirectness, intertextuality, choice of lexis, coherence, modality, and reference. These strategies were selected among others due to their knock-on effect on explicating the core ideas of the speech.

Creativity is an essential part of any successful political speech. That is because it plays a significant role in structuring the facts the speaker wants to convey in a way that is accessible to the audience. It helps political figures persuade the public of their ideas, initiatives, and agendas. Indeed, Biden’s speech abounds with examples of creativity which in turn shapes the policies and expectations he adopts.

By using the expression “ violence sought to shake the Capitol’s very foundation ”. The speaker alluded with some subtlety and shrewdness to the riots made by a pro-Trump crowd that assaulted the US Capitol on Jan. 6 in an attempt to prevent the formal certification of the Electoral College results. Hundreds of fanatics walked onto the same platform where Biden had taken his oath of office, they offended the democracy and prestige of the place and the US reputation. He left unsaid that they were sent to the Capitol by the previous president, and described them in another part of his speech:

Here we stand, just days after a riotous mob thought they could use violence to silence the will of the people, to stop the work of our democracy, and to drive us from this sacred ground.

Biden won the popular vote by a combined (7) million votes and the Electoral College. The election results were frequently confirmed in courts as being free of fraud. Nevertheless, the rioters who attacked the Capitol claimed differently and never completely admitted these results.

The other thing that stood out was Biden’s emphasis on racism. He highlighted the Declaration of Independence’s goals, as he often does, and depicted them as being at odds with reality:

I know the forces that divide us are deep and they are real. But I also know they are not new. Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, demonization have long torn us apart.

Of all, this isn’t the first time a president has spoken about racism at an inauguration. However, in the backdrop of the (Black Lives Matter) riots and the continued attack on voting rights, Biden’s adoption of that phrase as his own is both strategically and ethically significant. The pursuit of racial justice has previously been mentioned by Biden as a significant government aim. To lend substance to his rhetoric, society will have to take action on criminal justice reform and voting rights.

President Biden also argued that there has been great progress in women’s rights.

Here we stand, where 108 years ago at another inaugural, thousands of protesters tried to block brave women marching for the right to vote. Today we mark the swearing-in of the first woman in American history elected to national office—Vice President Kamala Harris.

In 1913, a huge number of women marched for the right to vote in a massive suffrage parade on the eve of President-elect Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration, but the next day crowds of mostly men poured into the street for the following day’s inauguration, making it almost impossible for the marchers to get through. Many women heard ‘indecent epithets’ and ‘barnyard banter,’ and they were jeered, tripped, groped, and shoved. But now the big difference has been achieved. During his primary campaign, Biden promised to make history with his running mate selection, claiming he would exclusively consider women. He followed through on that commitment by choosing a lawmaker from one of the most ardent supporters of his campaign, black women, as well as the fastest-growing minority group in the country, Asian Americans.

On a related note, the president touched on the issue of racism, xenophobia, nativism, and other forms of intolerance in the United States “ And now, a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat .” He stressed that every human being has inherent dignity and deserves to be treated with fairness. That is why, on his first day in office, he signed an order establishing a whole-government approach to equity and racial justice. Biden’s administration talks of “restoring humanity” to the US immigration system and considering immigrants as valuable community members and employees. At the same time, Biden is signaling that the previous administration’s belligerent attitude toward partners is over, that the US’s image has plummeted to new lows, and that America can once again be trusted to uphold its commitments in a clear attempt to heal the rift in America’s foreign relations and rebuild alliances with the rest of the world.

So here is my message to those beyond our borders: America has been tested and we have come out stronger for it. We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again.

Indirectness

Politicians avoid being obvious and speak indirectly while discussing politically sensitive issues in order to protect and advance their careers as well as acquire a political and interactional advantage over their political opponents. It’s also possible that the indirectness is driven by courtesy. Evasion, circumlocution, innuendoes, metaphors, and other forms of oblique communication can be used to convey this obliqueness. Indirectness is closely connected with politeness as it serves politicians’ agendas by spreading awful stories about their opponents (Van Dijk, 2011 ).

Many presidents have been more inclined to draw comparisons between their policies and those of their predecessors. Therefore, Biden was so adamant about avoiding focusing on the previous president that he didn’t criticize or blame the Trump administration’s shortcomings on the epidemic or anything else. In other words, he does not want to offend Republicans, Trump’s party. When Biden was talking about the attack on the US Capitol by the supporters of Trump, he didn’t mention that Trump had sent them. He talked about the lies of Trump and his followers without naming them, but the idea was clear.

There is truth and there are lies. Lies told for power and for profit” he declared. “Each of us has a duty and responsibility, as citizens, as Americans, and especially as leaders—leaders who have pledged to honor our Constitution and protect our nation—to defend the truth and to defeat the lies.

Of course, such lies were spread not merely by Trump and his horde, but also by the majority of Republicans in Congress, who relentlessly promoted the myth that Trump had won the election. One of the most striking aspects of Biden’s speech is this: while appealing for unity, he admitted that some of his opponents aren’t on the same page as him and that their influence has to be addressed. Biden didn’t use his speech to criticize those who believe his victory was skewed, but he appeared to acknowledge that his plan would be tough to implement without tackling the spread of lies. It was an interesting choice for a man who promotes compromise.

Biden’s speech is enriched with numerous conceptual metaphors and metonymies stemming from various domains. Metaphor is perceived as an effective pervasive technique used frequently in our daily communication (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980 ; Van Dijk, 2006 ). It helps the addressees understand and experience one thing in terms of another. It is closely related to cognition as it affects people’s reasoning and giving opinions and judgments (Thibodeau and Boroditsky, 2011 ). For example, Biden used the metaphor ‘Lower the temperature’ to lessen the tension and chaos caused in the previous presidential period. In another example, he utilized ‘ Politics need not be a raging fire ’ to portray politics as something dangerous and might destroy others.

Biden presents examples of metonymy when he portrays periods of troubles, setbacks, and difficult times as dark winter ‘We will need all our strength to persevere through this dark winter’ to emphasize the gloomy days Americans experience in times of crises and wars. The representation of the concept of ‘unity as the path forward’ implicitly alludes to Biden’s path for the previously created divided America, emphasizing the significance of following and securing the necessary solution, which is unity as the path for moving forward. The depiction of crises facing Americans such as ‘ Anger, resentment, hatred. Extremism, lawlessness, violence, Disease, joblessness, hopelessness’ as foes, make people feel the urgent need to unite in order to combat these foes. The expression of ‘ ugly reality ’ reflects an atrocious world full of problems such as racism, nativism, fear, and demonetization . Integrating such conceptual metaphors and metonymy is conventional and deeply rooted and can lead to promoting ideologies by presenting critical political issues in a specific way (Charteris-Black, 2018 ). They make the speech more persuasive as they facilitate people’s understanding of abstract and intricate ideas through using concrete experienceable objects (Lakoff & Johnson, 1980 ). In other words, they perfectly and politely portray serious issues confronting Americans as well as the course of action required to overcome them. Democracy is depicted as both a precious and fragile object. This metonymy makes people appreciate the value of democracy and encourages them to cherish and protect it. Biden declares that democracy, which has been torn during the previous period, has triumphed over threats. Using this metonymy succeeded in connecting logos with pathos, which is one of the goals of using metaphors in political speeches (Mio, 1997 ).

The metonymy of America as a symbol of good things ‘ An American story of decency and dignity. Of love and of healing. Of greatness and of goodness ’ is deliberately created to represent America as an honest and good country. Through this metaphor, Biden appeals not only to the emotions of all people but also to their minds to persuade them that America has been a source of goodness. This finding supports the researchers’ outcomes (Van Dijk, 2006 ; Charteris-Black, 2011 ; Boussaid, 2022 ) that figurative language reveals how important issues are framed in order to advocate specific ideologies by appealing to people’s emotions. Hence, it is a crucial persuasive technique used in political speeches. This implies that Biden is aware of the significance of metaphor as a persuasive rhetoric component.

Intertextuality

Intertextuality has been defined as “the presence of a text in another text” (Genette, 1983 ). Fairclough claims that all texts are intertextual by their very nature and that they are thus constituents of other texts (Fairclough, 1992 ). It is an indispensable strategic feature politicians employ in their speeches to enhance the strength of the speech and reinforce religious, sociocultural, and historical contexts (Kitaeva & Ozerova, 2019 ). Antecedent texts and names are significant components of rhetoric in politics, especially in presidential speeches, because any leader of a country must follow historical, state, moral, and ethical traditions and conventions; referring to precedent texts is one way to get familiar with them. This linguistic phenomenon is necessary for reaching an accurate interpretation of the text, conveying the intended message (Kitaeva & Ozerova, 2019 ), and increasing the credibility of the text, thus getting the audience’s attention to believe in the speaker’s words (Obeng, 1997 ).

Presidents and political intellectuals in the United States have made plenty of statements that will be remembered for years to come. These previous utterances have been unchangeably repeated by other presidents of the USA in different situations throughout American history and are familiar to all Americans. Presidents of the United States frequently quote their predecessors. Former US presidents are frequently mentioned in the corpus of intertextual instances. The oath taken by all presidents—a set rhetorical act of speech—contains a lot of intertextuality. On a macro-structure level, the speaker utilizes intertextuality to give the general theme an appearance by recalling ‘old’ information. Biden quoted Psalm 30:5: “ Weeping may endure for the night, but joy cometh in the morning .” It is a verse that has great resonance for him, given the loss of his wife and daughter in a car accident and his adult son Beau to cancer. On this occasion, he links it to the suffering, with more than 400,000 Americans having died from COVID-19. This biblical and religious type of intertextuality implies that Biden links people’s intimate connection to God with their social and ethical responsibilities.

Another example is when Biden refers to a saying of President Abraham Lincoln in 1863: “ If my name ever goes down into history, it will be for this act and my whole soul is in it .” Although he leads at a completely different time, much like President Lincoln, Biden is grappling with the challenge of a deeply divided country. Deep political schisms have existed in the United States for a long time, but tensions seem to have been exacerbated lately. These nods to Lincoln bring an element of familiarity back to US politics and, potentially, a sense of return to stability after years of turbulence. The president has also quoted a part of the American Anthem Lyrics. He has recited a few lines of the song that highlight his values of hard work, religious faith, and concern for the nation’s future.

The work and prayers of century have brought us to this day. What shall be our legacy? What will our children say… Let me know in my heart When my days are through America, America I gave my best to you.

Choice of lexis

This choice of lexis may have an impact on the way the listeners think and believe what the speaker says. As Aman ( 2005 ) argues, the use of certain words shows the seriousness of the speech to convince people. Regarding this choice of vocabulary, Denham and Roy ( 2005 ) argue that “the vocabulary provides valuable insight into those words which surround or support a concept” (p. 188).

When you review the entire speech of President Biden, one key theme stands out above all others: Democracy. This was reiterated early in his speech and was repeated several times throughout. He has picked the most under-assaulted ideal: ‘democracy’. This word was used (11) times “We’ve learned again that democracy is precious. Democracy is fragile. And at this hour, my friends, democracy has prevailed,” Biden remarked. This would be evident in another period, but after the 2020 election and the attempt to reverse it, the concept is profound.

The president made lots of appeals to unity in his inaugural speech and ignored the partisan conflicts to achieve the supreme goal of enhancing cooperation between all to serve their country. He repeated the words ‘unity’ and ‘uniting’ (11) times.

And we must meet this moment as the United States of America. If we do that, I guarantee you, we will not fail. We have never, ever, ever, failed in America when we have acted together.

This was Biden’s most forceful call for unity. It would be difficult to achieve, however, not just because of the Trump-supporting Republican Party, but also because of the historically close balance of power in the House and Senate.

Biden’s pledge to bridge the divide on policy and earn the support of those who did not support him, rather than seeing them primarily as political opponents, was a mainstay of his campaign, and it was a major theme of his acceptance speech. “ I will be a president for all Americans .” He also tried to play down the dispute between the two parties (Republican and Democratic) “ We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal .” This is evident by addressing his opponents from the Republican Party.

To all of those who did not support us, let me say this:Hear me out as we move forward. Take a measure of me and my heart. And if you still disagree, so be it That’s democracy.That’s America. The right to dissent peaceably, within the guardrails of our Republic, is perhaps our nation’s greatest strength. Yet hear me clearly: Disagreement must not lead to disunion. And I pledge this to you: I will be a President for all Americans. I will fight as hard for those who did not support me as for those who did.

The use of idiomatic expressions is also evident in the speech; Biden says ‘If we’re willing to stand in the other person’s shoes just for a moment’ when talking about overcoming fear about America’s future through unity. This expression encourages the addresses to empathize with the speakers’ circumstances before passing any judgment.

The analysis of syntax helps the addressees sense more specifically cohesion. Within a text or phrase, cohesion is a grammatical and lexical connection that keeps the text together and provides its meaning. Halliday, Hasan ( 1976 ) state that “a good discourse has to take attention in relation between sentences and keep relevance and harmony between sentences. Discourse is a linguistic unit that is bigger than a sentence. A context in discourse is divided into two types; first is cohesion (grammatical context) and second is coherence (lexical context)”.

This was shown with the most frequent form of cohesion for the grammatical section, which is the reference with 140 pieces of evidence. Biden employed a variety of conjunctions in his speech to make it easier for his audience to understand his oration, such as “and” (97) times, “but” (16) times, and “so” (8) times.

The analysis also shows that Biden has used various examples of cohesive lexical devices, repetitions, synonyms, and contrast in order to accomplish particular ends such as emphasis, inter-connectivity, and appealing for public acceptance and support. All of these devices contribute to the accurate interpretation of the discourse. It is evident that Biden used contrast/juxtaposition as in:

‘There is truth and there are lies’; ‘Not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s’; ‘Not of personal interest, but of the public good’; ‘Of unity, not division’; ‘Of light, not darkness’; ‘through storm and strife, in peace and in war’, ‘We must end this uncivil war that pits red against blue, rural versus urban, conservative versus liberal’. ‘open our souls instead of hardening our hearts’; ‘ we shall write an American story of hope’ .

The use of juxtaposition makes the scene vivid and enhances the listener’s flexible thinking meta-cognition by focusing on important details drawing conclusions and reaching an accurate interpretation of communication.

The use of synonyms such as ‘ heeded-heard; indivisible-one nation; battle-war; victory-triumph; manipulated-manufactured; great nation-our nation-the country; repair-restore-heal-build; challenging-difficult; bringing America together-uniting our nation; fight-combat; anger-resentment-hatred; extremism-lawlessness-violence-terrorism ’ is evident in Biden’s speech. This type of figurative language helps in building cohesion in the speech, formulating and clarifying thoughts and ideas, emphasizing and asserting certain notions, and expressing emotions and feelings. The results are in line with other researchers’ (Lee, 2017 ; Bader & Badarneh, 2018 ) finding that political speeches are emotive; politicians can express feelings and attitudes toward certain issues. Lexical cohesion has also been established through repetition. The most repeated words and phrases in Biden’s speech are democracy, nation, unity, people, racial justice, and America. The repetitive usage of these concepts highlights them as the main basic themes of his speech.

The speaker employed deontic and epistemic modality, which implies that he has used every obligation, permission, and probability or possibility in the speech to exhibit his power by displaying commands, truth claims, and announcements. The speaker’s ideology can be revealed by the modality of permission, obligation, and possibility.

The usage of medium certainty “will” is the highest in numbers (30) times, but the use of low certainty “can” (16) times, “may” (5) times, and high certainty “must” (10) times was noticeably present. The usage of medium certainty is mainly represented by the usage of “will” to introduce future policies and present goals and visions. In critical linguistics terms, the use of low modality in a presidential address may reflect a lack of confidence in the abilities or possibilities of achieving a goal or a vision. That is, the usage of low modality gives more space to the “actor” to achieve the “goal”. For example, the usage of “can” in “ we can overcome this deadly virus ” and “ we can deliver social justice ” does not reflect strong belief, confidence, and assurance from the actor’s side to achieve the goals (social justice, overcoming the deadly virus). The usage of modal verbs in Biden’s speech reflects a balanced personality.

In modality, by using “will”, the speaker tries to convince the audience by giving a promise, and he may hope that what he says will be followed up. By using “can”, the speaker is expressing his ability. In cohesion, it is well organized, which means the speaker tries to make his speech easier to follow by everyone by using “additive conjunctions” or “transition phrases” that have the function of “listing in order”. Lastly, the generic structure of the speech is well structured.

The use of pronouns in political speeches reveals rich information about references to self, others, and identity, agency (Van Dijk, 1993 ). Biden has used the first and second pronouns meticulously to express his vision. The most frequent pronoun Biden has used is ‘we’ with a frequency of (89) which helps him establish trust and credibility in the speech, and a close relationship between him and his audience. This frequency implies that they are one united nation. Whereas he has used the pronoun ‘ I ’ with a frequency of (32). Using these types of pronouns allows the speaker to convey his ideas directly to his audience and make his intended message comprehensible. This balanced usage of pronouns reflects Fairclough’s ( 1992 ) notion of discourse as a social practice rather than a linguistic practice. The analysis demonstrates that the most prominent themes emphasized by Biden are ‘democracy and unity’. These themes have also been accentuated by the overall dominance of the pronoun “we,” which reflects Biden’s perception of America as a good society that needs to be united to successfully go through difficult times. Such notions represent his policies.

Political speech is functional and directive in its very nature. Thus, the language of politics in inaugural speeches is a significant and unique event since it affects people’s minds and hearts concerning certain pressing issues. It is a powerful tool that newly elected political leaders use to promote their new leadership ideas and strategic plans in order to convince people and attract their support. The analysis of the speech reveals that Biden’s language is easy and understandable. Biden employed a variety of rhetorical features to express his ideology. These figurative devices and techniques include creativity, indirectness, intertextuality, metaphor, repetition, cohesion, reference, and synonymy to achieve his political ideologies; assuring Americans and the world of his good intentions towards uniting Americans and working collaboratively with other nations to persevere through difficult times.

The overall themes expressed in this speech are the timeless values of unity and democracy. They are the cornerstones and key ideological components of Biden’s speech. This value-based orientation indicates their paramount recurrent semantic-cognitive features. The construction of the meaning of such values lies in the sociocultural and political context of the USA and the whole world in general and America in particular. Biden’s speech includes certain ideals, like "unity" to work together for the nation’s development, "democracy" to exhibit the "democracy" that has recently been assaulted, "equality" to treat all American people equally, and "freedom" to let individuals do whatever they want. Such themes are essential, especially in times of the worst crisis of COVID-19 encountering the world since they help him reassure his nation and the world of some improvements and promise them progress and prosperity in the years to come. To sum up, the results showed that the speaker used appropriate language in addressing the theme of unity. The speaker used religion and history as a source of rhetorical persuasive devices. The overall tone of the speech was confident, reconciliatory, and hopeful. We can say that language is central to meaningful political discourse. So, the relationship between language and politics is a very significant one.

The study examined the main linguistic strategies used in President Biden’s inauguration speech presented in 2021. The analysis has revealed that Biden in this speech intends to show his feelings (attitudes), his goals (reviewing the US administration), and his power to take over the US presidential office. It has also disclosed Biden’s ideological standpoint that is based on the central values of democracy, tolerance, and unity. Biden’s speech includes certain ideals, like "unity" to work together for the nation’s development, "democracy" to exhibit the "democracy" that has recently been assaulted, "equality" to treat all American people equally, and "freedom" to let individuals do whatever they want. To convey the intended ideological political stance, Biden used certain persuasive strategies including creativity, metaphor, contrast, indirectness, reference, and intertextuality for addressing critical issues. Creative expressions were drawn, highlighting and magnifying significant real issues concerning unity, democracy, and racial justice. Intertextuality was employed by resorting to an extract from one of the American presidents in order to convince Americans and the international community of his ideas, vision, and policy. It appeared that indirect expressions were also used for discussing politically sensitive issues in order to acquire a political and interactional advantage over his political opponents. His referencing style shows his interest in others and their unity. The choice of these strategies may have an influence on how the listeners think and believe about what the speaker says. Significant ideologies encompassing unity, equality, and freedom for US citizens were stated implicitly and explicitly. The study concluded that the effective use of linguistic and rhetorical devices is recommended to construct meaning in the world, be persuasive, and convey the intended vision and underlying ideologies.

The study suggests some implications for pedagogy and academic research. Researchers, linguists, and students interested in discourse analysis may find the data useful. The study demonstrates a sort of connection between political scientists, linguistics, and discourse analysts by clarifying distinct issues using different ideas and discourse analysis approaches. It has important ramifications for the efficient use of language to advance certain moral principles such as freedom, equality, and unity. It unravels that studying how language is used in a certain context allows people to disclose or analyze more about how things are said or done, or how they might exist in different ways in other contexts. It also shows that studying political language is crucial because it helps language users understand how a language is used by those who want power, seek to exercise it and maintain it to gain public attention, influence people’s attitudes or behaviors, provide information that people are unaware of, explain one’s attitudes or behavior, or persuade people to take certain actions. Getting students engaged in CDA research such as the current study would help them be more adept at navigating and using rhetorical devices and CDA tactics, as well as considering the underlying ideologies that underlie any written piece. Based on the analysis, it is recommended that more research studies be conducted on persuasive strategies in other political speeches.

Data availability

All data analyzed in this study are included in this published article. They are available at this link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/01/20/inaugural-address-by-president-joseph-r-biden-jr/ .

Alfayes H (2009) Martin Luther King “I have a dream”: Critical discourse analysis. KSU faculty member websites. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from, http://faculty.ksu.edu.sa/Alfayez.H/Pages/CDAofKing’sspeechIhaveadream.aspx

Almahasees Z, Mahmoud S (2022) Persuasive strategies utilized in the political speeches of King Abdullah II: a critical discourse analysis. Cogent Arts Humanit 9(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311983.2022.2082016

Article   Google Scholar  

Aman I (2005) Language and power: a critical discourse analysis of the Barisan Nasional’s Manifesto in the 2004 Malaysian General Election1. In: Le T, Short M (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research, 15–18 November 2005. Tasmania: University of Tasmania, viewed August 20, 2009, from http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/conference/files/proceedings/full-cda-proceedings.pdf

Amir S (2021) Critical discourse analysis of Jo Biden’s inaugural speech as the 46th US president. Period Soc Sci 1(2):1–13

Google Scholar  

Bader Y, Badarneh S (2018) The use of synonyms in parliamentary speeches in Jordan. AWEJ Transl Liter Stud 2(3):43–67

Bani-Khaled T, Azzam S (2021) The theme of unity in political discourse: the case of President Joe Biden’s inauguration speech on the 20th of January 2021. Arab World Engl J 12(3):36–50. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3952847

Beyer BK (1995) Critical thinking. Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, IN

Biden J (2021) Inaugural address by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2021/01/20/inaugural-address-by-president-joseph-r-biden-jr/#:~:text=We%20must%20set%20aside%20the,joy%20cometh%20in%20the%20morning.&text=The%20world%20is%20watching%20today,come%20out%20stronger%20for%20it

Boussaid Y (2022) Metaphor-based analysis of Joe Biden’s and George Washington’s inaugural speeches. Int J Engl Linguist 12(3):1–17

Cameron D (2001) Working with spoken discourse. Sage, London

Charteris-Black J (2011) Politicians and rhetoric: the persuasive power of metaphor. Springer

Charteris-Black J (2018) Analysing political speeches: rhetoric, discourse and metaphor. Bloomsbury Publishing

Chouliaraki L, Fairclough N (1999) Discourse in late modernity: rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh

Denham G, Roy A (2005) A content analysis of three file-selves. In: Le T, Short M (eds.). Proceedings of the International Conference on Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory into Research, 15–18 November 2005. Tasmania: University of Tasmania, viewed August 20, 2009, from http://www.educ.utas.edu.au/conference/Files/proceedings/full-cda-proceedings.pdf

Fairclough N (1989) Language and power. Longman, Harlow

Fairclough N (1992) Discourse and social change. Polity Press, Cambridge

Fairclough N (1993) Critical discourse analysis and the marketization of public discourse: the universities. Discourse Soc 4(2):133–168

Fairclough N (1995) Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language

Genette G (1983) “Transtextualité”. Magazine Littéraire 192:40–41

Haider AS (2016) A corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis of the representation of Qaddafi in media: evidence from Asharq Al-Awsat and Al-Khaleej newspapers. Int J Linguist Commun 4(2):11–29. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijlc.v4n2a2

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Halliday MAK, Hasan R (1976) Cohesion in English (No. 9). Routledge

Iqbal Z, Aslam MZ, Aslam T, Ashraf R, Kashif M, Nasir H (2020) Persuasive power concerning COVID-19 employed by Premier Imran Khan: a socio-political discourse analysis. Register J 13(1):208–230

Janks H (1997) Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse Stud Cult Polit Educ 18(3):329–342

Kitaeva E, Ozerova O (2019) Intertextuality in political discourse. In: Language, power, and ideology in political writing: Emerging research and opportunities. IGI Global. pp. 143–170

Kozlovskaya NV, Rastyagaev AV, Slozhenikina JV (2020) The creative potential of contemporary Russian political discourse: from new words to new paradigms. Train Lang Cult 4(4):78–90

Kriyantono R (2019) Syntactic analysis on the consistency of Jokowi’s rhetorical strategy as president and presidential candidate. J Appl Stud Lang 3(2):127–139. https://doi.org/10.31940/jasl.v3i2.1419

Lakoff G, Johnson M (1980) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago, Chicago, IL

Lauwren S (2020) Interpersonal functions in Greta Thunberg’s “civil society for rEUnaissance” speech. J Appl Stud Lang 4(2):294–305. https://doi.org/10.31940/jasl.v4i2.2084

Lee J (2017) “Constructing educational achievement in political discourse: an analysis of Obama’s Interview at the Education National Summit 2012.” Penn GSE Perspect Urban Educ 13:1–4

Mio JS (1997) Metaphor and politics. Metaphor Symbol 12(2):113–133

Moody S, Eslami ZR (2020) Political discourse, code-switching, and ideology. Russ J Linguist 24(2):325–343

Nikitina A (2011) Successful public speaking. Bookboon

Nusartlert A (2017) Political language in Thai and English: findings and implications for society. J Mekong Soc 13(3):57–75

Obeng SG (1997) Language and politics: indirectness in political discourse. 8(1), 49–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008001004

Pierson P, Skocpol T (2002) Historical institutionalism in contemporary political science. Polit Sci State Discip 3(1):1–32

Pramadya TP, Rahmanhadi AD (2021) A day of history and hope: a critical discourse analysis of Joe Biden’s Inauguration speech. Rainbow 10(2):1–10

Prasetio A, Prawesti A (2021) Critical discourse analysis in word count of Joe Biden’s inaugural address. Discourse analysis: a compilation articles on discourse and critical discourse analysis, 1:1–12

Renaldo ZA, Arifin Z (2021) Presupposition and ideology: a critical discourse analysis of Joe Biden’s Inaugural Speech. PROJECT (Prof J Engl Educ) 4(3):497–503

Scheidel TM (1967) Persuasive speaking. Scott Foresman, Glenview

Schmidt VA (2008) Discursive institutionalism: The explanatory power of ideas and discourse. Ann Rev Polit Sci-Palo Alto 11:303

Thibodeau PH, Boroditsky L (2011) Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2):e16782

Article   ADS   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Van Dijk TA (1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse Soc 4(2):249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006

Van Dijk TA (2006) Discourse and manipulation. Discourse Soc 17(3):359–383

Van Dijk TA (2011) Discourse and ideology. In: Van Dijk (ed) Discourse studies: a multidisciplinary introduction. SAGE, London, p 379-407

Van Dijk TA (2015) Critical discourse analysis. In: Tannen D, Hamilton HE, Schiffrin D (eds) The handbook of discourse analysis, 2nd edn. Wiley, London, p 466–485

Wodak R, Meyer M (2009) Critical discourse analysis: History, agenda, theory and methodology. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis 2:1-33

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan

Nisreen N. Al-Khawaldeh & Ali F. Khawaldeh

Department of English Language and Literature, Faculty of Arts and Languages, Jadara University, Irbid, Jordan

Luqman M. Rababah & Alaeddin A. Banikalef

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to this work.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nisreen N. Al-Khawaldeh .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval was not required as the study did not involve human participants.

Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplemantry data, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Al-Khawaldeh, N.N., Rababah, L.M., Khawaldeh, A.F. et al. The art of rhetoric: persuasive strategies in Biden’s inauguration speech: a critical discourse analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 10 , 936 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02450-y

Download citation

Received : 20 August 2023

Accepted : 22 November 2023

Published : 11 December 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02450-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Supplements
• Advance articles
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Submit?
• About Digital Scholarship in the Humanities
• About the European Association for Digital Humanities
• About the Alliance of Digital Humanities Organizations
• Editorial Board
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1 introduction, 2 related work, 3 electoral corpus, 4 evaluation of stylistic characteristics of the candidates, 5 evaluation of topical characteristics of the candidates, 6 conclusion, acknowledgments.

• < Previous

Analysis of the style and the rhetoric of the 2016 US presidential primaries

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Jacques Savoy, Analysis of the style and the rhetoric of the 2016 US presidential primaries, Digital Scholarship in the Humanities , Volume 33, Issue 1, April 2018, Pages 143–159, https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqx007

• Permissions Icon Permissions

This present article examines the verbal style and rhetoric of the candidates of the 2016 US presidential primary elections. To achieve this objective, this study analyzes the oral communication forms used by the candidates during the TV debates. When considering the most frequent lemmas, the candidates can be split into two groups, one using more frequently the pronoun ‘I’, and the second favoring more the ‘we’ (which corresponds to candidates leaving the presidential run sooner). According to several overall stylistic indicators, candidate Trump clearly adopted a simple and direct communication style, avoiding complex formulation and vocabulary. From a topical perspective, our analysis generates a map showing the affinities between candidates. This investigation results in the presence of three distinct groups of candidates, the first one with the Democrats (Clinton, O’Malley, and Sanders), the second with three Republicans (Bush, Cruz, Rubio), and the last with the duo Trump and Kasich, with, at a small distance, Paul. The over-used terms and typical sentences associated with each candidate reveal their specific topics such as ‘simple flat tax’ for Cruz, ‘balanced budget’ for Kasich, negativity with Trump, or critiques against large corporations and Wall Street for Sanders.

The 2016 US presidential election was characterized by two figures, both unloved by the majority of Americans ( Yourish, 2016 ). Donald Trump seemed sincere, authentic, saying what he thinks, putting aside political correctness. For him, all appearances and comments on the media were an opportunity for self-promotion. He believed that the repetition of a simple message, even if false ( Millbank, 2016 ), is enough to persuade the citizens that it is true. His image was centered around his verbosity, egocentricity, and pomposity. Just after the announcement of his candidacy for President (16 June 2015), his candidacy was mainly viewed as marginal, without pertinent interest, and without a real future. But Trump was able to beat all his opponents and won the nomination for the Republican party (21 July 2016).

Nominated by the Democrats (28 July 2016), Hillary Clinton always appeared as a cold woman, a member of the political establishment rejected by many people. She did not like the press and the media and, in return, they do not like her much either. This aspect could be related to her first years at the White House as an overqualified First Lady who wanted to play a principal role in politics (e.g. health care reform in 1993). For some people, she was even a crook and a liar, or, at least, dishonest ( Sainato, 2016 ). When her campaign starts (14 April 2015), everything seemed simple and the road to the nomination seems without any real problem. The presence of Bernie Sanders occupying a position more on the left demonstrates that the Democratic primaries were more difficult than expected. Finally, her email case and FBI investigations were a real concern for her image in the public, especially during the general election campaign.

Even if Hillary’s candidature appeared more natural, she needed to convince the Democrats and their sympathizers that she was the right person who can win the general election. Inside the Republican party, the outcome of the fight was more uncertain, in part by the larger number of candidates (seventeen vs. six), and the leading position occupied by Jeb Bush in the beginning of the primaries. Despite the now-known election outcome, the candidates’ use of language during the primary season raises some pertinent research questions. How were the respective nominees able to win the primaries according to their speeches? Does the analysis of TV debates make it possible to detect their style and rhetoric? Can one discover the rhetorical features that can explain a Trump or Clinton success? Can one measure the stylistic distance between the candidates in both parties?

To answer these questions, the current study will focus on the US primaries’ TV debates. Here, rhetoric is defined as the art of effective and persuasive speaking, the way to motivate an audience, while language style is presented as pervasive and frequent forms used by an author for mainly esthetical value ( Biber and Conrad, 2009 ). The analysis will use the oral communication form, a more direct and spontaneous way of interacting, reflecting more closely the personal style of each candidate. The style of the written messages (evident in prepared statements by the candidates) differs from the oral dialogue ( Biber et al. , 2002 ). Moreover, the statements are certainly authored, at least in part, by a team of speechwriters. Therefore, the two forms of communication must be analyzed separately.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. The next section presents some related research in computer-based analysis of political speeches. The third section presents briefly some statistics about our corpus. The fourth describes and applies different measurements and methods to define and compare the rhetoric and style of the different candidates. The fifth section visualizes the relative position of each candidate in stylistic and topical spaces. A conclusion draws the main findings of this study.

Political texts have been the subject of various studies discussing different aspects of them. Focusing on governmental speeches written in French, Labbé and Monière (2003 ; 2008a ) have created a set of governmental corpora such as the ‘Speeches from the Throne’ (Canada and Quebec), a corpus of the general policy statements of French governments ( Labbé and Monière, 2003 ; 2008a ) as well as a collection of press releases covering the French presidential campaign of 2012 ( Labbé and Monière, 2013 ; Arnold and Labbé, 2015 ). Similar research has been conducted with other languages, such as Italian ( Pauli and Tuzzi, 2009 ). From these analyses, one can observe, for example, that governmental institutions tend to smooth out the differences between political parties when exercising command. Moreover, the temporal period of the documents constitutes an important factor explaining the variations between presidents or prime ministers. The presence of a strong leader is usually accompanied with a real change in the style and vocabulary of governmental speeches ( Labbé and Monière, 2003 ; Savoy, 2015c ).

Focusing on the USA, recent studies confirm these findings as, for example, using the ‘State of the Union’ ( Savoy, 2015a ) or inaugural addresses ( Kubát and Cech, 2016 ). Beside time frame, exceptional events (e.g. worldwide war, deep economic depression) may change noticeably the style. These results present also the stylistic evolution over more than two centuries and can be compared to those achieved using traditional methods as, for example, by Lim (2002) .

Differentiations between political parties can however be observed as, for example, studies based on tweets ( Sylwester and Purver, 2015 ). Such differences tend to be correlated with psychological factors. For example, positive emotion words occur more frequently in Democrats’ tweets than in Republican ones, as well as swear expressions, or first singular person pronouns (e.g. I, me). In a related study using a training corpus, Laver et al. (2003) describe a methodology to extract political positions from texts. In a similar vein, Yu (2008) demonstrates that machine learning methods (e.g. SVM and naïve Bayes) can be trained to classify congressional speeches according to political parties. Better performance levels can be achieved when the training examples are extracted from the same time period as the test set. In another study, Yu (2013) reveals that (political) feminine figures tend to use emotional words more frequently and employ more personal pronouns than men. A more general overview of using different computer-based strategy to detect and extract topical information from political texts can be found in ( Grimmer and Stewart, 2013 ).

The web-based communication (e.g. tweets, blogs, chats) was used by O’Connor et al. (2010) to estimate the popularity of the Obama administration. This study found a positive correlation between the presidential approval polls and positive tweets containing the hashtag #obama. Such a selection strategy produces a low recall because many tweets about Obama’s administration are not considered). As a tweet is rather short (in mean eleven words), the sentiment estimation is simply the count of the number of positive and negative words appearing in the OpinionFinder dictionary ( Wilson et al. , 2005 ).

Also grounded on several dictionaries (or categories), Young and Soroka (2012) describe how one can detect and measure sentiments appearing in political texts. The suggested approach is rather similar to O’Connor et al. ’s work (2010), counting the frequency of occurrence of words appearing in a dictionary of positive or negative emotion words. Using also some lists of words, Hart (1984) has designed and implemented a political text analyzer called Diction . Based on US presidential speeches, that study presents the rhetorical and stylistic differences between the US presidents from Truman to Reagan, while a more recent book ( Hart et al. , 2013 ) exposes the stylistic variations from G. W. Bush to Obama. Using the Diction system, Bligh et al. (2010) analyze the rhetoric of H. Clinton during the 2008 presidential election. Hillary appears more feminine than the other candidates, using more ‘I’ than ‘we’, and showing a higher frequency in the category ‘Human interest’ (e.g. family, man, person, etc.).

As another example, Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC; Tausczik and Pennebaker, 2010 ) regroups different categories used to evaluate the author’s psychological status (e.g. feminine, emotion, leadership), as well as her/his style (e.g. grounded on personal pronouns ( Pennebaker, 2011 )). The underlying hypothesis is to assume that the words serve as guides to the way the author thinks, acts, or feels. In LIWC, the generation of the word lists was done based on the judgments of three experts instead of simply concatenating various existing lists. Using the LIWC system, Slatcher et al. (2007) were able to determine the personalities of different political candidates (US presidential election in 2004). They defined the psychological portrait both on single measurements (e.g. the relative frequency of different pronouns, positive emotions) and using a set of composite indices reflecting the cognitive complexity, presidentially, or honesty of each candidate. These personality measurements were in agreement with different opinion polls. For example, G. W. Bush used more frequently the pronoun ‘I’, positive emotion words (e.g. happy, truly, win), and the future tense. The public perceived J. Kerry as a kind of depressed person, serious, somber, and cold, adopting more frequently negative emotion expressions (e.g. sad, worthless, cut, lost) and physical words (e.g. head, ache, sleep).

To conclude briefly, previous studies have mainly analyzed governmental speeches, and less frequently the electoral speeches ( Boller, 2004 ) or related messages (e.g. such as press releases; Labbé and Monière, 2013 ). A few studies focus on the legislative level (e.g. the Congress) and these studies are mainly grounded on the written form. More recently, the web-based communication channels have been studied, but in this perspective, those studies are using more often tweets and less frequently blogs, or audio and video media (e.g. YouTube). The present study is focusing on two less explored aspects, namely, the electoral campaign on the one hand, and on the other, the oral form.

To analyze the rhetoric and style adopted by the candidates during the primaries of the 2016 US primary election, the transcripts of the TV debates have been downloaded from the Internet (mainly from the Web site www.presidency.ucsb.edu ). For the Republican candidates (Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, John Kasich, Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, and Donald Trump), twelve TV debates were organized, from the 1st one held on 6 August 2015 with ten candidates, to the last one organized on 10 March 2016 with four candidates. For the Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders), one can count nine TV debates held from 13 October 2015 (with five candidates) to 9 March 2016 (with two candidates).

Due to space limitations, not all possible candidates have been retained. Some persons never appear in a TV debate (e.g. Pataki (R), Jindal (R), Lessig (D)) or just appear in one (e.g. Webb (D)) or two debates (e.g. Walker (R)) while others have been ignored because they have played a minor role during the electoral campaign (e.g. Carson (R) or Christie (R)).

From a stylistic point of view, this corpus is homogenous, corresponding to an oral communication form, extracted from a short period of time, and with the same main objectives (convincing the people, answering questions, presenting their ideas and solutions). Several factors influencing the style are therefore fixed. The remaining variations can be largely explained by the speaker.

Even if the topics are not directly and fully controlled by the candidates, the debate format corresponds to a more spontaneous form of communication, able to reveal more closely the real person behind her/his projected image. Of course, one can raise the question of the speaker’s spontaneity because Donna Brazile, who worked for CNN, provided, at least once, prepared questions to Clinton before a debate. This phenomenon is assumed to be the exception rather than the norm.

One can consider that electoral speeches delivered by the candidates correspond also to an oral communication form and thus can be included in our corpus. However, as mentioned by Biber and Conrad (2009 , p. 262):

Language that has its source in writing but performed in speech does not necessarily follow the generalization [written vs. oral]. That is, a person reading a written text aloud will produce speech that has the linguistic characteristics of the written text. Similarly, written texts can be memorized and then spoken.

Some statistics about candidates’ speeches and comments

As shown in Table 1 , Paul and O’Malley correspond to the smallest values, both being present for a relatively short period of time during this electoral campaign. Clinton appears with the largest number of tokens, followed by Sanders, Trump, Rubio, and Cruz.

To highlight the different styles adopted by the candidates, Biber and Conrad (2009) indicate that such a study should be based on ubiquitous and frequent forms. Thus, the analysis of the most frequent ones is certainly a good starting point, as shown in the first sub-section. The second proposes to consider four overall stylistic measurements and applies them to the different candidates while the last sub-section describes the differences in the distribution of the grammatical categories between candidates.

4.1 Most frequent lemmas

To analyze the rhetoric and style of presidential writings, the first quantitative linguistics studies focused on the word usages and their frequencies. As the English language has a relatively simple morphology, working on inflected forms (e.g. ‘we, us, ours’, or ‘wars, war’) or lemmas (dictionary entries such as ‘we’ or ‘war’ from the previous example) often lead to similar conclusions.

To define the lemma of each token, the part-of-speech (POS) tagger developed by Toutanova et al. (2003) was first applied. Given a sentence as input, this system is able to add the corresponding POS tag to each token. For example, from the sentence ‘But I also know this problem is not going away’, the POS tagger returns ‘But/ cc I/ prp also/ rb know/ vbp this/ dt problem/ nn is/ vbz not/ rb going/ vbg away/ rb ./.’. Tags may be attached to nouns ( nn , noun, singular, nns noun, plural, nnp proper noun, singular), verbs ( vb , lemma, vbg gerund or present participle, vbp non-3rd-person singular present, vbz 3rd-person singular present), adjectives ( jj , jjr adjective in comparative form), personal pronouns ( prp ), prepositions ( in ), and adverbs ( rb ). These morphological tags ( Marcus et al. , 1993 ) correspond mainly to those used in the Brown corpus ( Francis and Kucera, 1982 ). With this information one can derive the lemma by removing the plural form of nouns (e.g. jobs/ nns → job/ nn ) or by substituting inflectional suffixes of verbs (e.g. detects/ vbz → detect/ vb ).

Our first analysis considers the most frequent lemmas occurring in the oral interventions of the candidates during the TV debates of the primaries. Unsurprisingly, the article ‘the’ and the verb ‘be’ (lemma of the word types am, is, are, was, etc.) appear regularly in the first two ranks. Looking at the most frequent lemmas in the Brown corpus ( Francis and Kucera, 1982 ), the first two are the same, but after them the order changes. In the Brown corpus, the top ten most frequent lemmas are as follows: the, be, of, and, to, a, in, he, have, it.

The top ten most frequent lemmas according to TV debates

Note. The personal pronouns are depicted in bold.

In this table, one can see another interesting fact related to the frequencies of the pronouns ‘we’ and ‘I’. Former governors tend to use more frequently the ‘we’ than the ‘I’ (e.g. Bush, Kasich) with O’Malley having a very distinctive style in this point of view. Usually Senators (e.g. Cruz, Paul, Clinton, Sanders) tend to prefer using the pronoun ‘I’, at least during an electoral campaign. The candidates who stayed longer in this campaign have a clear preference for the ‘I’ over the ‘we’. The pronoun ‘we’ stays ambiguous (Who is behind the ‘we’? Myself and the future government? Me and the people? Me and the workers? Me and the Congress?). Finally, the champion in the usage of ‘I’ is Trump who clearly has adopted a distinct style in the campaign, putting the light more on his ego.

4.2 Global stylistic measurements

To define an overall measurement of the style, various studies have proposed different measures. As a first indicator, one can consider the mean sentence length (MSL) reflecting a syntactical choice. The sentence boundaries are defined by the POS tagger ( Toutanova et al. , 2003 ) and correspond to ‘strong’ punctuation symbols (namely, periods, question, and exclamation marks). Usually, a longer sentence is more complex to understand, especially in the oral communication form. Using the ‘State of the Union’ addresses given by the Founding Fathers, this average value is 39.6 (with Madison depicting the highest MSL with 44.8 tokens/sentence). With Obama, the MSL decreases to 18.5 tokens/sentence. These examples indicate clearly that the style is changing over time. Currently, the preference goes to a shorter formulation, simpler to understand for the audience.

Four global stylistic measurements according to TV debates

Note. Extreme values are depicted in bold.

A relatively high LD percentage indicates a more complex text, containing more information. Using the transcripts of the TV debates, the LD values vary from 36.6% (Trump) to 44.6% (Cruz). Trump’s style appears, here too, as distinct from the others, providing his answers and comments around functional words. Cruz adopts an opposite style, focusing more on topical forms and expressions.

As an additional global stylistic measurement, the frequency of big words (composed of six letters or more, and denoted BW) can be analyzed ( Tausczik and Pennebaker, 2010 ). A text or a dialogue with a high percentage of BW tends to be more complex to understand. This fact is confirmed by recent studies:

‘One finding of cognitive science is that words have the most powerful effect on our minds when they are simple. The technical term is basic level. Basic-level words tend to be short. … Basic-level words are easily remembered; those messages will be best recalled that use basic-level language.’ ( Lakoff and Wehling, 2012 , p. 41)

This rhetoric problem was recognized by previous US president such as President Johnson who told his speechwriters: ‘I want four-letter words, and I want four sentences to the paragraph.’ ( Hart, 1984 ). Table 3 indicates that the percentage of BW varies from 18.3% (Trump) to 26.4% (Cruz, and Sanders). Grounded on the MSL, LD, and BW indicators, one can see that Trump is adopting a more direct communication style, selecting simple words and producing short sentences. Senators Cruz or O’Malley have a more sophisticated communication style, employing longer sentences and a more complex lexicon.

The Type-Token Ratio (TTR) or the relationship between the vocabulary size and the number of word types ( Baayen, 2008 ) corresponds to our last global stylistic measure. High values indicate the presence of a rich vocabulary showing that the underlying text exposes many different topics or that the author tends to present a theme from several angles with different formulations. To compute this value, one can divide the vocabulary size (number of types) by the text length (number of tokens). This estimator has the drawback of being instable, tending to decrease with text length ( Baayen, 2008 ). To avoid this problem, a better computation is provided in ( Covington and McFall, 2010 ) or ( Popescu, 2009 ), suggesting taking the moving average of TTR. This computation technique has been adopted.

From data depicted in Table 3 , one can see that the TTR value reaches a minimum of 29.7 (Trump) to a maximum of 37.9 (O’Malley). This value indicates that Trump prefers to reuse the same words and expressions, repeating his main ideas and convictions. On the other hand, O’Malley or Cruz (TTR: 37.3) have opted for a larger coverage requiring a larger number of distinct words and phrases. It should be noted that, regarding the four indices, Clinton is closer to O’Malley or Cruz than to Trump.

4.3 POS distribution

POS distribution according to TV debates

Note. The maximum value per grammatical category is shown in bold, and the minimum in italics.

Data depicted in Table 4 indicate that O’Malley is the candidate choosing most frequently the noun construction (largest percentage of nouns, and adjectives). The verb phrase is used most frequently by Trump with the largest percentage of verbs and adverbs and the lowest frequencies of nous, determiners, and prepositions. The difference between these two candidates is characteristic, with O’Malley more oriented toward an explanation requiring usually more nouns while Trump turns toward the action and its high usage of verbs. Table 4 confirms that Trump owns a style very distinct than the others. Moreover, Trump is using pronouns less—except I—than the others.

To obtain an overall measure of the intensity of the action over the descriptive part of a text, Kubát and Cech (2016) suggest to compute the ratio between the proportion of verbs divided by the sum of the proportion of the verbs and adjectives. The underlying idea is to quantify the activity by verbs while the descriptiveness of a text is represented by the proportion of adjectives. The last row of Table 4 reports the values of this Q-index for all candidates. Kasich depicts the highest value leading clearly more toward action. With a similar value and following the same tendency, one can find Trump and Paul. On the other hand, O’Malley shows the smallest Q-index value indicating more a text oriented toward description. The same feature can be assigned to Sanders.

The previous section focusses mainly on stylistic features, both at the lexical and syntactical level. When looking more at the content of their utterances, one can also observe differences between the candidates. This analysis is based on the thematic concentration of a text, providing a first overview at the recurrent topical terms used by each candidate. In the second sub-section, an intertextual distance is presented and used to derive graphs representing stylistic and topical affinities between the candidates. Finally, the terms and sentences specific to each candidate will be computed and some examples will be given.

5.1 Thematic concentration

Recently, Popescu (2009) and Cech et al. (2015) have proposed an h -point to measure the thematic concentration of a text. To compute this value, the word types are ranked according to their absolute frequency, from the most frequent to the least frequent one. The h -point is defined as the point where the frequency is equal to the rank. From this h -point, one can assume that types appearing before the h th rank are function words while those occurring after correspond to lexical or topical words (the very vocabulary).

h -point and most frequently used thematic words per candidate

Note. The maximum value is shown in bold, and the minimum in italics.

According to this formulation, when all word types appearing before the h -point are functional words, the PTC value is 0. On the other hand, when all those types are lexical words, PTC reaches the maximum value of 1.0 or 100%. In Table 5 , the second row indicates the PTC values for all candidates, showing clearly that Sanders presents the highest PTC value (12.12%) while O’Malley exposes the smallest (4.26%). Sanders’ answers and remarks are clearly more focused on a few topics. With Trump and Clinton, one can find also relatively high PTC values compared to the other candidates. Both are preferring to repeat their arguments instead of introducing other subjects. On the other hand, Bush, Paul, and, to a lesser extent, Cruz are closer to O’Malley’s PTC value, being able to present alternative formulations or covering more distinct subjects.

5.2 Stylistic and topical distance between candidates

As each candidate is represented by her/his remarks in the TV debates, one can compute a distance reflecting their similarities ( Labbé and Labbé, 2006 ). A text is, however, a composite item in which one finds both the style with its lexical, syntactical, or discourse factors, and the recurrent words belonging to the topics. To distinguish between these two main components, the first map will use the stylistic aspects while the second will take into account the topical elements. Splitting the vocabulary into two distinct parts is relatively known in stylistic ( Damerau, 1975 ), authorship attribution ( Argamon and Levitan, 2005 ; Stamatatos, 2009 ), or in quantitative linguistics studies ( Tuzzi, 2010 ). The current analysis follows this principle to consider the style, on the one hand and, on the other, the content.

To reflect the style, one can consider the k top most frequent lemmas from our electoral corpus. No general theory specifies precisely the k value, but a value from 200 to 500 represents a pertinent choice justified by various studies ( Savoy, 2015b ). Taking another strategy, one can use the h -point splitting the vocabulary into two parts. As shown previously, the h -point is rather small, and thus, the words reflecting more the style (e.g. functional words) are rather limited. In the current study, the stylistic elements will be the words appearing in the functional words list (409 entries), and used previously in defining the LD measure.

Other intertextual measures have been chosen as, for example, the chi-square ( Grieve, 2007 ), the Delta ( Burrows, 2002 ), or using the Kullback-Leibler divergence ( Zhao and Zobel, 2007 ). The Labbé’s measure ( Labbé, 2007 ) has however demonstrated its effectiveness in various authorship attribution problems such as in literary works ( Labbé and Labbé, 2006 ), in historical newspaper articles ( Savoy, 2013 ), or in political speeches ( Savoy, 2015d ).

Grounded on this measure, one can compute the intertextual distance between all nine candidates. Displaying directly the 9 × 9 matrix containing these distances has a limited interest. Knowing that this matrix is symmetric and that the distance to itself is nil, we still have (81 − 9)/2 values. A better solution is to apply a clustering method (e.g. hierarchical clustering built on the complete link) to visualize the different groups of candidates according to their stylistic profiles. Recently, such distance matrices can be represented by a tree-based visualization method respecting ‘approximately’ the real distances between all nodes ( Baayen, 2008 ). This new representation has been chosen, and the result is displayed in Fig. 1 obtained using the R software ( Paradis, 2011 ; Saitou and Nei, 1987 ). Using graphical views to represent results of stylistic analysis is not new in quantitative linguistics studies. More often however, such displays correspond to scatterplots, principal component analysis views, or correspondence analysis figures ( Lebart et al. , 1998 ; Greenacre, 2017 ). Tree-based graphs are more appropriate when displaying similarities between author profiles or stylistic affinities between works ( Labbé and Labbé, 2006 ; Labbé, 2007 ).

Stylistic distance between candidates

In this figure, the distance between two candidates is indicated by the lengths of the lines connecting them. For example, starting with Bush, one can follow the branch until reaching the central point, then one can go along the lines leading to the second person (e.g. Trump or Clinton).

To generate Fig. 1 , only the functional words (409 entries) have been used to reflect the style of each candidate. Based on this perspective, the longest distance (0.251) connects Trump and O’Malley, and the second longest (0.181) links Paul to O’Malley. The third longest distance (0.180) can be found between Trump and Cruz. The two closest candidates are Bush and Rubio (0.104), while the second shortest distance (0.114) joins Clinton with Sanders. More generally, Fig. 1 depicts three main groups, one Democrat, and two Republicans. From a stylistic point of view, the Republican cluster {Bush, Cruz, Rubio} is well separated from the second Republican group {Kasich, Trump, and with a smaller additional distance Paul} as well as for the Democrats {Clinton, O’Malley, Sanders}.

To build Fig. 2 , the intertextual distance is computed according to topical words, and no word used to draw Fig. 1 is present in the elaboration of Fig. 2 . To achieve this, the computation ignored all functional words for all texts. In this figure, the longest distance (0.510) connects Paul and O’Malley, and the second longest distance (0.496) links Trump to O’Malley. The third longest distance (0.467) can be found between Cruz and O’Malley. The two closest candidates are Clinton and Sanders (0.346), while the second shortest distance (0.360) joins Trump with Kasich.

Topical distance between candidates

As in Figs 1 and 2 reveals two Republican groups with the same members as in Fig. 1 . Trump’s topics are relatively similar to those presented by Kasich and, with some distance, with those exposed by Paul. With a longer distance, one can find the team Rubio and Cruz, with Bush having some affinities with this pair. On the bottom part, one can find the Democrats, with a shorter distance between Clinton and Sanders than with O’Malley.

5.3 Most specific terms

The analysis of the most frequent terms reveals some important themes of the 2016 primary election. But each candidate wants to promote his/her own specific point of view on some issues, and must underline his differences with others. Just considering the ten most frequent words, similar sets appearing with each candidate and the difference between them lies on their ranking as shown previously. Moreover, such analysis reveals more the style than the preferred themes. For example, from data depicted in Table 2 , Trump, Clinton, and Sander prefers using ‘I’ instead of ‘we’, while Kasich, O’Malley, and Bush are using more frequently the pronoun ‘we’.

Thus, which keywords or expressions can well describe each candidate and can be used to denote his/her difference? How can one define them, and, from a statistical point of view, be sure that the proposed terms are significantly over-used by the candidate? To measure the specificity attached to a term ( Lafon, 1980 ; Muller, 1992 ), the corpus is split into two disjoint parts denoted P 0 and P 1 . For a given term t i , its absolute frequency in P 0 is given by tf i0 , and in P 1 by tf i1 . In this study, P 0 corresponds to all comments by a given candidate, while P 1 denotes all other comments and remarks. Thus, for the entire corpus, the absolute frequency of the term t i is tf i0 + tf i1 . The total number of lemmas in part P 0 (or its length) is denoted n 0 , similarly with P 1 and n 1 , and the length of the entire corpus is defined by n = n 0 + n 1.

It is assumed that, for any term t i , its distribution follows a binomial law, with parameters n 0 and p( t i ) representing the probability of the term t i being randomly selected from the entire corpus. Using the maximum likelihood principle, this probability is estimated as p( t i ) = ( tf i0 + tf i1 )/ n . Of course, other models can be used as, for example, the hypergeometric one ( Baayen, 2008 ) which could be viewed as the exact distribution. However, the binomial formulation is easier to use and gives a good approximation.

Applying this procedure, the term specificity can be computed according to the text P 0 . Those Z score values can verify whether the underlying lemma is used proportionally with roughly the same frequency in both parts (Z score value close to 0). With a positive Z score larger than a fixed threshold δ (e.g. 3), one can conclude—with less than 1% chance of error—that the term is ‘significantly over-used’ in P 0 . In other words, the text P 0 contains significantly more occurrences of the corresponding term than expected by a uniform distribution over the whole corpus. A large negative Z score (less than -δ) indicates than the corresponding term is significantly under-used in P 0 .

The top ten most specific terms per candidate

A more interesting finding is the presence of the pronoun ‘I’ in the most over-used terms by only two runners: Trump and Clinton. A candidate who wants to stay in the race must put forward him/her-self. After all the election is the process to select one person. Of course, behind this person, a political program must also appear. Some of the terms depicted in Table 6 give some indications about this aspect as, for example, ‘IRS, tax, amnesty’ with Cruz, ‘fossil, fuel, Wall, Street’ with Sanders. Similar themes appear under several candidates with different terminology such as ‘caliphate’ (Bush), ‘Islamic’ (Cruz), ‘ISIL’ (O’Malley). For Clinton, the term ‘affordable’ must be related to the Affordable Care Act (or health insurance reform).

5.4 Most specific sentences

Providing the most over-used terms is sometimes not enough to have a clear understanding of the candidate’s position on a given issue. Can one be more precise than the simple sequence of isolated words such as ‘balanced’, ‘budget’, ‘we’ (Kasich) or ‘IRS’, ‘tax’ (Cruz)? One possible approach is to extract a reduced set of specific sentences from each candidate. Such a sentence can be defined as the one having the largest number of over-used terms. As it is extracted from a transcript, the sentence is not necessarily syntactically perfect.

Based on this definition, one can read some examples of the most specific sentences per candidate. As an interesting first case, one can analyze the most characteristic sentence from Kasich’s comments, which is the following:

‘I have balanced budgets , the federal budget , the state of Ohio budget , we 're running a 2 billion dollar surplus , we ’re up 400,000 jobs , and in Washington we were able to have significant job growth whenever we balanced the budget of which I was the architect .’ (J. Kasich, 6 February 2016)

In this example, terms having a Z score larger than 5.0 are depicted in italics. The sentence is longer that the MSL (18.3) for this candidate. From a lexical perspective, one can see the over-used term ‘budget’, usually more frequently used in governmental speeches than in the electoral ones. Here the candidate wants to put forward his competence in generating balanced budgets as Governor of Ohio. During an electoral campaign, the word ‘tax’ is clearly more recurrent than ‘budget’ to discuss financial issue, in part because the term ‘tax’ is closer to citizens’ perception than the budget is. As another aspect, one can view that the preferred pronoun is ‘we’ and not ‘I’. With this choice, the person can be viewed by the audience as distant and cold ( Pennebaker, 2011 ). Looking back to Table 6 , one can see that the terms ‘Ohio’, ‘balanced’, ‘budget’, and ‘we’ and the first four most specific words describing Kasich’s utterances.

For Cruz, the most significant words depicted in Table 6 have a clearer meaning when reading two of his most specific sentences.

‘So the way you do it is you pass a tax plan like the tax plan I've introduced: a simple flat tax , 10 percent for individuals, and a 16 percent business flat tax , you abolish the IRS and here's the critical point, Maria , the business flat tax enables us to abolish the corporate income tax , the death tax , the Obamacare taxes , the payroll taxes , and they're border- adjustable , so every export pays no taxes whatsoever .’ (T. Cruz, 14 January 2016)

‘ And I' ll tell you , Hugh you know, it's interesting now that Donald promises that he will appoint justices who … who will defend religious liberty , but this is a man who , for 40 years, has given money to Jimmy Carter , to Joe Biden, to Hillary Clinton, to Chuck Schumer , to Harry Reid .’ (T. Cruz, 25 February 2016)

In this first example, the fiscal question appears with a proposition for a ‘simple flat tax’ and in the second, an attack against Trump, but a religious concern appears also in the background. These examples show that Cruz’s rhetoric is more complex with the highest LD mean and the largest percentage of BW (see Table 3 ). Moreover, Cruz’s explanations tend to include more names (see Table 4 ), and many of them (IRS, Maria, Obamacare, Donald, Carter, Biden, …) occur in these examples.

As demonstrated previously, Trump opted for a simple and direct communication style, preferring short sentences with simple words. The following remarks illustrate these aspects.

‘They don't like seeing bad trade deals , they don't like seeing higher taxes, they don't like seeing a loss of their jobs where our jobs have just been devastated.’ (D. Trump, 10 March 2016)

‘ I ‘ m spending all of my money, I ’ m not spending, I'm not getting any, I turned down, I turn down so much, I could have right now from special interests and donors, I could have double and triple what he ' s got.’ (D. Trump, 16 September 2015)

‘ Just excuse me , one second, Rand, … if you don't mind, Rand, you know, you are on last, you do have your 1 percent.’ (D. Trump, 16 September 2015)

In a few words, Trump is able to talk not about a single but a few topics. This sentence was selected through the over-used words ‘I’, ‘not’, ‘deal’ (see Table 6 ), as well as ‘bad’, ‘do’, ‘have’, and ‘just’. In the three sentences above, most of the words are less than six letters long (short words), and many of them are functional words (explaining his low LD). Moreover, these examples demonstrate the frequent use of symploces (repetition of the same formulation, e.g. they don’t like seeing …) in Trump’s comments. The last example illustrates how Trump can push away his opponents to place himself in the center of the debate.

From the set of the ten most over-used terms corresponding to H. Clinton depicted in Table 6 , the first following sentence contains four (Senator, Sanders, to, I). As previously with Trump, the first person singular pronoun is clearly over-used (I, me). This phenomenon appears in other languages and countries when analyzing electoral speeches as, for example, in France ( Labbé and Monière, 2008b ). A presidential electoral process can be positioned around one person or around a few issues (or programs). In the current study, two candidates (Clinton and Trump) have opted for centering their communication around their person. In the following sentences, one can also see two topics, usually more related to the Democrats, namely education, and health care reform.

‘Look, I have the greatest respect for Senator Sanders and for his supports and I 'm going to keep working as hard as I can to reach as many people of all ages about what I will do, what the experience and the ideas that I have that I will bring to the White House and I hope to have their support when I 'm the Democratic nominee.’ (H. Clinton, 17 January 2016)

‘ I think now what I ' ve called for is counsel for every child so that no child has to face any kind of process without someone who speaks and advocates for that child so that the right decision hopefully can be made.’ (H. Clinton, 11 February 2016)

‘Let’s make the Affordable Care Act work for everybody.’ (H. Clinton, 4 February 2016)

The specific sentences extracted from Sanders’ answers explain clearly his positions with respect to Wall Street, some of the large companies, or on education. Moreover, the first and last examples tackle one of the recurrent topics for the Democrat, for which the terms ‘college’, ‘university’, and ‘tuition’ are specific in Sanders’ rhetoric.

‘ Yes , I do believe that now after the American people bailed Wall Street out, yes , they should pay a Wall Street speculation tax so that we can make public colleges and universities tuition -free.’ (B. Sanders, 11 February 2016)

‘Why does the fossil fuel industry pay, spend huge amounts of money on campaign contributions ?’ (B. Sanders, 11 February 2016)

‘I do believe that in the year 2016 we have to look terms of public education as colleges as part of public education making public colleges and universities tuition free.’ (B. Sanders, 11 February 2016)

One can complement this study by considering the terms ignored or used very infrequently in this primary election. For example, no selected candidate is discussing really the problem of the national debt. The word ‘debt’ appears in some utterances, but mainly in the context of the education debt for the Democrats. In the Republican party, the federal debt is debated by Rubio, and marginally by Kasich, and Paul.

When a question is discussed, the choice of the word can make the difference. With the immigration issue for example, Trump prefers using the term ‘immigration’ presenting this question more at an abstract level. On the other hand, Clinton could want to accentuate the human aspect and uses in this case the word ‘immigrants’. Slight lexical differences can sometimes be important because, as mentioned by Lakoff and Wehling (2012) , ‘language is politics’.

This article has analyzed the style and the rhetoric used by the candidates during the 2016 US primary election. More precisely, this study has focused on the oral communication form using different TV debates in both political parties, a form less observed in previous studies.

During this primary election, Donald Trump presents clearly an atypical figure, employing short sentences, a reduced vocabulary, repeating the same arguments with simple words (see Table 2 ). When considering the most frequent lemmas, he is the single candidate to have the pronoun ‘I’ is the second rank (after the article ‘the’). The intensity of his ego can also be revealed by the fact that the most specific term in his dialogue is also the pronoun ‘I’ (see Table 6 ). In his answers, Trump prefers using intensively the verb construction (see Table 4 ), the pronoun ‘I’, and the negation (see Table 6 ). Among his most specific terms, one can see ‘Mexico’, and ‘deal’ reflecting two of his main concerns (immigration, and commercial trade agreements).

Hillary Clinton can also be characterized by a large use of the pronoun ‘I’ (fourth most frequent lemma, see Table 2 ) that is also over-used (see Table 6 ). None of the other Democrat candidates shows a clear intensive use of this pronoun. When considering overall stylistic indicators (see Table 3 ), Clinton, O’Malley, and Sanders present a high LD value as well as a higher number of BW and TTR ratio than the mean. Looking at her most specific sentences, Clinton tends to produce rather long sentences reflecting a more complex reasoning.

From overall stylistic measurements shown in Table 3 , Ted Cruz appears with higher values than the mean. His answers contain more nouns and names adopting a more descriptive rhetoric. As depicted in Figs 1 and 2 , Cruz represents a distinctive fraction of the Republican party. As one can see from his most specific terms and sentences, Cruz’s concerns are related to a reform of the fiscal system, and the health care system.

Our findings must be confirmed by other studies comparing other electoral campaigns and taking into account the written form (e.g. electoral speeches, party manifestos, Web sites of the candidates, social networks information flow).

This research was supported, in part, by the NSF under Grant #200021_149665/1. The author wants to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions and remarks.

Argamon S. , Levitan S. 2005 . Measuring the Usefulness of Function Words for Authorship Attribution. In Proceedings of the 2005 ACH/ALLC Conference , Victoria University Press, Victoria (BC), pp. 1–3.

Arnold E. , Labbé D. 2015 . Vote for me. Don’t vote for the other one . Journal of World Languages , 2 ( 1 ): 32 – 49 .

Google Scholar

Baayen H. R. 2008 . Analysis Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics using R . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Google Preview

Biber G. , Conrad S. , Leech G. 2002 . Longman Student Grammar of Spoken and Written English . London : Longman .

Biber C. , Conrad S. 2009 . Register, Genre, and Style . Cambridge : Cambridge University Press .

Bligh M. , Merolla J. , Schroedel J. R. , Gonzalez R. 2010 . Finding her voice: Hillary Clinton Rhetoric in the 2008 presidential campaign . Woman’s Studies , 39 ( 8 ): 823 – 50 .

Boller P. F. Jr. 2004 . Presidential Campaigns. From George Washington to George W. Bush . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Burrows J. F. 2002 . Delta: a measure of stylistic difference and a guide to likely authorship . Literary and Linguistic Computing , 17 ( 3 ): 267 – 87 .

Cech R. , Garabik R. , Altmann G. 2015 . Testing the thematic concentration of text . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 22 ( 3 ): 215 – 32 .

Covington M. A. , McFall J. D. 2010 . Cutting the Gordian Knot: the moving-average type-token ratio (MATTR) . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 17 ( 2 ): 94 – 100 .

Damerau F. J. 1975 . The use of function word frequencies as indicators of style . Computers and the Humanities , 9 ( 6 ): 271 – 80 .

Francis W. N. , Kucera H. 1982 . Frequency Analysis of English Usage . Boston, MA : Houghton Mifflin Co .

Greenacre M. 2017 . Correspondence Analysis in Practice . Boca Raton, FL : CRC Press .

Grieve J. 2007 . Quantitative authorship attribution: an evaluation of techniques . Literary and Linguistic Computing , 22 ( 3 ): 251 – 70 .

Grimmer J. , Stewart B. M. 2013 . Text as data: the promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts . Political Analysis , 21 ( 3 ): 267 – 97 .

Hart R. P. 1984 . Verbal Style and the Presidency. A Computer-based Analysis . Orlando, FL : Academic Press .

Hart R. P. , Childers J. P. , Lind C. J. 2013 . Political Tone. How Leaders Talk and Why . Chicago, IL : The University of Chicago Press .

Hewings A. , Painter C. , Polias J. , Dare B. , Rhys M. 2005 . Getting Started: Describing the Grammar of Speech and Writing . Milton Keynes : Open University Press .

Kubát M. , Cech R. 2016 . Quantitative analysis of US presidential inaugural addresses . Glottometrics , 34 : 14 – 27 .

Labbé D. 2007 . Experiments on authorship attribution by intertextual distance in English . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 14 ( 1 ): 33 – 80 .

Labbé C. , Labbé D. 2006 . A tool for literary studies . Literary & Linguistic Computing , 21 ( 2 ): 311 – 26 .

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2003 . Le discours gouvernemental. Canada, Québec, France (1945-2000). Paris : Honoré Champion .

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2008a . Les mots qui nous gouvernent. Le discours des premiers ministres québécois: 1960-2005 . Montréal, QC : Monière-Wollank .

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2008b . Je est-il un autre? In Proceedings JADT 2008 , Presses universitaires de Lyon, Lyon, pp. 647–56.

Labbé D. , Monière D. 2013 . La campagne présidentielle de 2012. Votez pour moi! Paris : L’Harmattan .

Lafon P. 1980 . Sur la variabilité de la fréquence des formes dans un corpus . Mots , 1 ( 1 ): 127 – 65 .

Lakoff G. , Wehling E. 2012 . The Little Blue Book: The Essential Guide to Thinking and Talking Democratic . New York, NY : Free Press .

Laver M. , Benoit K. , Garry J. 2003 . Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data . American Political Science Review , 97 ( 2 ): 311 – 31 .

Lebart L. , Salem A. , Berry L. 1998 . Exploring Textual Data . Dordrecht : Kluwer-Academic .

Lim E. T. 2002 . Five trends in presidential rhetoric: an analysis of rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton . Presidential Studies Quarterly , 32 ( 2 ): 328 – 66 .

Marcus M. P. , Santorini B. , Marcinkiewicz M. A. 1993 . Building a large annotated corpus of English: the Penn Treebank . Computational Linguistics , 19 ( 2 ): 313 – 30 .

Millbank D. 2016 . Trump’s Fake-News Presidency. Washington Post , November 18th.

Muller C. 1992 . Principes et Méthodes de Statistique Lexicale . Paris : Honoré Champion .

O’Connor B. , Balasubramanyan R. , Routledge B. R. , Smith N. A. 2010 . From Tweets to Polls: Linking Text Sentiment to Public Opinion Time Series. In Proceedings 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media , AAAI Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 122–9.

Paradis E. 2011 . Analysis of Phylogenetics and Evolution with R . New York, NY : Springer .

Pauli F. , Tuzzi A. 2009 . The end of year addresses of the presidents of the Italian Republic (1948–2006): discourse similarities and differences . Glottometrics , 18 : 40 – 51 .

Pennebaker J. W. 2011 . The Secret Life of Pronouns. What our Words Say about us . New York, NY : Bloomsbury Press .

Popescu I. -I. 2009 . Word Frequency Studies . Berlin : Mouton de Gruyter .

Sainato M. 2016 . Email reveals clinton camp spied on sanders delegates before convention. Observer , November 14th. http://observer.com/2016/11/email-reveals-clinton-camp-spied-on-sanders-delegates-before-convention/ .

Saitou N. , Nei M. 1987 . The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees . Molecular Biology Evolution , 4 ( 4 ): 406 – 25 .

Savoy J. 2013 . The Federalist Papers revisited: a collaborative attribution scheme. In Proceedings ASIST 2013 , ASIST, Montreal, QC.

Savoy J. 2015a . Text clustering: an application with the State of the Union addresses . Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology , 66 ( 8 ): 1645 – 54 .

Savoy J. 2015b . Comparative evaluation of term selection functions for authorship attribution . Digital Scholarship in the Humanities , 30 ( 2 ): 246 – 61 .

Savoy J. 2015c . Vocabulary growth study: an example with the State of the Union addresses . Journal of Quantitative Linguistics , 22 ( 4 ): 289 – 310 .

Savoy J. 2015d . Authorship attribution using political speeches. In Tuzzi A. , Benesova M. , Macutek J. (eds), Recent Contributions to Quantitative Linguistics , vol. 70 . Berlin : De Gruyter , pp. 153 – 64 .

Slatcher R. B. , Chung C. K. , Pennebaker J. W. , Stone L. D. 2007 . Winning words: individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates . Journal of Research in Personality , 41 ( 1 ): 63 – 75 .

Stamatatos E. 2009 . A survey of modern authorship attribution methods . Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology , 60 ( 3 ): 538 – 56 .

Sylwester K. , Purver M. 2015 . Twitter language use to reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans . PLoS One , 10 ( 9 ): 1 – 18 .

Tausczik Y. R. , Pennebaker J. W. 2010 . The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods . Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 29 ( 1 ): 24 – 54 .

Toutanova K. , Klein D. , Manning C. , Singer Y. 2003 . Feature-rich Part-of-speech Tagging with a Cyclid Dependency Network. In Proceedings of Human Language Technology - North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics , ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, pp. 252–5.

Tuzzi A. 2010 . What to put in the bag? Comparing and contrasting procedures for text clustering . Italian Journal of Applied Linguistics - Statistica Applicata , 22 ( 1 ): 81 – 98 .

Wilson T. , Hoffmann P. , Somasundaran S. , Kessler J. , Wiebe J. , Choi Y. , Cardie C. , Riloff E. , Patwardhan S. 2005 . Opinion Finder: A System for Subjectivity Analysis. In Proceedings Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing , ACL, Stroudsburg, PA, Vancouver, BC, pp. 34–35.

Young L. , Soroka S. 2012 . Affective news: the automated coding of sentiment in political texts . Political Communication , 29 ( 2 ): 205 – 31 .

Yourish K. 2016 . Clinton and Trump Have a Terrible Approval Rating. Does it Matter? New York Times, June 3rd.

Yu B. 2008 . Classifying party affiliation from political speech . Journal of Information Technology & Politics , 5 ( 1 ): 33 – 48 .

Yu B. 2013 . Language and gender in congressional speech . Literary and Linguistic Computing , 29 ( 1 ): 118 – 32 .

Zhao Y. , Zobel J. 2007 . Entropy-based authorship search in large document collection. In Proceedings ECIR2007 . Heildelberg: Springer, LNCS #4425, pp. 381–39.

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to Your Librarian

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2055-768X
• Print ISSN 2055-7671
• Copyright © 2024 EADH: The European Association for Digital Humanities
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

 Today's Hours

Political Rhetoric: Logos, ethos, pathos

• Logos, ethos, pathos
• Rhetorical devices
• Famous speeches and rhetorical strategies
• Sources of famous speeches

Basics of Rhetoric

Understanding rhetoric.

A speech is an address given to an audience for a variety of purposes. A speaker may aim to inspire or to motivate, to amuse, to inform or to persuade.

The focus of this guide will be persuasive speeches , those that are intended to sway the audience to agree with the speaker. We will examine the impact of rhetorical structure and devices.

A speech, no matter the subject, requires a speaker, an audience, and a purpose. You can think of a speech as a rhetorical triangle such as the one below.

To be persuasive, the speaker must take the audience into consideration and appeal to them in ways that will convince them. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC) described three appeals that can be used to persuade an audience: ethos, pathos, and logos.

Logos: The speaker appeals to the audience’s sense of reason, using logic, facts, and statistics.

Ethos : The speaker tries to show the audience that he or she is reliable, credible, and trustworthy. The speaker also tries to build a bridge to the audience by using first-person plural pronouns (we, us).

Pathos :  The speaker appeals to the audience’s emotions, using emotional language, sensory images, and anecdotes.

We can see an example of how these three types of appeal interact in a speech by former First Lady and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the fourth World Conference of the United Nations. Clinton speaks about the rights of women around the world. Look at these excerpts:

Source: https://www.texasgateway.org/resource/analyze-famous-speeches-rhetorical-structures-and-devices-english-i-reading

• Next: Rhetorical devices >>
• Last Updated: Feb 13, 2020 11:02 AM
• URL: https://library.centre.edu/POL120Fall2019

Tap into the power to persuade by using these 6 techniques of clear and compelling speech

Share this idea.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)

Politicians and other public figures deploy particular rhetorical devices to communicate their ideas and to convince people, and it’s time that we all learned how to use them, says speechwriter Simon Lancaster.

This post is part of TED’s “How to Be a Better Human” series, each of which contains a piece of helpful advice from someone in the TED community; browse through all the posts here.

There is a secret language of leadership — and it’s one that anyone can learn, says UK speechwriter Simon Lancaster in a TEDxVerona talk . He has made a career out of crafting addresses, remarks and talks for top politicians and CEOs of international corporations such as Nestle and Unilever, and continues to do so . Refreshingly, rather than clinging Gollum-like to what he’s learned and knows, he believes everyone should have access to the same tools that he and his colleagues use.

By tools, he’s not talking about special software or databases — he’s referring to rhetoric. Rhetoric has its roots in ancient Greece ( think: Aristotle ) as clear, convincing speech was seen as an essential component of communication and participation in a democracy. Instruction in rhetoric remained part of the curriculum in many secondary schools in Europe and the US until the 19th century.

“The reason we all used to learn rhetoric at school was because it was seen as a basic entry point to society,” explains Lancaster, who is based in London. “How could society be fair, unless everyone had equal ability to articulate and express themselves? Without it, your legal systems, your political systems, your financial systems are not fair.”

Yes, the power to persuade is just that — power.

Lancaster states there is only one school in England that still teaches rhetoric: Eton, the alma mater of 20 Prime Ministers (including current officeholder, Boris Johnson). He adds, “It should be of intense concern to all of us that education in this has been narrowed to a very small … elite.”

While Lancaster can’t send the world to Eton, he can share the 6 rhetorical building blocks needed to speak persuasively. Here they are:

Building block #1: Breathless sentences or phrases

Barack Obama gave an acceptance speech for the ages in 2008 after he was first elected president of the US. He spoke vividly of the challenges that lay ahead for the country: “Even as we celebrate tonight, we know that the challenges tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime: Two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.”

Lancaster wants us to pay special attention to the last part of that sentence, the “two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century” part. Yes, it’s a stressful mouthful — not just because of the content but because of how it’s delivered. Short, staccato phrases like these mimic how we speak when we’re anxious and in a hurry. This technique helps communicate urgency to an audience.

Building block #2: Speaking in 3s

What’s the other rhetorical trick underlying “two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century”? The rule of 3.

Humans are accustomed to things coming in 3s: whether it’s judges on American Idol , bowls of porridge in a fairy tale , or sides in a triangle. Our minds and ears have been trained by speeches (Abraham Lincoln’s “government of the people, for the people, by the people”); slogans (reduce, reuse, recycle); and book titles ( Elizabeth Gilbert ‘s memoir Eat, Pray, Love ). “You put your argument in 3s, it makes it sound more compelling, more convincing, more credible. Just like that,” says Lancaster.

Recall British PM Winston Churchill’s stirring triplet from the speech he delivered to Parliament on June 4, 1940 : “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight on the fields and in the streets.” Besides the rule of 3, he gave the line additional rhetorical firepower by repeating the opening clause.

Lancaster explains, “When we are emotional about things, our perspective distorts, and this then manifests in our speech. So this is the authentic sound of passion.” Doing this can catch an audience in the speaker’s enthusiasm.

Building block #3: Balanced statements

“Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.” It’s a line from president John F Kennedy’s inspiring 1961 inaugural address , and one that’s stood the test of time. Why? Its balanced construction, says Lancaster. “If the sentence sounds as if it’s balanced, we imagine that the underlying thinking is balanced and our brain is tuned to like things that are balanced.”

Grouping balanced statements in 3s further amplifies the effect:

“We’re looking to the future, not the past.

We’re working together, not against one another.

We’re thinking about what we can do, not what we can’t.”

Building block #4: Metaphor

According to Lancaster, people use a metaphor once every 16 words on average ( side question: Where do statistics like this even come from? ). He declares, “Metaphor is probably the most powerful piece of political communication.”

Metaphors are rich in imagery and awake immediate feelings in people, so it follows that politicians love them and sprinkle them like birdseed (“like birdseed” is a simile, not a metaphor , and similes are other strong rhetorical tools to have in your kit). At times, they can employ them to point us to an ideal or aspiration. For example, in his farewell address , president Ronald Reagan movingly invoked America, h/t to John Winthrop, as a “shining city upon the hill.”

Too often, however, metaphors are used to manipulate, incite and denigrate. Politicians and talking heads could have called the 2015-16 refugee encampment in Calais, France, a “refugee camp” or “refugee settlement.” Instead, they deployed this loaded word: “jungle.” Lancaster says,“It’s planting in your mind the idea that migrants are like wild animals to be afraid of, that they are dangerous, that they represent a threat to you. This is a very dangerous metaphor because this is the language of genocide; it’s the language of hate.” Unfortunately, media outlets picked up “Calais jungle” and used it as their shorthand identifier of the camp, extending the metaphor’s reach.

Building block #5: Exaggeration

In the same way that we get breathless when they’re speaking with passion, our speech distorts in another significant way. We exaggerate. So when we’re sitting down to a meal after having eaten little that day, we tell our family and friends: “I love this pizza.” But when we say things like this to each other, we also realize it’s a bit of distortion: We do not love the pizza in the same way that we love our children or parents or the planet, and everyone present knows that.

Similarly, politicians and leaders might say things like “I’ve waited my whole life to say these words” or “I will work to achieve this with all my heart and soul.” These utterances are indeed over the top, but because they’re acceptable and even welcome since they echo how we speak.

Building block #6: Rhyming

Starting from childhood, many of us are taught concepts through rhymes — such as “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” or “i before e except after c.” With their musicality, they’re a pleasing informational snack that sticks in memories like a musical earworm .

Rhymes can seem corny, but sprinkled in at the right time, they can be incredibly potent. We all  remember the pithy “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit” from defense attorney Johnnie Cochran during O.J. Simpson’s 1995 murder trial.

Rhyming’s appeal comes “down to what linguists talk about as the processing fluency of language — how easy is language to swallow?” says Lancaster. “If you speak using long words and long sentences, it’s like giving someone a steak and asking them to swallow it. Whereas if you give them something pithy, like a rhyme, it’s like asking them to just sip on some Prosecco.”

These six tricks can help us speak directly to people’s instinctive, emotional and logical brains, and they are extremely effective, says Lancaster. There’s no need for us to be in the public eye to use them in order to sway others or make our words stay in people’s minds. Even if we never employ them in our own lives, it’s equally important for us to recognize them. Politicians, con artists and advertisers utilize them to win votes, spread opinions, or sell products people don’t need. By being alert to these rhetorical devices, we can be better citizens and consumers.

To learn more about rhetoric, watch this:

Watch Simon Lancaster’s TEDxVerona talk here:

About the author

Daryl Chen is the Ideas Editor at TED.

• how to be a better human
• public speaking
• simon lancaster

TED Talk of the Day

How to make radical climate action the new normal

3 strategies for effective leadership, from a former astronaut

Feeling unseen by your boss? Here’s what you can do 

Let’s stop calling them “soft skills” -- and call them “real skills” instead

There’s a know-it-all at every job — here’s how to deal

The 7 types of people you need in your life to be resilient

Perfectionism holding you back? 3 ways to shift the habit

The unseen forces that can cause your great new idea to crash and burn

Have you quietly quit? Your next step: Go to the neutral zone

6 ways to give that aren't about money

How one scientist is growing miniature brains in her lab

A simple trick to help you speak in public without showing your nerves

One effective way to manage stage fright: Make it a habit

A political party for the whole world -- and you're invited to join

Top 3 Product Matches

Adventures of Tom Sawyer

Retail Price: $9.95 Our Price: $7.46 or less

Reproducible

Our Price: $19.95

Downloadable PDF File

Our Price: $14.95

Free Lesson Plans For Teachers

Sign up to get the latest posters, lesson plans, eBooks, puzzles, How to Teach guides, and webinars - for free!

• Crossword Puzzles
• Lesson Plans
• How to Teach Guides
• Other Resources

Rhetorical Devices in Political Speeches Free Lesson Plan

Use this lesson plan to teach your students the basics of rhetorical devices, as well as how to recognize them in political speeches. With the use of textual examples from famous political speeches, you’ll introduce your students to commonly used devices such as metaphor and alliteration. By the end of the lesson, your students will be able to make their own comments on the effect of rhetorical devices and be able to utilize these tools within their own writing.

Newsletter Signup

Information and Products

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Service
• Popular Searches
• Payment Information
• Grammar & Writing
• More Resources
• Order By Catalog Code

Customer Service

1.800.932.4593

Connect With Us

Copyright 2024 Prestwick House. All Rights Reserved.

• Benefits to Participating Communities
• Participating School Districts
• Evaluations and Results
• Recognition Accorded
• National Advisory Committee
• Establishing New Institutes
• Topical Index of Curriculum Units
• View Topical Index of Curriculum Units
• Search Curricular Resources
• View Volumes of Curriculum Units from National Seminars
• Find Curriculum Units Written in Seminars Led by Yale Faculty
• Find Curriculum Units Written by Teachers in National Seminars
• Browse Curriculum Units Developed in Teachers Institutes
• On Common Ground
• Reports and Evaluations
• Articles and Essays
• Documentation
• Video Programs

Have a suggestion to improve this page?

To leave a general comment about our Web site, please click here

Share this page with your network.

Rhetoric in My World: Engaging Students in Rhetorical Analysis Through Political Speechwriting

Teaching situation and rationale.

"In order to make America a true democracy, it was crucial to give every citizen access to eloquence" 1 (Roach 114). This idea, prevalent in the 18 th and 19 th centuries, that in school all children should receive practice with oratorical skills in order to communicate effectively in expressing their opinions, is one that seems more and more essential to me to introduce in my classroom. The majority of my students struggle with issues such as accessing affordable health care, earning a living wage and coping with immigration reform. By connecting the skills of reading, writing, listening and speaking, and using rhetorical analysis of political speeches as an entry point, I want my students to empower themselves through developing and voicing their opinions on these and other issues that affect their daily lives.

My school is a neighborhood school in East Tulsa, and is one of the most diverse high schools in Oklahoma. Over half our students are Hispanic, with a significant proportion classified as English Language Learners; 20% are African American; 13% are White; 8% are Native American; 4% are Asian; .1% are Pacific Islander, and 2% identify themselves as Multiracial. 16% qualify for Special Education services and 100% qualify for the free and reduced lunch program based on their parents' income. The average ACT score for 2012-2013 was below the state average, as was the number of students passing the English II End of Instruction Exam (one of the high-stakes exams students must pass in order to graduate), hence the increased instructional time spent on standardized test preparation during the last three years. The diversity in the school as a whole is reflected in my classroom. I will teach this unit to four sections of 11 th grade Advanced Placement and Composition students. At East Central we have an open enrollment policy, so my AP Language classes are composed of students with varying ability levels, several of whom are English Language Learners (ELL's). My ELL students are usually highly motivated because they've self-selected a more advanced course, but they often struggle with vocabulary and syntax because of inadequate background knowledge. While some students are reading at or above grade level and are comfortable with the writing process and literary analysis, others are reading below grade level, have a more limited vocabulary, and are reluctant readers and writers. All, however, are smart, funny, interesting and very perceptive. Several will never have had an AP English class before, so analyzing rhetoric will be a new skill for them. Rhetorical analysis and argumentation are foundational aspects of the AP Language course, and students study and deconstruct speeches throughout the year. However, when encountering works from a more distant time period, sometimes they shut down because they feel so intimidated by or disconnected from the reading. My main aim is to make the study of rhetorical devices and appeals more relevant for my students by helping them see these devices are at work in the world all around them, as well as identifying issues that are relevant to them. Some are undocumented immigrants and are interested in and directly affected by immigration reform issues, for example. Many students feel marginalized because of their cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds. I want to help them connect with the speeches in a way that makes them more relevant, so they recognize how current issues and politics affect their world, and become empowered through forming their opinions and developing a voice to express them.

Oklahoma's standards are the PASS (Priority Academic Student Skills) Objectives. This unit meets the standards for Reading/Literature by exposing students to a wide variety of speeches from different politicians and different time periods. These works represent a wide range of voices and messages, from Queen Elizabeth I motivating her troops to fight bravely against Spanish forces in 1588, to Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's speech to the National Press Club in 2007 on the necessity of improving education to combat poverty. I selected these works to help students make connections between pieces from different periods and issues, and to convey a sense of how rhetorical tools are used in different settings, often to similar effect. I also want them to think about the variety of issues covered (health care reform, education reform, minimum wage increase, space exploration, immigration reform, responses to difficult economic times), their opinions on those, and possible intersections with their experience. It will also give them a variety of models to review when they begin writing speeches on their chosen issues.

Vocabulary development and Media Literacy are addressed as we look at advertisements to understand and illustrate the meaning of various rhetorical devices. My students are always borrowing magazines from my classroom collection of newspapers and magazines. This activity activates students' background knowledge by taking a genre they are already familiar with (advertising) and using it to reinforce the meaning of various devices, while also illustrating how students see them every day while flipping through their favorite magazines. This will reinforce the idea that these are not just remote, abstract concepts; on the contrary, these devices are at work in the world around them (and that often, they are members of the intended audience).

Students will develop their comprehension as we analyze organizational patterns in speeches and evaluate the speakers' arguments, using guiding questions and graphic organizers to facilitate understanding. They will draw inferences and make assertions about these arguments, using specific references to the text to support their analysis, while also deepening their understanding of the influence of historical context on the piece. My students sometimes make assertions about a text based on what they think they remember, without going back to the text for support. The guiding questions and graphic organizers will require them to support their interpretation with evidence. They'll also use these tools to analyze how elements such as organization, repetition, word choice and use of literary devices affect the development of a work. These products will also serve as visual reminders and models of the development of different works they can refer to when preparing their own pieces.

To give them a solid foundation to work from when developing their arguments, students will research issues and select information to go into their 'casebooks'. I want them to look at specific aspects of the issues they choose (the history, important events and people, major claims and counterclaims, anecdotes, etc.), which will improve their research skills, and give them a place to keep their facts and anecdotal information together, so they can access them easily when they begin writing.

Students will write and edit their persuasive speeches using the Writing Workshop model, paying careful attention to including rhetorical appeals and concessions, supporting their opinion with appropriate evidence and using devices they have learned from modeling throughout the unit (such as repetition, parallel structure and antithesis) to reinforce meaning, always bearing in mind that they're writing a text for oral delivery and making rhetorical choices accordingly.

And finally, they will deliver their speeches and listen to those of their peers, allowing them to hear and respond to each other. I believe students benefit greatly from sharing their ideas, and also gain confidence from delivering them orally. It is my hope that this process allows them to take ownership of their ideas and their writing, ultimately giving them greater ownership of the issues.

Because my students are often overwhelmed by the amount of high stakes testing and test preparation they must endure as Sophomores and Juniors in my state, this unit is created around authentic purposes and products. It is focused on having students read and analyze political speeches, then helping them create real-world scenarios for writing and delivering their own. For example, students will study how rhetorical devices are used in a political speech, then be tasked with researching an issue they are interested in, writing a speech for a specific audience (for example, composing a speech for the city council on minimum wage) and then delivering it to an audience of their peers. This provides practice with rhetorical analysis and argumentative writing, and makes them more familiar with contemporary issues, all of which assists with preparation for the AP Language Exam and increases their investment in their own ideas and writing.

Research studies, such as one conducted by Coker and Erwin in 2010, have found that instructional approaches that include "explicit instruction in the elements of argument, modeling of how to write or engage in arguments, opportunities to practice… (orally or through writing) and appropriate feedback ..." have been successful in developing the argumentative writing skills of at-risk adolescents in urban school settings. 2 Accordingly, this unit incorporates several strategies that allow for explicit instruction in rhetorical elements, use of a variety of models, and opportunities for development of student writing and feedback.

Since all the pieces are short works, and we will be doing extended analytical exercises in groups with each one, all assigned reading will take place in classroom. Because the unit is approximately six weeks, there will be adequate time for that. Some pieces, such as Lincoln's Gettysburg Address , are included in our district-adopted American Literature textbooks, but most will be provided as photocopies, so students can annotate as they are reading and keep copies in their notebooks. As available, we'll be viewing most of the speeches on YouTube prior to reading, which will support my visual and auditory learners, as well as students struggling with reading comprehension. At various points during guided reading we will be deconstructing the speeches in sections, so I will stop frequently to check for understanding, provide clarification and introduce and guide activities. Students will read silently and aloud at different points.

As much of the terminology students will encounter in this unit will be new to them, particularly students who are taking AP English for the first time, an ongoing strategy that will be introduced at the beginning of the unit will involve introducing specific devices/vocabulary/elements of argumentation from the speeches. We will do this through "reading" and analyzing advertisements as they relate to the rhetorical triangle (speaker, purpose, audience, subject and context), and then using those advertisements to illustrate rhetorical devices we will encounter in the speeches (appeals, antithesis, parallel syntax, etc.). Students will find examples of each of the devices in print and keep a master list and examples in their casebooks (described below). Since they will be encountering new devices in different readings, this activity will be introduced through mini-lessons, and will be ongoing throughout the unit for reinforcement of concepts. There will also be a quiz given over the devices at the end of the unit, as an additional method of checking for understanding.

To help students understand the way each speech is constructed, as well as how they relate to each other, we will be completing close reading activities. The desks in my classroom are arranged in groups of four, so they can easily work together. They will use the classroom sets of marker boards to answer questions as a group (identifying the elements of the rhetorical triangle, for example) and hold them up, so I can easily check for understanding. Each group will contribute observations made on post-it notes to create charts on the wall with insights on the introduction, examples of strategies used, the methods of development and examples of rhetorical devices used. They will use these to complete individual graphic organizers where they chart the development of each piece paragraph by paragraph, so later they can compare each piece they have read during group discussion, and have models to refer to when composing their own. The emphasis on group work will help my ELL students, those who are new to the AP English program and my struggling readers.

Each Friday, from the beginning of the unit, we will have 30 minutes set aside during class for Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) time when students will use the classroom laptops to look up current news articles covering current issues from online sources such as Tulsa World , New York Times , Chicago Tribune , etc. and read silently to develop their understanding of events going on in the world - internationally, nationally and locally. At the end of SSR time, we'll have a group discussion where each student will tell about the news stories they read, as well as their opinions on them. This will deepen their knowledge of current events, and give them ideas for issues they could research in their casebooks.

In preparation for writing their own speeches, each student will develop a "casebook" with key information on at least two issues they are interested in, as well as articles I will give them before reading the speeches. For example, when we read the speeches on the space program, I will give them a transcript of the Walter Cronkite piece, "How Sputnik Changed the World" on NPR, so they can get a sense of the history of the space program. Also, I will give them excerpts from On Speaking Well by Peggy Noonan, when she writes about crafting the Challenger speech for Reagan. When we read the Long and FDR speeches, I will give them excerpts from Union of Words by Wayne Fields, where he gives background information about their use of the new medium of radio and connections to the Great Depression. I will also use the "Times Topics" section of The New York Times online to give students readings on The Great Depression as well as the history of immigration and minimum wage legislation. They will also assemble facts, statistics, background information, etc. on their two issues to develop a more in-depth understanding of both sides (they will have access to the classroom laptops and be given time during class to work on developing their casebooks). Their casebooks will also include information on their first-hand experiences with the issues, as well as anecdotes from others; this will help them as they are developing emotional and ethical appeals.

Finally, I will incorporate a variety of writing strategies as students compose and deliver their own speeches. We will use a Writing Workshop model, where students work in groups during class time to write, share and revise their pieces. They can compose their first drafts by hand, or on the classroom laptops. Some research has shown that when students compose using laptops, they are more likely to re-read their writing as they compose, 3 and word processing can help students with writing difficulties "produce a text that looks good, and they can go back and fix things without introducing new mistakes", 4 so I will require them to type their second and final drafts. They'll share their writing aloud with each other at various stages, so they can hear the sound of the words and the rhythm of the language. I want them to realize how they notice different things when reading their writing aloud, so we'll review the differences in pieces that are written to be delivered aloud (such as syntactical differences) and discuss various strategies for effective delivery.

Study of Political Speeches

To relate the idea that this unit is about showing students how rhetoric is at work in the world all around them, and empowering them to find their voice in relation to an issue they care about, we will begin by watching the YouTube video of Asean Johnson's speech at a Chicago Teachers Union rally. This will help them see the impact a student voice can have. We'll then use the Smartboard to brainstorm a variety of issues that interest them.

The first three weeks will be filled with group reading (using a variety of close reading strategies, as described above), discussion and written analysis of a variety of political speeches. We will begin with two that are very accessible: Queen Elizabeth I's "Tilbury Speech" and John F. Kennedy's 1962 Presidential Address, "Preservation of Price Stability". I chose these because they each have a very clear purpose students' are quick to pick up on. They both rely heavily on an appeal to ethos to inspire confidence, use of strong diction to motivate and invoke pathos, and parallel structure to unify and emphasize ideas. The Queen's purpose is motivating her troops to fight bravely against the invading Spanish Armada in 1588. She addresses them as "My loving people", and refers to them as "faithful" and "loyal", using pathos to motivate. She says "I myself will take up arms" and "I myself will be your general, judge and rewarder of every one of your virtues in the field". In his commentary on the speech, William Safire writes that the Queen, "commanded the affection of her subjects by virtue of her courage and her identification with the nation's fate" 5 an idea emphasized by her use of parallel structure. Likewise, JFK is seeking to move the American people to outrage against "a tiny handful of steel executives whose pursuit of private power and profit exceeds their sense of public responsibility". He refers to their actions as "unjustifiable and irresponsible", and says they show, "contempt for 185 million Americans", the very people he is seeking to galvanize with his words. He bolsters his credibility by beginning his speech with a reminder of the sacrifices each American was making during that time, including himself, as "we are devoting our energies to economic recovery and stability", in order to emphasize that he, like Queen Elizabeth, was there with his people 6 . He goes on to use parallel structure to emphasize the negative economic effect of the steel price hike. With this pairing, I want students to see how the same devices can be used in similar ways in two political speeches from very different periods.

Next, we will look at Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address , focusing on use of antithesis, and, once again, diction and parallel structure. First, I'll show the "Gettysburg Address Mash Up" videos on YouTube, to bring this historical document into the modern day. Then we'll do our own "mash up" group reading, with each student taking a small section, so they can hear the sounds of the words, and how parallel structure is used to create rhythm. As we re-read and analyze, I want to give them a sense of the historical connections of Lincoln's use of antithesis, for example, to "the characteristic organization of Greek prose by polarities". 7 I want them to understand how Lincoln's more vernacular word choice is tied to the historical context, as "events were moving too fast for the more languid phrases of the past", 8 as well as understanding how his use of monosyllables affects the "rhythmic pacing". 9

From there, we'll look at two sets of speeches paired around common themes or time periods: Senator Huey Long's "Every Man a King" speech and FDR's Fireside Chat on "Farmers and Laborers" (both addressing the issue of hard economic times), followed by President John F Kennedy's "Space Exploration" speech, paired with President Ronald Reagan's "Challenger" speech.

President Roosevelt and Senator Long are both voicing responses to hard economic times during The Great Depression. Both speeches utilize biblical allusions, and strong appeals to ethos, pathos and logos, underscored by use of parallel structure and anaphora. Both men also utilized the then new technology of radio to connect with the public. As an interesting side note, Samuel I Rosenman, a speechwriter for FDR, said that "Roosevelt feared a challenge from the Democratic populist-progressive Long more than from any Republican". 10 At the time of this speech, delivered a year before FDR's Fireside Chat, The New Deal had not delivered the country from The Great Depression, so Long was presenting the ordinary citizens of Louisiana with his "Share the Wealth" program. He establishes his ethos by repeatedly invoking "the law of the Lord" and frequently using personal pronouns, as when laying out his main claim that "in order to cure all of our woes it is necessary to scale down the big fortunes, that we may scatter the wealth to be shared by all of the people…", and repeatedly referring to his audience as "my friends". This reinforces the idea that he is there with the people, on their side. Long appeals to the emotions of the unemployed when he sets up his claim that the problem in the country is not a lack of resources, but "the greed of a few men…" for whom "…pleasure consists in the starvation of the masses", such that ordinary people do not have money to buy the available goods. This is underscored by his use of anaphora ("We have the farm problem…..We have a home loan problem…We have trouble, my friends…") and parallelism ("we have in America today more wealth, more goods, more food…") 11 Long also sets up a logical appeal by detailing the economic statistics of his plan in the second half of his speech.

Roosevelt also appeals to logos in Fireside Chat #8, when he lays out the logical reasoning behind his work projects to conserve water and control soil erosion to battle the severe drought conditions affecting farmers in September 1936, as the country continued in the grip of The Great Depression. He builds his ethos in the beginning of his speech by speaking of his travels to affected areas, and underscores this idea with anaphora: "I saw drought devastation…I saw cattlemen…I saw livestock….I saw other farm families…", 12 to add to the idea that – like Long- he has a personal connection with, and concern for, those facing hardship. He also does this when beginning by addressing them as "My friends". But whereas Long's purpose was to galvanize, FDR's was more to reassure and, stylistically, to combine "the intimacy of the medium... with a great orator's sense of the poetic". 13 Timothy Raphael observes that "The compelling narratives of Roosevelt's "chats"…eschewed facts and figures in favor of anecdotes and analogies", 14 to bolster his credibility with those suffering during the depression. Roosevelt uses parallelism to underscore an emotional appeal when he follows up with a reflection on the personal qualities of "indomitable American farmers and stockmen and their wives and children who have carried on through desperate days, and inspire us with their self-reliance, their tenacity and their courage." 15 He wants them to feel he acknowledges their struggles. Likewise, he says, "we are members one of another", a biblical allusion to a "New Testament description of a community of faith", 16 wherein all are connected, to inspire people to persevere, even in the face of struggle. I want students to make these connections between strategies and see how FDR "used radio messages as a way of connecting his audience, drawing together people" who might never actually meet, 17 while Long used it to "build a national following" and "bring new hope to people ground into poverty". 18

President John F Kennedy's speech on the early United States space program and Ronald Reagan's speech on the shuttle Challenger tragedy both address the issue of space exploration at different points in its history, but the core message is the same: the space program must continue, regardless of expense or difficulties encountered. Kennedy uses antithesis to contrast "change" and "challenge", "hope" and "fear", "cost" and "reward", "behind" and "forward", "easy" and "hard" to emphasize the direction he believes the space program must move: ahead. He makes reference to history to build his ethos, saying "This country was conquered by those who moved forward, and so will space". He concedes that the cost is high, but emphasizes the need to press onward as "we must be bold". Using rhetorical questions to make people think about "Why the moon?" he answers, employing more antithesis, that it's not because it is easy, but because it is hard. 19 Because Reagan is speaking to the pain of the nation, he uses the pronoun "we" several times to connect with his audience and include everyone in the collective mourning. He also uses antithesis at the beginning of his speech to juxtapose a past accident with the Challenger disaster, and also says that "we have forgotten the courage it took for the crew of the shuttle. But they…were aware", to make the point that even though this is an unprecedented tragedy, the crew knew the risks and accepted them. He contrasts "the fainthearted" with "the brave", 20 implying that America must be brave, as the Challenger crew were. Peggy Noonan, who crafted the speech for the president, writes that it had to "make it clear to the children that life goes on" and "reassure the American people that the tragedy, though terrible, will not halt our efforts in space". 21 As Reagan said, "Nothing ends here-our hopes and our journeys continue." 22 I want students to see how the rhetoric of both presidents was crafted to convey a common message about national policy regarding space exploration, designed to comfort, reassure and engender support.

These will be followed by three sets of more contemporary speeches, showing different sides of current issues: President Obama's 2013 Immigration Reform Address, paired with Arizona Governor Jan Brewer's SB1070 Speech; Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's "Pressing Urban Issues and the California Political Scene" (focusing on education) paired with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's Education Reform Speech on YouTube, and Senate Floor Speeches on Minimum Wage Legislation on YouTube from Senator Elizabeth Warren and Senator Ted Cruz ("The Minimum Wage Hurts the Most Vulnerable Among Us").

In their speeches on immigration reform, President Obama and Arizona Governor Jan Brewer both use repetition and appeals to ethos, pathos and logos to impart a sense of urgency regarding the issue, but I want students to see how these strategies ultimately convey a markedly different tone in each piece. Obama begins by appealing to pathos as he identifies with his audience and uses "goodwill and flattery to emotionally engage…by means of empathy", 23 referring to them as "good friends" and acknowledging the mascot and principal of the school where he is speaking. He concludes his introduction by emphasizing the need for immigration reform, conveying urgency through repetition of the phrase "Now it she time". He goes on to acknowledge the system is "broken" but relates that others are willing to work with him "to welcome the striving, hopeful immigrants", setting a tone of acceptance and inclusiveness. He also repeats the word "stronger" to reinforce the impact he feels this will have on the economy and future of the country. He uses repetition throughout the speech to emphasize "the important role of the immigrants in America and the necessity of a country and a politician who cares for them", 24 the latter bolstering his ethos. He also builds his ethos when he lists the steps his administration has already taken to deal with the issue. He appeals to logic when he outlines the economic reasons leading up to his claim, which is "Congress must act", and referring to statistics about the scope of the problem. He ends with an emotional appeal, an anecdote about a man in the audience who benefited from legislation he signed, using him as a symbol representing all immigrants striving for better opportunities. 25

In her speech on signing SB1070, Arizona's immigration legislation, Governor Jan Brewer also uses repetition of words to underscore her message, repeating "protecting our citizens" and "protecting our state" to reinforce her purpose in signing the legislation. Her word choice reflects the negative effects of illegal immigration in that state that she claims she is guarding against, such as "crime", "violence, "murderous greed" and "destruction". This emotionally charged word choice, paired with her position that the bill seeks to "solve a crisis we didn't create", sets up an urgent and somewhat defensive tone, as Brewer uses ethos, pathos and logos to support her position. She uses repetition to build her ethos, referring to her time in public service and her assertion that she has "worked without fail to solve problems diligently and practically...always with an eye toward civility, and always with the greatest respect for the rule of law", as well as how she has worked "to bring people together, no matter the color of their skin." She wants her audience to feel that she is always fair and they can trust her. She refers first to how she "listened patiently to both sides", then turns to an emotional appeal as she contrasts that with the "decades of federal inaction and misguided policy" she puts forward as her main reason for taking this action. She goes on to appeal to logic, outlining how she will ensure individual civil rights are protected, anticipating those who "have an interest in seeing us fail". She ends, once again, with repetition to emphasize what her beliefs are about the laws of Arizona 26

When it comes to education reform, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal have very different perspectives on which steps need to be taken to improve educational opportunities for America's children. Although they use similar rhetorical strategies, the ways in which they use them reflect these differences. Villaraigosa uses ethos, pathos, logos and repetition in ways that underscore his values, repeating, "I believe that people working together can change the world…I believe that in a democratic society…we have a responsibility to serve". He begins by using an emotional appeal to identify with his audience by acknowledging them and their work as members of the press, "doing what you believe in". This sets up a reference to the effects of Hurricane Katrina, in which he uses parallelism and repetition to make his point, "if you're flat broke or flat on your back, you may be flat out of luck in a time of serious jeopardy". He goes on to use a logical appeal as he lists statistics on poverty in America and talks about the work of the Mayor's Task Force on Poverty, Work and Opportunity and their recommendations for moving education reform to the front of national debate, which he lists in detail. Finally, he ends by appealing to ethos, stating "I say this as one who knows…Somebody gave me a second chance" to bolster his credibility to speak on the issue and underscore his point that everyone needs to work together to combat poverty through providing better educational opportunities 27

In speaking on education reform to the Brookings Institution, Governor Jindal also uses appeals to ethos, pathos and logos, as well as repetition, in a speech framed with a series of anecdotes reflecting his belief (used to open his talk and appeal to the emotion of the audience) that "The United States of America does not provide equal opportunities in education". He emphasizes this by repeating "We do not" twice during his opening, as well as repeating "You do not have the resources" when referring to parents who cannot enroll their child in a different school if "your child attends a failing school".

He uses words with negative, emotionally charged connotations, such as "scandalous" and "shameful" to describe the teachers unions that he believes are responsible for "stopping school choice from occurring all over the country". He claims that "Quality is driven by competition, accountability and autonomy". To support that claim, he relates a series of anecdotes that unify his argument, including stories about students who benefited from The New Orleans Scholarship Program and other programs which provide opportunities for school choice. Throughout these stories he weaves statistics that convey a logical appeal, emphasizing the numbers of students in Louisiana who have benefited from these programs and the growth of charter schools. He ends – as Villaraigosa did – by bolstering his ethos, saying "Neither should equal opportunity in education be considered an ideological issue…Equal opportunity in education should not be a conservative position, or a liberal position, it's an American position.", to leave the impression that his position is in the best interests of every American 28

Texas Senator Ted Cruz and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren both gave speeches on the Floor of the US Senate on the issue of raising the minimum wage. Senator Cruz's speech came just before the Senate vote on the issue and Senator Warren's just after. As this is the last set of speeches we will look at together as a class, we'll be viewing them on YouTube without reading the transcripts, and focusing on how Warren and Cruz use persuasive rhetorical strategies to convey very different viewpoints to the same audience. Students will also think about their own opinions on the topic. As we begin, they will draw two t-charts in their casebooks (one for Warren and one for Cruz). On the left side they will record what "they say", and on the right side, what "I say" in response. This will help them think about the specific points each Senator is making and what evidence they're using for support, as well as their own reactions. When examining strategies, I want them to notice that both speakers use personal anecdotes about their parents to convey an emotional appeal, designed to persuade their colleagues to accept their very different positions. Warren also uses it to bolster her ethos, saying, "I know this story because it's my story", 29 to get readers to accept her authority to speak because of her background and her personal interest in the issue. Both use statistics and facts about the history of the minimum wage to create a logical appeal, with Cruz using this to support his position that a minimum wage hike would put businesses out of work and create layoffs, using Burger King as an example, and also breaking down the unemployment rate by race, pointing out inequities. Meanwhile, Warren uses it to illustrate the numbers of Senators who voted for the legislation, to contrast them with the ones who created a filibuster to stop it from passing, which she calls "outrageous". Cruz uses visuals to underscore what he calls the "hard, brutal reality, of the Obama minimum wage", 30 repeating "brutal reality" twice, for emphasis, and ends with another anecdote for emotional effect. Warren also uses repetition to emphasize her position that passing this raise is "a chance" that they shouldn't let "get away", because it's been "7 years" since the last minimum wage hike. 31 We will discuss which speech students found more persuasive, based on their notes and analysis, as well as discussing whether the issue of gender played any part in the effectiveness of the delivery or reception of the message. Students will also locate additional speeches (either in print or on YouTube) related to their individual topics to inform their writing, described below.

Using the pieces we've analyzed as models, and consulting their casebooks for evidence, in the following two weeks, each student will draft their own speech (min. 3 minutes) on one topic of their choice from their casebook, following a Writing Workshop model for drafting and revision. Additional digital tools, such as Wordle.net, will also be used for revision. They will begin by determining a real-world audience for their speeches, whether a group within the school or outside, to guide their choice of rhetorical elements/devices. We will utilize resources within the school who work with the community, to help students determine possible audiences for their work. During the final week, students will deliver their speeches to an audience of their peers (and their specific audience, if possible). We will also be Skyping with other classrooms to give them a wider audience for their work. The written speeches will be assembled in an anthology to develop student ownership of their writing.

First Activity: Print Ad Analysis: Identifying Rhetorical Devices

This is an activity designed to introduce students to the rhetorical devices they will be encountering in the speeches. It is repeated to introduce different terms throughout the unit, beginning the first week before students read Queen Elizabeth's Tilbury Speech. It gives students a deeper understanding of the devices and how they function in a familiar context (in advertising and newspaper and magazine headlines) and increases their ability to identify them at work in the world around them.

The Process

Choose the devices that will be emphasized in the study of each speech (a list of terms and definitions are provided in the Resources section). Before reading Queen Elizabeth's Tilbury Speech, ethos, pathos and parallel structure can be introduced, for example. Choose a print ad or newspaper or magazine headline that illustrates those devices. For example, in an ad for The Trust for Public Land, the speaker establishes their ethos when they assert that "The Trust for Public Land is protecting the places that make your community special"; 32 they are trying to convey that they have their audience's best interest at heart. They appeal to pathos with the picture of the smiling little girl that dominates three quarters of the ad. An ad for McDonalds utilizes parallel structure when it reads, "If it sizzles and crackles and it's coming from the kitchen, it's breakfast; If it melts and toasts and says "carpe this diem" it's breakfast, etc. 33 Find two or three examples of each device to show. To introduce each one, have students draw a triangle on a small whiteboard and discuss the elements of the rhetorical triangle (speaker, audience, topic, purpose and context) as they apply to the first ad. Identify the main claim, and then have them work in pairs to identify those elements for each piece, illustrating them on the triangle on their whiteboards. Once students have an understanding of how the elements are functioning, go back and look at the ads and/or headlines, focusing on one device at a time, explaining the meaning of the device and how it is used in the piece. Next, have students go through newspapers and magazines so everyone can find two additional examples of each device. They will put one example on a large piece of chart paper which will remain posted on the wall (one piece of chart paper for each device), and one will go into their casebooks, along with the meaning in their own words and a quick summary of the effect. Finally, go around the room and have each student share the examples they found, explaining how and why they are used.

Second Activity: Speech Analysis Organizer

This activity is designed to give students a structured format for analyzing the speeches, so they have a process to follow. It will be introduced from the beginning of the unit, with the Queen Elizabeth and JFK speeches (after they have an understanding of the devices at work from the ad analysis activity) and will be repeated with each speech. This framework will help students develop confidence with analysis, so they can apply it to each piece we read, as well as future readings they encounter. It will also increase their ability to read a text closely, to connect method and meaning, and give them models to follow when they are composing their own speeches.

To gather their impressions of the overall structure of a piece, students will read copies of the speech silently, making note of things that interest them, use of devices they notice from the pre-reading vocabulary, etc., as well as questions they have about the piece (students at each set of desks will assemble a "group list" of questions, as many of them are wondering the same things, so no one will be reluctant to ask a question). After discussing overall impressions and addressing questions, begin deconstructing the speech with students, looking at the relationship of the elements of audience, speaker, subject, purpose and context, just as when looking at the ads/headlines. Each group will have a marker board to draw a triangle with the rhetorical elements, which can be held up to check their understanding before beginning discussion. At various points, stop so each group can talk and make notes on post its to post on a chart on the whiteboard under the categories of Introduction, Appeals, Methods of Development, and Other Rhetorical Strategies, to have a master list which gives an overall idea of how each piece is developed. Next, students will use ideas from these master lists to complete an individual graphic organizer charting the development of each piece (divided by beginning, middle and end of the speech), categorized by each of the sections above. The ultimate goal is for students to have an understanding of the following elements for each piece:

• What are the elements of the rhetorical triangle in this piece (audience, subject, speaker, purpose, and context)?
• Introduction: How does the piece begin (quotation, anecdote, etc.)? How does the speaker draw you in?
• What is the main claim? Are there any additional claims?
• What are the methods of development? How does the writer get you from one place to another in the speech?
• Which appeals are used and what are some examples?
• Which other rhetorical/language devices are used and to what effect?
• What other events or issues can you connect this speech to?

After each student creates their graphic organizer, project each of the questions above on a whiteboard or Smartboard and have them write a 2-3 paragraph analysis that synthesizes what they've learned. Debrief as a group, with students sharing their writing.

Third Activity: Persuasive Speech Peer Review

This activity gives students a structured format for reading their writing aloud and reflecting on changes they want to make to convey their message, focusing on effective organization, word choice, and use of other rhetorical strategies. It will take place near the end of the unit, after students have studied all the speeches, researched their issues and written a first draft of their own speeches. Getting feedback from peers before writing a second draft gives them an opportunity to revise in a low-risk, no penalty situation.

Arrange desks in pairs, so students are sitting in groups of two, facing each other. Pair each student who has finished a first draft of their persuasive speech with another in their writing group who has also finished a draft (any students who do not have a first draft will continue to work on their writing in an adjacent area of the room). Tell students to spend the first 10-15 minutes taking turns reading their writing aloud to each other; explain how they will notice different things when they read their writing aloud than reading silently. Tell them to listen to the sound of the words; allow a couple of minutes after each speech for students to respond to each other orally and write down things they notice and questions they have after reading and listening. Use a timer to help keep them on track. When they're finished, each person spends an additional two minutes each talking about the at least two things they like about their piece and two things they want to work on. Next, hand out the peer review feedback sheets, and go over the questions below, which they will respond to. Have them trade papers and read silently, answering each of the following on the paper provided:

• Draw a rhetorical triangle for the piece, identifying the subject, speaker, audience, purpose and context.
• How does the writer begin? What do they use to get your attention (anecdote, humor, quotation, etc.)?
• Does the introduction give readers a sense of the writer's aim and plan? If so, what is it? If not, what can they do to accomplish that?
• What issue drives this essay? What ideas does it explore? What is the writer's main claim? Write it down and also list any secondary claims.
• What are the methods of organization and development the writer uses? How do they get from one place to another in the speech? List them below. Is this organization effective? If not, what can be done to improve the organization?
• What evidence does the writer use (statistics, personal anecdotes, history, etc.)?
• List examples of the appeals used. What is the effect? Do they help the writer make their case?
• hos –
• How does the writer treat those who would disagree with their claim? Is there a concession to opposing points of view?
• What are the main rhetorical devices used (anaphora, parallelism, antithesis, etc.)?
• Type the speech into Wordle and make note of any words that are shown as repeated often. Is it an effective use of repetition?
• Color code the diction using colored pencils: red=powerful words; gold=sentences that should be kept; blue=hazy words or sentences that are unclear and should be revised; black=consider taking out
• Are the sentences crafted effectively? Describe the rhythm of the sentences. Do they vary in length and structure? Do they work together to convey the writer's message? Read your favorite sentence aloud to the writer. Make note of any that could be revised for effect.
• Are there any errors in grammar and usage? If so, mark them directly on the paper.
• Finally, is the speech convincing? Does it make you think and/or influence your feelings about the issue? How?

When students have finished completing their peer reviews, have them trade reviews, get back in their writing groups and begin working on their second drafts, using the oral and written feedback they've received.

The Oklahoma State Department of Education uses the PASS (Priority Academic Student Skills) Standards, which my district follows. This unit meets the following Reading/Literature Standards for 11 th grade: 1.4 (through the Print Ad Analysis Activity, which requires students to expand their vocabularies by using context to understand the meaning of a variety of rhetorical devices), 2.1a, b, c and d (through the Speech Analysis Organizer, which requires students to analyze the organizational pattern of a variety of speeches, the author's position, and the devices the author uses to accomplish their purpose, and using note taking to transfer their understanding to a graphic organizer), 2.2.a and d (as students discuss the influence of the historical context on the content and strategies of the speech, making specific references to the text in their notes to support their interpretations), 4.4b and c (through the Speech Analysis activity, which requires students to analyze the structure of a variety of speeches, explaining how the organization and language affect the message, and 3.3a (through the Print Ad Analysis activity, which requires students to identify various rhetorical devices). The unit meets the following Research and Information Standards for 11 th grade: 4.1a and b (through compiling 'casebooks' and reading and gathering information from a variety of sources), and 4.2e (through developing their speeches based on their research of their chosen issue). The unit meets the following Writing/Grammar/Mechanics and Usage Standards for 11 th grade: 1.a,b,c,d and e (through the process of writing speeches, which requires students to develop an clear, well-reasoned argument through writing multiple drafts, being mindful of audience and purpose and editing to ensure clarity and standard usage), 1.6 (as students write their speeches, which requires them to structure their arguments in a persuasive way and support their claims with relevant examples) and 1.7 (as students give each other feedback on their writing, to strengthen content and style). The unit meets the following standards for Modes and Forms of Writing: 2.3a-e (through writing their speeches, which requires them to compose an effective persuasive composition which addresses opposing points of view). The unit addresses the following Oral Language/Listening and Speaking Standards: 1.1, 2 and 4 (through listening to the speeches of their peers, identify major ideas and supporting evidence and evaluate the message), and 2.1, 2, 3 and 5 (through delivering their speeches, which requires students to demonstrate an awareness of audience and purpose). Finally, the unit meets Visual Literacy Standard 1.1 (through the Ad Analysis activity, which requires students to interpret visual media as they apply the elements of the rhetorical triangle to print advertisements and headlines).

Rhetorical Devices

Parallelism – similarity of structure in a pair or series of related words, phrases, or clauses

Antithesis – the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, often in parallel structure

Alliteration – repetition of initial or medial consonants in two or more adjacent words

Anaphora – repetition of the same word or group of words at the beginning of successive clauses

Climax – arrangement of words, phrases, or clauses in an order of increasing importance

Metaphor – implied comparison between two things of unlike nature

Simile – explicit comparison between two things of unlike nature

Personification – investing abstractions for inanimate objects with human qualities or abilities

Hyperbole – the use of exaggerated terms for the purpose of emphasis or heightened effect

Rhetorical question – asking a question, not for the purpose of eliciting an answer but for the purpose of asserting or denying something obliquely Irony – use of a word in such a way as to convey a meaning opposite to the literal meaning of a word Onomatopoeia – use of words whose sound echoes the sense Paradox – an apparently contradictory statement that nevertheless contains a measure of truth 34

Bibliography

Allen, Rick. "Leveraging Technology to Improve Literacy." ACSD 50, no. 10 (2008).

http://www.ascd.org/publications/newsletters/educationupdate/oct08/vol50/num10/

Leveraging-Technology-to-Improve-Literacy.aspx (accessed June 10, 2014).

Bitter, Gary G., and Melissa Pierson. Using technology in the classroom . 5th ed. Boston,

MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2002.

Brewer, Jan. "Governor Jan Brewer Address Upon Signing Arizona SB1070."

www.americanrhetoric.com

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/janbrewersenatebill1070speech.htm

(accessed July 15, 2014).

Coker, Jr, David, and Eileen Erwin. "Teaching Academic Argument in an Urban Middle

School: A Case Study of Two Approaches." Urban Education 46, no. 120 (2010).

http://uex.sagepub.com/content/46/2/120 (accessed July 2, 2014).

Corbett, Edward P. J. and Robert Connors. Classical rhetoric for the modern student . New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

Cruz, Ted. "The Minimum Wage Act Hurts the Most Vulnerable Among Us." YouTube.

http://www.m.youtube.com/watch?v=8A_lvgecbo4 (accessed July 16, 2014).

Fields, Wayne. Union of words: a history of presidential eloquence . New York: Free

Press, 1996.

"Improving Educational Choice and Competition; Keynote by Gov. Bobby Jindal." The Brookings Institution.

http://www.brookings.edu/events/2012/12/11-education-choice (accessed July 16, 2014).

Kennedy, John F., and Theodore C. Sorensen. "Let the word go forth": the speeches, statements, and writings of John F. Kennedy . New York, N.Y.: Delacorte Press, 1988.

Kennedy, John. "American Rhetoric: John F Kennedy Address on the Space Program At

Rice University." www.americanrhetoric.com

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkriceuniversity.htm (accessed July 15,

Lopez-Cirugeda, Isabel , and Raquel Sanchez-Ruiz. "Persuasive Rhetoric in Barak

Obama's Immigration Speech: Pre- and Post-Electoral Strategies." Camino Real 5, no. 8

(2013): 81-99.

McDonalds. Advertisement. July 28, 2014. Sports Illustrated.

"National Press Club Luncheon with Antonio Villaraigosa Mayor of Los Angeles." http://press.org/sites/default/files/070124avillaraigosa.pdf (accessed July

Noonan, Peggy. On speaking well: how to give a speech with style, substance, and

clarity. New York, NY: Regan Books, 1999.

Obama, Barak. "Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform."

The White House. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/29/remarks-

president-comprehensive-immigration-reform (accessed July 16, 2014).

Raphael, Timothy. The president electric Ronald Reagan and the politics of performance .

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009.

Roach, Joseph. "Viva Voce." The Yale Review 99, no. 4 (2011): 108-118.

Roosevelt, Franklin. "Miller Center: Fireside Chat 8: On Farmers and Laborers"

(September 6, 1936)-. http://millercenter.org/president/speeches/detail/3306 (accessed

July 16, 2014).

Safire, William. Lend me your ears: great speeches in history . New York: Norton, 1992.

The Trust for Public Land. Advertisement. July 28, 2014. Time.

Warren, Elizabeth. "Floor Speech on Minimum Wage Vote." Elizabeth Warren: US

Senator for Massachusetts. http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=video&id=488 (accessed

Wills, Garry. Lincoln at Gettysburg: the words that remade America . New York: Simon

& Schuster, 1992.

Classroom Resources

"Asean Johnson: We Are Black and We Are Proud." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGwM-p86zw8 (accessed July 16, 2014).

"Challenger: President Reagan's Challenger Disaster Speech." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?Qa7icmqgsow (accessed July 14, 2014).

"Learn the Address." Learn the Address: Home. http://www.learntheaddress.org (accessed July 16, 2014).

1. Roach, Joseph. "Viva Voce". 110.

2. Coker, Jr., David, and Eileen Erwin. "Teaching Academic Argument in an Urban Middle School: A Case Study of Two Approaches". 36.

3. Bitter G, and Melissa Pierson. Using Technology in the Classroom. 100.

4. Allen, Rick. "Leveraging Technology to Improve Literacy"

5. Safire, William. Lend me your ears: great speeches in history . 95.

6. Kennedy, John F,. and Theodore C. Sorensen. Let the word go forth: The speeches, statements and writings of John F. Kennedy

7. Wills, Gary. Lincoln at Gettysburg: The words that remade America . 56.

8. Ibid. 171

9. Ibid. 158.

10. Safire. 696

11. Safire 697

12. Roosevelt, Franklin. "Miller Centrer: Fireside Chat #8: On Farmers and Laborers".

13. Fields, Wayne. Union of Words . 306.

14. Raphael, Timothy. The President Electric . 97.

15. Roosevelt

16. Fields. 306.

17. Fields. 305

18. Safire. 696.

19. Kennedy, John. "American Rhetoric: John F. Kennedy Address on the Space Program at Rice University".

20. Noonan, Peggy. On Speaking Well . 85-86.

21. Ibid. 83-84.

22. Ibid. 86.

23. Lopez-Cirugeda, Isabel, and Raquel Sanchez-Ruiz. "Persuasive Rhetoric in Barak Obama's Immigration Speech: Pre and Post-Electoral Strategies". 96.

24. Ibid. 95.

25. Obama, Barak. "Remarks by the President on Comprehensive Immigration Reform".

26. Brewer, Jan. "Governor Jan Brewer Address Upon Signing Arizona SB 1070"

27. " National Press Club Luncheon with Antonio Villaraigosa Mayor of Los Angeles"

28. "Improving Educational Choice and Competition; Keynote by Governor Bobby Jindal". The Brookings Institution.

29. Warren, Elizabeth. "Floor Speech on Minimum Wage Vote".

30. Cruz, Ted. "The Minimum Wage Act Hurts the Most Vulnerable Among Us".

31. Warren.

32. The Trust for Public Land. Advertisement.

33. McDonalds. Advertisement.

34. Corbett, Edward, P. J. and Robert Connors. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student . 409-411.

Comments (1)

Send us your comment

My Favorite Speeches for Rhetorical Analysis: 10 Speeches for Middle School ELA and High School English

Teaching rhetorical analysis is one of my absolute favorite units to complete with my students. I love teaching my students about rhetorical strategies and devices, analyzing what makes an effective and persuasive argument, and reading critical speeches with my students. Here is a quick list of some of my favorite speeches for rhetorical analysis.

I absolutely LOVE teaching rhetorical analysis. I think it might be one of my favorite units to teach to my high school students. There are just so many different text options to choose from. Here is a list of some of my favorite speeches to include in my rhetorical analysis teaching unit.

10 Speeches for Teaching Rhetorical Analysis

1. the gettysburg address (abraham lincoln).

Some notable things to mention in this speech include allusion and parallel structure. To make your analysis more meaningful, point out these devices to students and explain how these devices enhance the meaning of the text.

Teaching Resource : The Gettysburg Address Rhetorical Analysis Activity Packet

2. Lou Gehrig’s Farewell Speech (Lou Gehrig)

This speech is one that many of my athletes love to analyze, and it is an excellent exemplar text to teach pathos. And like The Gettysburg Address, it is short. This is another speech that you can read, analyze, and even write about in one class period.

When I use this speech in my class, I have students look for examples of pathos. Mainly, I have them look at word choice, tone, and mood. How does Lou Gehrig’s choice of words affect his tone and the overall mood of the speech?

3. I Have a Dream (Martin Luther King,  Jr.)

In the classroom, it is important to point out the sermonic feel to the speech and also to have your students look for calls to action and pathos. Have your students look for tone, allusions, and word choice to help them notice these rhetoric expressions throughout it.

Teaching Resource : I Have a Dream Close Read and Rhetorical Analysis

4. Speech at the March on Washington (Josephine Baker)

This is another important speech that held a lot of importance for the changes that needed to be made in America. The speech is a shorter one, so in the classroom, it will not take as long to analyze it, and students can understand the significance of the use of rhetoric in a shorter amount of time than some other speeches.

When teaching this speech, I like to remind my students to search for devices that portray an excellent example of the pathos that is so present in this speech. Some of these devices could be mood, repetition, and diction.

5. Steve Jobs’ Commencement Speech (Steve Jobs)

In class, it is good to have your students annotate and analyze the speech just as they have done for the others. The organization of the speech will help them to notice the similarities and differences between each point Jobs makes.

6. Space Shuttle Challenger (Ronald Reagan)

This speech represents a strong sense of pathos as a movement to help the American people cope with loss after the deaths of the astronauts aboard the Challenger. It is another speech that is not too long, so it should not take a long time to both analyze and annotate the entire speech.

When teaching this speech in class, be sure to mention how pathos is the driving force behind the speech, through the tone and the diction. How does Reagan use emotion to focus on the astronauts as humans, rather than solely focusing on the tragedy?

7. The Perils of Indifference (Elie Wiesel)

This speech is a good one to teach because it both makes students question their own lives, but also how the world works. The speech relies on pathos, and a little ethos too, to get the audience to feel the full effect of the tragedy of the Holocaust and what the speaker went through. It is a long speech so it may take longer for the students to fully grasp all the details that make it such a persuasive speech.

When I teach this speech, I like to have students annotate every place they notice an example of pathos, and then have them explain why in their annotations this makes them feel an emotion. The same with the ethos, and then we can further analyze the rest together.

8. 9/11 Address to the Nation (George W. Bush)

This speech shows another example of the use of pathos in the midst of a tragedy. The President wanted to show the American people how much he was feeling for those lost in the tragedy of 9/11. It is not a long speech, but the amount of emotion within the words is significant for students to notice.

When teaching this speech, it is essential that students look very closely at each part of it, noticing each piece that reveals tone, mood, and other literary devices. How do the different devices add to the pathos of the speech?

FREE TEACHING ACTIVITY : September 11 Address to the Nation Sampler

Teaching Resource : September 11 Address to the Nation Rhetorical Analysis Unit

9. We are Virginia Tech (Nikki Giovanni)

This speech is probably the shortest speech on this list but provides one of the most emotional and pathos-filled rhetoric. This describes another tragedy that is spoken about with pathos to give the audience a safe feeling after such an emotional thing. Students can spend time analyzing the different devices that make the piece so strong in its emotion.

In the classroom, make sure your students make a note of the repetition, and what that does for the speech. Does it make the emotion more impactful? How does it make the audience feel like they are a part of something bigger?

10. Woman’s Right to the Suffrage (Susan B. Anthony)

This is another short speech that holds a lot of power within it. A lot of students will enjoy reading this to see how much the country has changed, and how this speech may have some part in influencing this change. It is a great speech to help teach logos in the classroom, and it will not take a long time to analyze.

Make sure your students notice, and they also understand, the use of allusions within the speech. These allusions help to establish the use of logos, as Anthony wants the use of American historical documents to show how logical her argument is.

Ready-For-You Rhetorical Analysis Teaching Unit

You might also be interested in my blog post about 15 rhetorical analysis questions to ask your students.

Teaching rhetorical analysis and speeches in the classroom is a great way to teach informational text reading standards.

Rhetorical Analysis Teaching Resources:

These resources follow reading standards for informational text and are ideal for secondary ELA teachers.

• Rhetorical Analysis Unit with Sticky Notes
• Ethos, Pathos, Logos: Understanding Rhetorical Appeals\
• Rhetorical Analysis Mini Flip Book

Join the Daring English Teacher community!

Subscribe to receive freebies, teaching ideas, and my latest content by email.

I won’t send you spam. Unsubscribe at any time.

Built with ConvertKit

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Mandelian Rhetoric: An Analysis of Nelson Mandela' s Political Speeches

• February 2015
• Linguistics and Literature Studies 3(2):61-69

• Shri Mata Vaishno Devi University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Nighat Khurshid
• Fauzia Janjua
• Fouzia Janjua

• J Charteris-Black
• J Wenzlawski
• Ezra Palmer
• Charteris-Black
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

• Ragan Training
• Writing Center
• Leadership Council
• PR Daily Pro

10 rhetorical devices used in political messages

Though some speech devices are obvious to spot during election season, many are more obscure. How many of these do you recognize?

In an election year, it’s tough to tune out all the pervasive and invasive political messaging.

It’s on social media, newsfeeds, TV, radio, pop-up ads that you can’t close fast enough. Although I’m not particularly interested in politics, I am intrigued by the ways candidates use rhetorical devices in their messages.

Many of us are familiar with the more common rhetorical devices, such as hyperbole, allusion and analogy; others are more obscure. Next time you hear a political message, see if you detect any of these rhetorical devices.

RELATED: Speechwriters, join our new LinkedIn group and meet the world’s best executive communicators. Get FREE tips and strategies, too.

1. Allusion— an indirect or casual reference to a historical or literary figure, event or object.

Example: I guess we’re all waiting for a Mr. Darcy to come along.

2. Antiphrasis— the use of a word opposite to its proper meaning; irony.

Example: Sheila quietly yelled at Scott for not telling her about the system outage.

3. Apophasis— accentuating something by denying that it will be mentioned.

Become a Ragan Insider member to read this article and all other archived content.

Log in here. --> Already a member? Log in here. Learn more about Ragan Insider.

Enter the email you used in your Ragan store purchase.

Ragan.com Daily Headlines

Sign up to receive the latest articles from Ragan.com directly in your inbox.

Not a member? Join now.

Create Account

Setup password.

Advertisement

Supported by

Trump’s Dire Words Raise New Fears About His Authoritarian Bent

The former president is focusing his most vicious attacks on domestic political opponents, setting off fresh worries among autocracy experts.

• Share full article

By Michael C. Bender and Michael Gold

Donald J. Trump rose to power with political campaigns that largely attacked external targets, including immigration from predominantly Muslim countries and from south of the United States-Mexico border.

Listen to This Article

But now, in his third presidential bid, some of his most vicious and debasing attacks have been leveled at domestic opponents.

During a Veterans Day speech, Mr. Trump used language that echoed authoritarian leaders who rose to power in Germany and Italy in the 1930s, degrading his political adversaries as “vermin” who needed to be “rooted out.”

“The threat from outside forces,” Mr. Trump said, “is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.”

This turn inward has sounded new alarms among experts on autocracy who have long worried about Mr. Trump’s praise for foreign dictators and disdain for democratic ideals. They said the former president’s increasingly intensive focus on perceived internal enemies was a hallmark of dangerous totalitarian leaders.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .