A RHETORICAL AND COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE VICTORY SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
JoLIE 3/2010
A RHETORICAL AND COMPARATIVE STUDY
OF THE VICTORY SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA AND
MIRCEA GEOANĂ
Silvia Irimiea
Babeş Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Abstract
The present study sets out to examine the political discourses of two presidential
candidates, Barack Obama and Mircea Geoană (the Romanian Social Democrat party
leader), in a comparative study which also seeks to remind the reader of the overwhelming
and manipulative influence of both PR and media on society.
As an interdisciplinary insight, the present analytical study was built on linguistic
concepts like: genre, (political) discourse, politics and democratic overtones, and
psychological contributions to civil political speech. The scholars and researchers whose
remarkable works informed the present inquiry are: Bhatia (1993); Swales (1981, 1985,
1990); Bakhtin (1981, 1986); Bitzer (1968); Devitt (2004); Fairclough (2003); Jamieson
(1975), Miller (1984); Charaudeau & Maingueneau (2002); Johnson, David & Johnson,
Roger (2000). The primary sources used for the analysis of speeches were: Carr (2010),
The Pew Research Centre’s data and online newspaper articles.
The two discourses looked at in the study are: Obama’s Victory speech presented
in Chicago on 5th November 2008 and the Romanian presidential candidate’s (Mircea
Geoană’s) eight-minute speech of his delusive glory delivered on the night of the elections,
when he falsely declared himself the elect president. Whereas Obama’s speech turned out
to be a model speech, which will continue to instigate to further rhetorical inquiries in the
decades to come, Geoană’s speech, which looked pathetically thin and followed Obama’s
speech very closely in several respects, soon fell into oblivion.
After a brief discussion of political discourse in general, the study focuses on the
rhetorical convergence of issues in other American presidential election speeches,
illustrated by the 2000 presidential elections which opposed G.W. Bush to Al Gore, each
allegedly standing for the same cause but representing different positions and strategies.
The study then pursues an analysis of the two discourses or genre texts (Obama’s and
Geoană’s) along Halliday’s concepts of field, mode and tenor. It equally undertakes to
highlight the similarities of the two speeches and to interpret the collected data. Next, the
study moves on to an in-depth examination of what makes the two speeches resemble each
other so much, starting with the delivery moment and ending up with the promises of the
new administration and the final wish, whereby every quotation of the rhetorical ‘import’
phenomenon is commented on.
The findings reveal that Obama’s speech exerted a great influence on Geoană’s
oratorical performance. However, the study does not attempt to cast any doubts on
Geoană’s rhetorical skills, nor to praise the uniqueness of his speech. Finally, it does not
come as a surprise that the Romanians who were unaware of the monumental American42 Silvia IRIMIEA
original held their candidate in high esteem and praised him as a caring, new president
who distinguished himself as a master of oratory.
Key words: Political discourse; Discourse analysis; Rhetorics; Rhetorical convergence;
Oratorical performance.
I. Introduction
The present study seeks to examine the political speeches of two outstanding
politicians, Barack Obama’s Victory speech and Mircea Geoană’s Victory speech,
in an attempt to find elements of convergence and prove the similarity thereof. The
study is carried out against the background of an interdisciplinary perspective,
which brings together linguistics (discourse and genre analyses), politics, political
studies and psychology.
The works that have informed the study belong to renowned linguists like
Bhatia (1993); Swales (1990); Bakhtin (1981, 1986); Bitzer (1968); Devitt (2004);
Fairclough (2003); Jamieson (1975); Miller (1984); Charaudeau, Maingueneau &
Adam (2002); Johnson & Johnson (2000), while the primary sources used for the
analysis of speeches were Carr (2008), and The Pew Research Centre’s data, and
the politics-related sources come from Foner, Hart, Lawrence Jacobs and Shapiro,
Leuchtenburg, Rodgers, and other scholars.
The study goes out from a discussion on political speech and its role in a
democracy, to the contribution of psychology, the main features of political speech,
areas of convergence in political speeches (illustrated by the speeches of Al Gore
and George W. Bush) and, finally, a Halliday-based analysis of the two speeches.
II. Political Speech in a Democracy: The Contribution of Psychology
Political speech was considered by Thomas Jefferson and the other founders of the
American Republic to be the heart of democracy. Jefferson thought that the basic
issues that influence a society should be spoken in a free discussion characterised
by conflict of ideas and opinions. Political speech usually involves all citizens in
the decision-making process, persuades others and shows what course of action is
most effective in solving the problems of the society. In a democracy, political
speech is regarded as a method of decision.
Jefferson and the other founders of the American Republic thought that
different positions in a political speech would increase the citizen’s understanding
of the problem. Each course of action was expected to receive a complete hearing
and to be analysed in order to reveal its strengths and weaknesses. James Madison
described political speech as including an open-minded consideration of other
points of view. These ideas or opinions about political speech shared by Jefferson,
Madison and the other founders of the United States democracy were grounded in
philosophy. In the book ‘The Spirit of Laws’ written by Baron Charles deA rhetorical and comparative study… 43
Montesquieu in 1748, the relationship between people and different forms of
government is made visible. Charles de Montesquieu argued that if a monarchy
survives on the loyalty of the people, a free republic survives on the virtue of the
people.
In a democratic society, psychology has the responsibility to socialise new
citizens into the attitudes they need in order to participate actively in political
speech. Psychology needs to formulate a theory which explains how political
speech operates and a normative procedure to help citizens to engage in political
speech, and maybe help a generation to participate in the political process. Since a
theory that helps citizens engage in politics focuses on constructive controversy,
political speech is a type of conflict known as controversy. Constructive
controversy is when one person’s information, ideas, opinions, conclusions are
incompatible with those of another and the two seek to reach an agreement.
The main role of political speech is to improve the cohesiveness of a
democracy, while controversy creates positive attitudes toward the advocates of
opposing positions. When citizens involve in political speech, their ability should
increase, and, in a constructive controversy, participation increases the participants’
experience and skills in doing so. Constructive controversy provides a normative
procedure based on a political speech theory validated by research.
III. Politics and Political Speech
When we think of politics, we think of it in terms of the fight for power aimed at
setting forth specific ideas and interests and putting them into practice. Equally,
politics is the process through which groups of people make decisions and is a
characteristic feature of all human group interactions, including academic and
religious institutions. Politics also refers to the regulation of a political unit and to
the methods and tactics used to formulate policy.
In politics, political speeches play an important role. We can differentiate
between internal and external political communication, depending on the setting
and the communicative partners involved. Internal political communication refers
to all forms of speech that concern the functioning of politics within political
institutions. External political communication, on the other hand, targets the
general public.
Political speech is the formal exchange of reasoned views on what courses
of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. Political speech is considered
an essential ingredient of a democracy and it has been used throughout the history
of the United States. It rests on the exposition/discussion of problems and use of
persuasion techniques. It is widely used in political debates, candidacies, even in
our everyday life, and its recognized purposes are: clarifying citizens’
understanding of an important issue, helping citizens reach their best reasoned
judgment as to which course of action will solve a problem (such as poverty, crime,
drug abuse), increasing citizen participation in the political process and socialising44 Silvia IRIMIEA
the next generation into the procedures and attitudes they need in order to
become active citizens. Political speech almost always involves problems and
solutions as main ingredients.
A political speech fulfils different functions determined by the underlying
political activities. Its topics are related to politics and may involve: political
activities, political ideas, political relations. Another characteristic feature of
political speech is that it is made for a wider public.
The speakers delivering political speeches are normally leading politicians,
who can speak to members of the same political group or to the whole nation.
Politicians, usually, do not deliver speeches as individuals, but rather as
representatives of political parties, governments, or nations.
The speakers are limited as political actors as to what they can do and say
and how. A political candidate should present valid and logical information
because this will enhance credibility. If a politician prepares his or her arguments
well, then the results will be the expected ones. Beside politicians, there are many
people who participate in political speech communities everyday and this happens
when they read political topics discussed in newspapers, on billboards or listen to
televised debates.
IV. Rhetorical Convergence in the 2000 Presidential Election Speeches
There are many citizens who agree that all politicians use the same words in their
political speeches and even if they want to look different, sometimes they use
similar arguments, similar terms to describe their policies and they may have even
the same purposes. Sometimes, politicians use rhetorical ambiguity, which is a
campaign strategy that may bring more votes, but which can, at the same time,
bring fewer votes as well. If the ideology of a candidate is stronger and more
interesting, then the candidate will win more voters on his side. In the 2000
campaign, Bush and Gore spoke about the same issues, including maintaining a
strong military, providing prescription drug coverage, strengthening social security
and increasing accountability in education, but each spoke in different ways about
how these targets will be accomplished.
Political analysts opinionated that Al Gore had an advantage on issues,
while George W. Bush had an advantage on personality. Regarding the latter’s
victory, The Baltimore Sun (October 24, 2000) argued that ‘negative attitudes
toward personality, which seem to be negating have perceived advantage on
issues.’ Gore lost the presidential campaign because the public did not understand
him well and because they were less informed. Regarding the two candidates’
rhetoric, the voters were still confused and this can be explained through the spatial
theory of voting. For example in 1996, Bill Clinton held a position between his
own party and the Republicans and this turned out to be a great strategy. In 2000
some scholars, including Jacobs and Shapiro (2000), argued that a candidate couldA rhetorical and comparative study… 45
win the race if he or she would use popular words and symbols to impress the
public. This is how Obama impressed an entire nation in 2009.
Many citizens share the view that politicians adopt some positions which
do not show conviction and there are moments when they change the words which
describe their positions. Pertaining to this, Jacobs and Shapiro (2000:7-8) explain
that ‘The irony of contemporary politics is that politicians both slavishly track
public opinion and, contrary to the myth of pandering, studiously avoid simply
conforming policy to what the public wants.’ In 2000 the two candidates said that
the polls did not have a great importance for them; for example, Gore argued that
he did not think they had all that much meaning and Bush explained that he did not
base his decisions on what polls and focus groups said. Bush and Gore paid more
attention to senior citizens, while education, prescription drugs for seniors and
social security became the most important issues for each candidate. In spite of the
fact that the two candidates had different plans and goals for these issues, the
rhetorical convergence of their advertising turned out advantageous for the voters.
It is obvious that Democrats are more supportive of government than
Republicans are and, usually, in their speeches Democrats speak about policy while
Republicans speak about principles. In the 2000 presidential campaign George W.
Bush criticised a lot the federal government speaking less about his plans for some
programs. In 1996 a survey showed that even if the voters paid less attention to the
election, the differences between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole on various issues were
clearer than the differences between Gore and Bush. For example, in 1996 in the
case of abortion 80 percent of voters believed that Bob Dole said that it was hard
for women to obtain abortions, while 14 percent believed that Bill Clinton favoured
such restrictions. In 2000, 61.1 percent of voters knew that Bush favoured
restricting abortion while 25.5 percent believed that Gore agreed.
However, in 2000 the major differences regarded the issue of death penalty
when Bush proved to be a better speaker on the issue. Moreover, in 2000 a survey
showed that 61 percent of voters believed that George W. Bush and Al Gore took
different positions on the issues. Another survey demonstrated that many voters
believed that the two candidates were moderate and fewer believed that they were
conservative. Many surveys also showed that citizens associated the two candidates
with the same ideological position and that most voters were aware of the
difference between the candidates and their parties, but that they were confused
about their issues.
Usually, political speech includes inductive arguments and moves from
specific facts to a general conclusion; for example, Gore began to speak about
specific environmental problems in Texas and then he finished his speech by
saying that he was unprepared to assume presidency.
In fact, the presidential campaigns have many functions and they do not
serve only to choose leaders but also to make the citizens think of their past and
their future. This tendency has been noted by Hart (2000: 8), who argues that
‘Every four years, the American nation reconstitutes itself, thereby giving its
citizens an opportunity to reflect on who they are and what they want to become’.46 Silvia IRIMIEA
If candidates mean what they say and want to continue the same policies, then
rhetorical convergence is not problematic, but this is a rare case in a presidential
campaign because the candidates and the press are about to ignore the issues on
which they do agree.
V. The Victory Speeches of Barack Obama and Mircea Geoană. A Halliday-
Based Discourse Analysis
Holding the American President in high esteem, Mircea Geoană expressed his
support for Obama before the latter was declared President. After Obama’s victory,
Geoană shared the internationally widespread enthusiasm over a new, strong and
powerful democratic leader. He valued the American President’s interest in health
care, an improved education policy, reducing the social inequalities and his
economic recovery strategy. Under the circumstances, it was expected that the
Romanian presidential candidate would draw his inspiration from the American
political model. Thus, following Obama’s model, Geoană proposed for the success
of his economic recovery plan the establishment of an Economic Recovery
Advisory Board, echoing the one founded on February 6, at the White House.
Not only were the political attitudes of the two candidates convergent, but
so were their victory speeches. The only main difference lies in the fact that Obama
was, eventually, victorious while Mircea Geoană falsely claimed victory. In the
following pages we shall focus our attention on the two speeches.
Context is a component that enables us to understand the underlying
features of a text, in this particular case a spoken one. We shall undertake an
analysis of the two speeches applying Halliday’s model, i.e. looking at the three
aspects which are assumed to have linguistic influences on discourse: field, mode
and tenor. Field stands for the language used to express a specific subject matter,
tenor accounts for the participants and their relationship, and mode refers to the
channel of communication (written, spoken or signed).A rhetorical and comparative study… 47
Variable Context of production Linguistic features of text
FIELD
Activity the participants are carrying Activity: victory speech of the newly The lexical sets show the topic the writer is
out OR topic of text. elected U.S. President. dealing with. One can notice the use of a
Hearer/ reader’s knowledge assumed political jargon: democracy, campaign, peace,
by the speaker/ writer (amount). The speaker assumes that the audience has security, liberty, government, policy. Beside
Linguistic features: knowledge of what he is talking about. these, there are a many words dealing with the
Sets of vbs. and nouns. social aspects: rich, poor, gay, black, workers,
Lexical sets show content area Latino, young people.
(activity or topic)? The way in which the President addresses the
Exclusion of outsiders (difficult whole nation is carefully thought out to include
terms/ jargon)? everyone, maintaining, at the same time, the
dignity of a great leader’s language.
TENOR
Relation speaker-writer: The power relation seems to be equal. The knowledge is stated as fact, given that the
power, contact, affective However, it is an interaction between a very President was irrevocably elected to represent
involvement. important political figure, the presidential the nation for several years.
Linguistic features: candidate of the U.S. (elected President) and There is an attitudinal lexis, as the speaker
+/- equality – power the American citizens. starts by thanking those who supported him, his
Knowledge: Contact: full. A new representative of the rival and all of the people who voted him or did
stated/negotiated entire American people was elected and he not. Furthermore, the example of the 106-year-
Attitudinal/ neutral lexis. speaks in the name of the whole Americans old African-American voter is filled with
Colloquial/ formal lexis. to all Americans. emotional content.
Vocatives? (roles, relations) It appears that there is affective/emotional
involvement, given by the emotion of the
victory and the commitment to the American
citizens.
MODE
Physical distance between interlocutors There is almost no spatial distance between It is a speech (thus, a monologue) with many
and possibilities of contact. interlocutors, as it is a speech held before a direct invitations made by the speaker.
Distance between the use of language numerous audience. Frequent use of the first person singular ‘I’,
and the activity (social process) it In what experiential distance is concerned, ‘my’, but also plural ‘we’, ‘our’. Moreover, the48 Silvia IRIMIEA
realises. language is used as reflection, when the speaker addresses the audience directly: ‘your’,
Language as action/reflection President talks about past occurrences, but it ‘you’.
Linguistic features: is also used as action, when he speaks about It is context independent, as it doesn’t contain
+/- spoken – written the courses of action to be taken. many deictic expressions. However, it and this
Monologue? appear in some places.
I/ you (invitation purpose)? Non-spontaneous: the speech has been clearly
Context dependent (deixis)? prepared beforehand. However, the fact that it
Spontaneous? is delivered in front of an audience gives it a
Lexical density/ light NPs. note of spontaneity.
With regard to grammar, one can notice that it
is standard and it is characterised by
simplicity.
Table 1. Analysis of Obama’s speech
Variable Context of production Linguistic features of text
FIELD
Activity the participants are carrying out Activity: victory speech of the candidate The lexical sets reflect the topic the speaker is
OR topic of text. who falsely assumes he was elected dealing with. Surprisingly, only a few key
Hearer/ reader’s knowledge assumed by President. words used belong to the political jargon:
the speaker/ writer (amount). democracy, government, crisis, political
Linguistic features: The speaker assumes that the audience has majority, programme, transition, unity. Some
Sets of vbs. and nouns. knowledge of what he is talking about. key words come from the social jargon:
Lexical sets show content area (activity or solidarity, harmony, fairness, youth, support,
topic)? work, while the remaining majority spring from
Exclusion of outsiders (difficult terms/ the common stock of words: tolerance,
jargon)? generosity, love, Christian, celebration. The
way in which the President addresses the whole
nation is carefully thought not to exclude
anybody, maintaining, at the same time, the tone
of the speech resembles that of great leader’s.A rhetorical and comparative study… 49
TENOR
Relation speaker-writer: The power relation tries to appear equal. The knowledge is stated as fact, given that the
power, contact, affective However, it is an interaction between a very politician is certain that he was elected
involvement. important political figure, the President of President.
Linguistic features: the U.S. and the Romanian citizens. There is an attitudinal lexis, as the speaker
+/- equality – power Contact: full. The candidate who thinks will starts by thanking all Romanian citizens, the
Knowledge: be the President of Romania addresses the former President, the parties’ leaders.
stated/negotiated people who elected him and those whose He confesses his nervousness and excitement at
Attitudinal/ neutral lexis. President he will be. one point and concludes by expressing his love
Colloquial/ formal lexis. It appears that there is affective towards the Romanian nation.
Vocatives? (roles, relations) involvement, given by the emotion of the
victory which he expresses several times. In
support for his involvement he uses the
expression ‘from my heart’.
MODE
Physical distance between interlocutors There is almost no spatial distance between It is a speech (thus, a monologue) with many
and possibilities of contact. interlocutors, as it is a speech held before a direct invitations from the part of the
Distance between the use of language large audience. speaker. Frequent use of the first person
and the activity (social process) it In what experiential distance is concerned, singular ‘I’, ‘my’, but also plural ‘we’, ‘our’.
realises. language is used as reflection, when the Moreover, he addresses directly the audience:
Language as action/reflection President talks about past occurrences, but it ‘your’, ‘you’.
Linguistic features: is also used as action, when he speaks about It is context independent, as it doesn’t contain
+/- spoken – written the courses of action to be taken. many deictic expressions. However, it and this
Monologue? appear in some places.
I/ you (invitation purpose)? Non-spontaneous: the speech has been clearly
Context dependent (deixis)? prepared beforehand. However, the fact that it is
Spontaneous? delivered in front of an audience gives it a note
Lexical density/ light NPs. of spontaneity.
With regard to grammar, one can notice that it is
standard and it is characterised by simplicity.
Table 2. Analysis of Geoană’s speech50 Silvia IRIMIEA
If we apply Halliday’s variables to our speeches/discourses, we barely notice any
differences, which testifies for the similarity of the speeches. The data collected in
the tables are briefly discussed below.
The genre (and the field) is that of political speech in both cases. As such,
it is a written text prepared to be read aloud or delivered in front of a larger or
smaller public. This already anticipates the twofold nature of the text: both written
and oral.
The lexical choices of both texts come from the same field, that of politics.
Obama’s speech takes in more words from the world of politics, such as:
government, policy, peace, security, campaign, some of which emerge in Geoană’s
text as well. The latter used words like: vote, campaign, president, political crisis,
nation. Words related to the social dimension of politics are traceable in both the
American Democrat’s discourse and in the Romanian Socialist-Democrat’s one:
young, old, rich, poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white etc vs old, young,
those from the countryside, the people from Romania, those outside its borders.
The manner in which both speakers address the issues is by no means very formal,
as they both wanted their message to reach out to an extremely broad audience and
be understood practically by every citizen.
The tenor of the two discourses reveals the power relations as equal
relations. Nevertheless, Obama speaks from his position of authority, and this is
accounted for by his impeccable posture, his careful and impressive choice of
words and his exquisite and confident tone. Geoană, on the other hand, is visibly
nervous, excited and he admits to this at one point. Thus, the emotional
involvement is more prominent and present in Geoană’s speech, in which he uses
such expressions as: ‘from my heart’, ‘I love you Romanians!’. Obama is more
restrained and self-controlled demonstrating thus his ability to be a true, confident,
strong, though sympathetic leader. He appeals to the listeners’ emotions when he
evokes the 106-year-old African American woman, who faced the most important
historical events of the 20th century and ended up casting her ballot for Obama in
2009. He appeals to the emotional feeling of his audience when, at the end of his
speech, he gives his presidential blessing to the Americans.
In what mode is concerned, the fact that both speeches are delivered in
front of large audiences (onsite and televised) gives them a special status. Spatial
distance is minimised to the fullest, and experiential distance translates through the
language used as reflection, while language itself becomes a social process.
However, the political component of the speeches determines the language to be
used as action when both leaders invite the citizens to cooperate with them in
fulfilling their tasks. The nature of political speech calls for the constant use of
‘subjective’ pronouns, i.e. first and second person pronouns. This linguistic
strategy narrows down the distance between the interlocutors, making the speaker a
friendlier figure to the listeners. Obama’s speech, even if it was presented as an
oral exercise, is clearly non-spontaneous, whereas Geoană’s speech seems to be
more of an ‘on the spot’ oral text, as this is visible from his lack of fluency and
coherence.A rhetorical and comparative study… 51
VI. A Further Analysis of Similarities
Following a more general interpretation of the speeches, let us take a closer look at
what makes the two speeches so alike. From the very beginning we can notice the
use of the ‘triple’ technique, a figure of speech that is recurrent in Obama’s speech
(‘Who still doubts, who still wonders and who still questions’, he then continues by
repeating the motif ‘answer’ three times: ‘It’s the answer’). Similarly, Geoană’s
speech contains the same structures repeated twice in his discourse: ‘Am avut
dreptate’ (‘We were right’) and ‘Victoria noastră’ (‘Our victory’). In the
introductory parts of both speeches the word ‘tonight’ has a particular significance.
(Obama: ‘Tonight is your answer’, Geoană: ‘E o noapte frumoasă…’/Tonight is a
beautiful night).
The next part of Obama’s speech is devoted to thanking. He thanks his
family, his campaign staff, the volunteers of his campaign and, ‘above all’, his
American citizens. ‘This is your victory’ are the words that he finishes this section
with. Mircea Geoană starts by thanking his party, staff, his closest political ally,
Crin Antonescu, and other supporters. What strikes as almost plagiarism is his deep
gratitude shown to his wife, two children, and finally to his grandmother, who was
watching him on TV, and his passed away father. Obama also refers to his passed
away grandmother and family.
What is different in the two speeches is the approach to the task ahead.
Obama warns about ‘the enormity of the task that lies ahead’ and the ‘challenges
that tomorrow will bring’, devoting many words to this subject. His emphasis is on
the importance of being realistic and active rather than on being optimistic and
hopeful. He urges the Americans to action: ‘So let us summon a new spirit of
patriotism… where each of us … look[s] after not only ourselves, but each other’.
Geoană follows the same trait: ‘Dar de mâine …începe munca adevărată’
(‘But tomorrow we’ll get down to real work’). He does not focus on the difficulty
of the task; instead, he is more concerned with his promise or commitment to stop
the political crisis that Romania is faced with. Nevertheless, Obama’s call for
action is traceable in the last part of Geoană’s speech, where he urges the
Romanians to be confident, win the others’ trust and show others the respect they
are entitled to.
Obama mentions the ones who didn’t vote him and those who didn’t grant
him their confidence. He turns to them in a diplomatic and moving way: ‘I hear
your voices, I need your help, and I will be your president, too’. Geoană pursues
the same idea: ‘Sunt preşedintele tuturor românilor şi îi voi trata [pe cei care nu m-
au votat] cu egal respect’ (‘I am the president of all Romanians, including those
who did not give me their ballots, and I will show them the same respect’).
Another example of convergence rests on the Romanian politician’s
quoting the Romanian values in the same way as Obama mentioned the American
values. The difference lies in the fact that the ones quoted by Geoană are not
representative for the Romanians, whereas those quoted by Obama are true
American values. In addition, the Romanian candidate to Presidency brings several52 Silvia IRIMIEA
social categories into discussion, claiming that he would make no difference.
Obama does this at the beginning of his discourse. Geoană takes up the American
President’s metaphor, and adapts it to the Romanian circumstances, speaking of a
very important religious holiday in Romania, i.e. Saint Nicholas’ Day. Last, but not
least, Geoană brings up in his discourse the presidential blessing, which is so
customary in the American presidents’ speeches.
VII. Conclusions
The last two sections have shown some aspects that account for the convergence of
the two Victory speeches. The study has used M.A.K. Halliday’s model to look
more closely at the two discourses and indicated a strong similarity in what the
three linguistic variables of field, tenor and mode are concerned. The only relevant
differences resulting from the analysis are related to the lexical choices linked to
the topics and the sections of the speeches. The study has moved beyond Halliday’s
model noting further similarities which were not transparent from the model.
The answer to the dichotomy convergence (or linguistic import) vs
creativity lies in the high esteem and appreciation that the Romanian politician has
had for the American leader, whom he drew his inspiration from. We cannot blame
Geoană for plagiarism, since Geoană departed from the American model in respect
of the organisation of his speech and the approached topics. However, the great
influence that the American model exerted on him is indisputable and
overwhelming. Furthermore, for the Romanian simple-minded citizens who have
not heard or studied Obama’s monumental presidential speech, Geoană’s discourse
may have had a powerful effect portraying him as a caring, new president who
possesses oratorical skills.
References
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin and London:
University of Texas Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin Tx: University of Texas
Press.
Bhatia, V.K. (1993). Analysing genre. London: Longman.
Brady, H. & Sniderman, P. (1985). Attitude attribution: A group basis for political
reasoning. American Political Science Review, 79, 1061-1078.
Bitzer, L.F. (1968). The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1(1), 1‐14.
Carr, D. (2008, November 9). How Obama tapped into social networks’ power. NY Times
Retrieved January 29, 2010, from
http://nytimes.com/2008/11/10/business/media/10carr.html.A rhetorical and comparative study… 53 Charaudeau, P., Maingueneau, D., & Adam, J. (2002). Dictionnaire d’analyse du discours. Paris: Seuil. Devitt, A.J. (2004). A theory of genre. Writing genres. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Elder, C.D. & Cobb, R.W. (1983). The political use of symbols. New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. (1995). Media Discourse. London: Arnold. Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. Abingdon and New York: Routledge. Foner, E. (1994). The meaning of freedom in the age of emancipation. Journal of American History, 81 (September 1994), 435-60. Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1989). Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: OUP. Hart, R. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jacobs, L., & Shapiro, R. (2000). Politicians don't pander: Political manipulation and the loss of democratic responsiveness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Jamieson, K.M. (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 406‐415. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2000). Civil political discourse in a democracy: The contribution of psychology. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 6(4), 291- 317. Retrieved May 3, 2000, from http//www.co-operation.org/pages/contro-pol.html. Leuchtenburg, W.E. (1988). Franklin D. Roosevelt: The first modern president. In F.I. Greenstein (Ed.), Leadership in the modern presidency. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-67. Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence (October 22, 2008). Winning the media campaign. Retrieved January 29, 2010, from http://www.journalism.org/analysis_report/winning_media_campaign. Rodgers, D.T. (1987). Contested truths: Keywords in American politics since independence. New York: Basic Books. Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. West, P. (October 24, 2000). For Gore, a battle for green territory Pacific Northwest is cool to reputed environmentalist. The Baltimore Sun, p.1.A.
You can also read
