Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack Obama's 2012 Speeches: Views from Systemic Functional Linguistics and Rhetoric

Abstract

In the light of Halliday's Ideational Grammatical Metaphor, Rhetoric and Critical Discourse Analysis, the major objectives of this study are to investigate and analyze Barack Obama's 2012 five speeches, which amount to 19383 words, from the point of frequency and functions of Nominalization, Rhetorical strategies, Passivization and Modality, in which we can grasp the effective and dominant principles and tropes utilized in political discourse. Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis frameworks based on a Hallidayan perspective are used to depict the orator's deft and clever use of these strategies in the speeches which are bound up with his overall political purposes. The results represent that nominalization, parallelism, unification strategies and modality have dominated in his speeches.There are some antithesis, expletive devices as well as passive voices in these texts. Accordingly, in terms of nominalization, some implications are drawn for political writing and reading, for translators and instructors entailed in reading and writing pedagogy.

What Lies Underneath a Political Speech?: Critical Discourse Analysis of Thai PM’s Political Speeches Aired on the TV Programme Returning Happiness to the People

“…He is, however, heavily criticised locally for being an 'authoritarian' speaker as shown by the informational, deontically modalised and dialogically contractive speeches he delivers to communicate his government's policies and report on actions done. Unlike the catchy and snappy speeches of the wellknown democratic world leaders such as former US President Barack Obama (see Kazemian & Hashemi 2014), there were not a lot of rhetoric strategies or persuasive linguistic techniques such as Parallelism, Antithesis and Expletive, Unification and Cohesivation found in Gen Prayuth's speeches.…”

Representation of Gender Through Framing: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Selected Speeches

“…In surveying the recent annals of literature, some other considerable studies have also inspected various political, advertisement, media etc. discourses in light of CDA to discern multiple strategies utilized by orators and political pundits and to show how language users make the text/talk persuasive, significant, appealing and obscure, as well as how they convey their intended objectives to the audience (Kazemian & Hashemi, 2014Ali, Kazemian & Bughio, 2015;Amoli, 2016;Carreon & Svetanant, 2017;Gill & Kausar, 2017). Prior studies have tended to concentrate on some other…”

Principles, Theories and Approaches to Critical Discourse Analysis

“…It follows from this to argue that Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) plays a crucial role in critical discourse study. As claimed by Kazemian & Hashemi (2014), "strong interdisciplinary bonds exist between SFL and CDA" (p.1179). Endorsing that claim, Widdowson (2004) asserts that CDA generally takes its descriptive bearings from Systemic Functional Grammar, while Fairclough (2003) sustains that SFL is "a valuable resource for CDA, and indeed major contributions to CDA have developed out of SFL" (p.5).…”

“…Van Dijk (2003) regards CDA as a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context. For Kazemian & Hashemi (2014), CDA is an interdisciplinary analytical viewpoint which looks into the relationship between power and discourse, and particularly it investigates the way in which authority, dominance and social inequality are constructed, sustained, reproduced and resisted in the discourse of written texts and spoken words. Fairclough (1995) rather provides a quite lengthy definition to the concept:…”