Luận án Các chiến lược thuyết phục trong các bài diễn văn tranh cử tổng thống trên bình diện phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán
Political discourse has been the prolific research land on account of their great significance. According to van Dijk (1997), political discourse analysis could potentially make much contribution to political science in giving genuine answers to political questions. Prominently, Fairclough (1995) demonstrated an approach to considering political discourse as a contribution to the development of critical discourse analysis, highlighting political discourse as essentially a form of argumentation to come up with eventual political decisions. In politics, although both argumentation and persuasion are defined as a “non-violent linguistic tool to perform as a cognitive pattern of problem-solving” (Wodak, 2018) or any attempt that uses logic to incite a person to take action or to change an opinion or belief, the study targets at persuasion spreading persuasive strategies instead of argumentation only. The root cause for such a choice was the fact that persuasion is considered to be a call to action that is also based on appealing to emotion and feeling (Fernandez-Ulloa, 2019), which also matches the study’s focus of touching all three rhetorical pillars in persuasion (logic, credibility and emotions) (Aristotle, 1984). Besides, among various approaches to political discourse analysis, the study is grounded on Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the primary approach to reach its ultimate aim of investigating into the use of persuasive strategies employed in political discourse. More specifically, the discourses in the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign are chosen to be under discussion at length since this particular campaign sparked considerably intense speeches and strong divided political ideologies from the two candidates: Donald Trump, a political outsider and businessman with no prior experience in government, representing the Republican Party, and Hillary Clinton, a former Secretary of State, representing the Democratic Party. Accordingly, their hidden ideologies and power being used as a way to win the listeners’ votes and endorsement are expected to be displayed eventually, entailing the employed persuasive strategies to achieve their ultimate goal of becoming the president of America. To comprehensively uncover the persuasive techniques and its lexico- grammatical features employed in political speeches, such primary research approaches as CDA (Fairclough, 1995, 2010) utilizing the exploration of ideologies disguised underneath political discourse, along with the Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG) (Halliday, 2004, 2014) to unveil the metafunctions in the persuasive strategies and Aristotle (1984)’s theory of persuasion to assist the classification of the persuasive strategies found, are necessarily taken into consideration. In fact, many scholars have delved into various research areas on the election speeches delivered by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump from different angles of CDA, Discourse Analysis to Functional Grammar. However, most of the studies are merely restricted within the feature analysis of wordings and structures of the speeches, but hardly have they developed a comparison between the speeches given by different candidates from the facet of metafunctions and rhetoric strategies highlighting strategies of persuasion from the light of CDA or hardly dug into the reasoning or argumentation between the two politicians. This makes the study on these features in their political speeches given by presidential candidates Clinton and Trump in their 2016 election campaign even more vital. In a word, the rationale for this piece of research on the persuasive strategies of election speeches of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump could be presented as follows.
Bạn đang xem trước 20 trang tài liệu Luận án Các chiến lược thuyết phục trong các bài diễn văn tranh cử tổng thống trên bình diện phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán, để xem tài liệu hoàn chỉnh bạn click vào nút DOWNLOAD ở trên
THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES
NGUYEN THI THANH THANH
PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH POLITICAL
SPEECHES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
DOCTORAL THESIS
IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
DANANG - 2023
THE UNIVERSITY OF DANANG
UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE STUDIES
NGUYEN THI THANH THANH
PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES IN ENGLISH POLITICAL
SPEECHES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE
OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
Major: ENGLISH LINGUISTICS
Code: 9220201
DOCTORAL THESIS
IN SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES
DANANG - 2023
i
STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP
Except where the reference is indicated, no other person’s work has been used
without due acknowledgement in the text of the dissertation.
This dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any degree of
diploma in any other tertiary institution.
Da Nang, June, 2023
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First and foremost, I am greatly indebted to my supervisors for their
continuous support and conscientious supervision. I wish to express my deep
gratitude to Dr. Ngũ Thiện Hùng and Dr. Lê Thị Giao Chi for their kindness of giving
me useful feedback, constant encouragement to help me to conquer every demanding
stage of the doctoral research. Thus, my supervisors fire up my confidence,
determination in accomplishing the thesis.
I owe my sincere thanks to Assoc. Prof. Dr. Phan Văn Hòa, Assoc. Prof. Dr.
Trần Hữu Phúc, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Thị Quỳnh Hoa, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Lưu Quý
Khương, Assoc.Prof. Dr. Trần Văn Phước, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Tất Thắng, Assoc.
Prof. Dr. Nguyễn Quang Ngoạn, Dr. Võ Thị Kim Anh, and Dr. Huỳnh Ngọc Mai Kha
for their precious comments and encouragement throughout my process of writing the
paper.
I would like to thank the Department of Academic Affairs, University of
Foreign Language Studies for their support and facilitation with the paperwork
pertaining to this doctoral thesis.
Last but not least, I am very grateful to my family: my parents, my brother and
sister-in law, my three children and my husband. Especially, this dissertation could
not have been completed without the immense support of my husband, who has
always been encouraging me to achieve dissertation goals.
iii
ABSTRACT
Politics is a process of seeking group decisions by the distribution of power and
resources in order to put certain political, economic and social ideas into practice
(Bayram, 2010). It is hardly imagined that almost every political action is prepared,
accompanied, influenced and accomplished without the utilization of persuasive
strategies. The study on Persuasive Strategies in English Political Speeches from
the Perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis attempts to build up a comprehensive
picture of persuasion strategies in political discourse, especially contrasting political
stands of the two presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during
their 2016 Presidential campaign.
Methodologically, the study was designed as a descriptive comparative study
using qualitative method since the collected data was targeted to yield information
about the syntactic linguistic units in the form of sentences, phrases, clauses and
words. These were classified into their syntactic categories along with their semantic
functions, adopting Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) model (1995,
2010), Halliday’s Textual Analysis in Systemic Functional Grammar (2004, 2014) as
the grounding theories, assisted by rhetoric theory by Aristotle (1984) to unearth the
persuasive strategies employed by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in their
presidential election speeches. Accordingly, thanks to the contrastive analysis of the
persuasive strategies and the metafunctions utilized by the two politicians in 35
speeches, the thesis discovered that both politicians presented their different political
stands and ideologies over various issues. Although Hillary Clinton and Donald
Trump deeply reflected their tremendous love, patriotism and loyalty for their nation
through their presidential election speeches, they mostly showed their disagreement
on quite a large number of aspects manifested in six conflicting ideologies. The
current situation of the American society was, therefore, also concurrently portrayed
through the thesis findings. The dissertation, as briefly described above, is hoped to
entail significant contribution to research on both language and discourse concerning
persuasive strategies.
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Adm : Admiration
Aff : Affect
App : Appreciation
An : Anger
Cal : Calmness
CDA : Critical Discourse Analysis
Conf : Confidence
En : Envy
Enth : Enthymeme
E.g. : Example
Fe : Fear
Fr : Friendship
Gw : Goodwill
Ha : Hatred
Jud : Judgment
PIn : Perceived intelligence
SFG : Systemic Functional Grammar
VCh : Virtuous character
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1. Fairclough’s framework for analyzing a communicative event ............ 13
Figure 2.2. Applying Fairclough (1995, 2010)’s three-layered model to the
research...................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 2.3. Main structure of the appraisal framework, adapted from Martin and
White (2005) ............................................................................................................. 22
Figure 2.4. The sub-systems of Attitude Appraisal Martin and Rose (2007) ........... 22
Figure 2.5. Features of persuasion (Simon, 2001) .................................................... 28
Figure 2.6. Theoretical Framework of the Thesis ..................................................... 40
Figure 2.7. Conceptual Framework of the Thesis ..................................................... 41
Figure 3.1. A snapshot of Research Randomizer Software ...................................... 48
Figure 4.1. Ideational function in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ....................................... 73
Figure 4.2. Analysis of material process in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ........................ 73
Figure 4.3. Analysis of material process in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ........................ 74
Figure 4.4. Analysis of mental process in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos .......................... 75
Figure 4.5. Analysis of mental process in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos .......................... 76
Figure 4.6. Analysis of relational process in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ...................... 76
Figure 4.7. Topical theme of behavior in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ........................... 77
Figure 4.8. Topical theme of circumstance in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos .................... 78
Figure 4.9. Topical theme of time in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos .................................. 78
Figure 4.10. Interpersonal theme - Vocatives in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ................ 80
Figure 4.11. Ideational function in Hillary Clinton’s Logos .................................... 91
Figure 4.12. Analysis of material process in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ..................... 92
Figure 4.13. Analysis of material process in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ..................... 92
Figure 4.14. Analysis of mental process in Clinton’s Logos .................................... 93
Figure 4.15. Analysis of relational process in Clinton’s Logos ................................ 94
Figure 4.16. Interpersonal theme – Finite ................................................................. 95
Figure 4.17. Interpersonal theme – Mood adjuncts in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ....... 96
Figure 4.18. Vocatives in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ................................................... 97
Figure 4.19. Ideational function in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos .................................. 113
vi
Figure 4.20. Analysis of material process in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ................... 113
Figure 4.21. Analysis of mental process in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ..................... 114
Figure 4.22. Analysis of relational process in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ................. 115
Figure 4.23. Topical theme of behavior in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ...................... 116
Figure 4.24. Topical theme of circumstance in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos .............. 116
Figure 4.25. Topical theme of time in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ............................. 117
Figure 4.26. Vocatives in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ................................................ 118
Figure 5.1. Ideational Function in Donald Trump’s Ethos ..................................... 137
Figure 5.2. Analysis of material process in Donald Trump’s Ethos ....................... 138
Figure 5.3. Analysis of material process in Donald Trump’s Ethos ....................... 138
Figure 5.4. Analysis of mental process in Donald Trump’s Ethos ......................... 139
Figure 5.5. Analysis of relational process in Donald Trump’s Ethos ..................... 140
Figure 5.6. Topical theme of behavior in Donald Trump’s Ethos .......................... 141
Figure 5.7. Topical theme of circumstance in Donald Trump’s Ethos .................. 142
Figure 5.8. Topical theme of time in Donald Trump’s Ethos ................................. 143
Figure 5.9. Interpersonal theme - Vocatives in Donald Trump’s Ethos ................. 144
Figure 5.10. Ideational function in Donald Trump’s Logos ................................... 162
Figure 5.11. Analysis of material processes in Donald Trump’s Logos ................. 163
Figure 5.12. Analysis of mental process in Donald Trump’s Logos ...................... 163
Figure 5.13. Analysis of mental process in Donald Trump’s Logos ...................... 163
Figure 5.14. Analysis of relational process in Donald Trump’s Logos .................. 164
Figure 5.15. Analysis of relational process in Donald Trump’s Logos .................. 164
Figure 5.16. Topical theme of circumstance in Donald Trump’s Logos ................ 165
Figure 5.17. Topical theme of time in Donald Trump’s Logos .............................. 166
Figure 5.18. Ideational function in Donald Trump’s Pathos .................................. 186
Figure 5.19. Analysis of material process in Donald Trump’s Pathos ................... 186
Figure 5.20. Analysis of mental process in Donald Trump’s Pathos ...................... 187
Figure 5.21. Analysis of mental process in Donald Trump’s Pathos ...................... 187
Figure 5.22. Analysis of mental process in Donald Trump’s Pathos ...................... 188
Figure 5.23. Analysis of mental process in Donald Trump’s Pathos ...................... 189
vii
Figure 5.24. Topical theme of circumstance in Donald Trump’s Pathos .............. 189
Figure 5.25. Topical theme of time in Donald Trump’s Pathos ............................. 191
Figure 6.1. Ethos’s features in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s political
speeches ................................................................................................................... 194
Figure 6.2. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Ethos ................... 196
Figure 6.3. Ideational function in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Ethos ... 199
Figure 6.4. Topical theme of behavior in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s
Ethos ........................................................................................................................ 200
Figure 6.5. Topical theme of time in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s
Ethos ........................................................................................................................ 200
Figure 6.6. Topical theme of circumstance in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump
’s Ethos .................................................................................................................... 201
Figure 6.7. Interpersonal theme - Vocatives in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald
Trump’s Ethos ......................................................................................................... 201
Figure 6.8. Logos’s features in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s political
speeches ................................................................................................................... 202
Figure 6.9. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Logos .................. 203
Figure 6.10. Ideational function in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Logos 206
Figure 6.11. Interpersonal theme – Finite in Hillary Clinton’s Logos .................... 207
Figure 6.12. Interpersonal theme – Finite in Donald Trump’s Logos .................... 207
Figure 6.13. Vocatives in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ................................................. 208
Figure 6.14. Pathos in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s political speeches . 209
Figure 6.15. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Pathos ............... 210
Figure 6.16. Ideational function in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Pathos213
Figure 6.17. Topical theme of circumstance in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald
Trump’s Pathos ....................................................................................................... 214
Figure 6.18. Topical theme of time in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s Pathos
................................................................................................................................. 215
Figure 6.19. Vocatives in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ................................................ 216
Figure 6.20. Voters’ views on Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump according to
CBS NEWS’s poll ................................................................................................... 232
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1. Ethos in Hillary Clinton’s political speeches ........................................... 56
Table 4.2. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ........................................................ 59
Table 4.3. Positive Affect in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ............................................... 62
Table 4.4. Negative Affect in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ............................................. 66
Table 4.5. Judgement in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ...................................................... 68
Table 4.6. Appreciation in Hillary Clinton’s Ethos .................................................. 70
Table 4.7. Logos in Hillary Clinton’s political speeches .......................................... 81
Table 4.8. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ........................................................ 83
Table 4.9. Positive Affect in Hillary Clinton’s Logos .............................................. 85
Table 4.10. Negative Affect in Hillary Clinton’s Logos........................................... 87
Table 4.11. Judgement in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ................................................... 89
Table 4.12. Appreciation in Hillary Clinton’s Logos ............................................... 90
Table 4.13. Pathos in Hillary Clinton’s political speeches ....................................... 98
Table 4.14. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ................................................... 101
Table 4.15. Positive Affect in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ......................................... 102
Table 4.16. Negative Affect in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ........................................ 107
Table 4.17. Judgement in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ................................................ 109
Table 4.18. Appreciation in Hillary Clinton’s Pathos ............................................. 111
Table 5.1. Ethos in Donald Trump’s political speeches ........................................ 120
Table 5.2. Modality in Donald Trump’s Ethos ....................................................... 123
Table 5.3. Positive Affect in Donald Trump’s Ethos .............................................. 125
Table 5.4. Negative Affect Donald Trump’s Ethos ................................................ 129
Table 5.5. Judgement in Donald Trump’s Ethos .................................................... 131
Table 5.6. Appreciation in Donald Trump’s Ethos ................................................. 134
Table 5.7. Logos in Donald Trump’s political speeches......................................... 145
Table 5.8. Distribution of modality in Donald Trump’s Logos .............................. 147
Table 5.9. Positive Affect in Donald Trump’s Logos ............................................. 149
Table 5.10. The summary of negative Affect in Donald Trump’s Logos ............... 152
ix
Table 5.11. Judgement in Donald Trump’s Logos.................................................. 155
Table 5.12. Appreciation in Donald Trump’s Logos .............................................. 159
Table 5.13. Pathos in Donald Trump’s political speeches ...................................... 167
Table 5.14. Modality in Donald Trump’s Pathos .................................................... 173
Table 5.15. Positive Affect in Donald Trump’s Pathos .......................................... 174
Table 5.16. Negative Affect in Donald Trump’s Pathos......................................... 176
Table 5.17. Judgement in Donald Trump’s Pathos ................................................. 178
Table 5.18. Appreciation in Donald Trump’s Pathos ............................................. 182
Table 6.1. Persuasive strategies employed in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald
Trump’s political speeches ...................................................................................... 193
Table 6.2. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Ethos .................... 195
Table 6.3. Affect in Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s Ethos ........................... 197
Table 6.4. Judgement Appraisal in the Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s
Ethos ........................................................................................................................ 198
Table 6.5. Appreciation Appraisal in Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Ethos
................................................................................................................................. 198
Table 6.6. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Logos ................... 203
Table 6.7. Affect in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Logos ........................ 204
Table 6.8. Judgement in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Logos ................ 205
Table 6.9. Appreciation in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Logos ............. 205
Table 6.10. Modality in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Pathos ................ 210
Table 6.11. Affect in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Pathos ..................... 211
Table 6.12. Judgement in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Pathos .............. 212
Table 6.13. Appreciation in Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Pathos .... Error!
Bookmark not defined.
Table 6.14. Positioning Text production in the Communicative Context –
Interpretation Stage ................................................................................................. 218
Table 6.15. Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Promises on the Economy ..... 224
Table 6.16. Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Promises on Terrorism .......... 225
Table 6.17. Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Promises on Military ............. 226
Table 6.18. Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Promises on Immigration ...... 227
x
Table 6.19. Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Promises on Healthcare ......... 228
Table 6.20. Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Promises on Gun Policy ........ 229
Table 6.21. Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Promises on Education .......... 230
T
Các file đính kèm theo tài liệu này:
luan_an_cac_chien_luoc_thuyet_phuc_trong_cac_bai_dien_van_tr.pdf- 2. TOM TAT - ENG.pdf
- 3. TOM TAT - VN.pdf
- 4. APPENDIX.pdf
- 5. TRÍCH YẾU LUẬN ÁN TIẾN SĨ.pdf
- QD 1879 HD LUAN AN CAP TRUONG - THANH THANH.pdf
