An analysis of rhetorical devices in hillary clinton’s speeches from systemic functional perspective

VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI
UNIVERSITY OF LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

FACULTY OF POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHẠM THỊ MINH PHƯƠNG

AN ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL DEVICES IN
HILLARY CLINTON'S SPEECHES FROM
SYSTEMIC FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE

PHÂN TÍCH CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN TU TỪ TRONG
DIỄN THUYẾT CỦA HILLARY CLINTON THEO
QUAN ĐIỂM CHỨC NĂNG HỆ THỐNG

M.A. THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201

Hà Nội - 2017
1


VIETNAM NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, HANOI UNIVERSITY OF
LANGUAGES AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES FACULTY OF
POST-GRADUATE STUDIES

PHẠM THỊ MINH PHƯƠNG

AN ANALYSIS OF RHETORICAL

DEVICES IN HILLARY CLINTON'S
SPEECHES FROM SYSTEMIC
FUNCTIONAL PERSPECTIVE
PHÂN TÍCH CÁC PHƯƠNG TIỆN TU TỪ
TRONG DIỄN THUYẾT CỦA HILLARY CLINTON
THEO QUAN ĐIỂM CHỨC NĂNG HỆ THỐNG

M.A. THESIS

Field: English Linguistics
Code: 60220201
Supervisor: Ph. D. NguyễnThị Minh Tâm

Hà Nội - 2017
2


CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
I, the undersigned, hereby certify my authority of the study project report entitled
―An analysis of rhetorical devices in Hillary Clinton‘s speeches from systemic
functional perspective‖ submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Master in English Linguistics. Except where the reference is indicated, no
other person‘s work has been used without due acknowledgement in the text of the
thesis.
Hanoi, 2017
Approved by
SUPERVISOR

Date:

i


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the help and support from
a number of people.
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Ph.D.
Nguyen Thi Minh Tam, my supervisor, who has patiently and constantly supported
me through the stages of the study, and whose stimulating ideas, expertise, and
suggestions have inspired me greatly through my growth as an academic researcher.
I am greatly indebted to my lecturers in both under-graduate and postgraduate faculties at our University for their precious lectures in linguistics which
help me to have the basic and necessary knowledge to carry out this study.
Last but not least, a special word of thanks to my family members who gave
me great encouragement, my friends and my colleagues who were willing to share
my heavy workload at school so that I could invest my time to this academic work.

ii


ABSTRACT
This study analyzes the use of rhetorical devices in Hillary Clinton‘s
speeches. The analytical framework of the study is adapted from So (2005) which
synthesizes Tribble‘s (2002) framework with the SFL‘s notion of metafuntion of
language. The data of the research contain ten Hillary Clinton‘s speeches from 2010
to 2016. Both the quantitative and qualitative methods are adopted to analyze the
data. It gives a sufficient analysis of the factual data of the phenomena and provides
a logical and rational interpretation based on relevant theories. The results show that
in certain contextual factors, five rhetorical devices including metonymy, repetition,
irony, metaphor, and parallelism are exerted; and two last listed devices are
employed the most frequently. The use of five rhetorical devices not only

contributes to creative expression of message but also boosts up persuasive effects
on the audience.

iii


TABLE OF CONTENT
CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY.............................................................................................. i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................................... iii
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................................ vi
TABLES................................................................................................................................................ vii
FIGURES.............................................................................................................................................. vii
PART A: INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................. 1
1.Rationale............................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Scope of the study............................................................................................................................ 2
3. Aims and objectives of the study............................................................................................... 3
4. Research questions.......................................................................................................................... 3
5. Methods of the study...................................................................................................................... 3
6. Significance of the study............................................................................................................... 3
7. Structure of the study..................................................................................................................... 4
PART B: DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND.................................................................. 6
1.1

Rhetorical devices in Systemic Functional Linguistics Approach.........................6

1.1.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics.......................................................................................... 6
1.1.2 Rhetorical devices................................................................................................................... 13
1.1.3.Rhetorical devices in Traditional vs SFL....................................................................... 21

1.2.Political Speech........................................................................................................................... 22
1.3 Review of previous studies..................................................................................................... 23
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY............................................................................................... 25
2. 1 Data and instrument.................................................................................................................. 25
2.1.1 Data source................................................................................................................................ 25
2.1.2 Data collection procedures.................................................................................................. 26
2.2 Analytical framework of rhetorical devices in SFL...................................................... 27
2.3 Pilot study...................................................................................................................................... 29
2.4 Research methods....................................................................................................................... 30
iv


2.5 Data analysis procedures......................................................................................................... 30
CHAPTER 3: FINDING AND DISCUSSION....................................................................... 32
3.1.FINDING....................................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.1.Overview.................................................................................................................................... 32
3.1.2 Realization of rhetorical devices in ten chosen speeches........................................ 35
3.1.3 Frequency of rhetorical devices in three periods........................................................ 38
3.1.4 Realization of rhetorical devices in the period of secretarial term of office.. .39
3.1.5 Realization of rhetorical devices in the period of retirement................................. 41
3.1.6 Realization of rhetorical devices in the period of presidential campaign. ........43
3.1.7 Realization of rhetorical devices in each speech........................................................ 45
3.2.Discussion...................................................................................................................................... 63
3.2.1.Answer to Question 1............................................................................................................ 63
3.2.2.Answer to Question 2............................................................................................................ 65
PART C: CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 74
1.Summary of findings..................................................................................................................... 74
2.Implications of the study............................................................................................................. 76
3.Limitations of the study............................................................................................................... 77
4.Suggestions for further studies.................................................................................................. 78

REFERENCES.................................................................................................................................... 79
APPENDIX.............................................................................................................................................. I
Appendix 1............................................................................................................................................... I
Appendix 2........................................................................................................................................ XXI
Appendix 3.................................................................................................................................. XXXV
Appendix 4............................................................................................................................................ LI
Appendix 5..................................................................................................................................... LXIV
Appendix 6.............................................................................................................................. LXXVIII
Appendix 7...................................................................................................................................... XCII
Appendix 8.......................................................................................................................................... CX
Appendix 9............................................................................................................................... CXXVII
Appendix 10................................................................................................................................. CXLII

v


ABBREVIATIONS
No

Words

1

Systemic Functional Linguistics

2

The year of the speech_Speech, the

number of the speech in the same year

vi


TABLES
No

Tables
1

The contextual analysis

2

The content analysis of rhetorical devi

FIGURE
No

Figures
1

Model of language

2

Genre, register and language

3

The adapted classification of rhetorica

4

The relationship between contextual
analysis

5

Rhetorical devices in Hillary‘s two spe

6

Analysis of rhetorical devices ten spee

7

Analysis of context of ten speeches

8

Frequency of rhetorical devices in thre

9

Rhetorical devices in secretarial term o

10

Analysis of context

11

Rhetorical devices in retirement

12

Analysis of context

13

Rhetorical devices in presidential cam


14

Analysis of context

15

Rhetorical devices in 2010_S1

16

Analysis of context

17

Rhetorical devices in 2011_S1

18

Analysis of context

vii


19 Rhetorical devices in 2012_S1
20 Analysis of context
21 Rhetorical devices in 2013_S1
22 Analysis of context
23 Rhetorical devices in 2014_S1
24 Analysis of context
25 Rhetorical devices in 2014_S2
26 Analysis of context
27 Rhetorical devices in 2015_S1
28 Analysis of context
29 Rhetorical devices in 2016_S1
30 Analysis of context
31 Rhetorical devices in 2016_S2
32 Analysis of context
33 Rhetorical devices in 2016_S3
34 Analysis of context


viii


PART A: INTRODUCTION
1.

Rationale

For years, the relationship between language and politics has been of great
interest to many scholars and researchers. As a typical example, Chilton (2004)
argues that politics depends greatly on language and there is a strong relation
between language and political activity. Likely, in Language and Politics, Joseph
(2006) states that language is political from top to bottom by exemplifying the
numerous ways in which politics and language interact and are ultimately dependent
upon one another. Thanks to that connection, it is obvious that language is one of
the most effective instruments of persuasion. Besides, an excellent speaker can often
take the advantage of the ability of accurately exploiting the appropriate linguistic
resources in accordance with the specific requirements of each communicative
situation to achieve their personal or public purpose. In fact, by way of a subtle
manipulation of language, skilful orators have traditionally been able to exert great
influence on the preconceptions, beliefs, aspirations and fears of the masses, to the
extent of causing people to accept false assertions as true postulates, or even to
support policies contrary to their interests (Thomans&Wareing, 1999). Language is
thus too helpful for those interested in controlling people‘s ideas. Then, language
inevitably forms a valuable tool in politics, as it is a crucial element not only in
making politicians come closer to the public but also in gaining their support. As a
result, almost all of the politicians seem to be good at eloquence. However, to
interpret the statements the speakers deliver and understand the real meaning they
would like to express people need to draw attention to the linguistic choices made
by these and how well these choices fit in the social processes and how they involve
in through their speeches. Rhetorical devices have been willingly used by politicians
for years, which is the reason why attempts have been made to study about
rhetorical devices in political speeches.

1

Hilary Clinton, whether in the role of the First Lady of the United States, as
the head of Department of State, or as a presidential candidate, has long been
famous for her intelligence, strategic position, ambition, and eloquence. Moreover,
according to mandatory financial disclosures, Hillary Clinton earned $21,667,000 in
speaking fees after retirement from April 2013 to March 2015. Many conferences
and forums invited her to speak; and whenever and wherever she came, she was
always welcomed warmly. The speeches she made have always created huge
influence on the audience. Nevertheless, there has never been any analysis on the
way Hilary Clinton uses rhetorical devices in her speeches. This thesis is aimed to
look closely at Hilary Clinton‘s use of rhetorical devices in the light of Systemic
Functional Linguistics. Undeniably, SFL incorporates many of the more sociocultural branches developed within linguistics in the second half of the twentieth
century, such as pragmatics, sociolinguistics, discourse analysis, and etc (Manfredi
2008). For example, Fairclough's three levels are interpreted as phases along the
cline of instantiation of systemic functional theory (Halliday, 1991, Matthiessen,
1993). This enables SFL to explain both language structure and language use. In
other words, SFL is not "concerned with a static or prescriptive kind of language
study, but rather describes language in actual use and centres around texts and their
contexts" (Manfredi, 2008). Therefore, in analyzing rhetorical devices, knowledge
of context and its relation to language is needed to have a complete view of
employing rhetorical devices in political speeches.
2. Scope of the study
As the title suggests, the thesis studies rhetorical devices in Hillary Clinton‘s
speeches. However, this MA thesis focuses on analyzing the use of five major
rhetorical devices including metaphor, metonymy, repetition, parallelism and irony
in ten speeches made by Hillary Clinton during the three big stages of her political
life: the period of secretarial term of office, the period of retirement, and the 2016
presidential campaign from the perspective of SFL. Other rhetorical devices which
are often said to be minor types, are not discussed here due to the constraints on the

thesis word limit.

2


3. Aims and objectives of the study
This study is conducted with the aim of investigating how five major
rhetorical devices are employed by Hillary Clinton in her speeches. In relation to
that goal, this research sets two objectives as presented below.
1.
To analyze the use of five major rhetorical devices in Hillary
Clinton‘s
speeches.
2.

To discuss the contribution and the effect of the rhetorical devices on the

persuasiveness of the speeches.
4.

Research questions
There are two questions that the study attempts to answer:
1.
How are five major rhetorical devices employed in Hilary
Clinton‘s

speeches?
2.

How does the use of rhetorical devices contribute to conveying the

message of the speaker and creating persuasive effect on the audience?
5.

Methods of the study
In order to accomplish the objectives mentioned above, the methods are both

quantitative and qualitative. In detail, the research is conducted according to several
steps below:
Firstly, data was chosen carefully on the Internet based on several criteria set
in advance by the researcher.
Secondly, the collected speeches were analyzed in order to discover the
realization of major rhetorical devices in each one by using SFL as the theoretical
framework.
Finally, the number of five major rhetorical devices in analyzed speeches was
examined critically to see their contribution to the persuasiveness of Hillary‘s talks.
6. Significance of the study

3


Once completed, the study will give both theoretical and practical
significance. It is expected that the results can be advantageous in the following
ways:
Theoretically, this research can, first, enrich the research in linguistics field,
especially in SFL, which becomes a bibliographical resource to the next relevant
type of research. Second, the study will provide an insight into the effects of using
rhetorical devices in speeches.
Practically, the finding of the study will, hopefully, be regarded as a source of
reference for English teachers. Teachers can apply the results of this thesis in their

teaching such as teaching vocabulary and writing skills. Besides, as language users
and public speakers, or only presenters, the readers of this thesis can learn how to
manipulate rhetorical devices to control and convince audiences. In the end, this
research expectantly inspires other researchers to develop or to conduct empirical
studies in the same scope with different subjects.
7. Structure of the study
This study consists of three main parts, a reference and a number of
appendixes.
Part A: Introduction
The introduction gives rationale for the study. It also states research
questions and outlines the scope, the aims, the significance and the methods of the
study.
Part B: Development
The development comprises two chapters.
Chapter 1 named “Theoretical background‖, provides the theory of
systemic functional linguistics and rhetorical devices.
Chapter 2 entitled ―Methodology‖ discusses the theoretical framework,
methods, instruments and procedures for collecting and analyzing data. What‘s
more, a review of related studies will be presented.

4


Chapter 3 called ―Finding and Discussion‖ presents the results of the
study and discusses the contribution of rhetorical devices in conveying the message
Hillary Clinton would like to express and in persuading the audience.
PART C: Conclusion
The conclusion gives the summary of findings as well as the limitations of
the study and suggestions for further research.
Reference includes all the books, articles or website that has been referred to

during the writing of this thesis.
The appendixes list analysis of Hillary‘s speeches.

5


PART B: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

This part sheds light on the some key concepts of SFL, rhetorical devices and
political speeches. In addition, it also presents a brief summary of related previous
studies.
1.1 Rhetorical devices in Systemic Functional Linguistics Approach
1.1.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics
Systemic-Functional Linguistics (SFL) is a theory of language with the
primary source claimed to be the work of Firth and his colleagues in London. SFL
is, then, wholly developed in the work on the grammar of Chinese by Halliday
(1956), and is considered the more comprehensive linguistic approach because of its
focus on the functions of language, not the structure of language, which
distinguishes it from other traditional approaches. In other words, SFL focuses on
language choices which language learners employ to express different meanings.
Just like other functionalists have discussed, Martin (2001) also claims that the
basic concern of systemic functional linguistics is the choice of language. Besides,
SFL starts at social context, and looks at how language both acts upon, and is
constrained by this social context.
SFL is an avowedly functionalist approach to language, and it is arguably the
functionalist approach which has been most highly developed. Because applied
linguists have always been keen on language use in context such as contexts
associated with specialized registers (e.g., business or academic), contexts for
language learning (e.g., classrooms and study abroad programs), and contexts for

language assessment (e.g., speaking tests and writing assignments), they are
interested in linguistic theory that takes into account the contextual dimensions of
language. However, as Thompson (1994) states that there exist some kinds of
context, and we can have some categories for them. That may depend on the time,
6


the place and etc; however, it is certain to have general categories covering them.
And Halliday succeeded in categorizing context into two big kinds such as context
of culture and context of situation. According to Malinowski (1967) (as cited in
Knapp & Watkins, 1994, p. 4), the context of culture refers to beliefs, values and
attitudes of language users, and the context of situation refers to the immediate
language circumstances. Then, Malinowski's ideas were developed in Britain by
Firth and later by Halliday. Firth introduced the notion of sociological linguistics as
early as 1935, whose goal was to describe and classify ―typical contexts of
situation within the context of culture ...[and]... types of linguistic function in such
contexts of situation‖ (Firth 1935, quoted in Halliday 1973). The framework later
developed by Firth included the participants in the situation, their both verbal and
non-verbal action, the effects of the verbal action, and other relevant features. Firth's
(1957) key contribution is to assert that all linguistics is the study of meaning and
that meaning cannot be divorced from the social context or context of situation.
Halliday, like Malinowski, looks at language as behaviour potential, an open-ended
set of possibilities: ―The context of culture is the environment for the total set of
these options, while the context of situation is the environment of any particular
selection that is made from within them‖ (Halliday, 1973). Halliday‘s definitions are
better and clearer to help readers understand and have a primary knowledge of
language. Figure 1.1 below provides a brief view of SFL.

7

Figure 1.1 Model of language (Adapted from Halliday, 1994)
Any analyses of language in use in the light of SFL necessitate the discussion
of some key concepts, including context, context of culture, context of situation,
field, mode, tenor and genre.
Context
The notion of context is presented at the beginning of Halliday‘s account as
the most important base to see the functions of language. As Halliday puts it,
context conditions ―how language works‖. Language use must always be seen
through the prism of social context. No matter how good language is, it should be
appropriate to the context of use. Hasan (2009) argues that in such a conception of
language, context cannot be an ―a-theoretical appendage which functions as a disambiguator of ambiguous sentences‖. Instead, in SFL context is a concept crucial at
every vantage point in the theory, to the dimensions of realization and instantiation,
to metafunction, and to Halliday‘s conception of the strata in language. Besides,
Halliday claims that context ―extends along the cline of
8


instantiation from the overall contextual potential of a community to the contextual
instances involving particular people interacting and exchanging meanings on
particular occasions‖. To the best of the researcher‘s knowledge, context can be
understood to the environment where the language occurs.
Context of Culture
The relations of situation and culture are central to Halliday‘s conception of
language as an open dynamic system, as a ―vast, open-ended system of meaning
potential, constantly renewing itself in interaction with its ecosocial environment‖
(Halliday, 2003). Context of culture is interpreted as the environment of a system of
higher-level meanings which contain both language and paralanguage (Halliday
&Matthiessen, 2014).
Context of Situation

In SFL, the appropriateness of linguistic options is conditioned by the current
―context of situation‖. Situational context refers to "the total environment of a text,
including the verbal environment, but also the situation in which the text was
uttered" (Halliday & Hasan 1985). Moreover, Halliday (1985) characterizes
situations in terms of field, tenor and mode. These three components offer a system
which helps illustrate any socio-linguistic occurrence.


Field: it refers to the subject matter and it may be similar to certain uses of

the term domain in computational linguistics: what is happening, to whom, where
and when, why it is happening, and so on.


Tenor: it refers to the social relation existing between the interactants in a

speech situation. It includes relations of formality, power, and affect (eg:
manager/clerk, father/son, etc). Tenor influences interpersonal choices in the
linguistic system, and thereby it affects role the structures and the strategies chosen
to activate the linguistic exchange.
 Mode: it describes the way the language is being used in the speech
interaction, including the medium (spoken, written, written to be spoken, etc.) as
well as the rhetorical mode (expository, instructive, persuasive, etc.).

9


In Halliday‘s Introduction to Functional Grammar revised by Matthiessen in
2014, these terms are elaborated as follows:


Field: what‘s going on in the situation: the nature of the social and
semiotic
activity; and the domain of experience this activity relates to the subject matter or
topic.


Tenor – who is taking part in the situation: the roles played by those taking

part in the socio-semiotic activity – institutional roles, status roles (power, either
equal or unequal), contact roles (familiarity, ranging from strangers to intimates)
and sociometric roles (affect, either neutral or charged, positively or negatively);
and the values that the interactants imbue the domain with (either neutral or loaded,
positively or negatively)
 Mode – what role is being played by language and other semiotic system in
the situation: the division of labour between semiotic activities and social ones
(ranging from semiotic activities as constitutive of the situation to semiotic
activities as facilitating); the division of labour between linguistic activities and
other semiotic activities; rhetorical mode: the orientation of the text towards field
(informative, didactic, explanatory, explicatory) or tenor (persuasive, exhortatory,
hortatory, polemic); turn: dialogic or monologic;.medium: written or spoken;
channel: phonic or graphic.
From those, it can be understood simply that:


Field: topic of the speech



Tenor: the relationship between speakers and audiences

 Mode: type of speech
These three elements make possible for the speakers or writers to orient
themselves in the context of situation. Language learners must try and maintain the
situational and cultural context by finding the corresponding three components in
the target language.
In the end, language and context are in a relationship of realisation with one
another (Martin 2005). Language is in part realized by social context, and social
10


context is in part realized by language. In relation to the model of language in figure
1.1 above, linguistic realisations of social context are imagined through two terms
such as genre and register. This is illustrated in figure 1.2 below.
Genre
The linguistic realisation of context of culture is termed genre while register
is the linguistic realisation of context of situation. Genre is defined in Introducing
Functional Grammar by Thompson (1994) as register plus purpose. Register is also
defined as ―variation according to use‖ (Halliday &Hasan, 1985). Therefore, genre
includes what the interactants do through language and how they arrange linguistic
resources to succeed in accomplishing a certain purpose. To conclude, when
discussing genre, it is necessary to describe the text with two characteristics such as
sociability and purposiveness. Likewise, Wu & Dong (2009) also argue that genre is
a social process following some sequenced stages, in which language is used and
composed into spoken or written texts. The form of the texts can be either formal or
informal; and either standard or non-standard in terms of the contexts embedded.
Additionally, genre-based approach possesses a certain purpose or goal. People use
genre approach to achieve a goal or fulfil a purpose in social activities. In the same
way, Martin defines genre as "a staged, goal oriented, purposeful activity in which
speakers engage […]" (Martin, 1984 as cited in Figueiredo, 2010). For example, the
genre used in a sales encounter is used to sell or buy something. These activities are

staged, and there are different stages in it including sales request, sales compliance,
purchase and thanks, which is goal-oriented, somebody wants to buy something;
and it is purposeful, language is used with a specific purpose in mind, to buy and
sell something.

11


Figure 1.2 Genre, register and language (Martin 2005)
To sum up, in SFL view, language relates to human experience, which fits
into social structure. So, language is not just a part of ‗cognitive mechanism‘
(Reuter, 2000), but how people use it in social functions in certain culture. This is
distinguishable from other theories of linguistics. To be more detailed, in discourse,
the language is analyzed from the aspects of text, co-text and physical text, while
we, in systemic linguistics, analyze how the language works in social functions. We
analyze how words are expressed in a particular context (Halliday, 1985) in which
the meanings are embedded in different activities. The words we use in particular
contexts will have different meanings when the socio-functional purposes are
different. In other words, our intended meanings in using the language in society are
determined by our own chosen words.
Furthermore, Reuter (2000) asserts that systemic linguistics acknowledges
both the sounds and words of language and their meanings through other
instruments including paralanguage, cultural behavior, art forms, family structure,
social exchange, and clothing.

12


Accordingly, it can be deduced that SFL looks at the language based on the
contexts and purposes as well as the socio-functional outcomes which refer to

different types of genres. Above all, SFL fits this study so nicely that the researcher
believes readers can have a clear view of the use of rhetorical devices made by
politicians generally and Hillary Clinton particularly.
1.1.2 Rhetorical devices
1.1.2.1 Rhetoric
Rhetoric is the term developed by Aristotle in Ancient Greece. It is the
technique of manipulating linguistic sources effectively and persuasively in spoken
or written form. Similarly, the Oxford English Dictionary (1933) defines it as ―the
art of using language so as to persuade or influence others; the body of rules to be
observed by a speaker or writer in order that he may express himself with
eloquence‖. A very important part of what politicians do involves convincing
audiences of the accuracy of the arguments they present in addition to their own
personal conviction and ability to act upon these arguments. Therefore, the
definition of rhetoric as ―using language so as to persuade or influence others‖
(Oxford English Dictionary, 1933) is the most relevant description to be used in this
study. The rhetoric has been used for a long time as one of the most powerful
persuasive language techniques. Today, rhetoric used especially by politicians can
be identified by ―the identifiable habits of speech...which govern the linguistic
structures and devices which they use to increase the impact of their ideas‖ (Thomas
et al: 2004). A speaker is able to use a range of rhetorical techniques incorporated
into the language to persuade the audience. What and How the speaker chooses to
define problems, support claims, validate premises and state conclusions is crucial
to whether an audience is likely to accept an argument. As Hyland points out "the
logical connections used to elaborate an argument by adding, comparing,
sequencing or explaining its elements are critical to a text‘s overall persuasive force‖
(as cited in Markus, 2006).
It is undeniable that the wide range of potential linguistic choices, especially
rhetorical figures a politician can choose to build up his or her discourse may have a
13