Domantas Vaina - VDU

VYTAUTO DIDŽIOJO UNIVERSITETAS

HUMANITARINIŲ MOKSLŲ FAKULTETAS

UŽSIENIO KALBŲ, LITERATŪROS IR VERTIMO STUDIJŲ KATEDRA

Domantas Vaina

LEKSINĖS POLITINIO DISKURSO YPATYBĖS: TEKSTYNU PAREMTA

DONALDO TRUMPO, BORISO JOHNSONO IR ANGELOS MERKEL KALBŲ

ANALIZĖ

Bakalauro baigiamasis darbas

Anglų filologijos studijų programa, valstybinis kodas 612Q30004

Anglų filologijos studijų kryptis

Vadovas (-ė) lekt. Donata Berūkštienė __________ ___________

(parašas) (data)

Apginta doc. dr. Rūta Eidukevičienė __________ ___________

(parašas) (data)

Kaunas, 2020

LEXICAL FEATURES OF POLITICAL DISCOURSE: A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS

OF SPEECHES DELIVERED BY DONALD TRUMP, BORIS JOHNSON, AND

ANGELA MERKEL

By Domantas Vaina

Department of Foreign Language, Literary and Translation Studies

Vytautas Magnus University

Bachelor of Arts Thesis

Supervisor: lect. Donata Berūkštienė

3 June 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SANTRAUKA ................................................................................................................................. i

SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... ii

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... iv

1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

2. THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO POLITICAL DISCOURSE .................................... 3

2.1 Definition of Political Discourse ................................................................................................ 3

2.2 Typology of Political Discourse ................................................................................................. 5

2.3 Characteristic Features of Political Discourse ............................................................................ 7

3. POLITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 11

3.1 Methodology of the Investigation ............................................................................................. 11

3.2 Analysis of D. Trump’s Political Speeches .............................................................................. 13

3.3 Analysis of A. Merkel’s Political Speeches .............................................................................. 20

3.4 Analysis of B. Johnson’s Political Speeches ............................................................................ 25

4. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 28

REFERENCES

i

SANTRAUKA

Politinis diskursas itin dažnai yra laikomas išskirtiniu viešojo kalbėjimo bei dokumentų

parengimo tipu. Politinis diskursas yra labai aiškiai politiniams tikslams įgyvendinti skirta kalba, kuria

yra siekiama įtikinti politinius oponentus arba visą visuomenę palaikyti tam tikro politiko idėjas. Dėl

šios priežasties politiniam diskursui priklausančios politikų viešosios kalbos pasižymi tik šiam

kalbėjimo tipui charakteringais leksiniais kalbos įrankiais, kuriais yra siekiama padaryti kalbą

įtaikingesne.

Taip pat galima pastebėti, jog kiekvienas iš politikų turi sau būdingą politinio diskurso formą,

pasižyminčią savo išskirtiniais bruožais. Šiame tyrime yra analizuojamas trijų šiuolaikinių politinių

lyderių (D. Trump’o, A. Merkel ir B. Johnson’o) politinis diskursas, vertinant jų naujausias viešąsias

kalbas.

Politikų viešųjų kalbų analizė atlikta surinkus informaciją iš viešųjų kalbų tekstinių kopijų, bei

pasinaudojant kompiuterine programa „AntConc“ (versija 3.5.8), kurios pagalba, sudarytos lentelės,

vaizduoja dažniausiai politikų vartojamus žodžius bei žodžių junginius, viešose kalbose apie COVID –

19 problemas ir pasekmes.

Šių politikų diskurso analizė atskleidžia, jog jų viešas kalbėjimas taip pat pasižymi itin

charakteringais, tik jiems būdingais bruožais. Pavyzdžiui, D. Trump’o viešosios kalbos turi palygintinai

neoficialų toną, o B. Johnson’o and A. Merkel kalbėjimo maniera yra daug oficialesnė ir labiau atitinka

tradicinius politinio diskurso standartus. Galiausiai, Jungtinių Amerikos Valstijų prezidentas, kitų

žmonių žygdarbius linkęs laikyti savo pasiekimais, o A. Merkel ir B. Johnson’as giria savo šalių

gyventojus, ypatingai pabrėždami gydytojus, kurie aukojasi gydydami užsikrėtusius koronavirusu.

ii

SUMMARY

Political discourse is usually considered to be an important analysis tool on how people perceive

politicians. Primarily, political discourse is a tool to obtain political purposes, one of which is to make

political opponents and general public support the political idea of a certain politician. For this reason,

very specific lexical tools are used in political discourse.

It can be noted that every politician has his/her own unique language, characterized by its own

distinctive linguistic features. This study analyses political speeches delivered by three world leaders

(D. Trump, A. Merkel, and B. Johnson) in order to identify lexical characteristic features of the

language they use.

The analysis of politicians’ public speeches was performed by collecting information from

various transcripts of public speeches, and by using the “AntConc” (version 3.5.8) application, with the

help of which, tables were created to present the most commonly used words and phrases used by

politicians in public speeches regarding COVID-19 problems and consequences.

The analysis of speeches of the selected politicians revealed that each politician has his/her

own profile of speeches. For example, D. Trump’s public speeches usually have an informal tone,

while B. Johnson and A. Merkel use a more official and more politically accepted tone of public

speaking. Finally, the President of the United States tends to view other people’s credit as his own

achievements, while A. Merkel and B. Johnson praise the people of their countries, with particular

emphasis on doctors who sacrifice their own well-being, in treating those, infected with the

coronavirus.

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Linguistic tools of discourse based on Locke .......................................................................... 9

Table 3.1 Political discourse lexical categories and codes’ explanation ............................................... 12

Table 3.2 The usage of adjectives in D. Trump’s political discourse ..................................................... 14

Table 3.3 The usage of pronouns in D. Trump’s speeches ..................................................................... 17

Table 3.4 The usage of verbs and verbal tenses in D. Trump’s political discourse................................ 17

Table 3.5 The usage of verbs and verbal tenses in D. Trump’s political discourse................................ 18

Table 3.6 The usage of pronouns in A. Merkel’s speeches .................................................................... 22

Table 3.7 The usage of phrases with pronoun “we” in A. Merkel’s speeches ....................................... 23

Table 3.8 The usage of pronouns in B. Johnson’s speeches ................................................................... 26

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Types of political discourse based on Amaglobeli ................................................................. 6

1

1 INTRODUCTION

Political discourse is regarded as an exceptional public discourse field in terms of the lexicological

tools that are used. Political discourse can be understood as a tool for achieving dominance among

political actors to gain power and support of the public (Fairclough 2000: 14).

Political discourse is a very important part of political analysis. According to Al-Majali (2015:

96), language, same as political discourse, serves two major functions; transactional function and

interactional function. Transactional function of language suggests that language means the use of

language to transmit factual or propositional information. This function has enabled human beings to

develop different cultures, laws, literatures, etc. Interactional language is used to establish and maintain

social relationships and common grounds. It has been observed that in case of political discourse,

language plays an important role of creating and maintaining social relationship between the politician

and the general public.

Most of the researches who analyse political discourse agree that the tools and characteristics

that a politician uses in his official speeches may reveal a lot about him. Discourse incorporates and

reflects the unique set of circumstances, at which and for which it was created: communicative

intentions of the author; relationship between the author and public; ideology and stylistic climate of

the politician and the whole political environment; genre and stylistic features of message and

communicative situation (Karasik 2002: 15). Thus, political discourse, lexical tools that are used in this

discourse and characteristic features of politicians’ speeches can define themselves.

It is worth noting that political discourse and the lexical tools used in this type of discourse is

quite a complicated sphere because of the fact that politicians need to tackle very serious and specific

topics related to economics, law, international politics which have its own terminology. This

terminology may be complicated and not always understandable for the general public. Furthermore,

the use of international terminology is quite common in political discourse, although, it is not always

the most acceptable to the people. Therefore, politicians need to be able to combine professional

discourse and terminology with persuasive and understandable discourse for the general public.

Problem statement. Political discourse is a specific type of discourse. The main aim of

political discourse is to communicate to the public, maintain relationship and to persuade them to

support the politician’s ideas. However, the political discourse and the linguistic means that are used

can also tell a lot about the politicians themselves and the situation they are in, the politician’s

relationship with the general public.

2

The aim of the study. Analyse the lexical characteristics of the political speeches of three

contemporary politicians (Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Angela Merkel) in order to determine

their most frequent words and word collocations.

Objectives of the study:

1. To define political discourse.

2. To discuss characteristics and classification of political discourse.

3. To collect speeches delivered by three politicians (D. Trump, A. Merkel, B. Johnson) and

investigate prevailing lexical characteristics of these speeches.

Data collection: The data, necessary for the investigation, will be collected from the official

political discourses of the three politicians (Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Angela Merkel) during

their public speeches. The main method used in the paper is political discourse analysis. When

applying this method, an analysis is conducted in order to identify the most common discourse tools

used by the politicians.

Thesis structure: The study consists of an introduction, two parts of thorough analysis,

conclusions and references. The first part of the study discusses the definition, typology and

characteristic features of political discourse. The second part of the study examines the peculiarities of

the investigation by explaining the used methodology and includes analyses of speeches of three

contemporary politicians. The final part will be the conclusion that will summarize the main points and

the findings of the research.

3

2 THEORETICAL APPROACHES TO POLITICAL DISCOURSE

This part of the paper is dedicated to investigate previous researches carried out in the field of political

discourse and political communication analysis. In the first part of this section a general definition of

political discourse is provided. After that the main characteristic and how political discourse can be

evaluated is analysed.

2.1 Definition of Political Discourse

This section of the thesis provides a definition of political discourse. As the main object of this research

is political discourse, firstly, it is necessary to understand what it is, and what written documents of

speech can be considered as object of political discourse.

In the broadest sense, political discourse is all texts related to politics. Simon (2002: 8)

describes political discourse as a part of public discourse that has as its object as the public policy or

general management of public or state affairs. Usually, political discourse has a formal and very

distinctive style which is used in official, institutional situations, such as in speeches of politicians,

officers.

It is also important to note that political discourse is generally associated with political documents,

government press releases, press conferences, party manifestos, electoral campaign programs,

interviews, speeches, letters and other similar texts (Bayley 2008: 39). Given all these aspects, it can be

argued that political discourse is perceived as highly institutional.

However, some authors believe that political discourse can be defined as anything a politician

says in the public (Karasik 2002:18). In this case, even improvised, spontaneous politicians’ verbal

expression can be considered and analysed as political discourse. This clearly indicates that political

discourse is a very wide term that encompasses almost everything that is communicated by politicians

in official institutions.

Van Djik (2008: 59) claims that political discourse includes almost all public communication

related to political sphere. According to the researcher, political discourse should be analysed in the

following way:

a. Examining the context of the political discourse: historical, political or social

background.

b. Analysing groups, power relations and conflicts involved in political discourse.

c. Identifying positive and negative opinions, cleavage between us and them.

4

d. Examining all formal structure: lexical choice and syntactic structure, in a way that

helps to (de) emphasize polarized group opinions.

Other authors (Bayley 2008: 39) notice that political discourse is also an institutional discourse.

It is unnecessary that discourse would be expressed by one politician, as it can also represent the

official position of the whole institution. Discourse incorporates and reflects the unique set of

circumstances at which and for which it was created: communicative intentions of the author;

relationship between the author and public; ideology and stylistic climate of the politician and the

whole political environment; and genre and stylistic features of message and communicative situation

(Karasik 2002: 19).

In terms of politics and political discourse, it is important to note the views of linguist Paul

Chilton (2004: 4), who distinguishes between the following two policies of political discourse:

1. Micro level.

2. Macro level.

Micro level political discourse is considered to be everyday discourse between the politicians,

while macro level political discourse is related to institutional politics (Chilton, Schӓffner 2002: 18). It

is also interesting to notice that the microlevel of political discourse reflects conflicts of interest,

struggles for dominance, and attempts to collaborate between individual politicians or different social

groups (Chilton 2004: 4). This can take the form of various persuasions, attempts to influence the

listener by rational arguments, as well as manipulation.

The macro level of political discourse consists of specific characteristics of the discourse; for

example, parliamentary debates. Usually this type of political discourse is more structured, has a more

official type of communication. At this level, conflicts of interest and cooperation are reflected in the

political institutions.

When defining political language and political communication, it can be marked that they are

abstract conceptual terms that are concerned with providing information in order to communicate with

the recipient, and it deals with people’s social, political affairs and issues whether they are simple or

complex (Majali 2015: 96). Moreover, political communication language has a number of functions

which are reflected in the speech itself. Political language disguises, transforms and deepens a

particular phenomenon, and it is mainly used to convince receivers with the speaker's point of view by

using techniques such as explanation and analysis. (Majali 2015: 97)

Thus, to sum up, political discourse can be defined as any kind of discourse related to political

communication. Usually, political discourse is analysed as an official and unofficial communication of

5

politicians. However, formal institutional communication is also an important sphere of political

discourse.

2.2 Typology of Political Discourse

The topic of political discourse typology was already tackled in the previous section. It can be noticed

that different definitions of political discourse can also represent different typologies and subtypes that

exist in the analysis of political discourse. However, it is important to analyse how political discourse

can be divided into smaller subgroups in order to clearly identify the object of this thesis.

T. Dijk is one of the most referred and quoted in critical studies of media and political

discourse. The researcher distinguishes between two groups of texts of political discourse:

1. Texts discussing political ideas, beliefs, order in society and etc.

2. Texts that are created by political parties or groups using important political terms (van

Dijk 2008: 59).

Thus, this categorization can be defined as different between political ideologies and everyday

political communications. Texts that discuss political ideas or beliefs may not be written by politicians

but by philosophers who do not aspire to occupy a political position. However, texts of the second

group are created solely by the politicians themselves. Thus, characteristics of the second group are

very different from political ideologies, as the first are aimed to obtain social support. Dijk divides the

texts belonging to the group of texts by politicians into four groups:

• inner-stated discourse;

• cross-border discourse (foreign policy and diplomacy);

• inter-policy discourse (inter-policy discussions, planning issues, decision-making, debate)

(internal-political discourse);

• external-political discourse.

Other authors divide political discourse based on how it is delivered:

1. Big audience/ interview with a journalist,

2. Prepared speech/spontaneous oration,

3. Political period (election period, after election, when politician is already in a political

position and etc.) (van Dijk 2008: 59).

6

According to the authors, these are not only different types of political discourse but also

features that can impact the way politicians express themselves. It is clear that a politician, who seeks

to obtain a political position, will use a different political discourse than the one who already has a

secure political position and needs to solve public politics problems. Thus, all these factors are very

important in the analysis of political discourse.

Amaglobeli (2018: 143) applies a completely different categorization of political discourse

than previously analysed authors. He focuses on political discourse as a way to express ideological

ideas. Based on his ideas, current political discourse can be divided into five main categories: LGBT

discourse, religious discourse, green discourse, nationalistic discourse and feminist discourse. The

author claims that these types of political discourse represent that the most important political ideas of

political sphere and political discourse tools that use every of these types are different as they aim to

appeal to different groups of society.

Figure 2.1 Types of political discourse based on Amaglobeli (2018: 19).

As it can be seen in the scheme above, each type of discourse represents a discourse of a particular

segment/group of society at the same time. Thus, for this reason, each segment (based on professional,

class (socio-economic), gender divisions) produces discourses that are typical to them.

Therefore, it can be concluded that political discourse can be categorized by different features

based on the most political definition discourse that is used. Official speeches of the world leaders will

be analysed in this paper.

7

2.3 Characteristic Features of Political Discourse

Political discourse itself is a very specific type of discourse. As it was mentioned in the first part of this

thesis, political discourse is usually defined as a very official, institutional type of communication

between politicians and people. Usage of the official tone can be considered as one of the main features

of the political discourse. However, apart from that political discourse has other lexical, functional and

structural features.

When analysing politicians’ political discourse and it´s functional features, it is important to

notice that the main aim of such communication is to appeal to the society. Thus, it is not only the

expression of the political message that makes politicians attractive to voters, but also the

communicative style in conveying certain values that enhance the political message (Fairclough, 2000:

14). According to Fairclough (2000: 14), communicative style is one of the aspects of political

language, which are as follows:

1. Leaders’ communicative style.

2. Discourse associated with a social or political group with which voters can align or dis-align.

3. The way language is used in the process of governing, which is basically related to

legitimating policies and decision-making processes.

Previously mentioned van Dijk (2008: 64) claims, that political discourse can be identified based

on these criteria:

1. The main domain and topic: politics, social, economic issues,

2. The global act being implemented: legislation, policy making, ideological communication,

3. The global setting (parliament, session of parliament, international organizations, assemblies

and etc.)

4. The political roles of the participants: MP, representative, party member, member of the

opposition, etc.

5. The political cognitions of the participants: Political beliefs and ideologies; aims and

objectives, etc.

These criteria are determined by the fact that the main function of political discourse is to

convince people, express politicians’ political ideas and ideology.

Lexical specific characteristics of a political discourse are the following main four features

(Kenzhekankyzy 2013: 193):

1. agonistic ability;

2. aggressiveness;

8

3. ideological character;

4. theatricality.

Agonistic ability means that the main objective of such speaking is competitiveness. By using

political discourse politicians try to express their knowledge and ability to be the best person for a

certain political position. Political discourse is usually developed by continuous dialogue duel between

the party or politicians in power and opposition in which opponents attack each other. Thus, it is clear

that political discourse needs to be competitive and argumented in order to prove that one is right. The

competitiveness of a political discourse with the greatest evidence is visible in such forms, as

parliamentary debates and the pre-election campaigns among politicians.

Aggressiveness of political discourse is also closely related to the previously mentioned agonistic

ability. One of the most important components of a political speech is aggression. This aggression is

usually expressed by these lexical tools:

1. Usage of expressive political wills;

2. Categorical requirements and appeals;

3. Usage of slogans;

4. Speech acts of threat.

The ideological nature of political discourse means that this form of communication is usually

used to represent political beliefs, values, interests.

Finally, theatricality implicates that political discourse can be considered as scenic discourse,

meant to convince publics. This means that lexical tools used for this type of discourse are also more

expressive (Kenzhekankyzy 2013: 193).

As it can be seen, political discourse and its purpose is a very specific form of communication.

One of the features of political discourse is that it is usually communicated through different types of

broadcast platforms that allow the diffusion of the information (O’Keeffe 2011: 34). In most of the

cases these information broadcast platforms, whether spoken or written, focus on the discourse is

oriented towards a non-present reader, listener or viewer. Such specific functioning and the necessity to

transmit information without any ambiguity makes political discourse and its lexicology different from

other lexical situations. This interaction of politicians with people via broadcasted media may be seen

as a traditional form of political communication. However, in recent years with the surgency of social

media this political discourse definition changed. Nowadays, one can witness a more reflexive and two-

way political discourse (Barzin 2013: 23).

Political discourse and lexical tools that are used, are quite different from other communication

forms. First of all, it is the case, because the main purpose of political discourse is to convince and

9

inform people. Secondly, political discourse and lexical tools are different from other means of

communication, because it is a sphere in which words have expressiveness, draw the attention of the

audience. Thus, it is quite clear that terms and lexical units that are used in political discourse are much

more formal and restrictive than the lexical units used in everyday language. However, in some cases

politicians do not follow these political discourse rules.

Usually, political communication language can be very complex as it uses a lot of interactive,

hypertextual linguistic tools. These tools make political discourse more appealing to the listener or

reader and may transfer the main idea of a text.

Another approach to political analyses is proposed by T. Locke (2004: 23), who focused his

analysis on the usage of lexical tools such as specific vocabulary, grammar tools, cohesions,

intertextual allusions. The analysis of vocabulary can help define the mood, tone, aim of the discourse,

which are also very important features of political discourse.

Table 2.1 Linguistic tools of discourse based on Locke (2004: 46).

Vocabulary Grammar Cohesion Intertextuality

Formal/ Informal

Metaphors

Wording

Expressive values

Modality

Transitivity

Types of verbs

Pronouns

Voice

Connectives

Argumentation

Parallelism

Allusion

Quotation

Reference

All the lexical tools are separated into four main parts: vocabulary, grammar, cohesion of the

discourse and its intertextuality.

Vocabulary analysis is focused on the usage of the linguistic means, repetition of the words,

their expensiveness. As the author notice, such investigation allows to identify the purpose of the

speech with a first estimation.

Second group of the lexical tools are more focused on syntactic analysis: voice, modality and

transitivity. Important aspects here are usage of verbs, pronouns.

In the third section, the style in the speech and the use of parallelisms are overviewed,

argumentation and connectives are also included.

And, finally, the intertextuality, including the role of elements like presupposition and

implicature, is analysed. Intertextually quite common in political discourse and politicians use these

10

lexical tools in order to give argumentation of their statements, make more convincing discourse. Thus,

these tools must be analysed as well.

When analysing structural features of political discourse, usually a theory provided by Labov

is used. When analysing general narrative of the stories Labov (1972: 354) noticed that it is important

to analyse the whole context of a story. Authors who analyse political discourse also apply this

approach as step by step analysis allows to really understand the motives of the politician and how

political discourse defines him/her. Labov (1972: 357) identifies six categories, each of which serve to

address a hypothetical question about narrative structure and fulfil a different function:

1. ABSTRACT (What was this about?): A short summarizing statement, provided before the

narrative commences.

2. ORIENTATION (Who is involved in the story, and when and where did it take place?): This

category helps to identify the time, place, persons, activity and situation of the story.

3. COMPLICATING ACTION (Then what happened?): This is the core narrative category

which provides the ‘what happened’ element of the story. Clauses constituting the

complicating action are temporally ordered narrative clauses in the simple past or historical

present.

4. RESOLUTION (What finally happened?): This is the final key event of a story. It forms the

last of the narrative clauses that began the complicating action.

5. EVALUATION (So what?): This category functions to make the point of the story clear. It

can be external or internal (embedded within clauses). It includes: intensifiers, modal verbs,

negatives, repetition, evaluative commentary, embedded speech and comparisons with

unrealized events.

6. CODA (How does it all end?): This signals that a story has ended and brings the listener back

to the point at which s/he entered the narrative.

Although this structure may seem quite narrative and used for feature literal works, however,

political discourse argumentations also follows similar logic. For this reason, this structure can be used

to analyse the whole context of the argumentation used by politicians.

Thus, to conclude this section of the paper, it can be said that political discourse has a very

specific functional, lexical and structural features that helps to define this communication form. Mainly

these features are determined by the fact that political discourse is has a very specific aim: to express

political and ideological ideas of a politician and to convince people that his or her ideas are the correct

ones of an effective functioning of the society.

11

3 POLITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

This paper is aimed to investigate political discourse of the three mentioned world leaders and what it

says about the politicians. This part of the investigation is dedicated to define the methodologic

structure of the investigation and analysis of the data obtained. In order to effectively evaluate the

political discourse used by the three analysed politicians it is important to clearly define a

methodological tool used in this investigation.

3.1 Methodology of the Investigation

The main aim of this paper is to analyse lexical characteristics of the political speeches of three

contemporary politicians (Donald Trump, Boris Johnson and Angela Merkel) in order to determine

their most frequent words, word collocations and what the data says about the political aims and

political communication culture of the politicians.

Speeches delivered by three politicians, namely, the president of the United States, Donald Trump, the

Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, and Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of

Germany, are analysed in the present thesis.

In order to analyse and evaluate the political discourse of the three previously mentioned

politicians their political discourse will be analysed based on the structure represented below. This

table is created based on the previously investigated model of Locke (2004: 46). Main studied lexical

features of political discourse are the following:

1. Vocabulary can be considered as a core element of language use, and research exploring

its relationships with other components of linguistic competence constitutes an important

subfield of linguistic analysis. A lot of researchers emphasise on high correlations between

measures of vocabulary and language proficiency. Thus, when analysing the political

discourse used by politicians, there is a need to identify whether the language used is

formal or informal, to single out characteristic usage of expressive lexical tools and

metaphors.

2. Grammatical lexical tools may be considered as a characteristic usage of verbal tenses,

pronouns, structure of the sentence. In case of political discourse politicians usually

emphasise on typical pronouns as I, we and etc. and use verbs and verbal tenses that create

the image of constant development and work that is realised to reach the aims.

12

3. Cohesive tools make political discourse more convincing and appealing to the listener.

Politicians use arguments and parallelisms in order to convince the listener and to make

them understand the idea that he wants to transmit more easily.

Finally, intertextuality is also very closely related to the cohesiveness of the speech.

Quotations, references, allusions make political discourse more expressive and this way

more convincing to the listener.

Table 3.1 Political discourse lexical categories and codes’ explanation

Categories

Vocabulary Formal/Informal

Usage of expressive tools

Metaphors

Grammatical

tools

Type of verbs

Pronouns

Sentence structure (Short/long, complex/ simple)

Cohesive

devices

Arguments (statistical data, facts)

Parallelisms

Intertextuality Allusions

Quotations

References

Speeches, made by the politics of the first two weeks of April (01.04.2020 – 14.04.2020) were

analysed mainly. Secondly, there were some extra speeches, made earlier, added in order to compare

the speeches, made by a couple of politicians before and during the pandemic.

It is important to notice that the analysed period is very specific, as the whole world was under

the influence of the COVID - 19 disease. Thus, during the global lockdown that coincided with the

analysed period, the main and only topic of the analysed politicians’ speeches was the impact of

COVID - 19, its effect to economy and gradual recovery.

13

During this period, 8 speeches of D. Trump, 4 speeches of A. Merkel and 1 speech of B.

Johnson were analysed. Such results may be explained by the fact that, for example, D. Trump would

have almost a daily update on the coronavirus situation, while B. Johnson was affected by the illness

himself and did not make public speeches for a certain period.

In order to identify clear linguistic characteristics and tools used in political speeches

delivered by the selected politicians, a corpus analysis toolkit ‘AntConc’ (version 3.5.8) was used. It is

a software application that allows to carry out a text analysis and to effectively identify linguistic

features of the speech. In addition, a manual analysis of the data was carried out.

3.2 Analysis of D. Trump’s Political Speeches

Vocabulary

When analysing D. Trump speeches, one of the first and main features that can be noticed is that his

speeches have a very informal tone. The president of the USA usually directs to the listeners as if he is

not an official leader with a speech prepared in advance. He tries to communicate the information to all

the people so that it would be more understandable and relatable. First of all, it may be noticed that D.

Trump often starts his speeches with some denoting words such as “Okay”:

(1) “Okay. Thank you very much. Good to be with you all.” (Trump 2020)

(2) “Okay, thank you very much. It's a great honour to be with the world leaders.” (Trump

2020)

It can be identified that in the 8 analysed speeches of D. Trump, he began his speeches in this

manner 3 times, which shows that usage of an informal type of communication is quite common for

him and that he has a political aim.

It is clear that the usage of such details and informal tone of speaking is very uncommon

among politicians. In the case of D. Trump, the usage of these words creates a sense that he is not

reading a speech that has been prepared in advance but rather has come to talk to the nation and inform

all the people about the situation as a leader.

The fact that the president of the USA quite often uses impersonal style even during the

official speeches has already been marked by other analysts as well. For example, Garcia (2018: 48)

claims that D. Trump almost always makes use of very simple vocabulary that can be understood by

everyone It is purposely unsophisticated and is similar to how people speak every day in their home or

work environment. It can be observed that such form of speaking represents D. Trump as opposition to

14

established political rules and political discourse, which sometimes seems too disconnected and

sophisticated for the general public. Thus, it can be conducted that such use of lexical tools from D.

Trump is done purposely (Garcia, 2018: 48). It is clear that informality is a brand of American people,

and although some of his predecessors have already shown a degree of informality, D. Trump seems to

epitomize it: rather than speaking, he talks. Thus, it is obvious that simplicity and informal relationship

with the listeners is one of the main features of his discourse. It is what renders it so unique and

different from other politicians.

The situation is the same with informal language, the usage of expressive lexical tools is very

common in D. Trumps language. First of all, when analysing the way D. Trumps speaks, it is visible

that he uses a lot of adjectives that seem to be exaggerated and not very common in general political

discourse. Some examples of such adjectives are these:

(3) “<…> America continues to wage all-out war to defeat the virus - this horrible, horrible

virus. You see how terrible it is <…>” (Trump 2020)

It is very uncommon for a politician to use adjectives such as “horrible” or “terrible” as these

adjectives do not provide any clear additional information to the listener and may only cause additional

distress about the seriousness of the situation. Usually politicians avoid using such lexical tools and

provide clear argumentation. However, in the case of D. Trump, these lexical tools seem to represent

his communication style, which is very common, unsophisticated and which reminds of how people

talk on a day-to-day basis.

(4) “<…> this horrible period, this horrible, dark period where this -- this monster came and

worked its horrible, horrible spell over the world -- 184 countries as of this morning”

(Trump 2020)

Other example that illustrates the use of a general adjective include the following examples:

(5) “<…> rapid medical intervention, and very serious innovation.” (Trump 2020)

When analysing the quantitative data of D. Trump speeches, it also can be confirmed that the

use of exaggeration adjectives is very common. Some of the most commonly used exaggeration

adjectives that do not add much to the argumentations of political discourse of D. Trump, are presented

in the table below.

3.2 The usage of adjectives in D. Trump’s political discourse

Adjective Times used

Horrible 43

15

Terrible 23

Serious 21

Dark 11

Rapid 13

As it is visible in the table above, the usage of adjectives “horrible”, “terrible”, “dark” is very common

in the speeches of D. Trump. It seems a bit paradoxical knowing that during this crisis of COVID – 19,

the main aim of the political leaders is to encourage people to stay calm. On the other hand, D. Trump

also extensively uses adjectives such as “serious”, “rapid”. Usually, politicians would avoid using such

adjectives as well, because they do not provide any addition information. Words like “serious” and

“rapid” in the discourse of politicians are backed by specific information, statistical data. However, D.

Trump tends to misuse general adjectives in his speeches.

(6) “We built a great, great energy business in the United States.” (Trump 2020)

Furthermore, another feature of D. Trump’s speech is the usage and repetition of adjectives

that, also, do not supply any additional data and seem to be too abstract for a political discourse. The

same lexical tool can be seen in the following phrase where he refers to Americans:

(7) “<…> but it'll be based on the input from a lot of very talented people, very smart people,

and people that love our country.” (Trump 2020)

It can be seen that this phrase has a strong national discourse meaning. D. Trump refers to

Americans as talented and smart people, who love their country.

It should be noted that during the analysed period, the usage of metaphors was not detected in

D. Trump’s speeches. As it was mentioned before, D. Trump usually uses a very simple, easily

understandable language that is used by the general public as well. This allows to make a conclusion

that metaphors are not a key tool in D. Trump’s discourse in general, as they may have more than one

meaning or be interpreted incorrectly.

Grammar tools

As it was tackled before, it is evident that a very important feature of D. Trump’s speeches is that he

tends to repeat key words in order to emphasize his ideas and make it more understandable to the

general public. For example, when analysing the COVID-19 situation, the president of the USA

focuses on the verb “save” a lot:

16

(8) “<…>The sacrifices we make over the next four weeks will have countless American lives

saved. We're going to save a lot of American lives.” (Trump 2020)

The usage and repetition of the verb “save” can be interpreted as a way to assure and

encourage the people. The president is trying to reflect that the situation is under control, everything

that needs to be done, in order to improve the situation, is being done and that he will do his best to

protect the American people.

Repetition is not only common when D. Trump uses verbs but also adverbs. Great example of

this is the repetition of the adverb “very”, done four times:

(9) “And hopefully we're going to be opening up -- you can call it "opening" very, very - very,

very soon, I hope.” (Trump 2020)

The repetition of the same word four times in a row, only demonstrates that D. Trump does

not prepare for official speeches but rather improvises when talking to the media. As “very” is an

intensifying adverb, it just, once again, creates an illusion that D. Trump wants to emphasize on the

work that he as a president and the whole nation are doing in order to obtain the desired results and that

those results should be visible quickly. Thus, this shows that D. Trump wants to emphasise on his

ability to solve issues effectively and quickly.

What is more, according to the AntConc data, in his speech on the 2nd of April, D. Trump used

the word “very” 67 times during his speech. This adverb is usually used to emphasize the verb that

follows.

Another important topic in D. Trump’s speeches is the usage of pronouns.

Table 3.3 The usage of pronouns in D. Trump’s speeches

Pronoun Times used

I 453

We 367

Our 186

You 378

For the table above, it is clear that the most common pronoun used in D. Trumps speeches is pronoun

“I”. This is an example of the usage of this pronoun:

17

(10) “<…> and don't forget, I will always protect your Social Security, your Medicare, and

your Medicaid. We're protecting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and I always

will.” (Trump 2020)

The pronouns “I” and “we” have lexical meaning for D. Trump’s speeches. They are quite a

common tool used by Trump to position himself as the leader of the nation. Trump makes the use of the

pronouns “I” and “my” to refer himself as the protector of the country and nation’s security in this

difficult situation. He positions himself as a strong leader who is responsible for the well-being of the

country and the situation. Other authors notice that D. Trump as a president uses the pronoun “we” as a

way of including himself and others, as in the case of Americans (Bonila 2018: 423).

The great example of the fact that D. Trump uses the pronoun Ï¨ as a way to demonstrate his

effort, is seen in the following segment of his speech:

(11) “And I could have cut it, under the Act. I could have cut it. I said, Nope, you can't do

that. You got to let it go. You know, they have big problems. We had an order going to

Spain, and I said, Let it go. I could have stopped it. I said, Let it go. We're going to be fine.

I said, Let it go.” (Trump 2020)

In this very short fragment of the speech, the president of the USA uses the pronoun “I” seven times. It

is clear that such use is intentional and is aimed to demonstrate his determination and quick reaction.

Also, the tone of the fragment is very unofficial and not common in political discourse, since the usage

of pronoun “I” is considered to be informal.

After analysing the most commonly used verbs and verbal structures of D. Trumps speeches, these are

the results.

3.4 The usage of verbs and verbal tenses in D. Trump’s political discourse

Verbs Times used

Going 34

Working 29

Think 28

Know 10

Doing 9

18

Want 8

As it is clear from the table above, D. Trump quite often uses the present continuous tense. The usage

of this verbal tense is not a coincidence as well, as this way the politician reflects that he and his team

are constantly working on how to resolve the situation.

Also, in D. Trump’s discourse the usage of the verb “think” is very characteristic. This verb is

usually avoided by politicians in their official speeches as it lacks argumentation. However, as one can

see from the table below, D. Trump uses phrases “I think”, “I don’t think” quite extensively and this

way makes his discourse seem to be more similar to a regular person’s speech.

3.5 The usage of verbs and verbal tenses in D. Trump’s political discourse

Usage of the verb “think” Times used

I think 17

I don´t think 11

Cohesive devices

As it can be seen in the previous analysis, D. Trump’s way of speaking even during the official

speeches is very informal and unsophisticated. The same situation is obvious, when analysing D.

Trump’s arguments. D. Trump does not use arguments regarding specific information, his

argumentation is based on very vague and unclear statements:

(12) “And we're working very closely with a lot of different people. We'll be probably putting

out a proposal and giving them some of the details -- some of the very powerful details

over the weekend. It's moving along quickly.” (Trump 2020)

Phrases like “working closely”, “a lot of different people”, “some details”, “very powerful

details”, “moving along quickly” are very weak arguments. In this part of the speech, D. Trump was

supposed to explain how certain goals are being achieved and what is being done during the case of the

epidemic. However, the president of the USA only gives a very vague and unclear answer, he does not

mention the precise issues, who is working very closely and what details will be provided. Thus, it can

be concluded that there is a clear lack of consistent argumentation in D. Trumps speech.

The same issue can be noticed in other occasions as well:

19

(13) “The airline business has been hit very hard, as everybody knows. <…> We may even

have discussions with some of the airlines or all of the airlines over the weekend.” (Trump

2020)

In this case, the president should have provided a clear and cohesive statistical data on how the airline

business has been affected. Such form of argumentation is the most common among politicians and

makes their speech more convincing. However, once again, D. Trump uses very unclear adjectives and

pronouns, such as “hard”, “everybody”, “some”, and even a modal verb “may”, which makes his

argumentation weak. However, for unsophisticated listeners, it may create an impression that the

president is concerned about the situation and he is doing his best to provide the solutions.

Other example of such weak argumentation from D. Trump is visible when analysing his

speech in regards to oil price drop. Once again, examples of very general adjectives that do not provide

any additional information can be found:

(14) “I just spoke with the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, and the King of Saudi Arabia,

King Salman, we had a big talk as to oil production <…> the numbers are so low that

there'll be layoffs all over the world.” (Trump 2020)

The president tells that he had a “big talk” with leaders of other countries; however, he does

not mention what issues were tackled exactly and what outcomes were reached. Also, D. Trump

mentions that the numbers of oil prices are “so low”; however, he does not mention the exact

percentage of the drop of the oil price once in the whole discourse. Thus, it just once again proves that

D. Trump’s argumentation is very weak, the president neither provides obvious statistical data, nor

gives clear information of what outcomes or solutions had been reached during the conference

meetings.

Such form of speaking and lack of valid argumentation is very common in D. Trump’s

discourse.

The same problem is vivid in the following phrase where he defines his relationship with previously

mentioned world leaders:

(15) “We have a great relationship, great friendship.” (Trump 2020)

Therefore, the conclusion can be made that D. Trump’s discourse and speeches lack clear and

argumented reasoning. The president of the USA uses a lot of adverbs, adjectives that are aimed to

exaggerate the main idea that he wants to transmit; however, his discourse clearly lacks arguments and

statistical data. As mentioned above, such discourse is willingly used by D. Trump, as he aims to

appeal to the masses and is against the political establishment, which usually uses very sophisticated

20

language. Nonetheless, the lack of clear argumentation and meaningful explanation is very visible in D.

Trumps discourse.

The analysis of D. Trump’s political speeches shows that his way of expressing as a politician

is completely different and unique; he is completely off the traditional political spectrum. D. Trump

tries to position himself as a person of the nation, a businessman that does not belong to the political

establishment. He has never held office before and his political positions are not known in many

occasions. His uniqueness also derives from his informality which has various ways of expression.

Such position of D. Trump is also very visible in his political discourse as he tries to express his ideas

in a way that would be understandable to the common listener.

3.3 Analysis of A. Merkel’s Political Speeches

Vocabulary

If one were to analyse the speeches of the German counsellor Angela Merkel, the first thing that they

would notice is that her way of expressing is formal and follows the traditional political speech tone.

Her speech is structured and follows the traditional development rules of political discourse. Firstly,

unlike D. Trump, A. Merkel starts her speeches by formally directing to the listeners.

(16) “Ladies and gentlemen, in the last few days we have been working very intensively on our

meeting today <…>” (Merkel 2020)

Such introduction to an official speech is considered as a normal practice that most politics use

and shows that A. Merkel positions herself as a traditional politic, who follows all established protocol

rules.

Her political discourse is more directed towards the German nation and country; A. Merkel

holds Germany as an important international player that plays a vital role in the common well-being of

the whole global community.

The extract from a speech provided below shows that Germany sees itself as a country in

Europe and a country of the European Union. The counsellor presents the obtained achievements:

(17) “The vast majority of the countries of the European Union have committed themselves to

the objective of climate neutrality. The Commission President was here yesterday and

presented the Green Deal to you.” (Merkel 2020)

21

Thus, it is clear that the counsellor of Germany identifies Germany as an essential part of the

international community and the European Union, the country’s success depends on the effective

functioning of the whole international system since Germany is an essential part of it.

The same counsellor’s position can be also noticed when analysing A. Merkel’s report on

coronavirus. The position of the counsellor is very clear: European countries should work together in

order to solve the problematic situation:

(18) “That is why the only answer can be: more Europe, a strong Europe and a smoothly

functioning Europe – in all member states” (Merkel 2020)

Thus, it is clear that Germany’s counsellor positions herself and her country as leaders of Europe and

the international community. This attitude is very clear, since the counsellor states the necessity for

Germany to participate in research to find a vaccine for COVID-19. It shows that the counsellor clearly

sees this as a global issue that needs to be fought globally with united forces from all the countries, and

that Germany is a part of the international community.

(19) “And I can say that we are doing everything in this area, particularly on the part of the

Federal Government with very generous financial support, so that Germany as a research

country can also make its contribution to tackling this pandemic.” (Merkel 2020)

The discourse and such positioning of Germany as an important international player is quite different

from the positioning of the USA used by D. Trump. He sees the protection of the Americans and the

USA as his first priority. He does not use so many references to the international community. A

conclusion can be made that the leader of the USA positions the country as more of a national state,

while A. Merkel sees Germany as a very important international player that needs to take part in the

responsibility for solutions to global issues.

In order to make the discourse more impactful, A. Merkel uses distinct words, for example,

one of the allegories used is the verb “lulled”

(20) “We must not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of security” (Merkel 2020)

By using this verb, the counsellor tries to advert Germans that they need to stay conscious and follow

the public safety instructions in order to solve the issues and stay safe. It can be marked that the usage

of these allegories is justified in order to make people understand the seriousness of the situation and

that they need to take common responsibility for the decisions that are being made.

The analysis of the usage of pronouns in A. Merkel’s speech reveal that she uses these lexical

tools completely differently from D. Trump.

(21) “First of all, I would like to once again very warmly thank all the people in Germany, the

citizens who have changed their lives, who have reduced contacts, who accept the

22

restrictions, not because they want to please the government, but because they want to help

their fellows.” (Merkel 2020)

As it can be seen from the extract above, A. Merkel separates herself from the nation and does not use

the pronouns ¨we¨ or Ï¨ as D. Trump did. The usage of the pronoun ¨who¨ shows that she separates

herself as a politician from the nation and from this sentence A. Merkel recognizes the merit of the

German people, who have changed their habits and style of life during the difficult situation. Thus,

such usage of the pronoun shows that the biggest merit and sacrifices have been achieved by the whole

nation, and not only by politicians.

Grammar tools

As it was mentioned in the theoretical part of the paper, one of the most important grammatical tools is

a specific usage of pronouns and verbs.

As analysed previously, the most common pronoun used by D. Trump is “I”. With this pronoun the

president of the US aims to demonstrate his input and effort in resolving a critical situation and

positions himself as a leader of the nation.

If one were to analyse how many pronouns A. Merkel uses, the first thing that they would notice is that

her lexical style of using pronouns is very different from D. Trump’s. The most common pronoun used

by A. Merkel is “we”.

Table 3.6 The usage of pronouns in A. Merkel´s speeches

Pronoun Times used

We 137

I 62

Our 23

You 19

By using the pronoun “we”, A. Merkel does not focus on herself as a leader of the nation, but rather

tries to emphasise on the importance of the common effort, received from all the nation, in order to

overcome obstacles.

Therefore, A. Merkel sees encouragement for the nation as her main aim. This is also visible

when analysing what words most commonly follow the pronoun “we”. From the table below, it can be

23

seen that A. Merkel very commonly uses such expressions as “we all”, “we can”, “we must”, “we will”

in order to create the sense of community and to encourage the people not to give up and keep working

to solve and survive the critical situation.

Table 3.7 The usage of phrases with pronoun “we” in A. Merkel´s speeches

Usage of pronoun “we”

with other words

Times used

We can 9

We will 7

We all 4

We must 3

We are 3

When analysing the usage of the pronouns in A. Merkel’s speech more deeply, one can see that her

political discourse is very clearly aimed to encourage people and to create the sense of community,

collaboration, to encourage people to stay strong in order to overcome the pandemic:

(22) “We are a democracy.” (Merkel 2020)

(23) “We are a community.” (Merkel 2020)

(24) “We are not condemned.” (Merkel 2020)

(25) “We act cordially and reasonably.” (Merkel 2020)

Such phrases clearly identify that democracy, community, cooperation and collaboration are the main

values of the modern German nation. Believing and trusting in these values is the only way to survive

this difficult moment and to overcome obstacles. A. Merkel tries to encourage people to stay strong and

to believe in these values.

Also, by expressing herself with these phrases, A. Merkel positions herself not as an autocratic leader

of the country, who takes all the credit for solving the problem, but rather as a leader, who believes in

the nation and tries to encourage the people to stay strong. Therefore, it is clear that A. Merkel’s

leadership style is very different from the one used by D. Trump.

24

Argumentation

As it was witnessed in the investigation of D. Trump’s speech, it is obvious that the president of the

USA scarcely uses valid arguments. Most of this speech is quite vague, not only does he not use

arguments, but most of the times, he does not disclose any clear information on what actions have been

taken in order to solve certain issues. This is a huge drawback for his speech. In the case of A. Merkel,

many more arguments are present, which provides more specific information; thus, her speech seems to

be more coherent.

(26) “We have achieved something, as confirmed to us today by the Robert Koch Institute, and

we have achieved something, which was by no means certain at the beginning.” (Merkel

2020)

For the sentence above, even though A. Merkel does not provide any specific data, she makes

references to the information provided by scientific institutions. Along these lines, her speech and

arguments that she gives seem more valid. Although, she does use the pronoun “something”, previous

references to the scientific data make this statement a valid argument.

Next example of A. Merkel’s argumentation is the following statement:

(27) “At the moment, production is mainly based in Asia. Ninety percent of face masks are

produced in Asia.” (Merkel 2020)

Here she gives very clear and quantitative information regarding the fact that 90% of all face masks are

currently produced in Asia. These lexical details show that her speech is cohesive, well prepared as it is

based on the presented quantitative data and previous investigations, which were not visible in the case

of D. Trump’s speeches.

Intertextuality

Finally, another tool that politicians use quite often and which needs to be analysed is intertextuality,

which shapes a text’s, or in this case, speech’s meaning by another text/speech. It helps to make the

language of a politician more persuasive and understandable to the listener. One of the intertextuality

tools that A. Merkel uses is giving her own personal example on how she feels.

(28) “I’m familiar with that feeling myself. You feel a bit hopeful; then you feel more

confident; next thing you are somewhat more relaxed; and before you know it, you do

something a bit reckless. No, we need to maintain our focus.” (Merkel 2020)

This example shows that A. Merkel shares her own experience, for listeners to understand that they are

not alone in this struggle and that passing through different stages, while worrying, is normal. Also, the

25

use of such lexical tools makes an allusion that a politician is one of the nations, one of the people, who

face the same issues and that politicians understand peoples´ feelings.

To summarise, the examples discussed above suggest that A. Merkel’s way of speaking is

quite different form D. Trump’s speech style. First of all, A. Merkel, unlike D. Trump, uses a quite

formal way of speaking, which is common among most of the politicians. Secondly, A. Merkel does

not position herself as much as a leader of the nation, as she tries to position herself more as a politician

who is similar to the rest of people and who understands their feelings and struggles. Third, her

language is argumented and based on facts, more than the USA president’s way of speaking. Finally,

her discourse is less nationalistic and often the role of Germany, as an international player in global

society, is emphasized. All these insights allow to make a conclusion that A. Merkel applies a much

more traditional and common, among politicians, way of speaking than D. Trump.

3.4 Analysis of B. Johnson’s Political Speeches

Vocabulary

When analysing the official discourse of B. Johnson, the same as in the case of A. Merkel, the way of

speaking of the prime minister of Great Britain is quite official and follows the rules of political

discourse.

In most cases, B. Johnson starts his speeches by greeting, directing to listeners and thanking them:

(29) “Good afternoon” (Johnson 2020)

(30) “Ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for being here” (Johnson 2020)

This clearly shows that in spite of being considered as a quite controversial political figure, B.

Johnson, in his official speeches, follows the established rules of official political speeches.

Secondly, B. Johnson, like D. Trump, likes to repeat and emphasize the most important words in

the sentences:

(31) “I thank you because so many millions and millions of people across this country

have been doing the right thing.” (Johnson 2020)

Once again, the repetition of the word “millions” shows that B. Johnson recognizes the effort that

all of the people of Great Britain are putting in order to solve the situation. Thus, the main aim of

his speech is to recognize the effort of all the people and to encourage them to carry on.

Grammar tools

26

When analysing the grammar tools that prevail in B. Johnson’s speeches, the usage of pronouns is

very characteristic.

Table 3.8 The usage of pronouns in B. Johnson’s speeches

Pronouns Times used

I 18

We 13

Our 6

To begin with, the usage of the personal pronoun Ï¨ will be tackled. In one of the speeches, B.

Johnson tells his story of how he felt when he was diagnosed with coronavirus. In this case, the use of

the preposition “I” is not related towards expressing his feeling of superiority for the hard work that he

is doing in order to solve the issues but rather to tell about his own personal experiences, to encourage

people, and to show them that everyone is in the same boat. This makes the speech of the prime

minister of Great Britain more relatable to the listeners. Moreover, the usage of the pronoun “our” is

very characteristic as well. Although, the proposition öur¨ is not used as many times as other

prepositions, it always appeared before the abbreviation NHS, which refers to the National Health

Service of Great Britain.

(32) “our National Health Service.” (Johnson 2020)

(33) “we decided that if together we could keep our NHS safe, if we could stop our NHS

from being overwhelmed” (Johnson 2020)

(34) “our NHS has been unbeatable.” (Johnson 2020)

(35) “Stay at home, protect our NHS and save lives” (Johnson 2020)

The above examples illustrate that the struggle of NHS is a common achievement, the people of

Britain maintain the functioning of the system, and they are an integral part of the solution for this

crisis. Hence, in this way, the prime minister recognizes the input of every one of the citizens of Britain

in solving the problem.

Another example of B. Johnson’s usage of expressive language s his choice of verbs. In order to

emphasize the idea that the politician wants to express, he uses the same tenses, verbal synonyms. This

is shown in the extract below, their choice is very peculiar:

27

(36) “<…> they were watching, and they were thinking and they were caring and making

the interventions I needed” (Johnson 2020)

Such usage of the past continuous tense in English language actively shows the persistent and

ongoing effort of medical employees that needs to be recognized.

The need to encourage people to carry on with their effort is also visible in this example of the

repetition of the verb “defeat”:

(37) “That is why we will defeat this coronavirus and defeat it together.” (Johnson 2020)

This repetition in B. Johnson’s language is used to emphasize the most important parts of his

statement, in this case, encouraging people.

Therefore, once again, in the speeches during the analysed period, B. Johnson mostly focuses

on encouraging British people and recognizing the hard work that the whole nation is doing. He does

not focus on himself as a leader of the country that takes all the credits of solving the situation.

Although the usage of the preposition “I” is very common in B. Johnson’s political discourse, it is used

to express personal experiences and make the speech more relatable to the public, and not to position

B. Johnson as the only leader of the country, unlike the case of D. Trump’s discourse analysis. This

way, B. Johnson tries to appear as more approachable for the general public and to position himself as

one of people of the Great Britain.

Cohesion of the language

In his last speeches, B. Johnson has not used clear, quantitative argumentations, like A. Merkel did. It

may be seen as a lack of an effective and constructive political argumentation. However, B. Johnson

also avoided the usage of ambiguous pronouns or expressive verbs, adverbs, like D. Trump did. B.

Johnson’s speeches mostly focus on expressing his own personal experiences and gratitude to the

British people for their effort. Although, there is no clear data needed here, their speeches are quite

cohesive and argumented.

Intertextuality

In the last few speeches of B. Johnson, the most commonly used way of intertextuality is giving his

personal example. To make his speech more compelling, attractive to the listener, B. Johnson, shares

his own experiences on how he had been feeling under the influence of COVID-19:

(38) “I have today left hospital after a week in which the NHS has saved my life. No

question. It’s hard to find words to express my debt, but before I come to that, I want to

thank everyone in the entire UK for the effort and the sacrifice you have made, and are

making.” (Johnson 2020)

28

This personal example is given not to get personal credit but to express gratitude to the health

personnel.

Thus, to sum up the analysis of B. Johnson’s political speeches, it can be said that his type of

speaking is more similar to a politically correct, more commonly used political discourse by politicians,

and to A. Merkel’s type of speaking, than D. Trump´s. B. Johnson´s speeches are quite official and

share lexical tools that are being commonly used among politicians. However, one unique feature is

that in his last speeches, the prime minister of Great Britain, shares a lot of his personal experiences, in

order to make his speeches more engaging to the listener.

4 CONCLUSIONS

Political discourse can be described as both, spoken or written; text related to politics. Other authors

claim that political discourse is a part of public discourse that has as its object the public policy or

general management of public or state affairs. Political discourse is generally associated with political

documents, government press releases, press conferences, party manifestos, electoral campaign

programs, interviews, speeches, letters, and other similar texts.

Following on, specific linguistic means are used in political discourse. Usually, they are

divided in four main categories: vocabulary, grammar, cohesion of the discourse and its intertextuality.

Based on these categories, in this paper, speeches of D. Trump, A, Merkel and B. Johnson were

analysed.

Furthermore, D. Trump uses quite a unique way of public speaking. He positions himself

as a strong leader who solves issues and takes all the responsibly. His way of speaking is very

unofficial, down to earth. His uniqueness derives also from his informality, which has various ways of

expression. He tries to appeal and to be understandable to the general public. However, his political

speeches lack clear argumentation.

Moreover, A. Merkel’s way of speaking is quite different form D. Trump’s speech style.

First of all, A. Merkel, unlike D. Trump, uses a quite formal way of speaking, which is common among

most of the politicians. Secondly, A. Merkel does not position herself that much as a leader of the

nation, she tries to position herself more as a politician who is similar to the rest of the people and

understands their feelings and struggles. A. Merkel’s discourse is way less nationalistic and often the

role of Germany as an international player in global society is emphasized. A. Merkel applies a way

more traditional and common among politician’s way of speaking than D. Trump.

29

Lastly, B. Johnson’s political discourse is more similar to the politically correct type of

political discourse and to A. Merkel’s type of speaking than D. Trump’s. B. Johnson’s speeches are

quite official and the lexical tools that are used are common among politicians. However, one unique

feature is that in his last speeches, the prime minister of Great Britain shares numerous personal

experiences in order to make his speech more relatable to the listener.

REFERENCES

Amaglobeli, G. 2016. Ideological-moral grounds of Georgian Political Discourse in the context of the

Framing Theory. VII International Conference in American Studies. Kutaisi: Akaki Tsereteli State

University, 30-38.

Bayley, P. 2008. Analysing Language and Politics, Mediazione: Rivista online di studi interdisciplinary

su lingue e culture, 34-5.

Barzin F. 2013. The Role of Media Discourse in Diplomatic Behavior. International Journal of

Business and Social Science, 4,17: 200 – 205.

Butova, A. V., Dubskikh, A. I., Kisel, O. V., Chigintseva, E. G. 2019. Electronic Educational

Environment Moodle in English Language Training. Arab World English Journal, 10, 1 47- 55.

Bonila J. 2018. A critical-cognitive analysis of Donald Trump’s discourse across time: Trump as a

businessman versus Trump as a president. Actas do XIII Congreso Internacional de Lingüística Xeral,

Vigo 2018, 409-416.

Chilton P. & Schaffner Ch. 2002. Politics as text and talk. Analytic approaches to political discourse.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins publishing.

Chilton, P. 2004. Analysing Political Discourse. Theory and Practice, London and New York:

Routledge.

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

Fetzer, A. 2010. Small stories in political discourse: The public self goes private’. In C.R. Hoffmann

(ed.) Narrative Revisited: Telling a story in the age of new media. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 163-

184.

Garcia T. 2018. Donald J. Trump: A critical discourse analysis. Estudios institucionales, 8, 47-73.

ITV, Johnson, B. 2020. “Coronavirus: Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Easter Sunday message in full”.

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-12/coronavirus-prime-minister-boris-johnson-s-easter-sunday-

message-in-full/ Accessed 02 May 2020.

Karasik, 2002. About types of discourse, Language personality: institutional and personal discourse.

Volgograd: Peremena.

Kenzhekankyzy K. 2013. Linguistic Features of Political Discourse. Mediterranean Journal of Social

Sciences. 6(32), 192 -199.

Labov, W. 1972. The transformation of experience in narrative syntax. In W. Labov (ed.) Language in

the inner city: Studies in Black English vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Washington Press, 354-

396.

Lengoo, Merkel, A. 2020 “Angela Merkel: CoViD-19 Measures in Germany Extended until May 03rd”.

https://www.lengoo.de/blog/merkel-covid-19-measures-until-may/ Accessed 02 May 2020.

Locke, T. 2004. Critical Discourse Analysis. London; New York: Continuum.

Majali W. 2015. Discourse Analysis of the Political Speeches of the Ousted Arab Presidents during the

Arab Spring Revolution using Halliday and Hasan's Framework of Cohesion. Journal of Education and

Practice 6(14).

Simon, A. F. 2002. The winning message: Candidate behavior, campaign discourse, and democracy.

Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

The Federal Government, Merkel, A. 2020 “Angela Merkel on the Corona Cabinet”.

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/merkel-corona-kabinett-1739694 Accessed 02 May

2020.

The Federal Government, Merkel, A. 2020 “Speech by Federal Chancellor Dr Angela Merkel at the

2020 Annual Meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos on 23 January 2020”.

https://www.bundesregierung.de/breg-en/news/speech-by-federal-chancellor-dr-angela-merkel-at-the-

2020-annual-meeting-of-the-world-economic-forum-in-davos-on-23-january-2020-1716620 Accessed

02 May 2020.

The Local, Merkel, A. 2020 “'The situation is fragile': Merkel urges Germans to stick to coronavirus

restrictions”. https://www.thelocal.de/20200409/the-situation-is-fragile-merkel-urges-germans-to-stick-

to-coronavirus-restrictions Accessed 02 May 2020.

The Washington Post, Trump, D. 2020 “Trump administration pushing to reopen much of the U.S. next

month”. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/trump-reopen-us-economy/2020/04/09/10d42b4a-

7a7b-11ea-9bee-c5bf9d2e3288_story.html Accessed 02 May 2020.

The White House, Trump, D. 2020 “Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members

of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing”. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-

statements/remarks-president-trump-vice-president-pence-members-coronavirus-task-force-press-

briefing-16/ Accessed 02 May 2020.













The White House, Trump, D. 2020 “These 30 Days: How You Can Help”.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/these-30-days-how-you-can-help/ Accessed 02 May 2020.

Van Dijk, Teun. 1996. Discourse as social interaction. London: Sage Publications.

Van Dijk, Teun. 2008. “Racism and the press in Spain”. In Discurso y sociedad II. Nuevas

contribuciones al estudio de la lengua en un contexto social. Castelló de la Plana: Universitat Jaume I.

Documents

Domantas Vaina - VDU