Persuasion strategies in Joe Biden's political discourse

Persuasive strategies are very significant as they are found in all human interactions in every aspect of life, particularly in politics. They take place in a way which is recognized and understood by the audience or the addressees. Such strategies are used by speakers in order to influence others to modify and/or change their beliefs, values, attitudes, and way of thinking. They are used to convince others by a certain idea or a concept as well. They also reveal a lot about the identity of the speaker. In other words, persuasive strategies must persuade the addressee at the end. Therefore, this paper examines the persuasive strategies found in President Joe Biden’s Inauguration Speech. It aims at highlighting the persuasive strategies used to reveal the identity of the speaker. In the micro-analysis provided by this study, segments of speeches are illustrated to verify the illocutionary act in order to know the speaker’s intended meaning in terms of Searle’s Speech Act Theory based on the five categories of speech which are: assertives, commissives, expressives, directives, and declaration. Afterwards, the use of deictic pronouns such as: the first-person singular pronoun “I” and the exclusive and inclusive “WE” is analysed based on Fairclough’s assumption in Critical Discourse Analysis with the aim to either show the speaker’s integrity or to give a devoted and close impression. A brief explanation is provided to facilitate the process of understanding the meaning behind its use. Lastly, the use of Aristotle’s persuasion appeal as: Ethos, Logos, and Pathos is examined. Ethos is used to show truthfulness. Pathos is used to express emotions and feelings. Logos is used to support arguments through logical assumptions and facts. The findings indicate that multiple speech acts can occur in a single utterance with different connotations based on the context. The excessive use of a certain act can be significant. The analysis of speech acts reveals a lot about the speaker’s identity and the relationship between the speaker and the audience. It also shows that the use of deictic pronouns can be strategic and persuasive as well. This is simply because inclusive “WE” can include both the speaker and the audiences to show unity and solidarity. The exclusive “WE” can include the speaker but not all the audiences. Finally, the process of persuasion can be emphasised by significant resort to logos, which can also reinforce ethos appeal. Keywords: Aristotle’s Persuasion Appeals, Biden’s Inauguration Speech, Deictic Pronouns, Persuasive Strategies, Political Discourse, Speech Acts Theory

Persuasion can be defined as a scientific art which is closely connected with our life .Linguistically speaking, persuasion is achieved through many techniques termed "persuasive devices". These persuasive devices are covered in different domains of life. Accordingly, persuasion has been defined in various methods according to communication as ''a communication process in which a communicator searches to draw out a desired response from his receiver''. This paper investigates different strategies of persuasion used by different people in different domains of life and how those strategies differ when used in election parliament. The aim of this paper is to find out the strategies of persuasion used by different people and specifically in the election Campaigns. It is hypothesized that Americans use different strategies of persuasion in order to affect others by changing their beliefs, attitudes and so on. This paper explains what is meant by the term "critical discourse analysis", (henceforth CDA), elaborates on the political discourse analysis and shows how it differs from (CDA).Outlining persuasion with its strategies which are used to influence on the others. Besides, it analyzes the data selected for this study which is the speeches of Hillary Clinton and Donald trump through the polling, then discusses the results and conclusions.

The crucial historical moment represented by post 9/11 may undoubtedly be considered responsible for the subsequent hardening of American political rhetoric. And yet, the sudden increase of consensus catalysed by George W. Bush and the consequences of his international policy bring his modus persuadendi up for discussion. The aim of this article is to present a framework for a metaphor-based critical analysis of persuasion in political discourse. Our object of observation is George W. Bush's public speeches to the nation (2001—4). More specifically, the analysis is focused on the persuasion strategy enacted to promote the preventive war in Iraq. In our approach, conceptual metaphor as related to emotion constitutes the fundamental argumentative feature and crucial tool to address the matter of persuasion in text, contributing to identifying both the ideological root and the persuasive strategy of a given discourse in the long run. Synthesis of our results shows the potentialities of metaphor as a privileged cognitive tool for abstracting and constructing discourse strategies.

The study shed light on intellectual security strategies in persuasive discourse, and how to frame the use of persuasive discourse strategies towards activating intellectual security in society. Rhetorical and persuasive strategies, and with the observation tool, the study concluded that the concept of intellectual security includes commitment to morals, customs, and the regulating and prevailing laws in society, and that persuasive discourse strategies work to organize and frame content in order to reach persuasion, and that Aristotle's persuasive triangle is consistent with rhetorical strategies, research that is consistent The pathos with the solidarity strategy, the ethos interacts in the directive strategy, the logos merges into the allusive strategy and the persuasive strategy, and the solidarity strategies are considered one of the most prominent persuasive strategies in enhancing intellectual security. Reinforced jaw security Irrigation in the process of communication works to preserve the cultural and religious identity in any society. Keywords: strategies, intellectual security, discourse, persuasion, framing.

Introduction. Introduction explores the political interview genre, which is an efficient way of affecting the audience as well as a tool of forming public opinion. Key strategies of political interview namely persuasive and evasive ones are given. Basic tactics helping in carrying out these strategies in political interview are outlined. Materials and methods. Materials and methods are explored in a corresponding paragraph of the paper. D. Trump, H. Clinton and E. Macron interviews transcripts in the English language are used as material for the research. Transcripts are studied within the frame of conceptual integration theory (cognitive metaphor and mental spaces study) and discourse analysis (linguistic and extra linguistic discourse features investigation). Results. Results of the research represent specific examples of studying persuasive and evasive strategies revealing corresponding tactics while drawing conceptual integration schemes (for persuasive strategy) and examining particular phrases from the interview taking into account political and social context (for evasive strategy). Discussion. Discussion is devoted to summarizing the investigation and reviewing the results. Among the persuasive tactics Ettiketirung and discreditation tactics prevail in the material studied. The most popular evasive tactics are mitigation, generalization, compliance with the journalist, admission of guilt. Cognitive metaphor is an effective way of implementing persuasive strategy while it is used rarely in carrying out evasive strategy. As far as psychological image of the politicians is concerned, H. Clinton and D. Trump tend to be using persuasive strategy, whereas E. Macron prefers to be evasive. Also, the French President often implements stable emotional state strategy. Conclusion. Conclusion contemplates the outlook of the research given. Further studying of persuasive, evasive and other discursive strategies is planned based on political interviews and political discourse in general.

The essay sets off by arguing that since the 1950s, there has been a growing enthusiasm in political advertising discourse. This was because political advertising became prominent as an effective communicative and publicity tool in the 1952 U.S. presidential election campaign when Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed its instruments to win the most prestigious and highest political post in the U.S. (Reece 2003). Since that time, several rhetorical strategies have been adopted by politicians all over the world to cast and communicate political messages to their various audiences. Most previous research efforts appear to be in the monolingual or L1 settings (e.g. Chilton and Schäffner 1997; Obeng 1997).In this study, we examine how Nigerian politicians demonstrate their bilingual creativity in an innovative manner, employing linguistic facilities to publicise and sell their political programmes, especially in the use of media multilingualism, a novel persuasive strategy that has come to characterise political campaign texts. Specifically, we consider this recent phenomenon in Nigerian political discourse in which political candidates ‘marry’ and exploit the resources of both the exogenous (English) and indigenous languages (and sometimes along with pidgin) in the same campaign texts in order to woo voters. So the term ‘media multilingualism’ here is taken to be the variety of code-mixing and codeswitching in written political texts. The paper thus examines inter/intrasententially code-mixed facts found in the written campaign texts and discusses their functional implications especially as part of the discourse strategies deployed by the politicians to elicit support and woo voters to support their candidatures.Relevant literature on codeswitching and theories (e.g. Speech Accommodation Theory) that provide theoretical underpinning for the study are reviewed. An attempt is also made to demonstrate that codeswitching in political discourse is an interpersonal strategy that can be used to create, strengthen or destroy interpersonal boundaries, and thus it functions as a discourse strategy for pragmatic and strategic purposes (Wei 2003). The framework for analysis follows the insights provided in Rational Choice Models (RC) as seen in the works of Myers-Scotton (1993), Myers-Scotton and Agnes Bolonyai (2001) and Wei (2003). The essay concludes by presenting a summary of some important analytical observations that arose from the study. It also suggests that a similar pattern is bound to occur in political discourse found in other L2 contexts.The data set for this work came from selected political texts produced during the 2003 governorship and presidential elections campaigns in Nigeria and sourced from selected Nigerian national newspapers.

This research has been taken on Nelson Mandela's political speeches by using Aristotle's theory of pathos (draw the audience's intention by offering and controlling the audience's emotion). The objective of the study is to know how people especially politicians attract people through persuasive strategies. The background of the study is based on political discourse analysis and it is a qualitative research. Nelson Mandela's ten speeches have been taken from different websites and analyzed by the Nvivo-12 software trial version which gave results in the form of percentage of words. It is analyzed by joining the most used words that are given in tables of each speech. All speeches are also analyzed by taking one sentence from each speech which is showing the persuasive strategy of pathos, which is given in italics. Nelson Mandela's most used pathos persuasive strategy in all 10 speeches is mentioned in the overall speeches' analysis. He used the pathos strategy to provoke the audience's feelings with sentences and phrases to persuade people toward his point of view.

Halliday's Systemic Functional Grammar provides a new perspective and method for political discourse analysis. This paper first introduces the research status of political discourse at home and abroad, and then elaborates three metafunctions of Systemic Functional Grammar, namely ideational function, interpersonal function as well as textual function. On this basis, this paper makes an in-depth transitivity analysis of the inaugural address of the 46th president of the United States, Joseph Robinette Biden. Through profound research, this paper attempts to reveal how English language is applied to hide ideology in political speeches and how president Joe Biden uses various language features to persuade and inspire American people in order to reach his political purpose; at the same time, it also verifies the practicability of Systemic Functional Grammar in the analysis of political speech discourse.

This paper explores the manipulative power of political video discourse in election campaigns from 2016 to 2020 by using critical discourse analysis and the cognitive linguistic theory of conceptual metaphors. The manipulative power of the discourse is revealed through micro and macro analysis during the studied period. The corpus of the research consists of videos used in election campaigns, television broadcasts, including the ones archived on the official YouTube channels. Since 1990, the year relevant for the onset of democratic elections, to this day, the sub-genre of a video within the advertising and propaganda genre in political discourse has been largely altered: thus, it is noted that it has abundantly been used in election campaigns since 2016, with more significant investments into production, becoming more diversified in terms of topics and content. These alterations are compliant with political objectives and shaped according to the manipulative and persuasive strategies which are the inherent component of the advertising and propaganda genre in general. The aim of this paper is to demonstrate all stylistic and linguistic means that have a manipulative nature. It has been demonstrated that persuasive and manipulative aims in this discourse are accomplished by using various conceptual metaphors, but also with vulgarization (the corpus contains a video where the sexual orientation of a candidate is topicalized), celebrity endorsements (prominent people appear as political candidate, promoters), and aggressive self-promotion.

Expressive inversion is a crucial element of modern political discourse, where politicians widely use it to enhance emotional impact and draw attention to key ideas of their political speeches. The aim of the article is determination expressive inversion pragmatic potential in modern political discourse. Expressive inversion draws the listeners’ attention to the part of the sentence that the speaker considers the most important or informative. The relevance of our study is based on the necessity of researching the use of expressive inversion in current political discourse, such as the inaugural speeches of US presidents. This study may also enrich research on the political speeches of American presidents and have some implications for the analysis of political discourse. The research methods of the article combine the discourse analysis method, the style analysis method, the pure sampling method, and the comparative method. In our study, six inaugural speeches by four U.S. presidents (Democrats Barack Obama, and Joseph Biden, and Republicans George W. Bush and Donald Trump) were subjected to stylistic analysis, with a focus on the use of expressive inversion as a stylistic device. Conclusions. The study has shown that in the inaugural speeches of US presidents, being an essential segment of political discourse, inversion performs not only the so-called universal functions (logical, grammatical, communicative, pragmatic, and structural-semantic) identified by researchers for any text but also expressive, emotional-evaluative, stylistic, and figurative-semantic ones. The style of inaugural addresses created employing inversion fulfills these tasks and brings political discourse closer to journalism and fiction discourse. Intentional change of word order, contributing to the formation of a metaphor or epithet, is aimed at creating a vivid image in the addressee’s mind, evoking emotions and forming evaluative judgments desirable for the addressee. Thus, inversion, performing expressive, emotional-evaluative, stylistic, or figurative-semantic functions, has a powerful cognitive impact, turning it into an effective tool of persuasion. Inversion functions do not appear in their pure form. Instead, they often complement each other, creating a complex layered impact. However, the expressive function is the most frequently used, underscoring its importance in conveying persuasive and dynamic content in presidential speeches. The study focuses on how expressive inversion is used in the inaugural speeches of U.S. presidents. According to the research results, all the US presidents of the 21st century have used expressive inversion in their inaugural speeches. Trump’s inaugural speech had the highest percentage of expressive inversion (25%). The speeches of both Bush’s inaugurals show relatively lower occurrences than the others. The frequency of its use in the presidents’ inaugural speeches suggests the choice of a communicative strategy that defines the purpose of influencing the audience and forms the personal image of the politician. In Obama’s speeches, inversion is the basis of the integration strategy, emphasizing the unity of Americans and the relationship between the people and the government, creating the president’s image as a ‘father of the nation’. Trump uses the inversion to oppose himself to his predecessors, emphasizing the need for radical change, creating the image of a ‘savior of the nation’. In Bush’s speeches, inversion is part of metaphorical constructions that create vivid images of freedom and democracy, forming a strategy of idealization that strengthens the president’s image as the ‘emotional intelligence of the nation’. Using simple syntax and appealing to religious themes, Biden uses inversion as a means of fascination, forming the image of the ‘conscience of the nation’. Thus, in Obama’s and Trump’s speeches, the high frequency of inversion use indicates not only the intention to have an emotional impact or influence the audience’s opinion but also the desire to create a logical chain at the cognitive level, i.e., to form a certain conviction and induce a specific action. The speeches of Bush and Biden are much less full of inversion. Inversion here is only a stylistic component of inaugural rhetoric.

The article is devoted to the specifics of the use of linguistic influence techniques by the American mass media involved in the bipartisan political discourse. The article provides an overview of research related to the confrontation in political discourse, as well as the direct involvement of the media in political processes. The conclusion is made about the bias of many modern media and their use of manipulative techniques to influence the audience. A brief historical summary is given of the two main opposition parties in the United States, the history of their emergence and the ongoing confrontation since then. The news releases of the pro-Republican Fox News channel (hosted by Jesse Watters) and the prodemocratic MSNBC (hosted by Jen Psaki) devoted to the re-election of Donald Trump were selected as the material for the analysis. The study uses the classification of communicative strategies in political discourse by O.L. Mikhaleva, as well as the «classic» American list of manipulative influence techniques. The article makes use of general scientific methods, descriptive method, method of discursive analysis, contextual analysis, interpretive method, methods of comparative analysis. The author comes to the conclusion that none of the presenters adhered to the standard of impartial news broadcasting, on the contrary, both actively used communication strategies in order to influence the public. The article describes the similarities and differences in the choice of manipulative tactics and techniques by opposition commentators, most of which are aimed at denigrating the opponent. The same political event is given a diametrically opposed assessment by media representatives, which makes it difficult for the voter to make a choice. The analysis of political confrontation discourse in American entertainment television shows seems promising in terms of further research of this topic.

The article is devoted to the specifics of the use of linguistic influence techniques by the American mass media involved in the bipartisan political discourse. The article provides an overview of research related to the confrontation in political discourse, as well as the direct involvement of the media in political processes. The conclusion is made about the bias of many modern media and their use of manipulative techniques to influence the audience. A brief historical summary is given of the two main opposition parties in the United States, the history of their emergence and the ongoing confrontation since then. The news releases of the pro-Republican Fox News channel (hosted by Jesse Watters) and the prodemocratic MSNBC (hosted by Jen Psaki) devoted to the re-election of Donald Trump were selected as the material for the analysis. The study uses the classification of communicative strategies in political discourse by O.L. Mikhaleva, as well as the «classic» American list of manipulative influence techniques. The article makes use of general scientific methods, descriptive method, method of discursive analysis, contextual analysis, interpretive method, methods of comparative analysis. The author comes to the conclusion that none of the presenters adhered to the standard of impartial news broadcasting, on the contrary, both actively used communication strategies in order to influence the public. The article describes the similarities and differences in the choice of manipulative tactics and techniques by opposition commentators, most of which are aimed at denigrating the opponent. The same political event is given a diametrically opposed assessment by media representatives, which makes it difficult for the voter to make a choice. The analysis of political confrontation discourse in American entertainment television shows seems promising in terms of further research of this topic.

This study is concerned with the linguistic devices used to persuade and manipulate audiences of political discourse in the 2020 US Presidential election. This study focused on Donald Trump's and Joe Biden's rhetorical and framing strategies in their speech and debate. A qualitative method was used to conduct the study to analyze the data. The study aimed to find the rhetorical and framing strategies of Donald Trump and Joe Biden and to find how they persuade and manipulate audiences of the political discourse. The findings reveal that the rhetorical strategy, Pathos, or the appeal to emotions, was utilized the most by Donald Trump compared to a more balanced use of all rhetorical strategies by Joe Biden. At the same time, logos were focused more on debates for both candidates. For framing strategies, both candidates utilized emphasis the most to stress the importance of an issue or to concentrate on a message. According to the analysis, Donald Trump mainly used persuasive language, which can be seen by referencing "patriots" several times to evoke a sense of unity, which is different compared to his debates, where he is very manipulative in using statistics and facts that are not fully referenced and an abundance of straight lies. This can be seen when he claimed that he cut "drug prices," which is false. Joe Biden used a persuasive strategy by referencing history and events such as "Charlottesville".

Persuasion Strategies in the Rector's Speech at Lambung Mangkurat University. This research was conducted to understand persuasive communication strategies in higher education leadership context, particularly in the transformation era towards World Class University that demands institutional communication effectiveness. As the highest leader of higher education institutions, rectors have strategic responsibility to communicate university vision, mission, and policies to various stakeholders through speeches in academic forums. This study aims to elaborate the forms, patterns, and persuasion techniques used by Lambung Mangkurat University Rector in various speeches. This study adopts a descriptive qualitative approach to analyze persuasive rhetorical strategies in oral discourse delivered by ULM Rector. The primary data sources were speeches by ULM Rector for the 2022-2026 period collected from the university's official YouTube channel in various forums such as graduation ceremonies, new student orientation, and Dies Natalis. Data collection techniques included observation of speech recordings, transcript documentation, and audience interviews. Data analysis was conducted through data reduction, data presentation, and result verification stages. Research results show: (1) persuasion forms are reflected in balanced combination of ethos, pathos, and logos as the basis of rhetorical strategy; (2) speech composition patterns include problem-solving patterns, cause-effect patterns, pro-contra patterns, and motivated sequence patterns; (3) persuasion techniques include rationalization, identification, suggestion, and conformity adapted to audience characteristics and situational context. The research concludes that ULM Rector's speeches have high effectiveness in shaping audience opinions, directing thinking patterns, fostering attachment to institutional values, and functioning as instruments to strengthen university identity and encourage active participation of academic community in achieving strategic institutional goals.Keywords: Persuasion Strategy, Rector's Speech, Rhetoric, Leadership Communication

The paper presents a study of the persuasion strategies in French ultra-right discourse. Persuasion strategies are considered with the aim of researching the construction of the most effective political communication as an instrument of pressure and management of public opinion. The article deals with a linear communication model, which is based on the process of unilaterally transferring information from the speaker to the addressee. This model of information transmission is widespread in the media and aims to directly influence the addressee for the sake of forming persistent beliefs. The theoretical and methodological basis of the research is the work of scientists devoted to the study of general theory of discourse and political discourse. The methodological basis of the work was the techniques and methods of researching political discourse in the framework of a consistent study of its specific features. The author analyzes the discursive strategies and tactics used in the French ultra-right discourse with the aim of influencing the addressee. The essence of speech strategies and rhetoric of the right forces, as well as the range of linguistic means of speech influence and their implementation by these political forces are considered. The main directions of the essential characteristics of persuasion strategies in contemporary French ultra-right discourse are investigated. Ultra-right groups have a large number of supporters in France, whom they attract to their ranks through print and online publications, so consideration of persuasion strategies in French ultra-right discourse to ensure a positive impact on the addressee is available over time. "Ultra-right discourse" refers to the discourse of the ultra-right, often very small groups, whose actions are violent. The term "ultra-right discourse" is intended to differentiate the discourse of radical and "non-parliamentary" groups from the discourse of far-right law-abiding groups. The role of ultra-right discourse in modern French society is revealed, in particular, the manipulative effect of ultra-right political discourse on the addressee is considered.