On persuasive strategies: Metadiscourse practices in political speeches
Vol.15,No.1(2022)
This study attempted to investigate the persuasive meaning of metadiscourse markers in political speeches to see to what extent and how persuasive discourse is constructed in this genre through metadiscourse practices. To this aim, twenty-six political speeches given by Barack Obama, a former president of the United States, were analyzed using a discourse analytic approach and following Hyland’s (2005ab) interpersonal models of metadiscourse to identify the frequency and persuasive function of interactive and interactional devices used. The findings indicated that the persuasive meaning conveyed by metadiscourse was for the most part context-dependent, which sometimes required the speaker to rely on a combination of devices to organize his discourse, persuade audiences, attract their attention and engage them in arguments. Furthermore, interactional devices were more frequently used than interactive ones, reflecting that engaging audiences in arguments and showing one’s attitude and evaluation towards propositions were more likely to contribute to constructing a persuasive political speech. Findings can be discussed in terms of raising the awareness of second language speakers toward the linguistic and pragmatic conventions of political discourse and how persuasive discourse is constructed through metadiscourse markers.
audience; interactional; interactive; metadiscourse; persuasion; political speech
Hadi Kashiha
Sohar University, Sultanate of Oman
Hadi Kashiha is Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics at Sohar University in Oman and a former postdoctoral researcher at Alzahra University in Iran. He specialises in corpus linguistics, discourse analysis, genre studies and contrastive rhetoric, focusing on academic discourse, and is currently involved in the research project “Wedding invitation discourse in Oman: A transdisciplinary approach”, the aim of which is to explore the features and variability dynamics of the discourse of wedding cards in Omani culture.
Ädel, A. (2010) ‘Just to give you kind of a map of where we are going: A taxonomy of metadiscourse in spoken and written academic English.’ Nordic Journal of English Studies 9, 69-97.
Ädel, A. (2012) ‘“What I want you to remember is . . .”: Audience orientation in monologic academic discourse.’ English Text Construction 5, 101-127. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.06ade.
Biber, D., Conrad, S. and Reppen, R. (1998) Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D. (2006) ‘Stance in spoken and written university registers.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2), 97-116.
Braet, A. C. (1992) ‘Ethos, pathos and logos in Aristotle’s Rhetoric: A re-examination.’ Argumentation 6(3), 307-320.
Cao, F. and Hu, G. (2014) ‘Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: A comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences.’ Journal of Pragmatics 66, 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.007.
Chen, Y. (2017) ‘On identity construction strategies in Hillary Clinton’s campaign speech.’ In: Proceedings of The Sixth Northeast Asia International Symposium on Language, Literature and Translation. Marietta, Georgia, USA: The American Scholars Press, Inc. 467-473.
Dillard, J. P. and Pfau, M. (2002) The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. Sage Publications.
Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2008) ‘Some functions of self-reference in diplomatic addresses.’ Discourse and Interaction 1(1), 7-24.
Gillaerts, P. and van de Velde, F. (2010) ‘Interactional metadiscourse in research article abstracts.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9(1), 128-139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.004.
Hodge, R. and Kress, G. (1993) Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (1998) ‘Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic discourse.’ Journal of Pragmatics 30(4), 437-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5.
Hyland, K. (2003) ‘Self-citation and self-reference: Credibility and promotion in academic publication.’ Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10204.
Hyland, K. (2004) ‘Disciplinary interactions: Metadiscourse in L2 postgraduate writing.’ Journal of Second Language Writing 13(2), 133-151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.02.001.
Hyland, K. (2005a) Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London, UK: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2005b) ‘Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse.’ Discourse Studies 7(1), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365.
Hyland, K. and Tse, P. (2004) ‘Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal.’ Applied Linguistics 25(2), 156-177. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156.
Ismail, A. I. H. M. (2012) ‘Discourse markers in political speeches: Forms and functions.’ Journal of the College of Education for Women 23(4), 1260-1278.
Jung, S. (2003) ‘The role of discourse signaling cues in second language listening comprehension.’ The Modern Language Journal 87(4), 562-577. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-4781.00208.
Kashiha, H. (2018) ‘Malaysian ESL students’ perception of metadiscourse in essay writing.’ Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies 8(3), 193-201. https://doi.org/10.12973/ojcmt/2650.
Kashiha, H. (2021a) ‘Metadiscourse variations in the generic structure of disciplinary research articles.’ International Review of Pragmatics 13(2), 193-212. https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-01302004.
Kashiha, H. (2021b) ‘Stance-taking across monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech.’ Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 39(4), 352-362. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2021.1964371.
Kashiha, H. (2022) ‘Academic lectures versus political speeches: Metadiscourse functions affected by the role of the audience.’ Journal of Pragmatics 190, 60-72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.01.003.
Kashiha, H. and Chan, S. H. (2014) ‘Using multi-word units to take a stance in academic lectures.’ Journal of Language and Communication 1(1), 31-40.
Kashiha, H. and Marandi, S. (2019) ‘Rhetoric-specific features of interactive metadiscourse in introduction moves: A case of discipline awareness.’ Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 37(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2018.1548294.
Lee, J. J. and Subtirelu, N. C. (2015) ‘Metadiscourse in the classroom: A comparative analysis of EAP lessons and university lectures.’ English for Specific Purposes 37, 52-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2014.06.005.
Liukonen, S. (2018) In Pursuit of Persuasion: Metadiscourse in David Cameron’s Brexit Discourse. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. English Philology Faculty of Arts, University of Helsinki.
Lunsford, A. A., Wilson, K. H. and Eberly, R. A. (2008) The SAGE Handbook of Rhetorical Studies. London: Sage Publications.
McGrath, L. and Kuteeva, M. (2012) ‘Stance and engagement in pure mathematics research articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices.’ English for Specific Purposes 31, 161-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2011.11.002.
Miller, C. H. (2015) ‘Persuasion and psychological reactance: The effects of explicit, high-controlling language.’ In: Schulze, R. and Pishwa, H. (eds) The Exercise of Power in Communication. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 465-501.
Miššíková, G. (2007) ‘Maxim hedges in political discourse: A contrastive perspective.’ Topics in Linguistics 1, 145-152.
Molino, A. (2010) ‘Personal and impersonal authorial references: A contrastive study of English and Italian linguistics research articles.’ Journal of English for Academic Purposes 9, 86-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2010.02.007.
O’Keefe, D. J. (2002) ‘Guilt as a mechanism of persuasion.’ In: Dillard, J. P. and Pifatu, M. (eds) The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice. London: Sage Publications. 329-344.
Pettegree, A. (2005) Reformation and the Culture of Persuasion. Cambridge University Press.
Rosingana, G. C. (2018) ‘Fictionalizing scenarios in political discourse.’ In: Pelclová, J. and Lu, W. (eds) Persuasion in Public Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 85-108.
Sebera, J. and Lu, W. L. (2018) ‘Metaphor as a (de-)legitimizing strategy in leadership discourse: The language of crisis in Winston Churchill’s Cold War speeches.’ In: Pelclová, J. and Lu, W. (eds) Persuasion in Public Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 65-84.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006) ‘Discourse and manipulation.’ Discourse & Society 17(3), 359-383.
Veloso, F. O. and Feng, D. (2018) ‘“The end is near”: Negative attitude and fear in political discourse.’ In: Pelclová, J. and Lu, W. (eds) Persuasion in Public Discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 109-124.
Zand-Moghadam, A. and Bikineh, L. (2015) ‘Discourse markers in political interviews: A contrastive study of Persian and English.’ International Journal of Society, Culture & Language 3(1), 47-61.
Zare, J. and Tavakoli, T. (2016) ‘The use of personal metadiscourse over monologic and dialogic modes of academic speech.’ Discourse Processes 54(2), 163-175. https://doi.org/ 10.1080 /0163853X.2015.1116342.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright © 2022 Hadi Kashiha