Content uploaded by Pouran Seifi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pouran Seifi on Dec 10, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
130
Persuading the Congress and Americans: A Linguistic Analysis of Barack
Obama’s Speech on “A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan”
Pouran Seifi
Education Office, Tabriz, Iran
* Corresponding Author’s Email: Pouranseifi@yahoo.com
Abstract
Governments try to keep the citizens in accordance with approval of their decisions by
utilizing persuasive language. This essay investigates the persuasive side of language in a
speech delivered by Barack Obama on March 27 2009.It studies how Obama employs
language to convince the congress and Americans to rectitude of war in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. This is done from an Aristotelian point of view, meaning that it focuses on how
Obama utilizes Aristotle’s three means of persuasion, ethos, pathos and logos. The analysis is
basically performed through personal observations guided by previous studies within the
frame of Aristotelian rhetoric. The results indicate that Obama tries to move the audience in
his favour mostly by: 1) arousing the emotion of people by fear mongering, evoking anger,
patriotism and using repetitions and metaphor 2) showing himself a credible person by
appealing to authority and 3) bringing logical reasoning. In short, repetition has a great role
in collaborating ethos, pathos and logos in his remarks.
Keywords: Persuasion, Ethos, Pathos, Logos
Introduction
Charteris-Black (2005) states that “within all types of political system, from autocratic,
through oligarchic to democratic; leaders have relied on the spoken word to convince others
of the benefits that arise from their leadership. The more democratic societies become, the
greater the onus on leaders to convince potential followers that they and their policies can be
trusted. Beard (2000) says, “Making speeches is a vital part of the politician’s role in
announcing policy and persuading people to agree with it”(p. 35).
Joseph ( 2006 ) mentions that the qualities that make a successful politician include the
ability to lead others by articulating a clear and inspiring vision of a better future. The
prototypes of great leaders are also great orators, such as Churchill, or Roosevelt…. or Hitler.
For the inspiring orator can also lead a people, or rather mislead them, into believing that the
narrow self – interests of the governing party are actually the interests of the people as a
whole, when in fact they work directly against the people. Furthermore, the language of
politics is rather special in general, as politicians might twist it to argue for a case or an idea.
They use different approaches, or techniques of persuasion, to try to convince people. One
portion of politics where this is visible is in war speeches.
In war speeches before out breaking war and during war, ideas and ideologies need be
conveyed through language so that they are agreed upon by the receivers as well as by others
who may read or hear parts of speech afterwards in the media. Words and expressions are
used or omitted to affect meaning in different ways. Moreover, political speeches are
composed by a team of professional speech writers, who are educated in the use of persuasive
language. Adding rhetorical devices to a pre-composed speech may be of crucial importance
for provoking unwilling people for taking part in a War. A political speech is not necessarily
a success because of correctness or truth; rather it may be a matter of presenting valid
arguments (Beard, 2000).
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
131
Review of Related Theoretical Background
In this study, there is a focus on persuading function of political discourse and the kinds of
persuading strategies employed by the political leader in his speech. Theoretical framework
for the analysis is Aristotelian approach. The Greek philosopher Aristotle divided the means
of persuasion, appeals, into three categories--Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. I will review the
theoretical foundation and define the key words that make the analytic component of the
research.
Persuasion
As Charteris-Black (2005) notes rhetoric is the art of persuading others, therefore rhetoric and
persuasion are inseparable since any definition of rhetoric necessarily includes the idea of
persuasion. The essential difference between the two is that rhetoric refers to the act of
communication from the hearer’s perspective while persuasion refers both to speaker
intentions and to successful outcomes. Hearers are only persuaded when the speaker’s
rhetoric is successful.
Aristotelian Rhetoric
Rhetoric described by Aristotle still seems to have great significance in the world of
persuasion. Even though it was outlined more than 2300 years ago, many people still refer to
Aristotelian rhetoric when discussing and analyzing the subject of persuasion (Beard, 2000;
Halmari, 2004) .Aristotle defines the rhetorician as someone who is always able to see what
is persuasive… correspondingly, rhetoric is defined as the ability to see what is possibly
persuasive in every given case. This is not to say that the rhetorician will be able to convince
under all circumstances. Rather he is in a similar situation as the physician: the latter has a
complete grasp of his art only if he neglects nothing which might heal his patient, though he
is not able to heal every patient. Similarly, the rhetorician has a complete grasp of his
method, if he discovers the available means of persuasion, though he is not able to convince
everybody (Rapp, 2002).
Furthermore, Aristotle believed that knowledge in the art of rhetoric is something everyone
can gain from, not just those who wish to persuade an audience while hiding their real
intentions. His idea is that even a person who only tries to convey a true and honest point
needs the tools of persuasion, provided by the art of rhetoric. That is because even though
that person might possess great knowledge, or expertise in the subject s/he tries to convey, it
is not certain that the audience will listen and grasp the message. Therefore, the messenger
needs rhetorical knowledge to be able to catch the attention of, and convince an audience.
The ability to seem like a credible person and to keep the audience may not rest on the
speaker’s rhetorical skills but also on other aspects of persuasiveness, like performance skills
(Halmari, 2005). The basic frame for Aristotle’s view on the persuasion process is set in his
three means of persuasion: ethos, pathos, and logos. These terms will now be explained
further.
Ethos
It involves making the speaker seem credible, because, by doing so “the audience will form
the second order judgment that propositions put forward by the credible speaker are true or
acceptable” (Rapp, 2002). Thus, it puts the speakers in a position where they can more easily
persuade the audience about their cause. The speaker manages to appear as a credible person
by displaying (a) practical intelligence, (b) a virtuous character, and (c) good will. If a
speaker demonstrates all three characteristics it cannot be rationally doubted that his
suggestions are credible. In short, ethos is “persuasion through personality and stance” (Beard
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
132
2000). As Crowley and Howhee (2004) state “Rhetors can construct a character that seems
intelligent by demonstrating that they are well informed about issues they discuss” (p.171).
Pathos
The second means of persuasion, pathos, can be described very shortly as the process of
creating positive emotions and connotations in the minds of listeners (Halmari, 2005). By
doing so, the addresses will often be more easily ready to accept, believe and act upon the
propagated information without thorough coherence checking Aristotle meant that the orator
has to stir up emotions precisely because emotions have the power to modify our judgments
(Rapp, 2002).
Logos
Logos is simply persuasion through reasoning (Beard, 2003). It is the principle of convincing
by using arguments that appear to be, or are logical. We persuade by the argument itself when
we demonstrate that something is the case (Rapp, 2002).
According to Aristotle, persuasion is mainly achieved through logical argumentation since
the appeal to logic is the most effective way of persuading, and because if an argument
appears to be logical it would be illogical to opposite it. Yet, it is insufficient to try to
persuade simple by using logical argumentation (logos). It must include the other two
aspects, ethos and pathos, as well.
Statement of the Problem and Purpose of the Study
Political discourse is multifunctional: it may be used to perform a variety of speech act: to
protest, to legitimize, to intimidate, as well as to persuade, of course. The language used by
politicians is designed to lead us to a particular view of political reality, and to act in a way
that is consistent with this view - by voting for a particular party , for example (Woods,
2006). When people know that they will have to persuade others to new beliefs or courses of
action, discourse may be quite consciously designed for strategic purposes (Johnston, 2008).
Van Dijk (1998) mentions that rhetoric is essentially geared towards the persuasive
communication of preferred models of social events, and thus manages how recipients will
understand and especially how they will evaluate such events, for instance as a function of
the interests of the participants. It is therefore not surprising that rhetorical structures play
such an important role in ideological manipulation. Therefore, the study of rhetoric is
important. It is critical tool that helps us to understand how discourse shapes the way people
act or think. Such study leads to understanding of how discourse, particularly persuasive
discourse is able to move an audience.
The purpose of this study is to critically analyze some properties of the speech of the U.S
leader, Barack Obama, to show how he can convince the congress and potential followers
that his new policy on Afghanistan and Pakistan can be trusted and to motivate the nation to
accept the rectitude of war in those regions. This study seeks answers to the following
question: What are the generic features of the selected data in terms of Aristotle’s theory?
Data Analysis and Discussion
Ethos Applied
By explaining step by step of the new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama tries to
show that he is knowledgeable about the events happening in the region and presents a
detailed strategy as bellow:
By stating “As President, my greatest responsibility is to protect the American people. We
are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. We are in Afghanistan
to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and our allies, and
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
133
the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent
extremists”, Obama is trying to show his goodwill toward American people, their friends,
allies and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Moreover he shows his goodwill toward
Pakistani people when he says,” The United States has great respect for the Pakistani
people. They have a rich history and have struggled against long odds to sustain their
democracy. The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: an end to terror,
access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams, and the security that can only
come with the rule of law”. He keeps on telling, “The single greatest threat to that future
comes from al Qaeda and their extremist allies, and that is why we must stand together”, to
gain his credibility.
Additionally, by comparing al Qaeda to America,” A campaign against extremism will not
succeed with bullets or bombs alone. Al Qaeda’s offers the people of Pakistan nothing but
destruction. We stand for something different”, and applying we-ness, he tries to share the
responsibility of the action with others and obtain reliability for war in Pakistan. Calling the
congress to pass bipartisan bill to support Pakistani people, to build schools and roads and
hospitals, and to strengthening Pakistan’s democracy, he shows his being benevolent
especially by applying the pronoun ‘I’ and taking direct responsibility of the action he is
strengthening ethos. For the second time he compares Taliban with ‘we’ United States. They
are in opposite sides of spectrum, Taliban has nothing to offer the Afghan people but terror
and repression, and however, ‘we’ (Americans) support the basic human rights of all Afghans
– including women and girls. Credibly, the highest point of the speech is his statement that
“but there are also those who’ve taken up arms because of coercion, or simply for a price.
These Afghans must have the option to choose a different course. […] to have a
reconciliation process in every province”, Obama uses reconciliation process, utilizing Ethos
to express his goodwill and benevolent. He repeatedly talks about hope, peace, security,
justice and opportunity to establish credibility, trustworthiness and reliability. For strengthen
ethos, Obama applies the following strategies to strengthen ethos in his speech:
Rhetorical Questions
Obama poses two rhetorical questions, what is our purpose in Afghanistan? why do our
men and women still fight and die there?, and proceeds to answer it himself during the
whole speech, finishing with “And we will use all elements of our national power to defeat
al Qaeda, and to defend America, our allies, and all who seek a better future. Because the
United States of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity. That is
who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more”.
Appeal to Authority
According to Halmary (2005), one thing showing proof of practical intelligent and perhaps
a virtuous character is the appeal to authority, or old wisdom. This might be done in order
to justify a point of view or an action or simply to back up one’s ideas. In order to justify
his point of view, Obama resorts to authorities many times. He shows his respect to
General David Petraeus, Bruce Reidel, Karl Eikenberry and national security team. He
mentions military commanders, diplomats, NATO allies, other donors and international
organizations, and members of Congress, and applies Richard Holbrooke, General
Petraeus, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, John Kerry, Richard Lugar, Maria Cantwell,
Chris Van Hollen and Peter Hoekstra. He uses those names to show a kind of bound
between them and his own new policy _ thereby strengthening his own credibility.
Obama utilizes appeal to authority as much as possible in the outset of his speech.
According to Burton (n. d.), Cicero said that in classical oratory the initial portion of a
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
134
speech (its exordium or introduction) was the place to establish one’s credibility with the
audience.
Personal Pronouns
The first person plural pronoun ‘we’ is quite frequent. The plural pronoun ‘we’ and its
objective and possessive forms occur 127 times. The first person singular pronoun ‘I’ and its
variants ‘my’, ‘me’ occur 31 times. The ‘I’ variants all refer to speaker as president. In the
text studied, the plural pronoun ‘we’ is more frequent than the singular ‘I’. The first person
singular pronoun ‘I’ clearly declares who is responsible, while the first person plural pronoun
“we” makes the status of responsibility more unclear” (Jones &Wareing, 1999 p. 46).
The use of I and you sends a message of the speaker (I) as a separate entity from the audience
(you), and the use of ‘ I ‘ is %9.34 And the use of ‘you’ is %1.86 for Barack Obama. Obama
uses first person singular ‘I’ 10 times in the introduction of his speech to acknowledge every
one involving in Afghanistan and Pakistan policy making. According to Fairclough (1989),
each of these first person plural and singular has advantages and disadvantages in different
situations. Politicians may appeal to the plural form or the singular one based on the context
and the purpose of the speech. Singular forms indicate direct and personal involvement on the
part of the speaker. In other words, the speaker assumes overall responsibility for the action
taken or for the policy adopted. The use of the singular form ‘I’ is advantageous when the
speaker delivers good news or makes policies beneficial to all people. In this case he/she
places himself/herself above the collective responsibility of his/her colleagues. The use of
plural forms is advantageous when they are dishonest, their decisions and policies are tricky,
or the news is uncertain or inaccurate. Thereby, the politicians may appeal to plural forms to
share the responsibility with others including his/her colleague, members of the government,
his/her audience, and all people in the country or in the world. In this text, Obama applies the
plural pronoun ‘we’ and its variants ‘our’ and ‘us’ 127 times.
The ‘we’ pronoun can be either exclusive (the speaker and someone else but not the
audience) or inclusive (the speaker and the audience). The inclusive ‘we’ includes the
audience and other Americans and is used by the speaker in the hope of bringing them on
her/his side and making them see the world and events as he/she represents, for example, the
danger posed by Al Qaeda , Taliban and other extremists and the necessity of taking action.
The second person ‘you’ and its possessive form are used 6 times In 3 cases’ you’ refers to
everyone in the country, American people. In other one case ‘you’ refers to Al Qaeda and it
used as threat. The former implies a relationship of solidarity between speaker and his
audience.
As mentioned earlier, the pronoun ‘we’ is the most frequent pronoun used by the speaker
both to make his speech carry much credibility in making new policy in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.
Halmari (2005) holds that the pronoun ‘I’ also collocates with certain kinds of “hedging”
verbs or verbs expressing mental stages ( so- called private verbs, such as I believe, I hope, I
think), or with overtly “ persuasive” verbs ( so- called public verbs, such as I ask, I propose, I
challenge, I urge). By applying public verbs 7 times and private verbs 4 times, Obama makes
his speech more persuasive.
Obama applies we_ subject + collocations as necessity, ability and intention 44 times out of
total ‘we’ pronoun that is used 64 times. His frequent application of we + verbal collocations
makes his speech more persuasive.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
135
Figure 4.1 Frequency of Personal Pronouns in Obama’s speech
Verb Tense and Voice
According to Crowley and Howhee (2004), stylistic choices, such as verb tense and voice,
affect an ethos as well. Present tense has more immediately than the past tense; use of the
present tense gives the audience a sense of participation in events that are occurring at the
moment, while past tense makes them feel like onlookers in events that have already
occurred. Although the speech is mostly delivered in present tense, there are references to
past and future as well.
Figure 4.2 Distribution of tenses in Obama’s speech
In English, verbs may assume one of the two voices – active and passive. Active verb
constructions tend to lesson distance. Passive constructions, in contrast, tend to create
distance between rhetor and issue. Active constructions force rhetors to betray their
presence as creator of the discourse; active voice also forces them to take over
responsibility for their assertions. Passive constructions permit rhetors to avoid taking
responsibility for their statements. There are 29 passive voice statements in Obama’s
speech. He uses the passive voice to create the distance between himself and the issue or to
avoid taking the responsibility for his statements.
I
Me
My
You
Your
It
Its
We
Us
Our
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
136
Pathos Applied
Aristotle points out those emotions such as anger, pity and fear, and their oppositions,
powerfully influence our rational judgments. Due to this fact, much of our political discourse
and much of advertising we experience is directed toward moving our emotions. Anger is a
very powerful motivating force.
Obama purposely puts the audience in a defensive frame of mind in order to persuade them in
his favor. He knows that if they are shocked and angered at this moment the audience will be
more likely to accept his new strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Therefore, he initiates his
speech with “The situation is increasingly perilous. It’s been more than seven years since the
Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, and insurgents control parts of
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Attacks against our troops, our NATO allies, and the Afghan
government have risen steadily. And most painfully, 2008 was the deadliest year of the war
for American forces” and puts the audience in a angry and scared state of mind. He increases
this defensive manner and stirs the emotions by recalling 11 September 5 times in different
parts of his speeches the following quote : “ So let me be clear: Al Qaeda and its allies -- the
terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks -- are in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the
United States homeland from its safe haven in Pakistan. And if the Afghan government falls
to the Taliban -- or allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged -- that country will again be a base
for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they possibly can”.
By recalling terrorist attacks in London, Bali, North Africa and the Middle East, in Islamabad
and in Kabul, Obama arouses emotions of people around the world, stimulates anger and puts
them in defensive manner.
He stimulates feeling pity for Afghanistan people, by telling “For the Afghan people, a
return to Taliban rule would condemn their country to brutal governance, international
isolation, a paralyzed economy, and the denial of basic human rights to the Afghan people --
especially women and girls”.
Obama mentions women and girls’ right 2 times and implicitly reminds the audience the
miserable situation of them during Taliban. Moreover, Obama explains that the only obstacle
for Pakistani people to end terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their
dreams, and the security that can only come with the rule of law, comes from al Qaeda and
their extremists’ allies.
By recalling 11 September again, and connecting it with al Qaeda’s attacks in Pakistan and
killing Pakistan soldiers, police and especially Benazir Bhutto, Obama mentions al Qaeda’s
terrorist actions and their consequences, Obama tries to stimulate anger toward al Qaeda and
arousing sympathy among American and Pakistani people.
Additionally, Obama appeals to pathos, to the audience’s perceptions of acting as heroes and
celebrates the American and coalition forces that have fought together in Afghanistan and
their families’ patriotism and self- sacrifice. He arouses their emotions and makes them feel
pity, anger and grieve, when he says:” That is true, above all, for the coalition that has fought
together in Afghanistan, side by side with Afghans. The sacrifices have been enormous.
Nearly 700 Americans have lost their lives. Troops from over 20 countries have also paid the
ultimate price. All Americans honor the service and cherish the friendship of those who have
fought, and worked, and bled by our side. And all Americans are awed by the service of our
own men and women in uniform, who’ve borne a burden as great as any other generation’s.
They and their families embody the example of selfless sacrifice.
Emotionally, the highest point of the speech is his statements that “I remind everybody, the
United States of America did not choose to fight a war in Afghanistan. Nearly 3,000 of our
people were killed on September 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their
daily lives. Al Qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries.
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
137
Most of the blood on their hands is the blood of Muslims, who al Qaeda has killed and
maimed in far greater number than any other people. That is the future that al Qaeda is
offering to the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan -- a future without hope or opportunity; a
future without justice or peace.” It is very noticeable how Obama rouses anger and fear by
reminding 9/11 and al Qaeda’s killing thousands of people in other countries and especially
Muslims. He causes feeling pity toward Afghanistan people because al Qaeda offers them a
future without hope or opportunity.
Obama’s speech is teeming with anaphora, tricolon, tetracolon and alliteration. He
successfully deploys them in his speech. He applies anaphora nine times and repeated the
words: with, our, we, we will, a future without, all and American
(1) […] we will not blindly stay the course. Instead, we will set clear metrics […] We’ll
consistently assess […] We will measure the growth of Afghanistan […], and we will review
whether […].
Beard (2000) says, “A particular variant of repetition is the so- called three-part lists, when
new ideas or pieces of information are presented in three parts”. Obama uses tricolon 19
times.
(2)[1]That’s how we can help the Afghan government serve its people and develop an
economy that isn’t dominated by illicit drugs. [2]And that’s why I’m ordering a
substantial increase in our civilians on the ground. [3] That’s also why we must seek
civilian support from our partners and allies, from the United Nations and international
aid organizations -- an effort that Secretary Clinton will carry forward next week in The
Hague.
By applying a series of four members, Obama uses tetracolon 9 times as the following quote:
(3)The people of Pakistan want the same things that we want: [1] an end to terror, [2]
access to basic services, [3] the opportunity to live their dreams, [4]and the security
that can only come with the rule of law.
Beard (2000) states that metaphor is deeply inserted in the way we built the world around us
and the way that others build the world for us. Obama applies the following metaphors in his
speech:
Personification, the Nurturant Parent, disease Metaphor, journey Metaphor, and The Fairy
Tale of the Just War.
According to Lakoff (1995), a team of actors is: a villain, a victim, and a hero. The victim
and the hero may be the same person. Here, the fairy tale of the just war points out that
America, American people, civilian’s troops, the friends, and allies of America are the
heroes. They will rescue Afghan and Pakistani people and root out the terrorists all over the
world. Obama shows America the main hero of this just war in last quotes of his remarks:
“because the United states of America stands for peace and security, justice and opportunity.
That is who we are, and that is what history calls on us to do once more.” The villains of
this war are al Qaeda, its extremist allies included al Qaeda’s leadership: Osama bin Laden
and Ayman al – Zawhariri and Taliban.
Logos Applied
His speech outlines the reasons or justifications for a new strategy in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. At first, Obama stresses that “[1] The situation is increasingly perilous.[2] It’s
been seven years since the Taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on, [3] and
insurgents control parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan. [4] Attacks against our troops, our
NATO allies, and the Afghan government have risen steadily. And most painfully, 2008 was
the deadliest year of the war for American forces”. Then, he points to the fact that “[5] al
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
138
Qaeda and its allies […] are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. [6] Multiple intelligence estimates
have warned that al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States homeland from
its safe haven in Pakistan. [7]And if the Afghanistan government falls to the Taliban – or
allows al Qaeda to go unchallenged- that country will again be a safe base for terrorists
[…].
His reasoning for a new strategy for Pakistan is that “[1] The future of Afghanistan is
inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor, Pakistan. (because) In the nearly eight years
since 9/11, al Qaeda and its extremist allies have moved across the border to the remote
areas of the Pakistani frontier. [2] They have used this mountainous terrain as a safe haven
to hide, to train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attacks, and to send fighters
to support the insurgency in Afghanistan. [3] For the American people, this border region
has become the most dangerous place in the world.”
By furnishing the facts by reasoning on financial supporting of Pakistan, Obama points that
“the American people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future – [1]
because the security of America and Pakistan is shared. [2] Pakistan’s government must be
a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens, and we must isolate al Qaeda from the
Pakistani people. [3] And these steps in Pakistan are also indispensable to our efforts in
Afghanistan, which will see no end to violence if insurgents move freely back and forth across
the border.”
Obama asserts that as President, his greatest responsibility is to protect the American people
and they are not in Afghanistan to control that country or to dictate its future. Then he points
to the following reason for the presence of United States in Afghanistan “We are in
Afghanistan to confront a common enemy that threatens the United States, our friends and
our allies, and the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan who have suffered the most at the
hands of violent extremists”. He mentions that at a time of economic crisis, it’s tempting to
believe that we can shortchange this civilian effort. Then, he promises economic support for
Afghanistan as: “[1] Our efforts will fail in Afghanistan and Pakistan if we don’t invest in
their future. [2]And that’s why my budget includes indispensable investments in our State
Department and foreign assistance programs. [3] These investments relieve the burden on
our troops. [4] They contribute directly to security. [5] They make the American people
safer. [6] And they save us an enormous amount of money in the long run -- because it’s far
cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village than to help a farmer seed a
crop -- or to help a farmer seed a crop than it is to send our troops to fight tour after tour of
duty with no transition to Afghan”.
By providing reasoning on deployment of 17,000 troops, his justification here is that”[1]
These soldiers and Marines will take the fight to the Taliban in the south and the east, [2]
and give us a greater capacity to partner with Afghan security forces and to go after
insurgents along the border. [3] This push will also help provide security in advance of the
important presidential elections in Afghanistan in August. [4]At the same time, we will shift
the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of Afghan security forces, so
that they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. [5] That’s how we will
prepare Afghans to take responsibility for their security, [6] and how we will ultimately be
able to bring our own troops home.
Conclusion
Considering three means of persuasion, ethos, pathos, and logos, the following results were
obtained:
Trying to be viewed as a credible and trustworthy person, the president made every
endeavour to demonstrate himself knowledgeable about the issue, his goodwill and virtue
toward the audience. He used several persuasive strategies such as appeal to authority,
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
139
personal pronouns, present tense, active and passive voice. Consideration of an audience and
their specific attitudes and feelings is certainly an important factor in making a speech.
Pathos or emotional appeal played a huge role in the effectiveness of the Obama’s speech. He
manipulates the emotions of the audience to put them in the right frame of mind. According
to Aristotle, pathos may be any emotion like anger, fear, pity, gratitude, patriotism, guilt and
hate. Pathos is applied by making hero picture of armed forces and praising them by Obama.
Examples of repetitions in the speeches of the presidents show how they can relate not only
to the persuasive means, pathos, but also to the other two persuasive means, ethos and logos
by showing the speaker as a powerful rhetor and providing many premises to reach the
logical reasoning. Obama predicts the terrorists’ future attacks on the United States homeland
from its safe haven in Pakistan and supplies many other reasons to rectitude of war in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Moreover, the analysis allows us to conclude that the application of the three means of
persuasion enables political leaders to justify their war policies and linguistic analysis of
political texts help us to understand the way persuasion is utilized by means of language. By
application of different strategies of ethos, pathos, and logos, Barack Obama employed
language in a way to show himself as credible and trustworthy leader and he put the audience
in the right frame of mind, in a defensive manner according to his intended policy. Moreover,
he appealed to the audience’s logical reasoning which is one of the main persuasive features
of a speech.
The conclusion to be drawn from this study is that it is necessary to be aware of how
politicians use rhetorical strategies in order to persuade the audience of the rectitude of war,
move people according to their policies and convince the people of their righteousness and
justice.
References
Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. (G.A. Kennedy, Trans.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Beard, A. (2000). The Language of politics. New York: Routledge.
Charteris-Black, J. (2005). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor.
Hound mills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crowley, S. & Hawhee, D. (2004). Ancient rhetoric for contemporary students (3rd ed.). New
York: Pearson. leadership. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Halmari, H. (2005). In search of successful political persuasion: A comparison of the styles
of Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagon.In H. Halmary, & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Persuasion
across genres: A linguistic approach (pp. 105 - 134). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John
Benjamin’s Publishing Company.
Johnstone, B. (2008). Discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Oxford: Blackwell.
Jones, J. & Wareing, S. (1999). Language and politics. London: Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (1995). Metaphor, morality and politics or why conservatives have left liberals in
the dust. Social Research, 62, 2. Retrieved June 20, 2009, from
http://www.wwcd.org/issues/Lakoff.html
Obama, B. H. (2009). Remarks on a new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to veterans.
Retrieved September 12, 2009, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-a-New-
Strategy-for-Afghanistan-and-Pakistan/.
Rapp, C. (2002, May). Aristotle’s rhetoric. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#4.1
Van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Political discourse and racism: Describing others in western
Frontiers of Language and Teaching …...………………………. Volume 5 (2014)
140
parliaments. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from http://www.discourse.org
Woods, N. (2006). Describing discourse: A practical guide to discourse analysis. USA:
Oxford University Press.
To cite this article:
Seifi, P. (2014). Persuading the Congress and Americans: A Linguistic Analysis of
Barack Obama’s Speech on “A New Strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan”. Frontiers
of Language and Teaching, 5(1), 130-140.
