persuasion, persuasive strategy, positive self-presentation, negative other-presentation, sound bite, three-part list, metapho,


This paper deals with the strategy of persuasion in modern American political discourse. The linguistic analysis of political language is, in fact, the discovery of the ways how to manipulate the language signs to achieve specific political goals. Different mechanisms of influence on mass and organisation of effective communication are within the scope of this study due to the fact that language is an inexhaustible source of techniques and methods of persuasion. The aim of the paper is to identify the linguistic (grammatical, lexical-semantic, stylistic) and pragmatic characteristics of the strategy of persuasion in acceptance speeches of democrats as well as to establish common and distinctive features of the lingual component of their discourse. It examines and analyses the strategy of persuasion in the political discourse in the light of Critical Discourse Analysis and the conceptual framework proposed by T. van Dijk, namely personal persuasive strategies, i.e. positive self-presentation strategy and negative other-presentation strategy. The two candidates under analysis preferred declarative sentences to inform the electorate about their plans and ideas of reorganising the American social and political situation. The politicians used the personal pronoun “I” to state their own personal views and feelings, “we” – to get trust and support from the listeners. In their acceptance speeches, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama preferred a personal strategy of negative other-presentation to positive self-presentation strategy. The discourse of Democrats is vivid due to the great usage of stylistic means and lexis from different lexico-semantic fields.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Tetiana Stetsyk, Ivano-Frankivsk National Technical University of Oil and Gas

Department of Translation

Associate professor

Candidate of Philological Sciences


  1. Austin, J. L. (1986). Slovo kak deistvie: sbornik [Word as action: compilation] (Trans. from English). In Gorodetskyi B. Y. (Ed.), Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike: Teoriia rechevyh aktov (Vol. 17), (pp.22-130). Мoscow, Russia: Progress.
  2. Batsevych, F. S. (2009). Osnovy komunikatyvnoi lingvistyky: pidruchnuk [Basics of communicative linguistics: a textbook]. Кyiv, Ukraine: VTs „Akademiia”.
  3. Charteris-Black, J. (2011). Politicians And Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. Hampshire, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
  4. Clinton, H. (2016, July 28). Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Retrieved 01.10.2018 from
  5. Halliday, M. A. K. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London, England: Edward.
  6. Dunmire, P. (2007). “Emerging Threats” and “Coming Dangers'; Claiming the Future for Preventive War”. In Hodge A. & Nilep Ch. (Eds.), Discourse, War and Terrorism: Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture (pp. 19–44). Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
  7. Duran, J. M. (2008). The Analysis of Political Discourse Applied to Bush’s and Kerry’s Speeches. In Nørgaard, N. (Ed.), Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication, 29, 267–282. Denmark: Institute of Language and Communication, University of Southern Denmark.
  8. Guzak, A. M. (2013). Leksyko-gramatychni osoblyvosti vyrazhennia “osobystisnogo” ta “kolektyvnogo” u politychnyh promovah (na materiali promov amerykanskogo prezydenta Harri Trumena [Lexico-grammatical peculiarities of expression “personal” and “collective” in the political speeches (based on Harry Truman’s political speeches)]. Mova, 19, 56–60.
  9. Kirilina, A. V. (2000) Gendernye aspekty massovoi komynikatsyi [Gender aspects of mass communication]. In A.V. Kirillina (Ed.), Gender kak intriga poznaniia (pp.47-80). Moscow, Russia: Izd-vo “Rudomino”.
  10. Leontiev, A. A. (1993). Yazykovoe soznanie i obraz mira [Linguistic consciousness and image of the world]. Yazyk I soznanie: paradoksalnaia ratsyonalnost, 16-21. Moscow, Russia: In-t Yazykoznaniia RAN.
  11. Merriam Webster Dictionary Online (1828). Retrieved October 01, 2018 from
  12. Obama, B. (2008, August 28). Address Accepting the Presidential Nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, “The American Promise”. Retrieved October 01, 2018 from
  13. Pocheptsov, G. G. (1999). Teoriia komynikatsii [The theory of communication]. Kyiv, Ukraine: VTs “Kyivskyi Yniversytet”.
  14. Searle, J. R. (1986). Chto takoe rechevoi akt?; Kosvennye rechevye akty; Klasifikatsyia rechevyh aktov [What is a speech act?; Indirect speech acts; Classification of speech acts]. (Trans. from English). In Gorodetskyi B. Y. (Ed.), Novoe v zarubezhnoi lingvistike: Teoriia rechevyh aktov, 17, 151-169. Мoscow, Russia: Progress.
  15. Stetsyk, T. S. (2016). Lingvopragmatyka strategii persuazyvnosti v debatah i promovah suchasnyh amerykanskyh politykiv [Linguo-pragmatics of the strategy of persuasion in the debates and speeches of the contemporary American politicians]. PhD thesis, Yuriy Fedkovych, Chernivtsi National University, Chernivtsi, Ukraine. Retrieved October 01, 2018 from
  16. van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology, and discourse. In K. Brown (ed.), The Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 9), (pp. 728–740). New York: Pergamon Press.
  17. Yanova, O. A. (2002). Nominatyvno-kognityvnyi aspect poznachennia ysmishky yak komponenta neverbalnoi povedinky (na materiali sychasnoi angliiskoi movy) [Nominative-communicative aspect of smile designation as a component of non-verbal behavior (on the material of modern English)]. PhD thesis, Kyiv, Ukraine.




How to Cite