Пример курсовой на английском языке


1.1. Definition of “discourse” in contemporary linguistic studies…………………..5
1.2. Basic peculiarities of declamatory (oratorical) speech………………………………7
2.1. Lexical means of declamatory discourse in political speeches………………….11
2.2. Stylistic devices of declamatory discourse in political speeches………………15


Declamation, in its various linguistic forms, enters our lives daily. Politicians and the news media attempt to change or confirm our beliefs and manipulate our views. Declamation goes on in courtrooms, universities, and the business world. Declamation pervades interpersonal relations in all social spheres, public and private. And Declamation reaches us via a large number of genres and their intricate interplay.
Declamatory choice is realized in various genres: business negotiations, judicial argumentation, political speech, advertising, newspaper editorials, news writing and etc.
It is important to consider what purpose declamatory language is being used for. Declamation is a process aimed at changing a person’s (or a group’s) attitude or behaviour toward some event, idea, object, or other person, by using written or spoken words to convey information, feelings, or reasoning, or a combination thereof. Persuasion can also be interpreted as using one’s personal or positional resources to change people’s behaviours or attitudes.
Declamation is designed to get an audience to both accept a particular point of view and act on that belief. For example, a successful argument might make the audience like a particular political candidate, but successful persuasion should make the audience vote for that candidate.
The affect is conducted with the help of language means such as emotionally expressive words, different types of sentences (interrogative, imperative), stylistic means (metaphor, epithets and etc.) that stipulated the topicality of our work.
The theme of this term paper is “Modern English declamatory discourse: lexico-semantic peculiarities”.
We shall concern ourselves with such aims as studying the lexico-semantic peculiarities of political declamatory speeches.
In order to research these purposes it is necessary to solve the following tasks:
1) to define the notion of “discourse” in contemporary linguistic studies;
2) to disclose the basic peculiarities of declamatory (oratorical) speech;
3) to highlight the lexical means of declamatory discourse in political speeches;
4) to explore the stylistic devices of declamatory discourse in political speeches.
The subject of our exploration is declamatory (oratorical) discourse.
The object of our exploration is declamation in political speeches.
The conventional approach to this problem is based on theoretical notices and articles on the subject of the term paper and illustrative resources as political speeches from the following sources: British Political Speech [15], The Complete Text Transcripts of Over 100 Barack Obama [19] etc.
The choice of methods and devices of research is related to the specificity of research object and concrete tasks, conditioned by the research theme. For this purpose, there were used the methods of

  • previous theoretical and practical experience;
  • linguo-stylistic analysis;
  • textual analysis etc.
    The scientific originality of this term paper is connected studying the special kind of lexical and stylistic units present in the declamatory political speeches.
    Such an approach has made it possible to understand the reasons for the practical value of research results, which can include the development of seminars and lectures on English language, Literature, Stylistics instruction materials for students and teachers. The results will be useful for writing essays, term papers and graduation works.
    The structure of the research consists of introduction, chapter 1, chapter 2, conclusions, bibliography, list of illustrative sources.


1.1. Definition of “discourse” in contemporary linguistic studies

The term discourse has several definitions. In the study of language, it often refers to the speech patterns and usage of language, dialects, and acceptable statements, within a community. It is a subject of study in peoples who live in secluded areas and share similar speech conventions [12].
The modern discourse theory goes back to the antique rhetoric; however, it began developing into an independent science only in the middle of the sixties of the XX century in the course of numerous researches, which received the name “Linguistics of Text”. The interest in studying the text had been caused by the aspiration to explain language as an integral means of communication, to study in more profound way language connections with various spheres of human activity, expressed through the text. Originally the term “linguistics of text” was considered by many scientists not a suitable one, and it was then, that in the works of some linguists the term “discourse” appeared.
According to M. Sushko-Bezdenezhnuh, there can be distinguished three main approaches to the definition of discourse [3].
The earliest interpretation, based, first of all, on the Anglo-Saxon linguistic tradition (D. Schifrin, D. Cristal, G. Cook): discourse – is actually a dialogue, an interaction between the speaker and the listener; an authentic daily communication, mainly oral, included in the wide communicative context.
The second approach is based on the T. van Dijk’s conception of the communicative nature of text: discourse- is a communicative phenomenon, which is of procedural character, occurs in a certain out-of-lingual context and is fixed in speech as a formal structure – text (written or oral).
The third approach was established in the sixties by the representatives of French semantic school (A. Grames, G. Curte, G. Lakan, M. Foucault) as “an alloy of Linguistics, Marxist ideology and Psychoanalysis” and was developed by German linguists: discourse is a crosss-point of many intercorrelated texts; as a whole of texts, which are thematically, culturally or anyhow connected and function within the certain communicative sphere and admit the development and supplementation by other texts.
M. Foucault has presented the best definition of discourse. He says, “Systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, and courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak.” Originally it has roots in Latin Language. The term assumes slightly different meanings in different contexts but in literature discourse means speech or writing normally longer than sentences which deals a certain subject formally in the form of writing or speech. In other words, discourse is the presentation of language in its entirety while performing an intellectual inquiry in a particular area or field i.e. theological discourse or cultural discourse [1].
Discourse can be classified in to four main categories namely:
1) Exposition. The main focus of this type of discourse is to make aware the respective audience about the topic of the discussion. For example, Definitions and comparative analysis of different ideas and beliefs.
2) Narration. Narration is a type of discourse that relies on stories, folklore or a drama as a medium of communication. For example, Stage Play, story, folklore etc.
3) Description. It involves description something in relation to the senses. Descriptive discourse enables audience to develop a mental picture of what is being discussed. For example, Descriptive part of Novel or write ups.
4) Argument. This type of discourse is based on valid logic and through correct reasoning tries to motivate the audience. For example, Lectures, essays and prose etc.
5) Poetry. It is a type of literary conversation which focuses on expression of feelings, ideas, imaginations, events and places through specific rhymes and rhythms.
Declamatory discourse includes politically-related writings and speeches and etc. These can be by a single individual or by multiple individuals, but relating to a single event or topic [13].

1.2. Basic peculiarities of declamatory (oratorical) speech

Declamatory speech is the rationale and practice of persuasive public speaking. It is immediate in its audience relationships and reactions, but it may also have broad historical repercussions. The orator may become the voice of political or social history.
Declamatory has generally been regarded as a predominantly male activity. Women are occasionally orators, but they are often portrayed as unusual, or as acting in a «deputy» capacity for a male. Important questions arise, however, as to whether mere are women’s forms of Declamatory that have been overlooked (perhaps because most anthropologists have been male).
Declamatory is a linguistically self-conscious form of speaking, rich in devices that frame and re-frame its use and contexts of interpretation. Many formal devices – including rhythm, pitch, pauses, and even musical conventions – play a key role in the effectiveness of declamatory speech. Some scholars, such as Maurice Bloch, have argued that the rules governing the structure of the verbal code so dominate the performance frame that other features of the performance –role definition, situational focus, and rules of alternation among styles – are guided by the features of the code structure. Others, such as Judith Irvine, have argued that the formal structure of roles, situational focus, style switching rules and code structure are all more or less independent features of Declamatory that can vary in their importance depending on the cultural context [4, p. 173].
There is often no way to know in advance which features of declamatory speech will be important in a given performance, because orators and audiences often use the context of performance to define the oratorical features that are relevant for the interpretation. Malagasy orators, for example, often deny they are even truly orating, pointing variously to features of the participants, setting, and code use to suggest that the performance is not yet quite authentic. As these features are addressed in turn, the performance takes shape as a process of contextualization.
A vivid instance of the way a speech can focus the concerns of a nation was Martin Luther King’s address to a massive civil rights demonstration in Washington, D.C., in 1963. Repeating the phrase “I have a dream,” King applied the oratorical skill he had mastered as a preacher to heighten his appeal for further rights for U.S. blacks to an intensity that galvanized millions.
With the development of parliaments in the 18th cent., great political orators appeared – Charles James Fox, Edmund Burke, Henry Gratten, and Daniel O’Connell in England and Ireland; Patrick Henry and James Otis in the United States; and Danton and Mirabeau in France. Because these politicians usually spoke to men of their own class and education, their orations were often complex and erudite, abounding in classical allusions. In the 19th cent., the rise of Methodism and evangelical religions produced great preachers like John Wesley and George Whitefield who addressed a wide audience of diverse classes of people. Their sermons, replete with biblical allusions and appeals to the emotions, profoundly influenced the oratorical style of many politicians. Famous 19th cent. orators included Disraeli and John Bright in England, Charles Stewart Parnell in Ireland, Lamartine in France, Ferdinand Lasalle in Germany, Louis Kossuth in Hungary, and Joseph Mazzini in Italy. Great American orators included Abraham Lincoln, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun, Daniel Webster, Stephen Douglas, and Henry Ward Beecher.
In the 20th cent., orators made frequent use of the «catch phrase» (e.g., William Jennings Bryan’s «cross of gold» speech). Noted orators in the first half of the 20th cent. were Bryan, Eugene Debs, Susan B. Anthony, and Woodrow Wilson in the United States, Lenin and Trotsky in Russia, and David Lloyd George and Winston Churchill in England. The bombastic oratorical style of Hitler and Mussolini, inevitably associated with their discredited political ideologies, brought grandiloquent oratory into disrepute. The advent of radio forced oratory to become more intimate and conversational, as in the «fireside chats» of President Franklin D. Roosevelt [8].
Television forced additional demands on the orator (usually now called the public speaker), who not only had to sound good but also had to look good. Still, most politicians, notably Adlai E. Stevenson and John F. Kennedy, succeeded in utilizing the ubiquitous television camera to heighten the impact of their speeches. The particular effectiveness of great oratory was movingly demonstrated in 1963 when the civil-rights leader Martin Luther King delivered his «I have a dream» speech to an audience of 200,000 people in Washington, D.C., and to millions more listening to him on radio and watching him on television [8].
An oration involves a speaker; an audience; a background of time, place, and other conditions; a message; transmission by voice, articulation, and bodily accompaniments; and may, or may not, have an immediate outcome.
The orator need not be a first-rate logician, though a capacity for good, clear thought helps to penetrate into the causes and results of tentative premises and conclusions and to use analogy, generalizations, assumptions, deductive–inductive reasoning, and other types of inference. Effective debaters, who depend more heavily on logic, however, are not always impressive orators because superior eloquence also requires strong appeals to the motives, sentiments, and habits of the audience. Oratorical greatness is invariably identified with strong emotional phrasing and delivery. When the intellectual qualities dominate with relative absence of the affective appeals, the oration fails just as it does when emotion sweeps aside reason.
The ideal orator is personal in his appeals and strong in ethical proofs, rather than objective or detached. He enforces his arguments by his personal commitment to his advocacy. William Pitt, later Lord Chatham, punctuated his dramatic appeals for justice to the American colonies with references to his own attitudes and beliefs. So were personal appeals used by the Irish orator Daniel O’Connell, the French orators Mirabeau and Robespierre, and the Americans Daniel Webster, Wendell Phillips, and Robert G. Ingersoll [2].
Oratorical speech is different from regular speech. In regular speech, you just communicate your ideas to the audience. In Declamatory speech, the aim is to convince the audience of your ideas. The audience may be composed of people with different views on the topic. So Declamatory should be structured in such a way as to address a majority of the viewpoints associated with the topic [7].
The basic speech structure consists of three components – the introduction, the body and the conclusion. In the introduction, the topic is introduced to the audience and you put before the audience the main points of your speech. You inform them what areas related to the topic will be covered in the speech. In the body of the speech, each issue is discussed in detail. And in the conclusion, you summarize the main points of the speech and emphasize the take-home points again.


Political declamatory discourse includes politically-related writings and speeches. These can be by a single individual or by multiple individuals, but relating to a single event or topic. Such analysis does not, generally, include actual political actions taken unless the political discourse analysis has been set up to compare discourse with action. The aim of the analysis is to better understand political thought [13].
The contexts of political declamatory discourse are formed on the basis of precedent texts that create the necessary conditions for the implication of social power on the basis of individual and social recognition. Besides the process of context construction in political discourse is largely influenced by mass media that creates the effects of remoteness and theatricality in discourse. The institutional specifics of political discourse are also constructed by means of reduction of the role of chronotopes which helps to achieve such effects as fideism and esoterism.
A classification of types of declamatory political discourse depends on the definition of what is meant by the political sphere. One could take the limited view that political discourse is simply the words and text produced by politicians, but there are many other participants in a democracy. It may be more accurate to look at the political activities of electors, pressure groups, media, political parties and other players in the political process and examine the types of discourse in which they engage. Although discourse is primarily in the spoken and written word, the definition may be widened to include communication by actions, as in political demonstrations and sit-ins.
One of the most familiar types of political declamatory discourse involves the speech and debate within the congress or parliament of a nation. This is generally formal by nature, including written speeches, motions, debates on legislation and discussions in committee. Written text associated with this type of discourse is the written record of speeches or draft laws and resolutions, together with legislation approved by the legislative body [9].
Outside the formal legislative organs, political parties may engage in discourse during conferences, conventions and primary election campaigns. At election time, there is direct discourse with the public on citizens’ doorsteps. There also is debate between the parties outside the legislature, as seen in interviews, televised debates and public meetings. The parties also issue their own literature in the form of newspapers or pamphlets aimed at electors on a federal, state or municipal level. Some politicians and pressure groups communicate their ideas through books, magazines and films, an example being the environmental movement.

2.1. Lexical means of declamatory discourse in political speeches

Invested with the power to persuade, transform and impress, public speaking is one of the most important skills for a politician to master. A successful speech will not only touch the audience emotionally, and possibly even change their minds, but it may also translate into electoral votes. The declamatory speech is characterized by the lexical units, which allows leader to be emotional, persuasive, manipulative etc. Let’s consider some examples:
The King’s Speech (2010).
In this grave hour, perhaps the most fateful in history, I send to every household of my peoples, both at home and overseas, this message, spoken with the same depth of feeling for each one of you as if I were able to cross your threshold and speak to you myself.
For the second time in the lives of most of us, we are at war.
Over and over again, we have tried to find a peaceful way out of the differences between ourselves and those who are now our enemies, but it has been in vain [16].
In this speech the following characteristics:
– At only 404 words long, the speech is impressively economical with language. Its short length means that every word is significant, and commands its audiences’ attention.
– This is a great example of how speechwriters use superlatives. Nothing gets peoples’ attention like saying this is the most important or best.
– We, us and I: This is an extremely personal speech. The pronoun I is used to reach out to each person listening to the speech. He also talks in the third person: we are at war, to unite British people against the common enemy: them, or Germany.
Winston Churchill We shall fight on the beaches 1940. Churchill is an icon of great speech making. All his life Churchill struggled with a stutter that caused him difficulty pronouncing the letter “s”. Nevertheless, with pronunciation and rehearsal he became one of the most famous orators in history. For example:
…we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old [16].
The following lexical means makes it a powerful speech:
– Structural repetition of the simple phrase we shall…
– Active verbs like defend and fight are extremely motivational, rousing Churchill’s audience’s spirits.
– Very long sentences build the tension of the speech up to its climax the rescue and the liberation of the old, sweeping listeners along. A similar thing happens in musical pieces: the composition weaves a crescendo, which often induces emotion in its audience.
John F. Kennedy The Decision to go the Moon 1961. The simplicity of Kennedy’s rhetoric preserves a sense of wonder at going beyond human capabilities, at this great event for science and technology. For example:
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too [16].
The following lexical means makes it a powerful speech:
– Simple sentence structures: We choose to go to the moon = Subject + Verb + Complement. The grammatical simplicity of the sentence allows an audience to reflect on important concepts, i.e. choice. Repetition emphasizes this.
– Kennedy uses demonstrative (or pointing) pronouns e.g. this decade, that goal to create a sense of urgency; to convey how close to success the US is.
Aslo the following techniques are the main devices of persuasive declamatory discourse of political speeches [10]:
1) emotive words – these are words which make the reader, viewer or listener feel a particular emotion. They can help to influence decisions and change opinions. Emotive words have immediate – happiness, joy, guilt, sadness, fear. Other emotive words may arouse bias in a reader, usually related to topics which people have strong opinions about. For example:

  • You have enriched my life, you have moved me again and again. You have inspired me. Sometimes when I have been down you have lifted me up. You filled me with new hope for our future and you have reminded me about what makes America so special [19].
    2) pronouns – the use of you and we (our) can create a between writer and reader. Personal pronouns can make the reader feel personally involved with the topic being discussed. For example:
    That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet [19].
    3) Exaggeration – this is used to create a false impression of the subject being discussed. It can be used to make something seem much better or much worse than it really is.
  • And if we don’t take these steps now, we will someday look back on today’s $3 per gallon gasoline as the good old days. At that point, no amount of drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf will solve our problems [19].
    4) Repetition – this device is used for reinforcement, and to ensure a reader remembers key ideas, words or phrases in the persuasive text.
  • In the places I have gone and the people I have met, I have been struck again and again by the fundamental decency and generosity and dignity of men and women who work hard without complaint, to meet their responsibilities every day [19].
  • Virginia, I have just one word for you, just one word. Tomorrow. Tomorrow. After decades of broken politics in Washington, 8 years of failed policies from George Bush, twenty-one months of campaigning, we are less then one day away from bringing about change in America.
    Tomorrow you can turn the page on policies that put greed and irresponsibility before hard work and sacrifice. Tomorrow you can choose policies that invest in our middle class, create new jobs and grow this economy so that everybody has a chance to succeed [19].
    5) Factual information and statistics – these are often used to add authority to a persuasive text.
  • Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787 [19].
    6) Imperatives – language that encourages the reader to do something quickly or makes them feel as if they have no other choice in forming their opinions makes use of imperatives.
  • That’s why we need a better alternative. We need an electronic verification system that can effectively detect the use of fraudulent documents, significantly reduce the employment of illegal workers, and give employers the confidence that their workforce is legal [19].
    Thus, the lexical specificity of declamatory discourse is characterized by using lexical units, which help the leader to become “closer” to the audience and reach the aim of communication.

2.2. Stylistic devices of declamatory discourse in political speeches

The semantic-stylistic peculiarities of the declamatory speeches are represented by using such stylistic devices:
1) Personification that means revival of inanimate objects, for example:

  • The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America [19].Here the word church is personified.
    2) Metaphor, i.e. the figurative meaning of the word. For example:
  • Labour’s economy was based on bad debt and false hope. Labour got us into this mess. But they are clueless about how to get us out. Another term of Labour would have been a disaster for our economy. So don’t for a moment let Labour get away with it. Don’t forget the chaos and fear of 2008. And never, ever trust Labour with our economy again [15]. False hope means a failed expectation. Chaos and fear of 2008 means fear of the events that happened in 2008.
  • I was brought up to know that it is not polite to say ‘I told you so’. But I’m sorry: We did. In 2006 when Vince Cable warned that «bad debts were growing» and that bank lending levels were «recklessly irresponsible». [15]. Bad debt can cover a wide variety of definitions. The most common meaning is money owed which is unlikely to be recovered. This form of bad debt may be written off by a company or may ultimately lead to the person with bad debt finding himself unable to gain anymore credit [11].
  • That is the liberal spirit and that is something we will never lose. The spirit that gave birth to our party a century and half ago, that kept us alive when the other two parties tried to kill us off. The spirit that means however great our past, our fight will always be for a better future [15]. Liberal spirit means the feeling of freedom.
  • In 2002 when Tom McNally said: «The Government must guard the public interest as assiduously as Mr Murdoch guards his shareholder interests.» And in 1996 when Paddy said that Parliament had become «A rotten mess, a dishevelled, disfigured old corpse of what was once called the Mother of Parliaments.» Free to tell it like it really is because we are in nobody’s pocket [15].
  • At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents [19]. The metaphor high office concerns authorities. The meaning of this metaphor is connected with meaning of the word high as “having an important position in society or within an organization” [5].
  • We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness [19]. The metaphor enduring spirit is personification a spirit as living creature. Generally the word spirit means “the qualities that make someone live the way they do, and make them different from other people; way someone feels at a particular time, for example if they are happy or sad” [5]. The God-given promise is a metaphor that denotes meaning of true promise. The meaning of metaphor is based on the image of God as the highest force, whose action is undoubted.
  • And I wonder, where did they find that kind of courage? When you’re facing row after row of state troopers on horseback armed with billy clubs and tear gas… when they’re coming toward you spewing hatred and violence, how do you simply stop, kneel down, and pray to the Lord for salvation? Truly, this is the audacity of hope [18]. Tear gas is a metaphor.
    The term “tear gas” is applied to numerous substances, although the most common one currently in use internationally is what is called “CS gas.” CS is one of many so-called “nonlethal” chemical weapons referred to as “lachrymatory agents” (which comes from “lacrima,” the latin word for tear) The category “lachrymatory agents” also includes chemicals commonly known as pepper spray (OC, PAVA) and mace (CN). Technically, tear gas and pepper spray are thought of as different substances. (For instance, most people probably think of tear gas as a gas and pepper spray as a liquid, however either chemical can come in various forms depending on how it is prepared.) However, they are both lachrymatory agents used by the state to stifle dissent and to terrorize prisoners, and they are often manufactured by the same companies (sometimes they are also combined in the same product.)
    The term “tear gas” is a misnomer. For one thing, “tear gas” seems to imply something innocuous – you would think it’s just a chemical that makes you tear up. In fact, tear gas is a dangerous, potentially lethal chemical agent which is outlawed under the Chemical Weapons Convention for use during wartime. As the Omega Research Foundation argues: “Less-lethal weapons are presented as more acceptable alternatives to guns. But these weapons augment rather than replace the more lethal weapons. Euphemistic labels are used to create the impression that these weapons represent soft and gentle forms of control. CS is never referred to by the authorities as vomit gas, in spite of its capacity to cause violent retching.” NGO Physicians for Human Rights believes that ‘tear gas’ is a misnomer for a group of poisonous gases which, far from being innocuous, have serious acute and longer-term adverse effects on the health of significant numbers of those exposed.” We aim to change the conversation on tear gas by calling this so-called “nonlethal” weapon what it is: a chemical weapon. We view tear gas, pepper spray, and all “lachrymatory agents” and so-called “non-lethal weapons” as chemical weapons in the war on democracy.
    It’s important to note that “tear gas” is not actually a gas. The active chemicals in all different kinds of tear gas and pepper spray are solid at room temperature, and need to be mixed with other chemicals in order to produce what is called an aerosol— solid particles finely dispersed in the air, similar to smoke or a cloud. They can also be dissolved in liquid solution, which is how pepper spray is commonly used. This is significant since the symptoms and treatment for tear gas and pepper spray exposure can vary depending on the kind of aerosolizing agents or solvents used. For example, when silica gel is added to CS to form CS1 or CS2, the result is a stronger tear gas which is more water resistant. Methylene chloride – a known carcinogen – was used as a solvent in the tear gas and pepper spray against WTO protesters in Seattle in 1999. This is believed to have caused many health problems for protesters who were exposed [14].
    Thus, the metaphor appeared based upon similarity of reaction: the gas that causes tears.
  • Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers – in this country, we rise or fall as one nation; as one people [17]. The metaphor a thriving Wall Street means that it succeeds.
  • When the bombs fell on our harbour and tyranny threatened the world, she was there to witness a generation rise to greatness and a democracy was saved [17]. Tyranny means “cruel or unfair control over other people; cruel and unfair government; something in your life that limits your freedom to do things the way you want to” [5]. Tyranny is an abstract noun. Tyranny can’t threat somebody, so we can speak about personification of this image.
    3) Phraseological units. For example:
  • The easy thing would have been to sit on the opposition benches throwing rocks at the Government as it tried to get control of the public finances. It might even, in the short run, have been more popular, but it would not have been right. At that moment, Britain needed a strong government [15]. The expression to throw rocks means to criticize.
    4) Similes, i.d. comparison of different object, for example:
  • These may not be easy times for us as a party. But much more importantly: These are not easy times for the country. Economic insecurity. Conflict and terrorism. Disorder flaring up on our streets. Times like these can breed protectionism and populism. So times like these are when liberals are needed most. Our party has fought for liberal values for a century and half: justice, optimism, freedom. We’re not about to give up now [15].
    5) Rhetorical questions don’t require answer, although they are appealed to the communicant, thus, they influence on the addressee. Thus, saying rhetorical question, a speaker make the listener to search the answers himself, and persuades him that is the only right answer. It helps women to avoid direct instructions on the rightness of their view, instead it looks as if they discuss solution and take it with the audience. For example:
  • So we are strong. United. True to our values. Back in Government and on your side.In Government you’re faced with hard choices every day. The question is how you make them. Some ask ‘how can we get a market to work here?’ Others ‘how can this win us more votes?’ A few ‘what will the press think?’ For liberals, the litmus test is always the national interest. Not doing the easy thing. Doing the right thing [15].
    6) Alliteration and assonances, i.e. repetition of sounds. For example:
  • Labour says: the Government is going too far, too fast. I say, Labour would have offered too little, too late. Imagine if Ed Miliband and Ed Balls had still been in power [15]. Here the sound [tu] is repeated.
  • Gordon Brown’s backroom boys when Labour was failing to balance the books, failing to regulate the financial markets, and failing to take on the banks [15]. Here the sound [f] is repeated.
    Consequently, we can conclude that stylistic devices are the indispensable element of declamatory speech.


Having studied the lexico-semantic peculiarities of the declamatory speech, we can conclude:
1) In the modern linguistic the following types of discourses are distinguished: exposition, narration, description, argument and poetry. Declamatory discourse is one of the discourses, which aim is to effect on the audience and makes the audience to accept a particular point of view and act on that belief.
2) The basic elements of orator’s speech include as follows: the introduction, the body and the conclusion. The analysis shows that this manipulative effect of the declamatory speech in achieved due to using lexical and stylistic devices.
3) For the purposes of our study we have analyzed the political speeches of British and American leaders. The results show that

  • political declamatory discourse covers politically-related writings and speeches.
  • the most familiar types of political declamatory discourse involves the speech and debate within the congress or parliament of a nation.
  • the lexical and stylistic units used in declamatory political speeches perfom emotional, persuasive, and manipulative functions.
    4) Among the lexical means used in declamatory political speeches, we found the following ones:
  • emotive words (56%);
  • pronouns (21%);
  • exaggeration (11%);
  • repetition (19%);
  • factual information and statistics (35%);
  • imperatives (29%).
    5) The semantic-stylistic peculiarities of declamatory political speeches include using
  • metaphors (58%);
  • personification (32%);
  • phraseological units (16%);
  • similes (27%);
  • rhetorical questions (5%);
  • alliteration and assonances (7%).


  1. Discourse [Electronic resource] / Literary Devices. – Access available at: http://literarydevices.net/discourse/
  2. Encyclopaedia Britannica [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.britannica.com/art/Declamatory-rhetoric
  3. Guseinova E.I. Discourse Versus Text [Electronic resource] / E.I. Guseinova. – Access available at: http://www.rusnauka.com/9_KPSN_2011/Philologia/3_81911.doc.htm
  4. Kuipers Joel, Oratory [Electronic resource] / Kuipers Joel. – Access available at: home.gwu.edu/~kuipers/oratory.pdf
  5. Longman dictionary of Contemporary English [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.ldoceonline.com/
  6. Reid Chris, The power of political Declamatory[Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.qmul.ac.uk/research/news/features/65541.html
  7. Stewart David, Declamatory Speech Structure [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.ehow.com/info_8706855_Declamatory-speech-structure.html
  8. The Free Dictionary [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Oratory+speech
  9. What Are the Different Types of Political Discourse? [Electronic resource]. –Access available at: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-different-types-ofpolitical-discourse.htm
  10. What are the devices of persuasive language? [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.resourcebank.curriculum.edu.au/guest/examples/20102/default.htm
  11. What is bad debt? [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-bad-debt.htm
  12. What is discourse? [Electronic research]. – Access available at: http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-discourse.htm
  13. What Is Political Discourse Analysis? [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-political-discourse-analysis.htm
  14. What is tear gas? What are “lachrymatory agents”? [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://facingteargas.org/bp/36/what-tear-gas


  1. British Political Speech [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm
  2. 10 Famous Speeches in English, and What you can Learn from them [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://www.englishtrackers.com/english-blog/10-famous-speeches-in-english-and-what-you-can-learn-from-them/
  3. Election Night Victory Speech [Electronic resource] / Grant Park, Illinois, November 4, 2008. – Access available at: http://obamaspeeches.com/E11-Barack-Obama-Election-Night-Victory-Speech-Grant-Park-Illinois-November-4-2008.htm
  4. John Lewis’s 65th Birthday Gala 2005 [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://obamaspeeches.com/003-John-Lewis-65th-Birthday-Gala-Obama-Speech.htm
  5. The Complete Text Transcripts of Over 100 Barack Obama Speeches [Electronic resource]. – Access available at: http://obamaspeeches.com/