Suggestive potential of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidential speech ‘Annual Address to the US Congress’

Olena Zhykharieva; Elina Kushch; Viktoriia Stavtseva

doi:10.34069/AI/2021.37.01.12

Olena Zhykharieva Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1054-3725
Elina Kushch National University ‘Zaporiz’ka Politekhnika’, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7220-3806
Viktoriia Stavtseva Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0034-4757

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.37.01.12

Keywords: presidential speech, strategy, suggestive influence, suggestive potential, tactics.

Abstract

The article deals with suggestive potential in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s speech devoted to the issues of confronting World War II threats and proposing aid to those European countries where it broke out. The speech was addressed to the United States Congress. The rally of congressional representatives opposed the government to propose assistance to the countries in need having faced the consequences of the Great Depression. Thus, the politicians considered the war on another continent was unlikely to have а detrimental effect on the country’s interests. Suggestive influence is based on the inculcation of information to affect an interlocutor’s uncritical perception to alter their attitudes and actions. Implementation of such a phenomenon in Roosevelt’s speech is realized through variative repetitive information about the potential threat from the aggressor to US liberty and confrontation of the New Order Hitler wants to impose on democratic societies. Moreover, Roosevelt appeals to the congressional representatives’ awareness through the system of images that makes it possible to describe actions and regimes of those who put the world order under threat. It goes in contrast with the USA’s system, order, and democracy. Suggestive influence in Roosevelt’s speech presented by linguistic units at different levels to indicate the potential threat to America. Discourse strategies in the analyzed speech are expressed with the help of tactics of opposition and tactics of sacralization. They are implemented by multilevel linguistic units of evaluative semantics, units that bear sacred meaning, as well as epithets, metaphors, comparisons, and truisms.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Olena Zhykharieva, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Doctor of Sciences (Philology), Associate Professor of the Department of English Philology, Translation and Language Philosophy named after Professor O.M. Morokhovsky, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine.

Elina Kushch, National University ‘Zaporiz’ka Politekhnika’, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine.

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Translation, National University ‘Zaporiz’ka Politekhnika’, Zaporizhzhia, Ukraine.

Viktoriia Stavtseva, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine.

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of the English Language and Translation of the Faculty of Oriental Studies, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine.

References

Cherepanova, I. Yu. (1999). The house of sorceress. The language of collective unconsciousness. Moscow: KSP.

Chilton, P. & Shäffner, C. (1998). Discourse and Politics. In T. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction (Vol. 2., pp. 206-230). London: SAGE Publications.

Corcoran, P.E. (1979). Political Language and Rhetoric. St. Lucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press.

Fairclough, I. & Fairclough, N. (2013). Political Discourse Analysis: A Method for Advanced Students. London & New York: Routledge.

Goncharov, G.A. (1995). Suggestion: theory and practice. Moscow: KSP.

Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L. & Kelley, H.H. (1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Ilnytska, L.L. (2006). English-language suggestive discourse (PhD thesis). Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv.

Issers, O.S. (2003). Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian. Moscow: Editorial URSS.

Komlev, N.G. (2000). The Dictionary of foreign words. Moscow: EKSMO-Press.

Kravchenko, N.K., Goltsova, M.G., & Kryknitska, I.O. (2020). Politics as art: The Creation of a Successful Political Brand. Journal of History Culture and Art Research, 9(4), 314-323. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.7596/taksad.v9i4.2885

Kuklick, B. (2009). A Political History of the USA: One Nation Under God. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kushch, E.O. (2004). Linguoideological and communicative peculiarities of political discourse of Great Britain on immigration issues. Mova i kutura, 7(3), 116-122.

Kushch, E.O. (2017). Deictic means of expressing of ethnic prejudiced in English-language discourse of British and American politicians. Pivdennyi archive, LXXII (2), 53-57.

Leontiev, A.A. (2005). Fundametals of psycholinguistics. Moscow: Smysl.

Merk, F. (1963). Manifest Destiny and Mission in American History. New York: Vintage Books.

Pinkovetskaia, I., Arbeláez Campillo, D., Rojas Bahamón, M., Gromova, T., & Nikitina, I. (2019). Female entrepreneurship development in the Russian Federation. Amazonia Investiga, 8(18), 111-118. Retrieved from https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/287

Polenberg, R.D. (2000). The Era of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933-1945: A Brief History with Documents (The Bedford Series in History and Culture). Bedford: St. Martin’s.

Polyakova, L., Yuzhakova, Y., Zalavina, T. & Dyorina, N. (2020) Linguistic Manipulation Means in English Political Discourse. Amazonia Investiga, 9(33), 27-36. Retrieved from https://amazoniainvestiga.info/index.php/amazonia/article/view/1485/1429

Rauch, B. (1989). Franklin D. Roosevelt: Selected Speeches, Messages, Press Conferences and Letters. Norwalk: Easton Press.

Romanov, A.A. & Cherepanova I.Yu. (1998). Language suggestion in the election of communication. Tver: GERS.

Shahnarovich, A.M. (1995). General psycholinguistics. Moscow: Nauka.

Sheigal, E.I. (2000). Semiotics of political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena.

Sidis, B. (1898). The Psychology of Suggestion: A Research into the Subconscious Nature of Man and Society. New York: D. Appleton & Company.

Stephanson, A. (1995). Manifest Destiny: American Expansionism and the Empire of Right. New York: Hill and Wang.

Van Dijk, T. (1987). Communicating Racizm. Ethnic Prejudice in Thought and Talk. London: SAGE Publications.

Vertyankina, N.V. (2005). Suggestive parameters of pragmonimic advertising discourse in modern mass media. (PhD thesis), Tyumen State University, Tyumen.

Waldman, M. (2010). My Fellow Americans: The Most Important Speeches of America’s Presidents, from George Washington to Barack Obama (2nd ed.) Naperville: Sourcebooks Incorporated Media Fusion.

Yudanova, E.T. (2003). The suggestive function of the linguistic means of the English-language political discourse, (PhD thesis), The Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, St. Petersburg.

Zheltuhina, M.R. (2003). Tropological suggestiveness of mass media discourse: on the problem of persuasion of tropes in the language of media. Moscow: Institute Yazykoznanija RAN.