A Pragmatic Analysis Of Rhetorical Questions In Selected American Political Speeches

‫طةرميان‬ ‫زانكؤي‬ ‫طؤظاري‬
Journal of Garmian University
ٕ‫نسًَا‬ ُ‫جاَع‬ ًُ‫دل‬
636 acadj@garmian.edu.krd Vol.4 No.3(July, 2017)
A Pragmatic Analysis of Rhetorical Questions in Selected American
Political Speeches
Media Rafiq Majeed and Aveen Hidayat Ahmed
Department of English, College of Education, University of Garmian
Abstract
This study is an attempt to investigate rhetorical questions from the perspective of
one pragmatic model which is speech act theory in some selected American
political speeches. The study aims at showing the pragmatic function of rhetorical
questions from the speech act point of view. To achieve this aim, it is hypothesized
that rhetorical questions do not elicit an answer like ordinary questions but rather
they state something, in other words; there is another meaning behind its literal
meaning; (illocutionary force). Rhetorical questions are indirect speech acts and
mostly in political speeches they are used to persuade the listeners.
In the current study, certain procedures have been followed: firstly: a survey of
rhetorical questions, its form and function with some details about language of
politics. Secondly; speech act theory is highlighted so as to create a model for the
purpose of the analysis. Thirdly; seven American political speeches have been
selected that contain rhetorical questions and then analyzed on the bases of the
adopted model. Fourthly; the results that are obtained from the analysis are
presented. The study
falls in to four parts, part one is devoted to the theoretical framework of rhetorical
questions, and language of politics. Whereas; part two is devoted to the theoretical
framework of pragmatics, Speech Act theory and the model of analysis. Part three
presents the practical analysis of rhetorical questions in the selected American
political speeches followed by the results obtained from the data analysis. Part four
sums up the conclusions arrived at.
Key words: Rhetorical Questions, Pragmatics, Speech Acts, Political Speeches
https://doi.org/10.24271/garmian.119
http://jgarmianuniv.net

1.Rhetorical questions
1.1 Rhetorical questions: an over view
Rhetorical questions are examples of utterances whose form does not match
their function. They have the structure of a question but the force of an assertion
and so are generally defined as questions that neither seek information nor elicit an
answer.
This makes them unique within semantic and pragmatic analyses since most
utterances are assumed to be informative or at least information-seeking. Standard
analyses typically associate rhetorical questions with single negative answers.
Some researchers define them as biased assertions while others treat them as
constrained questions Rohde (2006:134).
Rhetorical question that is structurally the same as any other question but
which, usually, is not designed or is not expected to elicit an answer.”
Beard(2000:52).
Rhetorical questions do not behave like statements, or even like some special
kind of questions, but rather like ordinary questions, they allow the same range of
answers as can be ordinary questions embedded, and receive basically the same
acceptability judgments as ordinary questions. They form a natural syntactic class
with ordinary questions cross linguistically. In conclusion, there is no compelling
evidence supporting a syntactic and/or semantic difference between rhetorical
questions and ordinary questions. They are the same syntactic and semantic object.
However, it is observed that the conditions under which Rhetorical questions can
be used and answered are different from ordinary questions Waldmüller(2007
:128).
1.2 Functions of Rhetorical Question
Abioye (2009:3) claims that rhetorical questions appear in both written and
spoken language, therefore, it follows that they serve different functions, which
include:

 Rhetorical functions: where they are used basically to charge emotions, to
express strong feelings of outrage, vehement indignation, jolt
readers/listeners out of a state of complacency/stupor, etc.
 Stylistic functions: it may be used to embellish one‟s writing as it provides
variety in writing style and equally creates a break from the conventional
writing format or style.
 Persuasive functions: here the rhetorical question indirectly helps in
forming or even changing an opinion as well as in stimulating arguments by
presenting issues, sometimes directly to the audience. The foremost
advantage of this device in language use in
communication is that an avenue for personal interaction is created between
the writer/speaker and the listener/reader than one would find in
conventional straightforward sentences.
 Grammatical function: Is found in thematic focusing or referential
prominence in a text. Thematic focusing refers to the peg on which the
message is hung. Other grammatical devices for thematic marking include
word order, passive construction, cleft and relative constructions.
1.3Typology of Rhetorical Questions
According to Abioye (2009:4 -5), Han (1998: 7-8). Rooy & Safarova,( 2003:
304 ). and (Balogun, 2011: 44), several types of rhetorical questions have been
identified, and some will be discussed here:
(1)Rhetorical questions can be used as a way of making a point:
such as (1) where do you think you are going? China.
(2)Rhetorical questions frequently provoke thought and encourage reflection
within the reader/listener. It may equally serve as self-evaluation.The
writer/speaker speculates aloud, and is allowed to probe the readers‟ minds
and also expose the writer‟s level of understanding:

(2) Can this work? (It will not work).
(3) Some rhetorical questions sometimes deny or make assertions:
(3) Why are you so wicked? (You are very wicked).
(4)Rhetorical questions may be a command:
(4) Do I make myself clear? (I am stating this clearly).
(5) Some are used in response to a previous statement or question. Such
rhetorical questions express strong feelings of displeasure and usually, they confirm
an already expressed view:
(5) Q: You mean Mary saw you and didn‟t stop to say hello? A: Why should she?
(6) Still, some rarely produce logical answers. They are presented as antithetical
because they exhibit some of life‟s self – contradictions. They are axiomatic
because they are already accepted as the norm. These are called “empty” Rhetorical
Questions: -
(6) Why is it called tooth brush when you brush all of your teeth?
(7)Rhetorical questions may appear in the form of yes/no question which demands
only an acceptance or a denial of the proposed fact from the addressee usually
involving a simple “yes” or “no” answer, and enables speakers to follow up with
more detailed information, or to use the question as an assertion by implicating the
speaker‟s expectations towards the answer .
(8)Rhetorical questions may appear in the form of wh- question. The wh-question
allows for a wider range of possible answers, and this provides the speaker with the
advantage of simply leaving the question to the listener to interpret the intended
meaning.
(9) Rhetorical questions may appear in the form of alternative questions to offer a
choice between alternative responses; however, the alternative question is “not
always neutral” with respect to the speaker‟s desire

(10) Rhetorical questions may appear in the form of declarative to emphasize the
truthfulness of a known fact, they are of two types; including structurally identical
to declarative statements but uttered with interrogative prosody; its final rising
intonation can signal surprise rather than a true interest in getting information.
Question tag, the speaker is sure of the fact in the declarative question, and the
question tag is used to urge the hearer to agree with the assumption in the
declarative question .
1.4 Language of Politics
Nowadays political discourse is one of the topical issues for a great number of
linguists. Political speeches are public-oriented, that is they are directed to people
of different ages and backgrounds. However, to interpret the speeches the
politicians deliver, to understand the real meaning they convey, one need to draw
attention to linguistic means and devices politicians use. And some devices are
those of ancient orators, which are still willingly used by modern politicians. The
power of the spoken word was well-known in ancient times, and knowing that the
word had the power to influence the consciousness, emotions and feelings of an
audience, and that it had the power to persuade, to induce to certain actions and
thoughts, ancient philosophers, thinkers and politicians willingly used the word as a
tool of a speech. But, of course, not the word itself but the art of using it was
crucial in achieving the goals a speaker pursued. Metaphors, repetitions, rhetorical
questions and other linguistic devices which present politicians use in their
speeches to achieve their political goals were well-known in times of Socrates and
Aristotle, and
the skill of using it in public speeches, that is to say; oratory, was considered as art
Bokayeva (2013:361).
2.Pragmatics

2.1. Pragmatics: An overview
Pragmatics is defined differently by different authors, Yule (1996:3) defines
pragmatics as the study of what the interpretation of what people mean in a
particular context and how the context influence what is said. It explores how
listeners can make inferences about what is said in order to arrive at an
interpretation of the speakers intended meaning, and also how a great deal of what
is unsaid is recognized as a part of what is communicated.
Pragmatics is the ways meanings are conveyed in spoken and written texts
beyond the surface meaning of what is actually said or written. This can work on a
personal level, and may rely on previous shared knowledge and experience, or on a
more general public, cultural level where we have learnt that certain things carry
with them implied meanings Coultas (2003:99).
" Pragmatics studies the factors that govern our choice of language in social
interaction and the effect of our choices on others. Pragmatic factors always affect
our selection of sounds, grammatical constructions, and vocabularies in producing
the meaning we intend to communicate" Crystal (1987: 62-5).
Crystal (2008:378) claims that Pragmatics; a term traditionally used to label one of
the three major divisions of semiotics (along with semantics and syntacx). In
modern linguistics, it has come to be applied to the study
of language from the point of view of the users, especially of the choices they
make, the constraints they encounter in using language in social interaction, and the
effects their use of language has on the other participants in an act of
communication.
Concerning the distinction between pragmatics and semantics, Bussmann
(1996:926-927) says that both of which investigate different aspects of linguistic
meaning, is even less clear-cut. While semantics is concerned with the literal and
contextually non-variable meaning of linguistic expressions or with the
contextually non-variable side of the truth conditions of propositions or sentences,

pragmatics deals with the function of linguistic utterances and the propositions that
are expressed by them, depending upon their use in specific situations.
One can conclude that pragmatics studies the way in which people understand
and produce a communicative act in a conversation. It covers what speakers mean
in using the expression in a given speech context. What speakers mean is totally
different from the literal meaning of the words uttered. The ability to produce and
comprehend a successful conversation is referred to as pragmatic competence. This
includes one's knowledge about the social status between interlocutors, the cultural
knowledge, and the linguistic knowledge; explicit and implicit.
2.2. Speech Act theory
This theory is usually attributed to the Oxford philosopher J. L. Austin .The
basic ideas, which were formed by him in the late 1930s, were presented in his
lectures given at Oxford in 1952–1954, and later in his William James Lectures
delivered at Harvard in 1955. These lectures were finally published posthumously
as How to do things with words in
1962. After his death in 1960, Austin‟s ideas were refined, systematized, and
advanced, especially by his Oxford student, the American philosopher John R.
Searle. The central tenet of speech act theory is that when we use language we
don't only use it to say things but also to perform acts Finch (2005:180).
Cruse (2006:165) says that according to the Austin's theory of speech act there
are three kinds of acts that utterances can be said to perform: Locutionary acts:
“roughly equivalent to uttering a certain sentence with a certain „meaning´ in the
traditional sense.” Illocutionary acts: “such as informing, ordering, warning, etc.,
i.e. utterances which have a certain (conventional) force.” And Perlocutionary
acts: “what we bring about or achieve by saying something, such as convincing,
persuading, deterring or surprising".

Austin focused on illocutionary acts, maintaining that here one might find
the “force” of a statement and demonstrate its performative nature. Austin
distinguished between performatives and constatives utterances; he said that
performatives are utterances that are used to perform acts, as in:
(7) I promise to come to your talk tomorrow afternoon; whereas constatives are
utterances that are employed to make assertions or statements as in :
(8) My daughter is called Elizabeth.
Performatives can further be divided into explicit and implicit. Explicit
performatives are utterances that contain a performative verb that makes explicit
what kind of act is being performed. By contrast, implicit performatives are
utterances in which there is no such verb.However;
Austin states that explicit performatives have the following properties (i) they
performative verb, (ii) the performative nature of such a verb can be reinforced by
adding the adverb hereby, (iii) they occur in sentences with a first-person singular
subject of a predicate (verb) in the simple present tense, indicative mood, and
active voice. . However; there are exceptions.
Explicit performatives can sometimes take a first-person plural subject, a second
person singular or plural subject, and a third-person singular or plural subject, .In
addition, there are cases where the explicit performative verb is „impersonal,‟ that
is, it does not refer to the speaker. Furthermore, explicit performatives can occur in
sentences where the verb is in the passive voice. Finally they can also occur in
sentences of present progressive aspect. Nevertheless,
Austin noticed that for a performative to be „felicitous,‟ it must meet a set of
conditions (i) There must be a conventional procedure having a conventional
effect.(ii) The circumstances and persons must be appropriate, as specified in the
procedure. The procedure must be executed (i) correctly and (ii) completely. Often
(i) the persons must have the requisite thoughts, feelings and intentions, as

specified in the procedure, and (ii) if consequent conduct is specified, then the
relevant parties must so do. Violation of any of the conditions will render a
performative or infelicitous(ibid).
2.2.1 Classification of Speech acts
There are various ways of classifying speech act or illocutionary act , Austin
(1962:150-160) and Horn and Ward ( 2006:64) present a preliminary, intuitive,
five-way taxonomy of illocutionary acts that
Austin himself admitted was neither particularly well motivated nor always
unambiguous in its application to particular examples. Since he believed that
illocutionary acts could always be made explicit through the use of performative
sentences:
(1) Verdictives: acts that consist of delivering a finding, e.g., acquit, hold ,read
something as, etc.( 2) Exercitives: acts of giving a decision for or against a course
of action, e.g., dismiss, order, etc. (3) Commissives: acts whose point is to commit
the speaker to a course of action, e.g.,give one‟s word, declare one‟s intention, etc.
(4) Behabitives: expressions of attitudes toward the conduct, fortunes, or attitudes
of others, e.g., apologize, thank, etc. (5) Expositives: acts of expounding of views,
conducting of arguments, and clarifying, e.g., deny, inform,etc.
(Searle, 1971:353-360) and Levinson (1983:240) say that there are five basic kinds
of action that one can perform in speaking, by means of the following five types of
utterance: (1) representatives, which commit the speaker to the truth of the
expressed proposition(asserting, concluding, etc.) (2) directives, which are
attempts by the speaker to get the addressee to do something (requesting,
questioning) (3) commissives, which commit the speaker to some future course of
action (promising, threatening,) (4) expiessives, which express a psychological
state (thanking, apologizing, etc) (5) declarations, which affect immediate changes
in the institutional state of affairs and tend to rely on elaborate extra-linguistic
institutions (declaring war , firing from employment).

As Yule (1996:54-56) confirms a different approaches to distinguishing types
of speech acts can be made on the bases of the structure .According to this; speech
act is divided into two types ; direct
and indirect speech acts. Whenever there is a direct relationship between the
function and the structure, it is called direct speech act and when there is an indirect
relationship between them it is an indirect speech act. It is worth mentioning that
indirect speech act is more polite than a direct speech act.
2.3 The adopted Model
The adopted model consists of the followings:
1. Locutionary act: A term used in the theory of speech acts to refer to an act of
making a meaningful utterance.
2.Illocutionary act: A term used in the theory of speech acts to refer to an act which
is performed by the speaker by virtue of the utterance having been made.
3.Perlocutionary act: where the act is defined by reference to the effect it has on the
hearer.
It is worth mentioning that all the selected political speeches here , that include
rhetorical questions appear in the form of indirect speech act and have the three
levels of acts (locution, illocution and perlocution) behind their literal meaning.
3.Data Analysis
3.1 Preliminaries
In this part, the researchers present data collection which contains sources of the
data, the procedures of collecting the data, and finally presenting data analysis and
result analysis.
3.2 Data Collection
The data contain (7) speeches by some selected American politicians taking
from internet sites and one book. In data collection the researchers first of all select

the political speeches that contain, rhetorical questions of different types and
functions as it has been referred to in part one, then they examined each speech
carefully to find out the context, the form and function of rhetorical question then
analyzing each rhetorical question pragmatically based on the theory of speech acts
using the three acts (locution, illocution and perlocution) as a model for the
analysis.
3.3 Data Analysis
Here, all the selected political speeches will be analyzed based on the adopted
model of analysis that has been mentioned previously.
example number one:
The challenge of our past remains the challenge of our future—will we be
one nation, one people, with one common destiny, or not? Will we all come
together, or come apart? http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres65.html.
This speech is by Bill Clinton in his second inaugural address on January 20th
1997. Here he used rhetorical question when he says "will we be one nation, one
people, with one common destiny or not? Will we all come together or a part."
Here, the rhetorical question appears in the form of alternative question with two
options, this type of question is not always neutral with respect to the speaker's
desire. As far as the function is concerned; here Clinton used the rhetorical question
so as to persuade the listeners to agree with
his ideas and plans, he links the listeners and himself and shows that they share the
common sense.Through the use of this rhetorical question he shows his positive
strategy in interaction. As far as pragmatics and the adopted model are concerned it
can be said that"will we be one nation, one people, with one common destiny, or
not? Will we all come together, or come apart?" is the locutionary force,
illocutionary force behind his speech is that he wants to persuade the listeners so as

to agree with him and he uses personal pronoun 'we' to show solidarity and to show
that they share common sense. The expected perlocutionary effect behind his
speech is persuasion and agreement.
example number two
You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a
limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we
are not bound by that same limitation?
http://republicsearcher.blogspot.com/2013/01/president-ronald-reagen-
inauguration.html
This speech is taken from Ronald Reagan's 1981 Inauguration address, United
State President. One can say that he used rhetorical question in his speech when
he says "why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation , we are not
bound by that same limitation?".
However; the rhetorical question here appears in the form of wh-question which
allows for a wider range of possible answers, and this enables the speaker to leave
the question to the listener to interpret the intended meaning. As far as the function
is concerned, here the rhetorical question as it appears in the form of wh-question
mostly functions as a tool to
affect the listener's attitude and emotion so as to get their support and approval. It is
worth mentioning that pragmatically and depending on the theory of speech act the
locutionary act is :"Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are
not bound by that same limitation?". The illocutionary force behind his speech is to
get the listeners support for his speech and to affect their emotion and psychology
so as to support collectivity as a nation and the perlocutionary effect behind his
speech isto get approval and support from the listeners.
Example number three

Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal
and emphatic "yes." http://republicsearcher.blogspot.com/2013/01/president-
ronald-reagen-inauguration.html
he says "Can we solve the problems confronting us? ".
Rhetorical question in this speech appears in the form of alternative question
that can simply be answered by saying 'yes or no'. And the rhetorical question in
Ronald Reagan's speech here , could be used to “induce doubt” inside the mind of
the listeners more subtly by giving them more freedom to consider the implied
message, allowing the speaker to play a more neutral role by avoiding the use of
more leading and value-loaded declarations. It may also equally serve as self-
evaluation. The speaker speculates aloud, and is allowed to probe the audience's
minds and also expose the speaker's level of understanding.
However; pragmatically we can say that "Can we solve the problems confronting
us?" This is the locutionary act and the illocutionary force behind this speech is
that he wants to confirm the audience that they can depend on themselves and the
expected perlocutionary effect is hopefulness and excitement.
Example number four
. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has
the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government,
must bear the burdenhttp://republicsearcher.blogspot.com/2013/01/president-
ronald-reagen-inauguration.html.
he says" then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us
together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."

Rhetorical question here, appears in the form of wh- question which allows a
wide range of possible answers. And as far as the function is concerned, here the
rhetorical question is used basically to affect the listener's emotion and to show
that they share the common sense. Nevertheless based on our model of analysis
we can say that the locutionary act is "then who among us has the capacity to
govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the
burden." And the illocutionary force behind the speech mentioned above is that
Ronald Reagan wants to, encourage and persuade the audience to bear the burden
and be as one nation. The expected
perlocutionary effect behind his speech is encouragement and persuasion.
Example number five
"Each year more than 100,000 high school graduates, with proved ability, do not
enter college because they cannot afford it. And if we cannot educate today's youth,
what will we do in 1970 when elementary enrollment will be 5 million greater than
1960? And high school enrollment will rise by 5 million. College enrollment will
increase by more than 3 million." (sreenivasan 2009:265).
This speech is taken from Lyndon B. Johnson, United State President May 22, 1964
poverty and the government in America. One can say that he used rhetorical
question in his speech when he says ", what will we do in 1970 when elementary
enrollment will be 5 million greater than 1960?" .
The form of rhetorical question is wh- question which is mostly used to produce
effect on listeners attitude . As for the function of the rhetorical questions presented
here, one can say that it serves the persuasive function and aims at getting listener's
support. Pragmatically; one can argue that ", what will we do in 1970 when
elementary enrollment will be 5 million greater than 1960?" is the locution and the
illocutionary effect behind this rhetorical question is to give a persuasive way that
can make the audience join them to find the solution for the problems. While the
expected perlocutionary effects are determining and appeasement

Example number six
Who shall live up to the great trust? Who dares fail to try?
http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres44.html
This speech is taken from Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United
States. 1989. Woodrow Wilson Tuesday March 4th
1913.
The rhetorical question appears in the form of Wh-question which produces
effect on listener's emotion and psychological aspect and as for the function it is the
persuasive function that the rhetorical question here serves and also one can say
that it is used as a challenging statement to solicit the listeners‟ commitment to its
implicit answer, essentially by inducing mental recognition of its obviousness and
its logical acceptability. Moreover; depending on pragmatics and the model
adopted one can say that "Who shall live up to the great trust? Who dare s fail to
try?" this is the locution and the illocutionary force behind this rhetorical question
is urging and motivating to take part in an action or to make a decision while the
expected perlocutionary effects are challenges , motivation , encouragement.
Example number seven
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East
oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and
Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we
willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and
greed. Poverty
anddespair. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=vi
ew_all&address=132x4818811.
This is a speech of Barak Obama made in 2002, when announcing his opposition
to the War on Iraq.
Here the rhetorical question appears in the form of declarative that emphasize the
truthfulness of the fact that they need to join the battle since it's against poverty,
despair, corruption and greed. The function of the rhetorical question is

persuasion, as it‟s the case with almost all political speeches. Pragmatically we
can say that "you want the fight, President Bush?" is the locution act and the
illocutionary force behind his speech is to persuade Americans against voting for
the war against United States and Iraq. He wants the audience to think carefully
about what they are being told that is why we can observe many justifications
used by him in his speech like a war against poverty, despair . The expected
illocutionary force behind his speech is encouragement, personation, etc.
3.4 Result Analysis
Rhetorical question used in political speeches appear in the form of an attempt so
as to get audience or listener's support.
Focusing on the analysis, the selected political speeches have been analyzed in
terms of one pragmatic model which is speech act theory in general and the tree
types of acts including (locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary) in
particular.
The analysis presented here shows that rhetorical questions are inherently
indirect, because the speaker has no intention of eliciting answer or information
from the hearer in posing rhetorical questions. Instead, he or she is making
statements by asking rhetorical questions,
and that always there is an illoctionary and perlocutionary forces behind their
speeches.
Out of (7) political speeches by different US presidents the result shows that (2 )
of those rhetorical questions appear in the form of alternative questions and (1) in
the form of declarative while the remaining (4) appear in the form of wh.
Questions , usually one can say that they serve the same function which is
persuasion and getting support and agreement from the audience or listeners. And
pragmatically the result shows that every rhetorical question presented here have
an illocutionary force and expected perlocutionary effect besides its literal
meaning.

4.Conclusion
Through the theoretical backgrounds of rhetorical questions, its form and functions
and the relationship between language and politics on one hand and investigating
speech act theory on the other hand the detailed analysis leads to the following
conclusions:
 Rhetorical questions may appear in different forms and serve different
functions, as far as political speeches is concerned mostly it serves to
persuade the listeners and attempts to satisfy them to support the plans and
policies presented by the politician.
 As far as speech act theory is concerned, rhetorical questions in political
speeches appear in the form of indirect speech act since they don‟t elicit an
answer instead they make a statement or assertion by asking a question.
 There is always illocutionary force behind the speeches of politician's as the
analysis shows and also they expect a perlocutionary effect by their speech.
It is worth mentioning that;
context has an important role in determining the illocutionary force behind
politician's speech.
References
Abioye, O. T. (2009). Typology of Rhetorical Questions as a Stylistic Device in
Writing. The International Journal of Language, Society and Culture. 29. 1-7.
Austin, J. (1962). How To Do Things With Words. Oxford: Clarendon
Balogun, T. A. (2011). Interrogative Questions as Device for the
Representation of Power in Selected Texts of Akachi Adimora- Ezeigbo. The
Journal of Pan African Studies, vol.4, no.8, December 2011
Beard, A. (2000). The Language of Politics. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.

Bokayeva A. N (2013). Rhetorical Devices of Politicians. No .1 (92) 2013.
Bussmann.H (1996) Routledge dictionary of language and linguistics. London
Coultas, A. (2003) Language and Social Context.London and New York
Cruse, Alan (2006) . A Glossary of Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburg
University Press.
Crystal, David. (1987).The Cambridge encyclopedia of Language . Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University
………………… (2008) Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th edition)
Blackwell
Finch, Geoffry (2005). Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics .(2nd
ed.).
United States: Palgrave Macmillan.
Han, C. H. (1998). Deriving the interpretation of rhetorical questions. In
Proceedings of West Coast Conference in Formal Linguistics (Vol. 16, pp. 237-
253.
Horn, L, R. and Gregory ,W.(2006). The Hand Book of Pragmatics.
Blackwell Publishing.
Levinson, Stephen, C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge : Cambridge.
University Press.
Rohde, H.(2006). Rhetorical Questions as Redundant Interrogatives, San Diego
Linguistics Papers 2, University of California, San Diego, pp. 134-168.
Searle, John, R(1971) . Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Sreenivasan, J.( 2009). Poverty and the Government in America. A Historical
Enpsychlopedia.Volume (2).

Van Rooy, R., & Šafářová, M. (2003). On polar questions. In Proceedings of
SALT (Vol. 13, pp. 292-309).
Waldmüller, P. (2007) Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11. pp.121-133.
Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Yule , George (1996).Pragmatics.Oxford Introductions to Language Study,
Series Editor H. GWiddowson. Oxford University Press.
Internet References
(1)Accessed on 22 March 2016 ,available at
:http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres65.html.
(2) Accessed on 22 March 2016 , available at
:http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres44.htm
(3) Accessed on 22 March 2016, available at:
inauguration.html
(4) Accessed on 21st May 2016 , available at:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&addr
ess=132x4818811
(5) Accessed on 30 of April 2016 , available at:
inauguration.html
(6) Accessed on 15th
of February 2016 , available at:
inauguration.html

ًًٌ‫ايتخ‬
َ‫رلتاز‬ ًُ‫أَسيه‬ ًُ‫سًاس‬ ‫خطابات‬ ‫يف‬ ًُ‫ايبالغ‬ ًُٔ‫يألس‬ ٌ‫ايرباغُات‬
‫دلًد‬ ‫زفًل‬ ‫ًَديا‬
‫أمحد‬ ‫ٖدايت‬ ‫أفني‬
ٕ‫نىزدستا‬ ًًِ‫إق‬ ٕ‫نسًَا‬ ُ‫جاَع‬ ،ًُ‫ايرتب‬ ًًُ‫ن‬ ،ُ‫اإلزلًًزي‬ ُ‫ايًػ‬ ِ‫قش‬
–
‫ايعسام‬
‫املًخص‬
‫َٓظى‬ َٔ ًُ‫ايبالغ‬ ًُٔ‫األس‬ ‫يف‬ ‫يًتخكًل‬ ُ‫ذلاوي‬ ُ‫ايدزاس‬ ‫ٖره‬
‫واحد‬ ًٌُ‫ع‬ ‫منىذج‬ ‫ز‬
ٌٖ
‫بعض‬ ‫يف‬ ّ‫ايهال‬ ٌ‫فع‬ ُ‫ْظسي‬
‫ْظس‬ ُٗ‫وج‬ َٔ ًُ‫ايبالغ‬ ٌٓ‫يًُشا‬ ًُ‫ايرباغُات‬ ُ‫ايىظًف‬ ‫إظٗاز‬ ‫إىل‬ ُ‫ايدزاس‬ ‫تٗدف‬ .َ‫املختاز‬ ًُ‫األَسيه‬ ًُ‫ايشًاس‬ ‫اخلطب‬
ً‫ا‬‫جىاب‬ ‫تجري‬ ‫ال‬ ًُ‫ايبالغ‬ ًُٔ‫األس‬ ٕ‫أ‬ ‫يفرتض‬ ،‫اهلدف‬ ‫ٖرا‬ ‫ويتخكًل‬ .ّ‫ايهال‬ ٌ‫فع‬
ُ‫ايعادي‬ ًُٔ‫األس‬ ٌ‫َج‬
،
ّ‫باألحس‬ ٌ‫ب‬
‫إىل‬ ‫تظري‬
.‫احلسيف‬ ‫َعٓاه‬ ْ‫وزا‬ ‫آخس‬ ِٓ‫َع‬ ‫ٖٓاى‬ ‫أخسّ؛‬ َ‫وبعباز‬ ،‫َا‬ ٌْ‫ط‬
‫يف‬ ‫وَعظُٗا‬ ،‫املباطس‬ ‫غري‬ ّ‫ايهال‬ ٍ‫أعُا‬ ٌٖ ًُ‫ايبالغ‬ ًُٔ‫األس‬
‫املشتُعني‬ ‫إلقٓاع‬ ّ‫تشتخد‬ ‫اييت‬ ًُ‫ايشًاس‬ ‫اخلطب‬
.
‫اإلجساْات‬ ‫بعض‬ ‫اتباع‬ ‫مت‬
‫وَٓٗا‬ ،ُ‫ايدزاس‬ ‫ٖره‬ ‫يف‬
:‫أوال‬ :
ٍ‫تٓاو‬
ٌٓ‫املشا‬
ً‫ال‬‫طه‬ ،ًُ‫ايبالغ‬
‫ووظًف‬
ًُ
‫عسض‬ ‫اىل‬ ًُ‫إضاف‬
‫بعض‬
ًٌ‫تفاص‬
ً‫ا‬ًْ‫ثا‬ .ُ‫ايشًاس‬ ُ‫يػ‬
:
ً‫تش‬
ً
ٌ‫فع‬ ُ‫ْظسي‬ ًِ‫ع‬ ْ‫ايضى‬ ‫ط‬
‫منىذج‬ ‫خلًل‬ ‫وذيو‬ ّ‫ايهال‬
‫ي‬ ‫خيضع‬
‫ثايجا‬ .ًًٌ‫ًتخ‬
:
ُ‫سبع‬ ‫اختًاز‬ ‫مت‬
ًُ‫بالغ‬ ًُٔ‫أس‬ ًِ‫ع‬ ٍ‫حتتى‬ ًُ‫أَسيه‬ ًُ‫سًاس‬ ‫خطابات‬
‫حتًًًٗا‬ ِ‫ث‬ َٔ‫و‬
‫زابعا‬ .‫املعتُد‬ ‫ايُٓىذج‬ ‫أسص‬ ًِ‫ع‬
:
‫ايى‬ ‫مت‬ ‫اييت‬ ‫ايٓتآج‬ ‫عسض‬ ‫مت‬
‫صى‬
ٍ
‫اي‬
‫ًٗا‬
َٔ
ٍ‫خال‬
‫و‬ .ًًٌ‫ايتخ‬
ِ‫تٓكش‬
ُ‫ايدزاس‬
ًِ‫ع‬
ُ‫ايشًاس‬ ُ‫ويػ‬ ،ًُ‫ايبالغ‬ ًُٔ‫يألس‬ ٍ‫ايٓظس‬ ‫يإلطاز‬ ‫رلصص‬ ٍ‫األو‬ ْ‫اجلز‬ ،ْ‫أجزا‬ ُ‫أزبع‬
،
ٌْ‫ايجا‬ ْ‫اجلز‬ ‫بًُٓا‬
‫َه‬
ّ‫س‬
ًًٌ‫ايتخ‬ ‫ومنىذج‬ ّ‫ايهال‬ ٕ‫قاْى‬ ُ‫ْظسي‬ ،ًُ‫يًرباغُات‬ ٍ‫ايٓظس‬ ‫يإلطاز‬ ‫ض‬
‫فًُا‬ ،
ًٌُ‫ايع‬ ًًٌ‫ايتخ‬ ‫ايجايح‬ ْ‫اجلز‬ ‫يعسض‬
ً‫ايبالغ‬ ٌٓ‫يًُشا‬
ًًٌ‫حت‬ َٔ ‫عًًٗا‬ ٍ‫احلصى‬ ‫مت‬ ‫اييت‬ ‫بايٓتآج‬ ُ‫َتبىع‬ َ‫املختاز‬ ًُ‫األَسيه‬ ًُ‫ايشًاس‬ ‫اخلطابات‬ ‫يف‬ ُ
ًٗ‫إي‬ ٌ‫ايتىص‬ ‫مت‬ ‫اييت‬ ‫االستٓتاجات‬ ‫ايسابع‬ ْ‫اجلز‬ ‫ويًخص‬ .‫ايبًاْات‬
.‫ا‬

A Pragmatic Analysis Of Rhetorical Questions In Selected American Political Speeches

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Pragmatic Analysis Of Rhetorical Questions In Selected American Political Speeches

Similar to A Pragmatic Analysis Of Rhetorical Questions In Selected American Political Speeches (17)

More from Amy Cernava

More from Amy Cernava (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Pragmatic Analysis Of Rhetorical Questions In Selected American Political Speeches