Abstract Nowadays the American politicians almost barely have a say – celebrities say it for them, they market the politicians. Was there ever any politics in politics? The overall purpose of this thesis is to find out whether there has been a development in the American presidents’ use of rhetoric instruments in their speeches compared to objectivity through the course of history. The method of analysis is based upon rhetoric and argumentation. The theoretical tools used to prove the thesis are Aristotle’s appeals logos, pathos and ethos, and Toulmin’s argumentation model. Furthermore each speech will be put into Roman Jakobson’s communication model, done so to investigate each speech’s communication situation. Also there is a specific schedule in defining each analytical element as objective or not. The analysis will be constructed on four presidential speeches throughout American history; Roosevelt 1932, Carter 1976, Obama 2008 and Obama 2012. To make the analysis as specific as possible the speeches chosen are all nomination acceptance speeches and so they lay a basis in the immediate vicinity of each other. After having analyzed all four speeches, the specification of objectivity does not decrease in the way expected. It can however be concluded that the use of appeals has changed. The logos appeal has disappeared with time and has left pathos to be the dominating appeal in the political speeches.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Humanistisk Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||18 dec. 2012|
- American Elections objectivity
- Amerikansk præsidentvalg saglighed