Получи информацию о новых работах Atlants.lv!
Акция: ВестникПРО на 6 месяцев - бесплатно!Абонемент бесплатно
Use of Personal Pronouns in Political Discourse
|2.1.||Frequency of ‘I’ and ‘we’||5|
|2.2.||Frequency of ‘I’ and ‘we’ statements||6|
|2.3.||Frequency of inclusive, exclusive and ambiguous ‘we’ cases||6|
The research has shown that solely the frequency of personal pronouns ‘I’ and ‘we’ does not influence the success of political discourse, because it was found that the percentage of use of personal pronouns in Obama’s speech and in McCain’s speech does not differ tremendously.
Another finding was that the frequency of five types of ‘I’ and ‘we’ statements discussed in this research differs in that McCain’s speech contains more promises and achievements, but lacks realization of current abilities and constraint that possibly made Obama’s speech more successful, because the results showed that Obama’s division of statements was opposite.
The last important finding is that the use of inclusive ‘we’ may be another reason that made Obama’s speech more successful. It was found that almost all McCain’s uses of ‘we’ are exclusive and do not include the addressee, whereas Obama mostly uses inclusive ‘we’.
George Eliot's "Middlemarch: A Study of Provincial Life". The Representation of the Time in the Novel
Teaching Vocabulary Using Pictures in Form 3
- Use of Personal Pronouns in Political Discourse
Адрес э-почты, на которую отправить адрес работы: