On the other hand, Michael Howard places more importance on honesty. He uses noun phrases to connote his belief that politicians such as members of the Labour party are dishonest and mislead their public. “Sixty six broken promises” suggests that Labour is deceitful and doesn’t keep to it’s words, as highlighted by past participle “broken”. His repetition of the noun phrase “the truth,” emphasises that sincerity is important to him. He also evokes the Conservative’s principle of tradition; for instance, the noun phrase “proud tradition” proposes that he is confident in his party’s long-lived values, and that he is happy to continue them. The contrast in values is due to the fact that Labour and the Liberal Democrats are both left-wing, and are therefore standing for the notion of equal opportunity, whereas as a right-wing party, the Conservatives believe in individual values, tradition and opportunity.
While Blair throughout his speech uses noun phrases to highlight the good that Labour has done for Britain, the other two leaders use them to highlight the bad aspects of the Labour government. Blair suggests to the audience that Labour has been a strong leader and has worked for a better Britain. For example “the longest period of economic growth,” “the lowest unemployment and highest employment rate” and “the biggest reductions in child poverty” are all large-scale accomplishments. He uses superlative adjectives within these noun phrases, for example, “biggest” and “longest” to emphasise the greatness of the party in that they remain unsurpassed.
Alternatively, Howard emphasises the poor state Labour has left the country in. He uses many quantifiers to indicate exactness and add greater impact to the troubles he suggests, for example “3,600 crimes”. Through use of the quantifier “3,600” it is suggested that there are too many crimes occurring. His consistent use of quantifiers within noun phrases also makes his statements sound factual and objective and therefore makes him appear candid. Noun phrases are also used to highlight key areas in need of attention, such as education and healthcare, for instance: “dirty hospitals,” and “discipline in schools”. These noun phrases suggest problems created by Labours failings in which Howard wishes to propose a solution to his audience.
Kennedy also uses noun phrases to pin point where Labour has failed. The noun phrase, “the scandal of the elderly” suggests that old people have been treated poorly under the Labour government, whilst the abstract noun “scandal” connotes outrage and disgrace. Another example of this is “the unjust, unfair, increasingly unworkable council tax”. Through the use of the qualitative adjectives: “unjust,” “unfair” and “unworkable,” Kennedy emphasises how unreasonable the situation is and also implies that the unfair state that Britain is in reflects poorly on Labour’s values in that they have done nothing to maintain them.
The parties also use noun phrases to show their differing stance on the war in Iraq, an important and influential subject at the time. Whereas the Labour and Conservative party are in agreement in their views, the Liberal Democrats oppose whole-heartedly. The noun phrase, “the tragic experience of Iraq,” suggests that the Liberal Democrats believe that the war was a horrific time, and the abstract noun “tragic” insinuates disaster. “Disastrous consequences” suggests that they think the aftermath was also destructive. However, Howard’s speech uses the noun phrase “a better place” to express the Conservatives belief that the war brought about good changes. Blair uses this same noun phrase to express the same view.
Finally noun phrases are used in the speeches to suggest to the audience why their parties are fit for leadership. Blair attempts to empathise with the audience whilst at the same time connote his leadership abilities. The noun phrases: “a human being,” “a family man” and “a leader” are all examples of this. He shows three different sides to his personality, whilst reaching out to the widest audience. “A progressive politician” and “a progressive party,” use the qualitative adjective “progressive,” to imply a continuation beyond that which the party is promising now, and suggests some development with time. The noun phrase “the heart,” is quickly followed by noun phrase “the head,” and both together insinuate that Labour is caring, understanding, and empathetic as well as being logical and knowledgeable; all the qualities required of a good leader. Kennedy too expresses his party’s qualities. For example, he uses proper noun phrases such as, “Parmjit Gill” and “Nicola Davies” to show areas where they are already achieving as good leaders. He conveys their awareness of current issues by use of the proper noun phrase “Ken Bigley,” a subject in the news at the time. “The challengers” suggest that they may be aware that they are the underdogs of the election, however it also suggests that they are willing to fight for government. By use of “the only effective challenge to Labour,” here, the pre-modifier “only” implies that the Conservatives are an obsolete candidate for government.
PRONOUNS
The speeches use pronouns both in different and similar ways. When addressing the public Tony Blair uses the 2nd person personal pronoun, “you,” for example, in the complex sentence “If you, the tax payer, see people who don’t deserve it getting benefit, when you can’t get the help you need and do deserve.” Within this sentence the pronoun “you” addresses the individual on a personal level as if talking directly to them to solve their problems. The simple sentence, “You know what it’s like.” uses the pronoun to express empathy and an understanding of the audiences situation.
However, both Howard and Kennedy use the 3rd person plural pronoun “they” when talking about the public, Howard uses the coordinate clause “but they also want value for money” and Kennedy uses the simple sentence “And they’re voting accordingly.” Both of these examples do not address the public personally, perhaps insinuating that as they are not heads of government, unlike Blair, they have no allegiance to the public and feel no need to address them on a personal level, whereas Blair feels he has a responsibility to speak directly to the public. Instead, these party leaders choose to use the 2nd person personal pronoun “you” when addressing their parties. Blair instead uses 3rd person plural pronoun “they” when talking about the opposition, such as in the noun subordinate clause “what they stand for.” This in turn creates a “them and us” stance where they see the opposing parties as the enemy and connotes to the audience that labour is on the public’s side. Howard and Kennedy also do this, for example the simple sentence, “They put them up.” in Howard’s speech, is an impersonal dig at Labour. The 1st person plural pronoun “we” is used by Blair to suggest that Labour and the British public are on the same side and implies that the audience is already in agreement with the statement and gives a sense of togetherness.
The 1st person personal pronoun “I” is used by all party leaders, for example in Blair’s speech, the compound declarative sentence “I acknowledge that and accept it.” is used throughout to suggest that he believes he has a personal responsibility towards the public and for the party’s actions.
INTERROGATIVE SENTENCES
Tony Blair uses rhetorical questions most prominently, at the beginning of his speech to grab the audience’s attention and participation. Interrogative sentences are used primarily to highlight what Labour has done whilst in power, for example the simple sentence “But who talks of boom and bust economics today?” suggests that Labour has fixed the economic situation, and implies, by use of the qualitative adjectives “boom” and “bust” that whilst the previous party were in power the economy wasn’t working efficiently. The previous party being the Conservatives. It suggests that Britain was worse off when the Conservative party was running the country. Co-ordinate conjunctions are used to begin interrogative sentences, such as “and” and “or” to form a list and so highlight the many problems that Labour has solved.
Interrogative sentences are also used to connote that Labour has unfinished business within government, for example the complex sentence, “But if your job means working til 5pm, what good is that?” is said in response to the fact that they introduced two and a half free hours of care for families. It therefore implies that although they have improved the situation from how it was, the noun subordinate clause, “what good is that?” suggests the situation is still not good enough.
Michael Howard on the other hand uses interrogative sentences to emphasise Labours failings as leaders in government. Simple interrogative sentence; “And what do we have to show for it?” suggests that for all Labour has meant to have done there is no substantial outcome to show for it. The complex interrogative sentence, “Can you imagine what it feels like to have saved for your retirement only to find that the money you put aside isn’t there?” insinuates that the public have been deceived by Labour. The infinitive verb “to find” suggests that the person was unaware that their money was not there and suggests that Labour are suffering from a communications failure. Howard also implies that Tony Blair has been previously dishonest, and so asks the audience whether he is still a trustworthy leader. This is done through the complex interrogative sentence; “What if this PM asks people to trust him again?”
Kennedy uses interrogatives to a much different effect. He uses them; as the leader of the underdog party, to express what he believes people will be thinking, when contemplating voting for the Liberal Democrats. The simple interrogative sentence, ”Are these people up for it?” implies that he thinks that as the 3rd party, people may think that they might not be up to the job. In isolation these rhetoric questions may put doubt in the minds of the public, however Kennedy uses them with the specific intention of answering them further on in the speech, putting the Liberal Democrats in a positive light, and removing any doubts that the listener may have.
TRIPARTITE STRUCTURES
Tony Blair uses tripartite structures to not only emphasise the significance of a third term by Labour, but to stress the good that Labour has done whilst in power and also their values. The three consecutive simple sentences; “Never done it before. Never debated it before. Never imagined it before.” emphasise the great accomplishment a third term in government would be. The adverb “never” suggests that another party has not done it in the past and so connotes the greatness of the situation in which Labour find themselves in. The tripartite structure of declarative sentences: “Lucky to have been able to change our party from one of permanent opposition to one that can compete for government on equal terms. Lucky to be in a country as great as this serving a people as decent as the British people. Lucky to have a Cabinet of talented men and women I'm proud to call friends, as well as colleagues.” Contains the relative subordinate clause “that can compete for government on equal terms,” which suggests that they were once the underdogs and the verb “compete,” suggests that they have fought for their right to govern. Through use and repetition of the qualitative adjective “lucky,” a sense that Labour feels blessed to be a part of the British government is given, surely a compliment to the public. The noun phrase, “A cabinet of talented men and women” suggests that Labour is capable of a 3rd term as its members are skilled at their roles. The infinitive verb “to call,” when used with the concrete noun “friends” implies that the party has humanity and can relate to the British public. This structure therefore gives the public an overall view of Labour’s qualities that make them fit to govern.
The minor sentence “Power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few.” contains three abstract nouns “power,” “wealth” and “opportunity” forming a tripartite structure. All imply the way of life that Labour wants for the public, and continues with their theme of equal opportunity as well as insinuating that he wishes to increase the strength of Britain. The prepositional phrase “in the hands of many,” implies that everyone, under Labour’s rule, will have the same opportunities as those around them. The minor sentence is repeated later in the speech so that it sticks in the listener’s minds. The minor sentence “A stronger, fairer, more prosperous nation.” works along the same lines, and outlines Labours key values of power and equality through use of the comparative adjectives “stronger” and “fairer,” suggesting he wants to improve the current situation. The noun phrase “more prosperous nation” suggests that Labour is promising Britain continued social and economic prosperity, which can only be achieved by upholding their values. Achievements are emphasised through the use of rhetoric devices such as tripartite structures. For example, in the minor sentences, “Record economic stability in the first term. Record investment in the second. Record numbers of jobs in both.” The use of the qualitative adjective “record” indicates achievements beyond those of any other party and connotes greatness. Repetition of the adjective emphasises these facts.
Whereas Tony Blair does not seem to appeal to changes he would make in Britain, Michael Howard does. Through a tripartite structure to he verbalises his intention to improve Britain. The declarative sentences “In France, they don't have waiting lists. In Sweden, parents can choose the school they want. And in New York, it's now criminals who walk in fear, not the public.” highlight to his audience, that countries outside of Britain are in a better state in relation to healthcare, education, and crime, than Britain is. It points out the need for change and shows evidence that if other countries can manage it, so can Britain. The simple sentence “The taxes I want to make fairer, simpler, lower.” suggests that under the labour government there have been irrational actions, Howard implies that he wants to put these right, and the use of comparative adjectives “fairer,” “simpler” and “lower,” connotes that his changes are going to benefit the public. The rhetoric device is also used to connote his human side and his value of honesty. The complex sentence “So I won’t pretend, that I can solve every problem, right every wrong or cure every ill.” points out that he can’t do everything and therefore will not promise to do so. By admitting that he is unable to promise perfection, a very human persona is established.
Charles Kennedy highlights the broadness of the Liberal democrat’s policies. Minor sentence “From the food chain to climate change, energy to trade, aviation to sustainable international development.” emphasises the multitude of improvements that the party wants to make. Kennedy also expresses the upstanding and moral strengths of the party, for example, the declarative sentences, “We've done it without exaggeration. We've done it without name-calling. We've done it - quite simply - because we believed it was the right thing to do.” suggests that the party is honest and mature.
Both Kennedy and Tony Blair use a tripartite structure in their party’s slogan, to connote their principles to the audience. Blair’s minor sentence “Power, wealth and opportunity in the hands of the many, not the few.” suggests opportunity and affluence for all, whereas Kennedy uses minor sentences “Freedom. Fairness. Trust.” to suggest that the liberal democrats wish to offer liberty, equality and conviction. Howard however does not use a tripartite structure in such a way.
METAPHORS
Metaphors are most commonly used to give a concrete image to an abstract concept. Tony Blair uses them to express two main ideas, the importance of equality in society, and his passion for government.
Simple sentence, “The rulers are the people.” connotes Labour’s belief in democracy and the importance of listening to the British public. The noun phrase “the rulers” suggests that Labour believes that power should be in the hands of the public. The simple sentence, “There is a glass ceiling of opportunity in this country.” suggests that there is a barrier that divides the people of Britain, and by use of the noun phrase “glass ceiling,” it is suggested that the barrier is invisible, and that people are able to see what they want but are unable to get to it. This is shortly followed by another simple sentence and metaphor “We have raised this ceiling.” The past participle “raised” implies that Labour has widened opportunities for the people of Britain, although admittedly there is still more work to be done.
The second main point that Blair makes, through use of metaphors, is his own and his party’s desire to govern. The simple sentence, ”Get out and campaign with some fire in our bellies.” contains the noun phrase “fire in our bellies” to insinuate an enthusiasm and passion for their cause. The noun phrase “the courage of our convictions”, through use of the abstract noun “courage,” is used to connote bravery and optimism. Both metaphors work to imply that Blair and Labour love their position in government and will fight to keep it.
Charles Kennedy uses metaphors to explain why his party is better than the Conservative party, for example, the main clause “we leapfrogged the Conservatives” suggests that they have beaten them very effortlessly, and implies that the Conservatives are the weaker party. Also, the simple sentence, “They’re out of touch with the Britain of today.” proposes that they have not moved forward and modernised their party to fit with today’s fast-moving society. In addition, the adjectival phrase “out of touch,” suggests that they cannot relate to the public.
Michael Howard uses metaphors to suggest action. The simple sentence “The gloves will come off.” suggests that he wants to be hands on and actively make changes. He also uses them to connote the trouble that politicians have with being dishonest. The simple sentence “Figures are fiddled.” implies that politicians are untruthful about numbers and statistics in order to give a better impression. The use of the past tense verb “fiddled” emphasises this. The simple sentence “Promises are dropped.” implies that promises are broken as easily as they are made as implied by past tense verb “dropped”.
SENTENCE TYPE
All three speakers use simple sentences to add clarity to what they are saying so that they are understood by the majority. For example Tony Blair uses the simple declarative sentence, “The relationship between state and citizen has changed.” This sentence simplifies a much more complex point; it fails to explain why or how the relationship has changed and almost assumes that the audience already know. Michael Howard also does this, for example, “Power has gone from Britain to Brussels.” His use of simple sentences reflects his wish to be perceived as truthful. He uses simple sentences therefore for clarity of speech and to prevent himself from misleading his audience. A point made by the simple sentence “I’m going to give it to you straight.” whereby, the metaphorical qualitative adjective “straight” suggests his willingness to be honest. This reflects his value of truth and honesty and his wish to live by his words. He also rarely uses sentences that are longer than a line in length, making what he is saying easier to follow.
Kennedy uses simple sentences to grab the audience’s attention and make it clear that he is going to make a point. For example, the use of conjunctions at beginning of simple sentences such as in the simple declarative sentence “But it doesn’t stop there.” suggesting that he has more to say. The use of the coordinating conjunction “but” emphasises the audiences need to keep listening, as he is going to make more persuasive points. He uses the same structure many times; as in the simple declarative sentence “but not for long” which also implies that he is going to add more to his point. The effect of these is also to create pace and a sense of cohesion.
The use of conjunctions at the beginning of simple sentences is also prevalent in both Blair and Howard speeches, for example, in Blair’s speech he uses the simple sentence “But nothing stays still.” This implies he has more to say and adds pace to the speech. The sentence is shortly followed by another, “It’s always changing.” Giving emphasis to the fact that society is revolutionising all of the time. A sense of the Liberal Democrats urgency is also portrayed in this linguistic framework. As the 3rd runners in the election there is an increased pressure to win. The simple declarative sentence “We CAN do it.” where the modal auxiliary “CAN” is emphatically stressed, is a good example of this. It acts to promote the conviction of the audience in the party, persuading them to believe that they can take on the front running parties.
A mixture of complex and simple sentences adds pace to a speech. Simple sentences are often used to add impact and emphasis whereas complex sentences are used to give more information.
All three speakers use crescendo within complex sentences, for example, Tony Blair uses declarative complex sentence, “Not a society where all succeed equally - that is utopia; but an opportunity society where all have an equal chance to succeed; that could and should be 21st century Britain under a Labour Government.” The relative subordinate clause “that could and should be 21st century Britain under a Labour Government” acts as the climax of the sentence to stress the point that “an opportunity society” can only be gained under Labour rule. The modal auxiliaries “could” and “should” are used to infer possibility and that a vote for Labour is a correct vote. Blair also uses other complex sentences for the same effect. In declarative complex sentence, “But I am an optimist about Britain; and the difference between an optimist and a pessimist is not that the optimist believes the world is wonderful and the pessimist believes it's beset by challenges; the difference is the pessimist believes we will be defeated by them; the optimist thinks the challenges can be overcome. ” the noun subordinate clause “ [that] the challenges can be overcome” appears at the end for emphasis and suggests despite Labours troubles, they can rise above them
The complex sentence, “Because for all the progress, life's still tough for many hard-working families: if you're a young married couple trying to buy a house; if you're trying to balance home and family life; if you're worried about saving for retirement; if you're scared to walk out at night; if you, the taxpayer, see people who don't deserve it getting benefits, when you can't get the help you need and do deserve.” Contains many adverbial subordinate clauses, most of which begin with the subordinate conjunction “if”. For example, “if you’re a young married couple trying to buy a house”. This creates a list and implies a large number of people that Labour are trying to reach out to and help, showing the parties concern for all.
Kennedy uses complex sentences to explain his points and give extra information to the audience. For example, declarative complex sentence “On Crime - 10,000 more police on the streets and cutting the time spent on paperwork, so they can spend more time tackling drug dealers, muggers and yobs.” suggests a reasoning behind his policy changes and implies that he is not just talking about change to win the election, but he has also thought of the consequences and so suggests trustworthiness. The other speakers also do this, for example in Blair’s speech, the complex sentence, “It's wonderful that maximum waiting times have come down from 18 months in 1997 to six months by the end of next year.” contains the noun subordinate clause, “that maximum waiting times have come down from 18 months in 1997 to six months by the end of next year” to give extra information. It also serves to make the content of his speech sound more reliable and points out an explanation for the main clause “it is wonderful”. Howard does the same thing, the complex declarative sentence “It will put us on the line in a way that no government has ever been before.” contains the noun subordinate clause “that no government has ever been before.” This adds the extra information; that they want to create a government that is better than any previous.
CONCLUSION
I can conclude from my analysis of the three election speeches that although all of them use similar linguistic features, they use them to a largely different effect. Although I found a few similarities between parties whose aims crossed over, for example Kennedy and Howard’s use of noun phrases both reflected their wish to push Tony Blair out of office by targeting the Labour party.
I found differences and similarities by investigating my chosen linguistic frameworks and by accomplishing my chosen aims.
In carrying out my first aim, I found that, although each speaker uses rhetorical devices, they are used for different functions, and employ different tactics in persuading their audiences.
My second aim was completed and I found that Blair tends to point to what he has done whilst in office, therefore employing more defensive tactics. The other two contenders, on the other hand, choose to suggest what terrible things Labour has done whilst in power, and also what Labour have failed to do, suggesting ways in which their party could improve the awful state in which Britain has been left. In addition to this, each speech uses noun phrases to suggest why they are fit for government. The third aim was also accomplished through looking at noun phrases, and I established that this overlapped with my 2nd aim, finding that each candidate used noun phrases to describe their goals and gave these goals as reasons for the public to give them their vote. Use of noun phrases also emphasize the leadership qualities that each party has and highlights each party’s differing values that make them appeal to a certain audience, e.g. left or right wing audiences.
I found that, whereas Blair spoke to the public directly, the other speakers did not. This shows that Blair as Prime Minister feels some allegiance to his audience, whereas the others do not. All three, when discussing the other parties portray them as if they are enemies; suggesting strongly to the audience that they are warring factions. This was accomplished through analyzing the pronouns of the text and therefore achieves my 4th aim.
Lastly I found that sentences were used for both similar and different purposes. All three politicians tend to use simple sentences to add impact to a statement and therefore highlight the issue within the statement. Each tends to use complex sentences to give the audience more information on a particular issue.
I also noted that many of the linguistic features were used to similar effects by pairings of the politicians at different points in the speeches depending on their aims at that point. For example, when Howard and Kennedy, as leaders of the opposition both employed similar tactics to point out Labour’s deficiencies. On the other hand Blair and Howard shared similar views on Iraq compared to Kennedy, however when it came to values Howard appeared to be the odd one out.
In conclusion I believe that I have met all of my aims successfully and have proved my hypothesis that; each speaker will use linguistic features to persuade the audience that their party is suited best for government and will reflect the party’s own personal values and goals. I have shown that each party has different goals and values and that these are reflected in the linguistic features that they use.
EVALUATION
I believe that my language investigation has been successful. In achieving my aims, a conclusion was drawn and my hypothesis proven. I learnt a lot about the language of politicians throughout this investigation and broadened my knowledge of the language features used within political speeches. However, as the speeches were very long, given the time constraint, I could only analyse the texts to a certain extent and so chose only the key linguistic features that I believed were most important. If I had more time I would look at further features of the speeches, but I do feel that a sufficiently in depth analysis has been made.
If I were to improve my investigation I would analyse the positioning of certain devices in the text and how many of each are used throughout. This may have been useful in seeing how the rhetorical devices aided flow and cohesion, or acted to regulate the speech. I could have also looked at a smaller party such as, the British Nationalist Party (BNP). In doing this I could have compared the speech of the BNP leader to that of Tony Blair and perhaps established why he not such a popular candidate for government.
If I were to perform a further investigation I would transcribe a speech from a spoken recording. In doing this I could not only look at linguistic features such as lexis and grammar but phonology and speech features. By investigating the intonation patterns used throughout the speech I could analyse the devices used in order to determine the effect they have. The fluency of the speech could also be looked at. Strategically placed pauses could be used for dramatic effect, whereas unorchestrated hesitancy could be perceived as uncertainty and weakness. I believe this would be useful and interesting for further research, after all, a speech is written to be read aloud.
In addition, it may be interesting to compare election speeches from different times to see how time and context affects the language used. For example, I could study a speech given by Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher and Winston Churchill to see how they differ.
Overall I believe that my language investigation has been interesting and largely a success.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beard, A. (2000) The Language of Politics. London: Routledge
Orwell, G (1947) Politics and the English Language. London: Herbert W. Simpson Inc.
Thomas, L. et al (2004) Language, Society and Power: An Introduction. London: Routledge
Data was collected from the following websites:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3697434.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3717028.st http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3682970.stm
