Cultural Influences on Political Discourse: A Comparative Study of U.S. Presidents and European Leaders
Rasha Mohammed Abd Aljabar Alkhlel
1
(
Department of English Languages, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
)
Atefesadat Mirsaeedi
2
(
Department of English Languages, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
)
Muna Mohammed Abbas Alkhateeb
3
(
Department of English, Faculty of Foreign Languages, University, Babylon, Iraq
)
Mehdi Vaez Dalili
4
(
Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
)
کلید واژه: Cultural influence, political discourse, comparative analysis, rhetoric, critical discourse analysis, and Hofstede's cultural dimensions.,
چکیده مقاله :
The aim of this research paper is to explore how the rhetorical means employed by the United States of America are produced in cultural, historical, and political contexts. The public speeches will be delivered by the Presidents of the United States and other European leaders during the tenure of 2017-2024. The aim of this paper is to determine the extent to which cultural norms, political institutions, and historical backgrounds mold leadership engagement strategies of leaders from both regions through an analysis of a large corpus of political speeches. Importantly, the results show significant differences in political rhetoric styles, especially regarding individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. These are represented through the use of the Critical Discourse Analysis framework, Aristotle's Three Appeals, and Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory. Based on the data analysis, it would appear that the United States of America. Generally speaking, presidents have a predisposition to utilize direct and forceful forms of communication, which must be that of American culture concerning individualism and leadership. Whereas in American politics, leaders do follow the straight and often inflexible line, in Europe, politicians are more diplomatic and multilateral, their approach emphasizing collective decision-making and cultural coherence.
چکیده انگلیسی :
The aim of this research paper is to explore how the rhetorical means employed by the United States of America are produced in cultural, historical, and political contexts. The public speeches will be delivered by the Presidents of the United States and other European leaders during the tenure of 2017-2024. The aim of this paper is to determine the extent to which cultural norms, political institutions, and historical backgrounds mold leadership engagement strategies of leaders from both regions through an analysis of a large corpus of political speeches. Importantly, the results show significant differences in political rhetoric styles, especially regarding individualism, power distance, and uncertainty avoidance. These are represented through the use of the Critical Discourse Analysis framework, Aristotle's Three Appeals, and Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions Theory. Based on the data analysis, it would appear that the United States of America. Generally speaking, presidents have a predisposition to utilize direct and forceful forms of communication, which must be that of American culture concerning individualism and leadership. Whereas in American politics, leaders do follow the straight and often inflexible line, in Europe, politicians are more diplomatic and multilateral, their approach emphasizing collective decision-making and cultural coherence.
Ahmed, A., & Clark, L. (2022). Cross-cultural political communication: An analysis of leadership rhetoric in global crises. International Journal of Political Communication, 18(2), 121-137.
Brady, J., & Thompson, M. (2023). The rhetoric of nationalism versus globalism: A comparative study of U.S. and European leaders. Global Political Discourse, 9(1), 77-94.
Charteris-Black, J. (2014). Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chen, Y., & Lee, H. (2021). The role of ethos and pathos in political speeches: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Communication Studies, 15(4), 233-250.
Diaz, L., & Stevens, R. (2022). Negotiating power and authority: Political leadership in the age of global crises. Leadership Quarterly, 33(3), 202-220.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Fox, C., & White, P. (2023). Emotional appeals in times of crisis: Analyzing political discourse during COVID-19. Rhetoric and Society, 14(3), 189-205.
Hall, P. A. (2021). Rhetorical strategies in times of economic instability: A comparative analysis of European and U.S. leaders. Economic Discourse Review, 22(2), 55-73.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Sage Publications.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Kim, S. H., & Park, H. J. (2022). Cultural values and political rhetoric: Examining leaders' speeches on climate change. Environmental Politics Review, 13(4), 98-115.
Meyer, C., & Schneider, C. (2021). Rhetoric in times of crisis: Political communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Communication Studies, 12(3), 45-67.
Miller, T. J. (2023). The rhetoric of leadership: Ethos, pathos, and logos in a global context. Journal of Political Communication, 20(2), 310-325.
Roberts, P., & Thompson, M. (2023). Political speeches in crisis: A cross-cultural analysis of the European Union and U.S. approaches. Journal of Rhetoric Studies, 11(3), 44-61.
Schmidt, V. A. (2013). Democracy and legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford University Press.
Zhao, W., & Li, T. (2023). Nationalism and leadership communication: A comparative study of the U.S. and European Union leaders. Comparative Political Communication, 19(1), 65-85.
