A contrastive analysis of the speeches by Donald Trump and Theresa May : an SFL perspective

Abstract

 This dissertation investigates the similarities and differences between Donald Trump’s and Theresa May’s speeches in relation to terrorism using Michael Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar. Six speeches have been selected from each country leader and their speeches are categorised into different experiential meanings and tabulated. It has been found that both Trump and May share some similarities in terms of the distribution of experiential processes, which is likely to be due to the context of culture. The two orators show significant differences in why and how certain processes are employed however. In achieving persuasiveness, Theresa May tends to adopt logos by the extensive use of figures, facts and also circumstantial elements. The use of material processes is the cornerstone for the establishment of an authoritative image and the enhancement of credibility and trustworthiness. Through the use of different processes, May conveys the message that she bases her decisions on logical reasoning. Donald Trump, in comparison, relies on pathos to connect to the public. The emphasis on Americans being injured and killed and the evil nature of terrorism results in provocation of the audience’s emotion. Although he considers himself of superiority to the audience, he strategically condescends to create an in-group with the general public, thereby portraying himself as an approachable and friendly president on whom the Americans can trust. Using verbal processes to report to the public what he said to others also contributes to the reinforcement of his friendliness and trustworthiness.