Outstanding Rhetorical Devices and Textuality in Obama’s Speech in Ghana, Africa


Latest trends in political discursive analysis have shown the importance of the study done from the textual and contextual perspective alike. An oral speech has the property of having been prepared in advance but expressed with some improvisation so characteristics from written and oral texts must be taken into consideration. As a consequence, the structure of the discourse and the personal contribution of the author are seemingly relevant. The oral speech analyzed here was expressed in Ghana, Africa by President Barack Obama in 2009. Given the circumstances of Obama’s African origin and of visiting the country as the President of the United States, the elements that reveal the personal attitude comprise an extra interest. The aim of this paper is to analyze the speech from a discursive viewpoint in order to describe the textual and intertextual functions.

Share and Cite:

Hernández-Guerra, C. (2012). Outstanding Rhetorical Devices and Textuality in Obama’s Speech in Ghana, Africa. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 2, 97-104. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2012.23013.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


[1] Bell, D. (1975). Power, influence and authority. New York, London, Toronto: Oxford University Press.
[2] Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3] Cameron, L., & Low, G. (1999). Researching and applying metaphor. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
[4] Collins, P. (2010). English grammar: An introduction. Basingtoke, Hampshire, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
[5] Coulthard, M. (1994). Advances in written text analysis. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203422656
[6] De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. (1981). Introduction to text linguistics. London & New York: Longman.
[7] Ellis, D. G. (1992). From Language to communication (Communication Textbook Series: Language and Discourse Processes). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
[8] Enkvist, N. E. (1978). Coherence, Pseudo-coherence, and non-coherence. In J.-O. ?stman (Ed.), Cohesion and Semantics (pp. 109-128). ?bo: Meddelanden fran Stiftelsens f?r ?bo Akademi forskningsinstitut.
[9] Fairclough, (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
[10] Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[11] Goos, L. (1995). By word of mouth: metaphor, metonymy, and linguistic action in a cognitive perspective. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins Publishing.
[12] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
[13] Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1985). An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
[14] Hellman, C. (1995). The notion of coherence in discourse. In G. Rickheit, & Habel, C. (Eds.), Focus and coherence in discourse Processing (pp. 190-202). Berlin & New York: de Gruyter.
[15] Heydrich, W. (1989). Connexity and coherence: Analysis of text and discourse. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
[16] Jakobson, R. (1971). Fundamentals of language. The Hague: Mouton.
[17] Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference and the theory of grammar Stanford: CSLI Publications.
[18] Korzen, I., & Heslund, M. (1998). Clause combining and text structure. Frederiksberb: Samfundslitteratur.
[19] Lakoff, R. T. (1990). The politics of language in our lives. New York: Basic Books.
[20] Lakoff, R. T. (2000). The language war. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[21] Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
[22] Leezenberg, M. (2001). Contexts of metaphor. Amsterdam, New York: Elsevier.
[23] Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew, & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving goffman. Exploring the interaction order (pp. 161227). Cambridge: Polity Press.
[24] Locke, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. London, New York: Continuum.
[25] Lundquist, L. (1985). Coherence: From structures to processes. In E. S?zer (Ed.), Text, connexity, text coherence: Aspects, methods, results (pp. 151-175). Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
[26] Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[27] Parrill, F., Tobin, V., &Turner, M. (Eds.) (2010). Meaning, Form and body. Stanford, Calif: CSLI Publications
[28] Rickheit, G., & Habel, C. (1995). Focus on coherence in discourse processing. Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter.
[29] Ritchie, D. (2006). Context and connection in metaphor. Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1057/9780230286825
[30] Sanford, A. J., & Moxey, L. M. (1995). Aspects of coherence in written language: A psychological perspective. In M. A. Gernsbacher, & T. Givón (Eds.), Coherence in spontaneous text (pp. 161-187). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
[31] Sch?ffner, Ch. (1997). Analysing political speeches. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters LTD.
[32] Simon-Vand, A. (2003). Grammatical metaphor: Views from systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam, PA: Benjamins Publishing Co.
[33] Simpson, P. (2010). Language and power. Cornwall: Routledge.
[34] Tanskanen, S. (2006). Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical Cohesion in english discourse. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
[35] Van Remortel, M. (1986). Literalness and metaphorization: The case of “turn”. Wilrijk: Universiteit Antwerpen.
[36] Vega Moreno, R. (2007). Creativity and convention: the pragmatics of everyday figurative language. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins Publishing
[37] Wortham, S. E. F. (1996). Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speaker’s footing. Journal of Pragmatics, 25, 331-348. doi:10.1016/0378-2166(94)00100-6

Copyright © 2023 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.