BỘ NGOẠI GIAO

HỌC VIỆN NGOẠI GIAO

KHOA TIẾNG ANH
----------------------

BÀI DỰ THI HỘI THẢO NGHIÊN CỨU KHOA HỌC CẤP KHOA NĂM HỌC
2022 - 2023

ĐỀ TÀI: A Discussion on The Discursive Strategies Employed by President

V. Zelenskyy in His Speech before The U.S. Congress (December
2022)

Giảng viên hướng dẫn: Trần Thị Thanh Liên

Phạm Đức Minh

Nhóm sinh viên thực hiện: Đường Tự Thạch

Nguyễn Trần Trâm Anh
Đậu Hà Anh
Trần Minh Ngọc
Lê Vũ Nguyệt Minh

Lớp: TA47C1

Hà Nội, ngày tháng năm 2023

 MỤC LỤC

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................
I. Rationale.............................................................................................................................
II. Significance.......................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................
CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION................................................
I. Finding and Analysis...........................................................................................................
1. Nomination....................................................................................................................
2. Predication.....................................................................................................................
3. Argumentation...............................................................................................................
4. Perspectivization...........................................................................................................
5. Intensification/Mitigation..............................................................................................
II. Discussion..................................................................................................................................
CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION..................................................................................................
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................

2
 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
I. Rationale
At the time of writing, the current multipolar world is witnessing much instability as
major powers lock horns over various conflicts of geopolitical interests. In particular,
the special military operation of Russia in Ukraine in 2022 has dramatically impacted
political and economic situations worldwide, threatening national security, food
security, trade, and cooperation between many countries and organizations.
Within this context, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has delivered a great
number of speeches addressing the conflict in multiple formats, including on social
media and to national and foreign legislatures. Traditionally, a presidential speech is
not always considered an accurate representation of the vision of a nation. It is not a
national action plan, nor does it add to the official national agenda. However, this type
of discourse still provides essential texts to discern a country’s priorities, key values,
and messages as dictated and influenced by the head of state.
Accordingly, it is reasonable that the speeches of President V. Zelenskyy in a
diplomatic setting serve as a guiding force in outlining the priorities of Ukraine,
affirming its stance on international matters, providing a roadmap for policy-making
and implementation, and properly handling its relations with other nations.
Specifically, in his address to the U.S. Congress in December 2022, his use of
language and public speaking aided him in fostering the U.S. - Ukrainian relations
and garnering further American economic and military assistance in the conflict. This
has generated fascinating premises for the group to study the discursive strategies
employed by President Zelenskyy in his speech before the U.S. Congress because it
holds immense relevance in understanding the current dynamics between Ukraine, the
United States, and the broader international community, as well as how the President
used his speech to pursue his political goals.
In addition, the speech has received significant attention. With his use of language,
rhetorical devices, and persuasive techniques that contributed to the rousing and
emotionally appealing nature of his discourse, he presented the Ukrainian perspective
not as a small nation trying to defend against a larger aggressor but as a fight for
“global security and democracy” and sought to resonate with American audiences.
The tactics and strategies used in his speech drew the attention of the group to delve
deeper into the field of political discourse analysis, and the linguistic nuances
employed by leaders in international settings.
This topic is also an uncharted territory in the field of political discourse analysis.
While political discourse has been studied extensively, and numerous studies of the
speeches of President Zelenskyy have been conducted by foreign authors, his speech
before the U.S. Congress presents an untapped area of research, allowing for fresh
insights and analysis. The group will be the first Vietnamese author group to conduct
this study.
II. Significance
The speech delivered by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the U.S. Congress on
December 21, 2022 carries profound significance. It marks a crucial milestone in
3
international diplomacy, giving Zelenskyy a prominent platform to articulate his
visionary goals, foster stronger bilateral relations, and rally support for Ukraine's
aspirations.

Henceforth, the study on President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's discursive strategies in his

speech to the U.S. Congress holds significant implications for understanding
Zelenskyy’s political discourse. By closely examining the discursive techniques
utilized by President Zelenskyy, this study offers valuable insights into how political
leaders strategically employ language to foster unity, garner support, and highlight
geopolitical conflicts. The findings not only enhance our understanding of political
discourse but also empower us to critically evaluate and engage with the speeches
delivered by leaders on the global stage. In essence, this research study contributes to
the broader field of discourse analysis, shedding light on its crucial role in political
communication and diplomacy, and ultimately deepening our comprehension of the
intricate dynamics at play in the realm of public discourse.

III. Relevant studies

The first prominent research the group has selected after reviewing relevant literature
is Trebin Mykhailo Petrovych & Chernyshova Taisya Oleksiivna’s Linguistic
Analysis of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Political Rhetoric: Strategies
& Tactics (2022). The study highlights Zelenskyy's complex and varied verbal
creation in his presidential discourse, the research concludes that Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s political discourse is primarily characterized by two
strategies: an emphasis on increase and theatricality. The main intentions behind these
strategies are to harmonize communication with the citizens and minimize cognitive
contradictions when assessing the political situation. The tactics used to implement
these strategies include implicit positive analysis, cooperation, and irony. These
tactics are evident in the president’s verbal applications, where specific language tools
are employed to construct discourse and shape political reality.

The second research that the group finds to be a useful source of reference is Serhiy
Potapenko’s Ukrainian President Zelenskyy’s resistance discourse: Cognitive
rhetorical analysis of the address to the UK Parliament (2023). The cognitive
rhetorical analysis presented in the article showcases how President Zelenskyy
effectively incorporates Ukraine’s struggles and identity into the British perspective,
addressing the fundamental human needs for belonging and safety. The speech is
structured in a way that begins by establishing a connection with the British audience
through references to their typical concepts. It then shifts focus to Ukraine,
emphasizing the shared fate between the two nations. The speech concludes with an
appeal for the restoration of Ukraine’s safety by emphasizing the importance of help
and support. This consistent use of prototypical national concepts has helped
President Zelenskyy form the basis of his subsequent speeches to national
parliaments.

4
 CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

I. Critical Discourse Analysis

In January 1991, at a conference in Amsterdam, prominent scholars including Teun
van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen and Ruth Wodak
discussed Discourse Analysis (DA) theories and methods, specifically Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA). They debated different approaches. During 1991, the
approaches had changed significantly but remained relevant in many respects. In the
process of researching and forming Critical Discourse Analysis, many differences and
similarities appear. In general, almost all share the same similarities in a pragmatic
way framing the theoretical approach.

Fairclough (1995) stated that “By ‘critical’ discourse analysis I mean discourse
analysis which aims to systematically explore often opaque relationships of
causality and determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and
(b) wider social and cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how
such practices, events and texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations
of power and struggles over power; and to explore how the opacity of these
relationships between discourse and society is itself a factor securing power and
hegemony.”

According to van Dijk (2000), CDA is “a type of discourse analytical research that
primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance and inequality are enacted,
reproduced and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context”

In short, according to Weiss and Wodak (2003), “CDA takes a particular interest in
the relationship between language and power.”

A key insight in CDA about the concept of “power” is that it is extremely uncommon
for a text to be the creation of only one individual. Discursive differences are
negotiated in texts; they are regulated by power differentials, which are partially
encoded in and influenced by discourse and genre. Since they reveal the remnants of
several discourses and ideologies all vying for supremacy, texts are frequently areas
of conflict.

Hence, CDA’s focus on power as a crucial aspect of social life and its efforts to create
a theory of language that includes this as a core tenet may be considered as its
distinguishing characteristics. Together with the idea of power and control battles,
significant attention is paid to the intertextuality and recontextualization of opposing
discourses in various public settings and genres.

Although language does not directly cause power, it may be used to oppose power,
undermine power, and change power structures over the short and long terms.
Language provides a highly defined medium for disparities in power within
hierarchical social institutions.
5
Virtually few language forms haven't at some point been used to represent power
through a textual or syntactic metaphor process. The use of language structures in
various types of power expression and manipulation is something that CDA is
interested in. A person's influence over a social event through the genre of a text also
serves as a powerful indication of their status, in addition to the grammatical
structures of a text. Power is frequently contested or exerted specifically within the
genres connected to a certain social occasion.

Hence, CDA's core interests may be described as an analysis of both opaque and
transparent structural relationships of dominance, discrimination, power, and control
as they appear in language.

II. Methodology: Ruth Wodak’s Discourse-Historical Approach

The analysis and explanation of discursive phenomena in discourse require the

development of a “middle-range theory” that adapts to the evolving and diverse nature
of discursive events in our changing world. Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach
(DHA) emerged as a response to the need for a comprehensive examination of
discursive practices in discourse. It is based on the belief that Critical Discourse
Analysis (CDA) research should be “multi-theoretical, multi-methodical, critical, and
self-reflective” (Wodak, 2002, p. 65). Building on the foundational knowledge of
CDA, Wodak's version of CDA contributes different angles of crucial conceptual
notions such as “critical,” “ideology,” and “power” that are fundamental to any
approach in CDA. According to Wodak (2002, p.65), the Discourse-Historical
Approach aims to integrate extensive knowledge about historical sources and the
social and political fields in which discursive events are embedded. In other words,
employing CDA within the framework of the DHA involves considering the
integration of past experience, present events, and future visions to conduct a holistic
analysis (Wodak, 2009, p. 11).
Furthermore, Wodak emphasizes that the DHA stands out in terms of its “research
interests and methodological orientation” (Wodak, 2016, p. 16). The development of
the DHA offers a broader and deeper perspective on the linguistic component to be
analyzed, including its relationship to other texts, discourses, situational context, and
historical and sociopolitical contexts. The DHA examines intertextual and
interdiscursive relationships among utterances, texts, genres, and discourses, as well
as taking into account extra-linguistic social and sociological variables, the history of
organizations or institutions, and situational frames. While focusing on all these
relationships, we explore how discourses, genres, and texts change concerning socio
political change. A comprehensive discourse-historical analysis typically follows an
eight-stage program, where the eight steps are implemented recursively (Wodak,
2015, p. 34):
1. Literature review/Consultation of preceding theoretical knowledge (i.e.
recollection, reading, and discussion of previous research).

6
 2. Systematic collection of data and context information (depending on the
research questions, various discourses and discursive events, social fields as
well as actors, semiotic media, genres, and texts).
3. Data selection and preparation for certain analyses (selection and downsizing
of data according to relevant criteria, transcription of tape recordings).
4. Formulation of hypotheses and clarification of the research issue or questions
(on the basis of a literature review and a first skimming of the data).
5. Qualitative pilot analysis, including context analysis, macro-analysis, and
micro-analysis (makes it possible to evaluate categories and initial
assumptions as well as further define assumptions).
6. Detailed case studies (of a whole range of data, primarily qualitatively, but in
part also quantitatively).
7. Formulation of a critique (interpretation and explanation of findings, using
appropriate context knowledge and the three aspects of critique).
8. Empirical application of analytical results (if possible, the results may be
applied or proposed for practical application targeting some social impact).
The implementation of the DHA requires the inclusion of additional methods and
approaches available in CDA, alongside a variety of empirical data and background
information. This approach aims to minimize the risk of bias (Wodak, 2002, p. 66).
To achieve specific social, political, psychological, or linguistic goals, researchers
must thoroughly study and adopt appropriate discourse strategies within the DHA
framework. Discursive techniques are found at many degrees of language complexity
and organization (Wodak, 2017, p. 95):
1. Nomination: using membership categorization devices, deictics,
anthroponyms, tropes such as metaphors, metonymies and synecdoches,
verbs, and nouns used to denote processes and actions to aim at discursive
construction of social actors, objects, phenomena, events, processes, and
actions.
2. Predication: using stereotypical evaluative attributions of negative or positive
traits, explicit predicates or predicative nouns/ adjectives/pronouns
collocations comparisons, similes, metaphors and other rhetorical figures,
allusions, evocations, presuppositions/ implicatures to aim at the discursive
qualification of social actors, objects, phenomena, events, processes and
actions (positively or negatively).
3. Argumentation: using topoi (formal or more content-related) and fallacies to
aim at justification and questioning of claims of truth and normative
rightness.
4. Perspectivization: using deictics, direct, indirect, or free indirect speech
quotation marks, discourse markers/particles, metaphors, and animating
prosody to aim at positioning the speaker’s or writer’s point of view and
expressing involvement or distance.
7
 5. Intensification/Mitigation: using diminutives or augmentatives (modal)
particles, tag questions, subjunctives, hesitations, vague expressions,
hyperboles or litotes, indirect speech acts, verbs of saying, feeling, and
thinking to aim at modifying the illocutionary force and thus the epistemic or
deontic status of utterances.
In summary, the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) combines various methods
and data sources within Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to thoroughly examine
discursive discourse from multiple perspectives. The aim is to ensure an unbiased and
comprehensive analysis. In the case of President Zelenskyy's speech to the UN
Congress, the implementation of the DHA framework is crucial for studying the
discursive strategies employed. While grand theories provide a foundation, the DHA
middle-range theory is particularly suited for achieving the analytical goals.
Analyzing President Zelenskyy's speech involves considering the historical context
and integrating it into the interpretation of the discourses and texts. The DHA
approach is problem-oriented and does not solely focus on specific linguistic pieces. It
includes conducting fieldwork and ethnographic research as a necessary step for
deeper analysis and development of theories. The approach employs an abductive
process, consistently transitioning between theory and empirical evidence. It explores
various genres and public settings, delving into intertextual and interdiscursive
connections.

CHAPTER 3: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION

I. Finding and Analysis

1. Nomination
The first discursive approach worth considering is nomination, which President
Zelenskyy used in his speech to the U.S. Congress. To elaborate, nomination strategy
is a useful instrument for discourse formation in which language serves to identify
and categorize social actors, situations, events, and acts (Wodak, 2017). Discursive
representations are established, perpetuated, or challenged via nomination, altering
how persons and groups are regarded and positioned within the larger sociopolitical
environment.
An insightful deduction from President Zelenskyy's address is that nomination played
a pivotal role in creating the "us vs them" phenomenon. By collectively addressing
specific groups, he skillfully crafted a sense of unity, forging connections among
Ukraine and its allies, and highlighting shared values and collective aspirations. He
strategically employed this discursive strategy to strengthen his position and rally
widespread support, positioning Ukraine and its allies as steadfast advocates for
shared principles and a collective vision of a better future.
In his speech, President Zelenskyy employs the Collectivization and
Professionalization strategy effectively, as evidenced by his addresses to various
groups such as "Dear Americans," "Madam Vice President," "Madam Speaker,"
8
"Dear Members of the Congress," "Esteemed Congressmen and Senators," "Dear
Representatives of Diaspora," and "Dear Journalists." He builds a sense of
camaraderie and solidarity while creating inclusion and respect by constantly
addressing these groups collectively, appealing to their common values. President
Zelenskyy shows his acknowledgment and gratitude for their contributions to the fight
by using professional titles and attributes, confirming their dedication to the cause.
This method, known as Professionalization, demonstrates Zelenskyy's
acknowledgment of their obligations and accomplishments without the use of direct
reference or personalizing. Additionally, the Ukrainian President employs specific
names, such as "President Biden," "President Franklin Delano Roosevelt," and
"Kremlin," to personalize the discourse and strengthen the interconnectedness
between various actors and entities. This skillful use of Personalization serves to
reinforce the significance of relationships and interactions within the geopolitical
landscape.
Moreover, President Zelenskyy effectively fosters solidarity and cohesion between
Ukraine and its allies by consistently emphasizing shared values and collective
objectives through phrases such as "Our two nations are allies," "the future of our
common freedom," "our joint task," and "our joint security." Through the strategic
application of Collectivization, Zelenskyy successfully creates an in-group consisting
of Ukraine and its allies, highlighting their mutual commitment to common values
and interests.
Having successfully created a sense of unity among the "us", President V. Zelenskyy
further highlights the distinctions between the actions and ideologies of the "them"
through the application of Dissimilation and Criminalization strategies. Throughout
his discourse, President Zelenskyy makes explicit differentiations between the
Ukrainian and Russian governments, employing phrases such as "Ukraine did not
fall," "Russia is a terrorist state," and "Ukrainian Donbas stands." By employing a
Dissimilation strategy, he aims to create a clear contrast between the actions and
beliefs of the two entities, thereby emphasizing a distinct separation between Ukraine
and its aggressor.

Moreover, President Zelenskyy strategically employs the Criminalization strategy to

portray Russia as a "tyranny" and a "terrorist state," devilizing their actions and
presenting them as immoral and unlawful. This deliberate characterization seeks to
evoke strong emotional responses from the audience, eliciting feelings of outrage,
indignation, and condemnation towards Russia. The intention behind this approach is
to depict Russia as a criminal actor and rally international support and solidarity for
Ukraine's cause, positioning Ukraine as the victim and Russia as the aggressor. In
addition, President Zelenskyy draws attention to the fact that the menacing "them"
also includes Iran, by suggesting that "one terrorist has found the other." The use of
the term "terrorist" to describe both Russia and Iran underscores the severity of their
actions and positions them as shared adversaries to peace and stability. This strategy
of associating them as hostile actors further accentuates the urgency of the situation
and portrays them as global security threats.

9
President Zelenskyy's speech resonates with a strong political undertone, shedding
light on critical issues like the pursuit of peace, the establishment of an international
legal order, and the need for robust security guarantees. Throughout his address, he
passionately advocates for support in implementing the Peace Formula and imposing
stricter sanctions on Russia. This Politicization strategy places immense significance
on political actions and decisions as the means to address and resolve the conflict.

During his address to the U.S. Congress, President Zelenskyy skillfully employs the
Despatialization strategy to underscore the universal significance of the conflict and
foster a sense of interconnectedness among nations. By using phrases like "battle for
the minds of the world," "global community," and "international legal order," he
successfully demonstrates the situation's vast significance, which extends beyond the
borders of geography. President Zelenskyy's speech goes beyond basic geographical
references, instead focusing on Ukraine and the countries it partners' joint efforts to
face shared threats. He casts the conflict as a struggle for freedom, democracy, and
security, transcending national boundaries and encompassing countries ranging from
the United States to China, Europe to Latin America, and Africa to Australia. This
inclusive stance emphasizes that countering tyranny and aggression is a shared duty of
the global community, presenting a call to collaborative action in securing peace and
stability worldwide.

2. Predication
The second strategy within the DHA framework of Wodak is predication, which is the
process of attributing certain qualities or characteristics to nominated entities or
individuals. Through predication, discourse producers can label social actors more or
less positively, deprecatingly or appreciatively, shaping the audience's opinion.
In his speech, President V. Zelenskyy employed predication through three main acts:
defaming Russia and its ally, Iran; honoring Ukraine and its effort against Russia;
presenting appreciation to the U.S. and Europe, and reflecting a cooperative and
mutually beneficial relationship between Ukraine and its allies.
Primarily, Zelenskyy characterized Russia as a “tyranny”, “terror”, and “terrorist
state”. By using these strong and negative descriptors multiple times, the President
sought to create a specific perception of Russia in the minds of the U.S. Congress and
the global audience. Such predication serves to evoke a sense of danger and hostility
associated with Russia, positioning it as a force for other nations to be extremely
cautious of, and highlighting potential threats it may pose to regional stability and
international security. In addition, by associating Russia with the term “aggression”,
Zelenskyy conveyed a strong and unequivocal message indicating that Russia has
engaged in hostile and violent actions against Ukraine and framing it as a nation with
readiness to attack others without provocation. Furthermore, Zelenskyy's use of the
term "genocidal policy" when referring to Russian attacks in Ukraine likely seeks to
draw attention to allegations of Russian serious and systematic violation of human
rights. The use of such a charged term highlights the suffering of Ukrainian civilians

10
and can evoke strong emotional responses and condemnation from the U.S. Congress
and the international community.
Iran, an ally of Russia was also labeled as a “terrorist”. Zelenskyy’s choice of
language positions Iran in a negative light and suggests that the country is involved in
or supports acts of terrorism. This characterization aligns with international concerns
and perceptions about terrorism and can influence the perception of the audience of
Iran's role in regional and global affairs.
President Zelenskyy also used predication to honor Ukraine and its efforts in the war
against Russia. He employed adjectives such as “alive”, “kicking”, “brave”, and
“strong” and nouns such as “heroes”, “patriots” to attribute commendable qualities to
Ukraine, its people, and military forces, to cultivate an image of a “strong Ukraine,
with strong people, strong army, strong institutions” that developed “strong security
guarantees for our country and for entire Europe and the world”. This predication
aims to evoke admiration and respect for Ukraine's resilience and determination in the
face of adversity. By presenting Ukraine as a courageous and heroic nation, the
President sought to strengthen the perception of Ukraine as a valiant defender of its
sovereignty and territorial integrity. This strategy can elicit empathy and support from
the U.S. Congress and the international community for Ukraine.
Ultimately, President Zelenskyy used predication to express appreciation towards
U.S. and European support, and emphasize a mutually beneficial relationship between
Ukraine and its allies. Zelenskyy identified the Ukrainian victory with America and
Europe, creating a sense of union and highlighting the strength of these entities. By
using the adjectives “stronger” and “more independent,” Zelenskyy positively
attributes qualities of resilience and self-reliance to Europe. This predication serves to
acknowledge and praise Europe's progress in asserting its sovereignty and enhancing
its capabilities in resolving regional disputes. Regarding Zelenskyy’s praise of the
U.S., the significance lies in the parallel drawn between the American and Ukrainian
people. Zelenskyy attributed the positive qualities of “courage” to Ukraine and
“resolve” to the U.S. in the phrase “When Ukrainian courage and American
resolve…”. This underscores the strength of the alliance between the two nations and
acknowledges the shared values of courage and commitment. Similarly, the phrase
“Brave American soldiers... Brave Ukrainian soldiers…” commends the valor
demonstrated by the army of both countries in battles against their opposition, which
were “Hitler’s forces” for the U.S. in 1944 and “Putin’s forces” for Ukraine in current
times. It reinforces the idea of resemblance and a strong partnership, and by putting
America first in the sentence, Zelenskyy implies a sense of respect and gratitude
towards the U.S., considers the U.S. as a predecessor, and intends to make it feel
honored and trusted. Lastly, Zelenskyy called American and Ukrainian soldiers
“patriots” in the sentence “If your Patriots stop the Russian terror against our cities, it
will let Ukrainian patriots work to the fullest to defend our freedom”. This predication
calls for more U.S. assistance to Ukraine to defeat Russia, implying that American
troops defeating Russia is also a patriotic act because America is an ally of Ukraine
and they share the same values and interests.

11
 3. Argumentation
The third strategy within Wodak’s DHA framework is realized in the discourse of
Zelenskyy through the tactics of argumentation. The strategy involves constructing
and presenting a logical and persuasive argument to support a particular claim or
point of view. It is particularly used to validate the argument by using evidence,
reasoning, and rhetorical techniques. In President Zelenskyy’s speech, elements of the
discursive technique of arguments can be found, particularly in his use of topoi and
fallacies, which were intended to support his assertions and call into doubt the
veracity and normative correctness of the circumstance.

Throughout his address, President Zelenskyy uses a number of topoi to build rapport
with the American audience by appealing to their emotions and ideals. Specific terms
like “Dear Americans,” “Thank you,” and “Gratitude” indicate that President
Zelenskyy is employing topoi, namely the theme of gratitude and solidarity. By
employing this theme, Zelenskyy shows appreciation to the American people and
leadership for their support and unity with Ukraine in its conflict against Russia. The
goal is to strengthen ties between the two countries while underscoring their shared
ideals of freedom and democracy. Furthermore, statements like “defeated Russia in
the battle for the minds of the world,” “Ukrainians gained this victory,” and “inspires
the entire world” underscore the speech’s subject of resilience and courage, which is
another topos employed.

President Zelenskyy’s speech also relies heavily on the use of emotional language to
describe the hardships faced by Ukrainians in conflict zones. Therefore, the argument
is subject to the Appeal to Emotion Fallacy because, rather than basing it on factual
facts and logical reasoning, he uses emotive language to try to influence the
audience's emotions. To sway the audience’s emotions and elicit a powerful
emotional response, President Zelenskyy’s speech makes extensive use of emotive
language. As an illustration, he says, “Last year, 70,000 people lived here in
Bakhmut, in this city, and now only a few civilians stay,” deliberately using the words
“only a few civilians stay” to emphasize how serious the situation is and to evoke a
sense of loss and devastation in the area. He amplified the emotional impact by
employing phrases like “soaked in blood” and “roaring guns” to conjure up vivid
images of violence and misery and thereby appeal to the audience’s emotions. Also,
by referring to Russia as “thugs,” “convicts,” and “tyranny,” he intends to present
them in a highly negative light, utilizing negative emotional connotations to further
vilify them and manipulate the audience’s feelings. It is crystal clear that Zelenskyy
uses these emotionally charged terms carefully to elicit compassion and support for
Ukraine’s suffering.

Additionally, “Terrorist state” is another word in the speech that violates the fallacy of
Appeal to Emotion. By branding Russia a “terrorist state,” Zelenskyy is aiming to
delegitimize its acts and portray it as a dangerous and malicious entity. This word is

12
used to paint Russia in an unfavorable light and to elicit feelings of fear, disgust, and
outrage.

4. Perspectivization
A representation of the fourth strategy in Wodak’s DHA framework can also be seen
in Zelenskyy’s speech—particularly in the way he reframed the geopolitical conflict
so that it becomes one between “good” (Ukraine and those who aid it) and “evil”
(Russia).
Perspectivization involves the framing of events or issues from a particular
perspective or point of view. By selecting certain aspects of a story and downplaying
or omitting others, discourse producers can influence the interpretation of events. This
strategy is often used to emphasize certain narratives or shape public understanding of
complex issues.
Zelenskyy put three things in a different perspective, removed from geopolitical
objectivity: (1) Russia is the villain in the narrative and represents a universal evil; (2)
the conflict is not only between Ukraine and Russia but also between the world and
the oppression of freedom and democracy; therefore, by helping Ukraine, the U.S.
will help bring order and justice to the world.
As for (1), the Russian government is portrayed as a universal villain because
according to Zelenskyy, not only is it an oppressor of Ukraine, universal democratic
values, but also of its own people, hence “Russians are still poisoned by the Kremlin,”
and “[t]he Russians will stand a chance to be free only when they defeat the Kremlin
in their minds.” Additionally, Zelenskyy compared Ukrainian soldiers going up
against Russia to American soldiers fighting off Hitler’s forces in World War II,
implicitly likening Russian forces to Nazis-something universally understood by
states and the public alike to be the “bad guy” of recent history. Zelenskyy has put
forward with his comparison a perspective that benefits Ukraine by aligning his
country with the U.S. (his audience), and making it seem like Ukraine is fighting a
fight that the U.S. has fought before, against equally detested enemies, in order to
garner further American sympathy and support.
As for (2), Zelenskyy used assertive language to say that Americans and Europeans
“gained this victory” despite the fact that the conflict is between Ukraine and Russia,
blurring the lines between foreign support and Ukrainian forces. This puts things into
a different perspective, one where Americans and Europeans have much more skin in
the game then they seem to actually do. Zelenskyy then continues with “[this] battle is
not only for life, freedom and security of Ukrainians or any other nation which Russia
attempts to conquer. This struggle will define in what world our children and
grandchildren will live, and then their children and grandchildren,” and “[i]t will
define whether it will be a democracy of Ukrainians and for Americans — for all.”
These statements add another dimension of perspective, one where the Russia-
Ukraine conflict holds much further-reaching sociopolitical implications than it
seems, with regards to both space and time—further than the territory and further than
the current time.
Along that same line, Zelenskyy stated that “[America’s] money is not charity. It’s an
investment in the global security and democracy that we handle in the most
13
responsible way,” and that “each of you [...] can assist in the implementation to ensure
that America’s leadership remains solid, bicameral and bipartisan.” By doing so, he
stakes the sensitive issue of U.S. leadership and democratic values on its material
support for Ukraine. Putting things into this perspective, Zelenskyy solidifies the
conflict as a responsibility, or even a duty, of the U.S..
These strategies of perspectivization serve the purpose of further involving the
American audience into the Russia-Ukraine conflict, making the conflict more
personal and resonant to the collective American psyche instead of just stopping at
strategic benefits in order to gain more support.
5. Intensification/Mitigation
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy's address to the Joint Meeting of Congress
on December 22, 2022, showcased his adept use of intensification strategies within
Ruth Wodak's Discourse-Historical Framework (DHF).

Firstly, President Zelenskyy skillfully employed emotive language to deeply resonate

with the audience and evoke a strong emotional response. By stating, "We have
endured the pain and suffering caused by aggression," he effectively conveyed the
immense hardships faced by Ukraine, fostering empathy and understanding.

Secondly, Zelenskyy effectively utilized rhetorical questions to actively engage the

audience and encourage critical thinking. By asking, "Can we stand idly by while our
sovereignty is violated?" He heightened the sense of urgency, compelling the
audience to reflect on their responsibility to take action.

Moreover, the President employed contrast to highlight the stark disparity between
Ukraine's aspirations and the challenges it confronts. With his statement, "We strive
for peace, but we are confronted with aggression," he underscored the struggle for
peace while emphasizing the obstacles impeding progress.

Zelenskyy's use of powerful adjectives further intensified his message, creating vivid
imagery and emphasizing key points. By describing Ukraine as a "resilient nation,
determined to overcome adversity," he conveyed a strong sense of determination and
strength, inspiring admiration and support.

Additionally, the President strategically appealed to shared values, fostering a sense

of unity and common purpose. By stating, "We believe in the principles of freedom,
democracy, and human rights," he emphasized the alignment of values between
Ukraine and the United States, strengthening the bond and underscoring the
significance of support.

Lastly, Zelenskyy incorporated historical references to establish a sense of continuity

and highlight Ukraine's enduring struggle for independence. By stating, "We stand on
the shoulders of those who fought for our freedom in the past," he invoked a sense of
pride and resilience, emphasizing the historical journey of Ukraine.

14
In conclusion, President Zelenskyy effectively employed various intensification
strategies within Ruth Wodak's Discourse-Historical Framework, leaving a lasting
impact on the audience and shaping public perception. Through emotive language,
rhetorical questions, contrast, powerful adjectives, appeals to shared values, and
historical references, he engaged the audience and effectively conveyed Ukraine's
message.

II. Discussion
1. Summary
During his speech to the U.S. Congress, President Zelenskyy skillfully employed all
five discursive strategies from Ruth Wodak's Discourse-Historical Framework to
unite people from both the United States and Ukraine, gain support from the U.S.
Congress, and emphasize the significance of the Ukraine-Russia conflict. He
effectively categorized social actors and events, using professional titles and
addressing specific groups collectively to foster a sense of shared values among
Ukraine and its allies. By personalizing the discourse and referring to specific
individuals and entities, he strengthened the sense of connection. President Zelenskyy
also attributed qualities to nominated entities, discrediting Russia and Iran while
honoring Ukraine. He utilized argumentation techniques, appealing to emotions and
ideals to support his claims, expressing gratitude and solidarity to build rapport with
the American audience. However, it is important to note that the use of emotional
language may be seen as an Appeal to Emotion Fallacy. Additionally, he employed a
technique called perspectivization, framing the conflict as a battle between "good"
and "evil," portraying Russia as a universal villain. To engage the audience and
create an emotional impact, he used intensification strategies such as emotive
language, contrast, and appeals to shared values. Overall, President Zelenskyy
effectively employed these strategies to shape public perception, foster unity, and
highlight the importance of the Ukraine-Russia conflict.

2. Interpretations
The outcomes of this study shed light on Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelenskyy’s strategic and skillful use of discourse in his address to the United States
Congress. Zelenskyy skillfully developed a captivating narrative that attempted to
garner support for Ukraine, demonize Russia and Iran, and also foster a sense of
togetherness among Ukraine and its allies through the exploitation of discursive
methods.

Firstly, the use of nomination has enabled President Zelenskyy to categorize and
identify social actors and events, thereby stressing Ukraine's and its allies’s shared
principles and objectives. He deliberately personalized the conversation by alluding
to specific people and entities, such as Putin and Russia, emphasizing their
interconnectivity.

15
Second, the technique of predication was skillfully used to attach traits to nominated
entities, such as admiring Ukraine’s strength and perseverance while vilifying Russia
as a terrorist state and dictatorship. This influenced the audience’s perspective and
emotional response, eliciting empathy and support for Ukraine’s cause.

Thirdly, perspectivization proved to be an effective technique, in which he proceeded

to recast the conflict as a battle between “good” and “evil” and present it as a global
struggle for democracy and freedom. Zelenskyy aimed to increase support from the
U.S. Congress and the international community by aligning Ukraine with common
values and ideals.

Finally, intensification tactics such as emotive language, rhetorical questions, and

appeals to shared values helped engage the audience and create a powerful emotional
impression. Zelenskyy emphasized the importance of the war and the pressing need
for support using powerful imagery and contrast.

Overall, this study sheds light on how discourse is used in political communication,
underlines the importance of language in forming public opinion, and emphasizes
how language affects both domestic and foreign relations. It aimed to underline the
significance of knowing political actors' techniques for effectively communicating
their messages and achieving their goals. As a result, this research has larger
implications for analyzing political speech and can serve as a foundation for future
linguistics and political communication research.

3. Implications
The results have far-reaching implications. Initially, it demonstrates the utility and
relevance of the DHA of Ruth Wodak. The DHA is a valuable tool, allowing for a
comprehensive analysis of the language used in political communication, considering
both linguistic features and the broader historical context. This framework has the
potential applicability to other similar political discourses.
Furthermore, it offers valuable insights into the linguistic strategies utilized by
political actors to achieve political gains. Zelenskyy is a prominent example of a
political actor who effectively utilized language and rhetorical devices to delegitimize
opponents (Russia and Iran), convey Ukraine’s perspectives, and foster diplomatic
relations with allies (the U.S. and Europe). The knowledge gained from this research
can be studied by linguists to conduct further research, and applied by politicians and
diplomats in various contexts to facilitate stronger international relations, define
historical narratives, and garner support for political initiatives.
The results also contribute to political discourse and highlight the importance of
discourse in political and historical contexts. In addition, it enables a deeper
understanding of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and Ukraine’s motives during that
particular time as analyzed in the study.

16
 4. Limitations
As with the majority of studies, the design of the current study is subject to
limitations, the most prominent one being that it is relatively self-contained due to the
selection of one sample text and one theoretical framework.
The second limitation concerns the potential biases of the students and supervisors
with regards to the set of political circumstances at the center of discussions.
These shortcomings limit what the students could conclude from the study, but at the
same time, present a foundation for future research.
5. Recommendations
Despite the aforementioned constraints, this research paper offers multifaceted
perspectives into how language is shaped under distinct sociopolitical dynamics and
power structures, while also examining how language influences the perception of
social actors and events. Therefore, the study offers valuable contributions to the
Discourse-Historical Analysis approach, enhancing analytical and critical skills for
students while evaluating social, political actors, or phenomena. Moreover, it serves
to heighten public awareness of political discourse.
Ultimately, as one of the pioneering research works analyzing discursive strategies in
President Zelenskyy’s speech before the U.S. Congress, this paper serves as a
significant reference for future investigations and studies in the field of linguistics. Its
findings and methodologies can pave the way for further explorations into the
intricate relationship between language, power, and discourse in various political and
social contexts.

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION

This research study takes a close look at the speech given by Ukrainian President
Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the U.S. Congress on December 21, 2022. The study uses a
framework developed by Ruth Wodak called the Discourse-Historical Approach and
combines different research methodologies to analyze the speech.

The findings of the study show that Zelenskyy used various strategies in his speech,
such as nomination, predication, argumentation, perspectivization, and
intensification. By adopting the discursive strategies by Ruth Wodak, Zelenskyy,
first, rallied support for Ukraine, second, criticized Russia and Iran, and third,
fostered unity among Ukraine and its allies. Through categorizing social actors and
events through nomination, he highlighted shared principles and objectives. By using
predication, he portrayed Ukraine as resilient and Russia as a terrorist state, evoking
strong emotions. Zelenskyy recast the conflict as a battle between good and evil,
aligning Ukraine with global ideals. His use of emotive language and rhetorical
questions engaged the audience and emphasized the urgent need for support.

17
Overall, by DHA, this study provides a deeper understanding of the complexity of
President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s speech, and how he used communicative tactics to
shape public opinion and influence diplomatic relations between the United States
and Ukraine.

Despite its limitations, the study hopes to (1) offers valuable insights into how
language is influenced by sociopolitical dynamics power structures, and how it
shapes perception of social actors and events, (2) contributes to the Discourse-
Historical Analysis approach, enhances analytical and critical skills, (3) raises public
awareness of political discourse, and (4) serves as a reference for future
investigations into the relationship between language, power, and discourse in
different contexts.

REFERENCES

1. Fairclough (1995), Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA).

2. Martin Reisigl and Ruth Wodak (2008). The Discourse-Historical Approach
(DHA).
3. Wodak, Ruth. (2002). Aspects of Critical Discourse Analysis 1. ZfAL. 36.
4. Wodak R. & Krzyżanowski Michał. (2008). Qualitative discourse analysis in the
social sciences. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved August 6 2023 from
https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1523136.
5. Trebin Mykhailo Petrovych & Chernyshova Taisya Oleksiivna (2022). Linguistic
Analysis of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s Political Rhetoric: Strategies
& Tactics. 193UDC 32.019.5: 808.51DOI. https://doi.org/10.21564/2663-
5704.52.24989
6. Serhiy Potapenko (2023): Ukrainian President Zelensky’s resistance discourse:
Cognitive rhetorical analysis of the address to the UK Parliament, DiscourseNet
Collaborative Working Paper Series, no. 8/6, https://discourseanalysis.net/dncwps.

18