Political discourse refers to the specific ways language is used in the context of politics and governance. It encompasses spoken and written communication by politicians ( van Dijk, 1997 ), media outlets ( Wodak & Meyer, 2001 ), activists ( Laclau & Mouffe, 1985 ), and even the public itself ( Chilton, 2004 ) when discussing political issues and ideologies. This field of study examines not just the content of the communication, but also its effects, structures, and underlying strategies.

Political language does not just reflect reality; it is a tool used by politicians who actively shape it through speech acts in order to influence public opinion and mobilize support ( Mohammed Hashim, 2015 ). Politicians control speech acts to assert power and authority through pronouncements that have real-world consequences ( Dunmire, 2012 ). Moreover, they strategically employ speech acts, including promises and appeals, to persuade and influence the audiences’ beliefs and actions ( Harris & McKinney, 2021 ). Politicians also use language to promote specific public images and connect with various communities, employing inclusive or exclusive rhetoric, distinct speaking styles, and speech acts to shape political identities ( Fogal et al., 2018 ). Furthermore, they strategically manipulate language to influence public opinion, dictate narratives, and frame events, using declarations to solidify their interpretations and suppress opposing viewpoints ( Gao et al., 2016 ). Political communication also contributes to shaping and reinforcing ideologies through the use of repetitive phrases, emotionally charged language, and loaded language to spread and strengthen ideological structures ( Addae et al., 2022 ). In politics, language serves as a tool for either unifying or dividing different groups. Inclusive language and appeals to shared values promote social cohesion, while divisive and inflammatory rhetoric fuels polarization ( Alqahtani, 2024 ).

Political discourse research focuses on language, power, social and cultural context, and political effects. Scholars analyze specific linguistic choices, including metaphors and understatements, and how media shape political realities ( Harris & McKinney, 2021 ; Fairclough, 2003 ; Wodak & Meyer, 2001 ). Additionally, they investigate how language reinforces or challenges power structures, and how leaders manipulate discourse to maintain control ( van Dijk, 2002 ). Furthermore, the nature and consequences of political discourse cannot be understood without regard to the social and cultural circumstances of the context in which it occurs. Demographics, historical background, culture, and media are taken into account, suggesting a link between language, power and identity with specific reference to political struggles ( Wodak & Meyer, 2001 ). Finally, how political issues are talked about and perceived can influence the public, determine the voters’ decision, and the policies formed ( Entman, 2004 ).

Pragmatics is the field of linguistics concerned with how language is used effectively in communication ( Taguchi & Kadar, in press ). It goes beyond the literal meaning of words to consider the context in which they are spoken, the speaker’s intention, the listener’s understanding, presuppositions assumed by the speaker and implications of what is indirectly conveyed ( Bull & Waddle, 2021 ; Usmani & Almashham, 2024 ; Zou & Yiye, 2022 ). Pragmatics, the study of language use in context, plays a crucial role in understanding political discourse. Political speeches, debates, and media coverage are types of political discourse which are not simply concerned in conveying information; they are strategic attempts to influence, persuade, and call to action ( Awal, 2022 ). These types of communication can be analyzed through pragmatics, speech acts in particular, i.e., the propositions/locutions performed, depending on the speaker’s intention and the context in which these propositions are uttered.

Speech Act Theory, a prominent framework within linguistic pragmatics, suggests that language is not merely used to describe the world but also to perform actions. This viewpoint, pioneered by Austin (1962) and further developed by Searle (1969) , moves beyond the traditional focus on sentence meaning (semantics) to examine how language is used in context to achieve communicative goals.

According to Searle (1969) , Speech Act Theory distinguishes between three interconnected levels of analysis: locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary. The locutionary act is the basic act of uttering words and their literal meaning, the phonetic and semantic content of the utterance. The illocutionary act is the act performed in saying something, the speaker’s intention or the force of the utterance. The same locutionary act can have different illocutionary forces depending on the context and the speaker’s intention. The perlocutionary act is the effect the utterance has on the hearer, the consequence or result of the speech act. The perlocutionary act is not directly under the speaker’s control, for it depends on the hearer’s interpretation and reaction.

Searle (1969) categorized illocutionary acts into several types, including:

1) Assertives are statements of fact or belief that involve announcing, claiming, stating, and reporting.

2) Directives attempt to give order, command, request, or advice or get the hearer to take a particular action.

3) Commissives commit the speaker to do something like promising or offering.

4) Expressives are expressions of the speaker’s feelings or attitudes such as thinking or apologizing.

5) Declaratives are utterances that bring about a change in the state of affairs such as resigning, declaring war, dismissing, accepting something.

This study is based on the proposition that political communication is fundamentally concerned with the creation and interpretation of meaning, a process which relies on analyzing the illocutionary acts in the speaker’s utterances. The diverse range of illocutionary acts utilized by politicians, encompassing informing, assuring, promising, directing, suggesting, apologizing, and criticizing, highlights the analytical value of Speech Act Theory in this study. Employing this theory will enable a detailed examination of the linguistic strategies the speaker uses to encode intended meanings within the formal linguistic structures of the chosen political speech.

Speech Act Theory, which originated from Austin (1962) , is especially significant in the study of political discourse since it considers the hidden performative value of utterances beyond the coded meaning. This theory encompasses several considerations:

Applying speech acts in text analysis can help identify the author’s purpose, establish and negotiate meaning and dynamics of interaction in the text. With regard to political speeches, speech acts provide an effective way to understand the speaker’s intents, strategies and possible influence on the audience. Examining the organized and meaningful patterns of purpose and interaction in language ultimately sheds light on the creative and functional aspect of language ( Taguchi, 2019 ).

According to Charteris-Black (2018) , several steps must be considered to successfully analyse political speeches. First, keywords and phrases which pinpoint specific speech act categories must be identified. Moreover, the context must be taken into consideration with questions like “Who is the speaker addressing?” “What is the political climate?” “What is the speech’s purpose?”

The second step is to analyse illocutionary force and function: “What specific action does the speaker aim to perform?” “Does it aim to inform, persuade, inspire, criticize, legitimize, attack, consolidate power, etc.”. The function of each speech act within the broader context of the speech should be analysed “Does it frame issues, appeal to emotions, build narratives, establish credibility, create relationships with the audience?”

Third, patterns and strategies must be explored. The patterns in the types of speech acts used should be defined: “Is there a dominant category?” “How does the mix of speech acts shift throughout the speech?” Then, rhetorical strategies employed through speech acts must be identified such as using repetition, metaphor, parallelism, humor, appealing to logic or emotion. In addition, how the speaker uses speech acts to create coherence and build a compelling argument should be inspected.

Fourth is to examine the perlocutionary effects. The potential impacts of the speech act on the audience should be considered: “Can it change their opinions, inspire action, reinforce existing beliefs, or spark controversy?” How audience characteristics (demographic, political affiliation, etc.) might influence the perlocutionary effect must be analyzed.

The last step is to draw conclusions: ‘What does the speech act analysis reveal about the speaker’s political identity, goals, and relationship with the audience?’ “How does the use of speech acts contribute to the speech’s effectiveness and potential impact?” “What broader insights does this analysis offer about the political discourse and dynamics of power within society?”

Analysing a political speech through speech acts is an ongoing process of interpretation and engagement. A successful analysis entails employing effective criticism, asking questions, and enjoying the intellectual journey of uncovering the hidden meanings and persuasive power within political discourse ( Lawan, 2016 ).

i) Locutionary Act:

“Citizens of Israel, we are at war. Not an operation, not a round [of fighting,] at war! This morning Hamas initiated a murderous surprise attack against the state of Israel and its citizens.”

ii) Illocutionary Acts ( Table 1 ):

iii) Perlocutionary Effects:

i) Locutionary Act:

“We have been in this since the early morning hours. I have convened the heads of the defense establishment. I’ve given directives, first and foremost, to clear the [affected] urban areas of the terrorists who penetrated them. This is happening right now. In parallel, I am initiating an extensive mobilization of the reserves to fight back on a scale and intensity that the enemy has so far not experienced. The enemy will pay an unprecedented price.”

ii) Illocutionary Acts ( Table 2 ):

iii) Perlocutionary Effects:

i) Locutionary Act:

“I urge the public to follow strictly the directives of the military, the Home Front Command. We are at war and will win.”

ii) Illocutionary Acts ( Table 3 ):

iii) Perlocutionary Effects:

Table 4 depicts a summary of the illocutionary acts used by Netanyahu throughout the whole speech.

What types of speech acts are most frequently used in Netanyahu’s speech?

The analysis of Netanyahu’s speech suggests that the speech acts employed are not just informative but aim to shape attitudes and potentially gather action in response to the perceived threat. It highlights the power of language to influence emotions and perceptions, particularly in such a tense political situation.

The introductory part of Netanyahu’s speech is made up of three statements. All three statements (100%) are assertives ( Table 1 ) used to emphasize the truth of the situation. The speaker’s primary focus is on conveying information, presenting what he perceives as a fact, laying strong emphasis on the perceived truth value of the utterances. Moreover, the absence of directives or commissives indicates that the speaker apparently does not intend to get the audience to do anything (directives) or commit himself to future actions (commissives). Furthermore, by avoiding expressives, he tends to be more objective, presenting the situation as is without the intervention of his emotions or feelings.

The body of the speech consists of seven statements that comprise a blend of information, instruction, and a touch of commitment, creating a structured and purposeful tone. The illocutionary speech acts in this part are distributed as follows: 28.57% assertives, 28.57% directives, 14.28% assertive-directive, 14.28% declaratives and 14.28% declarative-commissive ( Table 2 ). The assertives suggest a foundation of information or factual claims. The speaker is providing data, stating beliefs, or outlining a situation, giving the speech a sense of substance and grounding. The equal number of assertives and directives indicates that the speaker is not just informing, but also trying to influence the audience’s actions through the commands and requests. This adds a dimension of purpose and organisation to the speech, aiming to guide or direct the listeners. As for the declaratives, both are significant in that they bring about a change in the state of affairs “promising severe consequences for the attackers” especially since they are uttered under the right conditions “murderous surprise attack”. These declaratives add a sense of weight and finality to this part of the speech. The single commissive act introduces an element of commitment from the speaker. It’s a promise, pledge, or expression of intention to do something in the future “The enemy will pay an unprecedented price”. This adds a touch of personal investment and creates an expectation in the audience.

The concluding part of the speech comprises three illocutionary acts as follows: directive 33.33% declarative 33.33% and commissive 33.33% ( Table 3 ). The fact that this part opens with a directive, followed by a declarative, and concluding with a commissive would likely create a sense of urgency, justification, and hopeful commitment. This organizational framework aims to inspire action, establish a supporting foundation, and ultimately secure the audience’s confidence in the speaker’s leadership. Starting this part with a directive immediately captures the audience’s attention and establishes a sense of clear intent. The speaker is immediately calling for action through a direct command “I urge the public to follow strictly the directives of the military”. This directive directly captures attention and conveys urgency, portraying the speaker as decisive and action-oriented. Subsequently, the declarative statement “We are at war” provides the necessary context and justification for the directive. It goes beyond being a simple command to explain the necessity to act. Finally, the concluding commissive, “and will win,” reinforces the speaker’s commitment and reassures the audience of their personal investment in the outcome.

All in all, Netanyahu’s speech mostly consists of assertives (38.46%), followed by directives (23.07%), declaratives (15.38%) and commissives (7.69%). Two statements were employed for two different purposes: assertive-directive (7.69%) and declarative-commissive (7.69%) ( Table 4 ). This indicates that the speech is characterized by a strong emphasis on information and action, with a prominent degree of authority and commitment. The high percentage of assertives (38.46%) indicates the significance of information conveyed in the speech while the notable use of directives (23.07%) stresses the directions given by the speaker who is not just informing but also guiding the audience. The declaratives (15.38%) reinforce the speaker’s statements, revealing his power and sense of control. The low percentage of commissives (7.69%) suggests that although the speaker makes commitments, he is more focused on conveying information and directing action. The use of assertive-directive (7.69%) and declarative-commissive (7.69%) statements adds to the complexity and strategic communication of the speech.

How do the speech acts in Netanyahu’s speech contribute to its overall persuasive effect?

The speech acts used by Netanyahu significantly contributed to the overall persuasive impact. Despite the fact that Netanyahu’s main aim in the introduction is to inform the audience about the state of war, his words carry additional forces, mainly persuading the audience to accept the definition of “war” and its implications, mobilizing the audience to prepare for potential consequences, and legitimizing the government’s actions in response to the attack. He fulfils his message through the use of strong verbs (“initiated”, “attack”), emotive language (“murderous surprise”) to create a fearful and urgent tone, and repetition which serves as a persuasive strategy, aiming to fix the belief of war in the listeners’ minds. Finally, the comparison with “operation” or “round” diminishes past conflicts, possibly suggesting this attack is more significant and justifies further action.

In the body of the speech, Netanyahu updates the public about the situation and ongoing actions and tries to convince them of the government’s competence and commitment to offer security. In order to execute his plan, he calls for action, encouraging public support and mobilisation. This happens through leadership of the project at hand, the ability to make decisions, and readiness to use force, threatening to escalate the situation in order to prevent further attacks. The urgency of the situation is stressed through the use of phrases such as “early morning hours”, “right now”, and “extensive mobilization”. His solid resolution is conveyed through phrases like “first and foremost”, “scale and intensity”, and “unprecedented price”. Leadership, authority and control are confirmed through “convened”, “directives”, and “initiate”, intentionally distancing attackers by referring to them as “terrorists” and “enemy” to justify possible punitive reactions. The body of Netanyahu’s speech has a structured and purposeful feel. It is a blend of speech acts, revealing a speaker who is informed, proactive, and committed. The assertives establish a foundation, the directives provide guidance, the declaratives highlight pivotal moments or decisions, and the commissives offer insight into future intentions. The equal use of assertives and directives suggests the speaker’s desire to inform and persuade, not just command, utilizing declaratives to convey authority and commissives to inject a personal element.

The final part fosters trust and confidence in the speaker’s leadership. It leaves the audience with a sense of hope and shared purpose, reinforcing the call to action and solidifying the speaker’s commitment. All in all, the structure of the conclusion itself creates a framework for a powerful and persuasive message. In his concluding part, Netanyahu commands compliance to ensure the public abide by the safety measures during the conflict. Therefore, he repeats how serious the situation is to stress public attention, injects optimism and confidence in the face of adversity and asserts control and responsibility for guiding the nation through the crisis. To this end, he highlights the importance to follow directions immediately by using the words “urge” and “strictly”. He also frames the situation as “war” to evoke patriotism as well as national unity and solidarity. His statement “and will win” projects an unwavering belief in victory, to reassure the audience.

A speech structured in this way would likely be dynamic and persuasive. It is a structure designed to motivate and mobilize, moving from presenting the problem, to a call to action, to the justification for that action, and finally, to a pledge of commitment. The overall effect is one of urgency, purpose, and confident leadership.

How does Netanyahu use speech acts to construct a particular image of himself?

Netanyahu structured his speech with six assertives, four directives, three declaratives, and two commissives, projecting his personality which is informative, action-oriented, authoritative, and somewhat personally invested. The high number of assertives suggests a speaker who prioritizes conveying information and establishing a foundation of facts “We are at war”, “We have been in this since the early morning hours”, “This is happening right now.” He presents himself as someone who has done their research and is confident in their understanding of the situation. This builds credibility and establishes him as a reliable source of information. The four directives demonstrate a clear intent to guide and influence the audience’s behavior. He is not just discussing a problem, but calling for action “I’ve given directives… to clear the urban areas.”, “I am initiating an extensive mobilization”, indicating a decisive and purposeful personality. The three declaratives, which create or change realities, reinforce the speaker’s authority “to fight back”. He is making not only suggestions but also pronouncements “We are at war”, “The enemy will pay an unprecedented price”, implying a position of power or influence. Though few, both commissives add a personal touch. They demonstrate commitment “The enemy will pay an unprecedented price” and a willingness to be held accountable, suggesting a degree of personal investment in the issue at hand “and will win”. The combination of speech acts into assertive-directive and declarative-commissive “I have convened the heads of the defense establishment”, “The enemy will pay an unprecedented price” indicates a speaker who is capable of combining different speech act functions within a single utterance to create a strategic speech.

The overall impression suggested in this speech portrays a speaker who would likely come across as competent and confident, presenting himself as someone who knows what he is talking about and is confident in his abilities. The speaker’s deliberate selection of speech acts indicates a strategic use of language to accomplish specific objectives. The integration of information, guidance, and authority enhances their potential for persuasion. While there is a degree of personal commitment shown through the commissives, the overall tone is more focused on facts and actions than on overt emotional expression. The speaker’s strategic use of assertives and directives indicates a preference for informing and guiding rather than dominating. The use of declaratives and directives reveals a focused approach to achieve specific goals. By emphasizing factual information, the speaker establishes credibility, hence strengthening the impact of his directives and commitments. Ultimately, Netanyahu projects an image of a capable, authoritative, and goal-driven leader, perceived as influential and persuasive, yet less emotionally expressive.