As the 2016 Brexit referendum was an election largely decided by the use of language, there was merit in examining how the Leave campaign had managed to be successful. Therefore, this study asks how one of the leave campaign's main figure heads, Boris Johnson, used metaphors to frame the relationship between Britain and the EU. In addition, the ascribed conceptual role of each party was investigated. To determine this, the metaphorical framing in a pivotal speech was examined by using conceptual metaphor theory. Firstly, several linguistic metaphors were identified by using an established metaphor identification process. After careful analysis, two separate patterns in these metaphors were found and subsequently, suitable conceptual metaphors were suggested. The one relating to the relationship between Britain and the EU was proposed as AUTONOMY IS FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT. In other words, there were several linguistic metaphors exhibiting the conceptual pattern that the EU restricted Britain's freedom of movement and that this described the more abstract notion of Britain's lack of autonomy. Thus, in his speech, Boris Johnson conveyed the idea that there was an imbalance of power weighted in favour of the EU. The second conceptual metaphor, which denotes the role of the EU, was proposed as THE EU IS A MACHINE. This implies that the EU is an emotionless, non-sentient and thoughtless operation that does not inspire warmth or a sense of belonging. This pattern was not as solid as the restriction of movement pattern but other, corroborating, evidence was found. Finally, the role of Britain in the speech was not referred to using metaphors but by personal pronouns, first-person plural. This achieves the opposite effect to the conceptual metaphor THE EU IS A MACHINE. Hence, by repeatedly using we and us when referencing Britain, Boris Johnson humanises the country as he tries to foster a group feeling, a sense of togetherness. These findings highlight how politicians use the tools of linguistics to influence the electorate. Britain's unexpected exit out of the European Union had a huge impact on millions of people so it is crucial to understand how the Leave campaign had managed to swing the vote in their favour. This study shines a light on some of the techniques used to win the referendum.

Denna undersökning har som syfte att analysera och jämföra Boris Johnsons och Stefan Löfvens tal till respektive nation gällande COVID-19 pandemin 2020. Med grund i en retorisk analys utmärks argumentationsmedlen ethos, pathos och logos samt stilfigurerna anafor, metafor och metonymi för att se vilka av dessa retoriska medel som dominerar i talarnas krisretorik. Resultatet visar att argumentationsmedlen ethos, pathos och logos används i båda talen men i olika omfattningar. Pathos dominerar i Löfvens tal medan alla tre argumentationsmedel samspelar till samma grad i Johnsons tal. Resultatet visar även att alla tre stilfigurer används men att anaforen är mest framträdande i båda talen och förekommer betydligt oftare än metaforer och metonymier. Slutsatsen som dras är att ingen av dem använder sig av stilfigurer i någon högre grad vilket kan bero på att ett land i kris kräver seriös kommunikation utan utmålade ord och ledare som behöver vara tydliga och vara säkra på att alla som lyssnar förstår. Undersökningen visar att Löfven använder sig mest av pathos medan Johnson balanserar alla argumentationsmedel i samma utsträckning.

In their book, Fairclough and Fairclough (2013) claim that political leaders’ main role is to make choices in difficult situations. Due to the coronavirus outbreak worldwide, every political leader was called to make difficult decisions and to announce them to their respective public. As a result, there is plenty of new data to be analyzed from a linguistic perspective. The goal of this study is to explore and analyze Boris Johnson’s ten first speeches on Covid-19 addressed to the nation between the 3rd and 23rd March 2020 (from herd immunity policy to strict lockdown). The corpus was examined in terms of lexicon structures (personal pronouns and verbs) and syntax structures (modal verbs), which, according to van Dijk (1997), are persuasive techniques. The findings suggest that the extensive use by Boris Johnson of the personal pronoun ‘we’ (exclusive) as well as the use of the personal pronoun ‘I’ show his active involvement in the fight against Covid-19. This involvement is also corroborated through (a) his use of event verbs, which indicate a continuous action; and (b) his selection of modal verbs of obligation, which mostly follow the personal pronouns that refer to the Prime Minister and/or the decision makers. This paper concludes that syntax and lexicon structures were used in Boris Johnson’s speeches as tools of persuasive techniques.

The aim of this bachelors thesis has been to examine and analyse the framing used when reporting about Boris Johnson in context with Brexit in both Swedish and British media coverage. The research questions examined in this study were: In what way is Boris Johnson framed in British and Swedish media coverage surrounding Brexit in his first three weeks as prime minister? What could explain the possible differences that occurs between the Swedish and British media coverage? I have in combination with a qualitative text analysis as well as framing theory and news valuation theory analysed material from four major news papers. Two news papers from Sweden, Dagens Nyheter and Aftonbladet. As well as two from Great Britain, The Guardian UK and The Sun UK. One of each county’s news paper focuses on qualitative and objective journalism and one from each country which can be regarded as a tabloid, evening paper, from these four news papers a total of 12 articles, three from each paper was selected. To arrive at my conclusion every article was analysed trough what frame, conflict, personification or elite person, Boris Johnson was portrayed as well as if the frames felt clear, subtle or well as if any frame could not be found in the text. Through the analysis I found the result to be that every article had personified Boris Johnson with Brexit, even if the article did not directly have a focus on the Brexit conflict. The personification is a constant backgrung trough every individual article. Secondly I found that the frames through which the newspapers portrayed conflict differed, depending from which country the news paper reported from. The Swedish news papers portrayed conflict through a broader perspective, having a stronger focus on Brexit as a concept whilst the British newspaper framed conflict in a much more detailed way. Focusing on more detailed topics with higher interest for the british population.

Syftet med denna fallstudie är att visa på en ökad förståelse kring regeringschefers förmåga att skapa förtroende sin kriskommunikation. Uppsatsen undersöker de tal till nationen som hölls av Sveriges statsminister Stefan Löfven och Storbritanniens premiärminister Boris Johnson vid Covid-19 pandemin under våren och hösten 2020. Uppsatsen utgår från ett retoriskt perspektiv och undersöker talens innehåll utifrån dess transkriberingar. Analysen utgår från uppsatsens teoretiska perspektiv som innefattar retorikens olika delar, appellformer och stilfigurer. Den utgår även från den retoriska situationen. Metoden som används är retorisk analys och utgår från uppsatsens disposition, argumentation, stil och retoriska situation. Den retoriska analysen skapar möjligheten att analysera och tolka talen både i sin helhet men också genom meningar, ord och tecken. Vidare diskuteras resultaten utifrån tidigare forskning och teoretiska perspektiv med ett fokus på politiskt förtroende och kriskommunikation.   Uppsatsen finner resultatet att regeringscheferna använder samtliga retoriska verktyg som undersöks i sina tal. Det framgår även att dessa verktyg används av regeringscheferna i syfte att öka förtroendet för dem som regeringschefer. Utifrån tidigare forskning går det se att både Löfven och Johnson fick ett ökat förtroende en kort tid efter att de första talen genomfördes, vilket indikerar att regeringscheferna kan ha lyckats uppnå ett förtroende genom sin kriskommunikation. / The aim of this case study is to gain more understanding of the head of government's ability to create trust in their crisis communication. The essay examines speeches to the nation, given by the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven and the British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, during the Covid-19 pandemic in the spring and fall of 2020. The essay uses a rhetorical perspective and examines the content of the speeches based on their transcripts. The analysis is based on the theoretical framework of the essay, which includes the rhetorical theory, three modes of persuasion and the figures of speech. It is also based on the rhetorical situation. The rhetorical analysis is the method used in the case study which focuses on the speech's disposition, argumentation, style and rhetorical situation. The rhetorical analysis makes it possible to analyze and interpret language both in its ensemble, but also through sentences, words, and signs. Furthermore, results based on previous research and theoretical perspectives are discussed with a focus on political trust and crisis communication.   The essay concludes that both Löfven and Johnson use all the rhetorical tools that are examined in their speeches. It is also clear that these tools are used by Löfven and Johnson to gain trust as Heads of Government. Based on previous research, it can be seen that both Löfven and Johnson gained increased trust shortly after their speeches were given, which indicates that the heads of government may have succeeded in gaining confidence through their crisis communication.

Syftet med följande undersökning var att analysera korrelationerna mellan valkampanjerna Britian Stronger In Europe och Vote Leave, Take Back Control i förhållande till retorikens tre element ethos (trovärdighet), logos (förnuft) och pathos (känslor). Utifrån en kvalitativ innehållsanalys har valkampanjernas dokument, rapporter, affischer, tal och videoklipp analyserats för att presentera korrelationerna faktorerna emellan. Undersökningen kommer fram till att valkampanjen Britian Stronger In Europe och dess kampanjmaterial gick att korrelera till samtliga retoriska element, medan Vote Leave-kampanjen enbart gick att korrelera till ethos- och pathos-elementen. Anledningen till detta berodde på att Vote Leave-kampanjen inte utgick från något tillförlitligt material för att styrka sitt ställningstagande i relation till Storbritanniens medlemskap i EU, vilket var ett krav för att uppfylla logos-elementets kännetecken. Detta till trots, lyckades Vote Leave-kampanjen gå segrande ur den brittiska folkomröstningen med 52 % av rösterna gentemot Stronger In-kampanjens 48 %.