The purpose of this study is to discuss the ideal of public service, what it is and what it should be and how it has evolved in American history. I am concerned that the ideal of public service, a guiding principle for public administrators and government, has been diminished by the emphasis in American public administration on economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. If public sector leaders, such as presidents, over time have changed their focus from discussions of the Constitution or republican principles to other ideas such as taxes and specific government programs, then has the ideal or vision of public service changed? The topic of service, aligned with duty and the responsibility of the citizen, while prevalent in the political theory literature, has been pushed to the back of the public administration literature shelves. Without the ideal of service as a vibrant element of the public administration discourse, the public administration community will have given way to those who see public administration as merely a modified business model. The primary research question posed in this study was: Has the emphasis on economy, efficiency, and effectiveness diminished the ideal of public service? The texts of presidential inaugural addresses were analyzed and reviewed for insights into the ideal of public service by the use of content analysis, using nine criteria that exemplify the ideals of public service. One of the secondary questions posed here was: Has the ideal or vision of public service changed? Discussion of the different criteria illustrated that there has been a change resulting in a different concept of the ideal of public service today. The final question of how and when the ideal of public service changed is answered in the dissertation also, as the results, criterion by criterion, are explained. This study shows that the inaugural addresses captured the ideal of public service dynamically and often eloquently over the course of American history. The changing nature of the role of government, issues of importance to government, and nature of the ideal of public service are on the historical record as set forth in these inaugural addresses. / Ph. D.

Pronouns carry considerable importance in language. The speaker’s identity and connection to the audience emerges through the consistent use of certain pronouns (De Fina, 1995). This research is about the use of we, us, and our in political discourse. Specifically, their use will be examined in the inaugural addresses of George W. Bush in 2005 and Barack Obama in 2009. The aim of this research is to examine the frequencies and the co-occurrences of these pronouns and then compare their use in these two speeches. More specifically, how do the pronouns examined affect the message and enhance hearer credibility. This is done by applying (a) a quantitative corpus linguistics analysis and (b) qualitative analysis of the context of use. The results show that there is a difference in frequency of pronoun use; however, the usage of pronouns is rather similar in the two speeches

Character of Inaugural Addresses. Research concerning the character of the Inaugural Address reveals great diversity of opinion among writers. The New York Herald Tribune, after President Kennedy’s address, concluded that the function of an Inaugural address “to express… the essence of what (the President) proposes to do in the White House.” Dr. Claudius O. Johnson, in his book Government in the United States - after reviewing President Franklin Roosevelt’s first inaugural, wrote that in his address, the President “usually tries to smooth over some of the ill-feeling which recent partisan strife may have caused, appeals to all good citizens to help him in his task, and outlines his programs, sometimes rather specifically.” Conversely, it is pointed out by Wilfred E. Binkley in The Man In The White House. His Powers and Duties that “there have been presidents elected who entered the office on inauguration day almost utterly innocent of what the election signified and what was expected of them - Ulysses S. Grant, for example.” Today Americans accept and anticipate the elaborate inaugural ceremony of which the inaugural address is a part. Author Binkley points to the feelings of the post-revolutionary “purists,” who thought it to be “a conspicuous violation of Republican simplicity and an inexcusable aping of monarchy.” Furthermore, it is noted that George Washington was deeply concerned “as to what the public expected of him…” Mr. Binkley’s conclusion, with which this writer concurs, is that “while the inauguration itself has no legal force, it nevertheless symbolises the fact that the president is… chief executive.” There are three reasons for writing on this topic. First, the inaugural address is the first Presidential policy statement and may be compared with policies actually carried out. Second, they have popular audiences in this country and abroad who may be affected by their policies. And, thirs, they are the oldest of our official presidential statements. Furthermore, the United States’ Presidents have the longest history without charge of any of the heads of state in the world. Therefore, a study of inaugural addresses provides consistent information on a type of address for a longer period of time then is possible for any other head of state.

University of Macau / Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities / Department of English

This study asks whether and how the presidential inaugural address influences American audiences. The current study explores how the 2017 Presidential Inaugural Address of Donald Trump influences audiences. Two areas were studied: Candidate image and the state of the nation. I hypothesized that participants who watched the address would have different attitudes regarding candidate image and the state of the nation compared to non-viewers. I also hypothesized that viewers of the address who voted for Donald Trump would respond differently to candidate image and the state of the nation when compared with those who did not vote for Trump. With one exception, none of the findings was significant. That is, attitudes of inaugural address viewers and non-viewers were similar, and attitudes of those who voted for the president and those who did not vote for the president were also similar. The exception was noted between those who voted for the candidate and oppositional voters: Those who voted for Donald Trump reported the nation is headed "in the right direction" while dissenters disagreed.

No description available.