Critical Discourse Analysis of Barack

Obama’s 1st Inaugural Speech

John Gary Stobbs

26/05/2012
Abstract

This article investigates the methods and lexis used by Barack Obama to foster a sense of

inclusion of the American public in his inaugural speech. It will analyse the frequency and

use of pronouns in his speech to ascertain how these pronouns can be seen to include the

public in the process of government. By comparing this analysis to a similar analysis of

speeches given by other recent presidents, it will attempt to discover if Barack Obama is

significantly more linguistically inclusive than previous presidents. The article will look at

the syntactic choices and how these help to give flow and emotion to his speech. It will also

analyse some of the phrases and sentence structures used to synthesise a narrative of his

persona as well as his presidency. Finally, it will discuss the various narratives in his speech

as they relates to the overall narrative and how they can be seen as part of his persona.

1. Introduction

Hypothesis

A political discourse can be defined as “the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which

of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem" (Johnson

and Johnson, cited in Leifeld 2010).

This article will analyse how Barack Obama presents his reasoned views for the actions he

will take to solve a variety of social problems. It will investigate the lexical and syntactical

choices to create a consensus of opinion for those actions. The ideology of a politician is

sometimes stated clearly, but often a deeper ideology is hidden beneath the rhetoric: by

analysing the text I will try to determine the deeper ideologies and intentions. This article will

determine whether Barack Obama uses more or less inclusive language than previous

presidents.

2. Background
 2.1 History of this discourse

“American politics and the mainly men that inhabit them are bigger and brasher than British

politics. British politicians don’t make long speeches anymore” (Chilton 2003)

Since George Washington, the very first president, gave his inaugural speech in 1789, the

newly sworn in president gives a speech at his inauguration after taking the oath of office.

Barack Obama is the 44th president and he gave the 56th inaugural speech. Although, not

every president has given a speech it has become a tradition that has its own traditions. This

is probably the most formal of the speeches given by a president and will identify his policies

for his term of office. Presidents often reflect on the problems before predicting or promising

a brighter future. It is used to create a narrative for their presidency but it can also be seen as

an opportunity to encourage co-operation after the electoral contest. Katharine Q. Seelye

stated in an article in the New York Times that “many inaugural speeches follow a somewhat

classic formula of laying out the challenges before the nation and calling on basic American

ideals to meet them. But historians have high expectations for Mr. Obama, who, they say, is

especially adept at framing the moment and reaching for a larger context.”

2.2 Conventions of this discourse

The speech can vary significantly in length from nearly 8,000 words by William Henry

Harrison to approximately 1,250 by Jimmy Carter but most follow the same pattern. They

will thank the previous presidents for their service to the country and then show their

gratitude for the “honor” of being elected. There is often a short reminder of the history of the

office of president and/or “the founding fathers”. The main part of the speech will present

what will be the main focus of their term of office before ending with a call on God to bless

America. The main body will often present the crisis or problems faced at the start of the
presidency and then set the goals or aims of the presidency. If it is the second term of the

president then the problems will be tempered with the achievements of the previous term.

They will often include a quote from the bible and a quote from a historical figure, often one

of the founding fathers. A general narrative and several shorter narratives are used within the

speech. The general narrative is one which is projected as being the correct path forward for

America and its people. The shorter narratives will often be based on chapters from American

history referred to as “the Grand American Narrative” (Horváth n.d.) The choice of these

chapters and how they are presented is highly selective, and will differ depending on the

president and the general narrative of the speech.

2.3 Scope and scale of the survey

In this survey I will analyse the first inaugural speech of Barack Obama and compare his

speech to the speeches of other presidents. It is not within the scope of this study to include

all the inaugural speeches or to analyse them to the same degree as I have for Barack

Obama’s speech.

3. Methodology

3.1 Description of Critical Discourse Analysis

Fairclough (cited in Sheyhol n.d.) defines Critical discourse analysis as “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.” Van Dijk (2001) describes it as follows
“Critical discourse analysis (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.” These two descriptions describe

the process through which the speech acts or discourses of a person or group can be analysed

to show how their discourse can reveal hidden struggles over power, and how that power can

be enacted, reproduced or resisted. For this CDA I will analyse the following: word

frequency, lexis and phrases and longer sections of text.

3.2 The speech as a speech act

Keith Allen (2012) made the following points about speech acts:

 A speech act is quintessentially pragmatic because it is created when Speaker makes

an utterance U to Hearer in context C and must be interpreted as an aspect of social

interaction.

It is important to remember that any speech act will have two participants and that the

speaker wants the hearer to listen.

 With very few exceptions, the purpose of speaking or writing is to cause an effect on

the audience.

In political speech acts the “effect” should a persuasive one.

 In real life, we do not use isolated utterances: an utterance functions as part of a

larger intention or plan. In most interactions, the interlocutors each have an agenda;

and to carry out the plan, the illocutions within a discourse are ordered with respect

to one another.

Political speeches are very carefully written and may be the work of several writers other

than the speaker. Both speaker and hearer will have a viewpoint based on their political

beliefs.
  The Speaker tailors the utterance to suit the Hearer, taking into account the presumed

common ground and what s/he knows or guesses about Hearer's ability to understand

the message s/he wants to convey.

In most political speech acts there is a specific audience that is targeted by the speaker, and

the speech act will take into account the presumed common ground and will try to develop

that further. Due to the specific nature and the importance of this particular speech, the

speaker will assume that there is a wider audience beyond those he is addressing.

 Although the schemata offers a rational model for Hearer's understanding of the

utterance, it is misleading because it assumes that each step is completed before the

next is begun. This cannot be true because in reality we interpret parts of utterances

as they are presented to us.

Schema theory is a useful model as there is a shared cultural, historical and social schema

that is used by the speaker to create a common understanding of an ideology. The speaker

will utilise the schemata of the hearer. By using shorter utterances, the speaker allows the

hearer to form a coherent understanding. The short utterances are complete in themselves but

also build towards an overall conclusion.

3.3 Word frequency analysis

One of the methods I have used to analyse the discourse is to look at the use of ten personal

pronouns. I have concentrated on pronouns that include or exclude the audience and pronouns

that indicate an outside group that may or may not have a detrimental effect on the aims or

objectives of the president or the inside group as a whole. I have included possessive

pronouns to analyse how the speech promotes ownership or certain ideologies. An analysis of

the number of times Barack Obama uses a particular pronoun in a particular speech will not

be significant without a comparison to other speeches of the same type, consequently, I will

compare Obama’s speech to those of the preceding four presidents. Due to the varying
amount of words in these speeches I will compare their use of pronouns as a percentage of

the total number of words used. The pronouns analysed are:

1. I 6. Them

2. We 7. Our

3. You 8. My

4. Us 9. Their

5. They 10. Your

3.4 Lexis and phrase analysis

I will analyse of the choice of individual words or phrases that show inclusiveness, ideology

or intention. By analysing the choice of descriptive adjectives I will determine how this

choice creates a sense of inclusion or a “common sense” viewpoint of an ideology or an

intention. The construction of “common sense” is when “a particular perception of the world

comes to be accepted as simply ‘the way things are’; that is, it becomes naturalised.”

(Fairclough cited in Talbot, Atkinson and Atkinson 2003:85) Common sense constructs use

social representations that are concerned with “the contents of everyday thinking and the

stock of ideas that give coherence to our religious beliefs, political ideas and the connections

we create as spontaneously as we breathe.” (Moscovici cited in Höijer 2011)

3.5 Section or paragraph analysis

In this part, the structure and content of a section or paragraph will be examined for hidden

ideologies and meaning. Quotations will be examined for purpose and meaning within the

overall content. The article will examine the short narratives that tell a story beyond the

words used. By analysing the content of the short narrative lists or sentences, it will ascertain
which historical events are included into the overall narrative Obama is projecting through

his speech and how they reveal his ideology.

3.6 Process of production and interpretation

Fairclough (2001:20) points out that a text is a product of the process of producing the text,

and the meaning is a product of the process of interpretation of the text. He says that both

processes involve interplay between the properties of the text and the knowledge of the

producer and interpreter. These processes are also affected by the social conditions during the

period of time when these processes take place. I have attempted to view the discourse in the

context of the social conditions during the period of production. An inaugural speech is

intended for the global audience as well as the domestic one, but the social conditions during

production will be those at the time of the speech. The social conditions during the analysis

and therefore the interpretation are different; consequently my interpretation may differ from

other analysts.

4. Literature review

Political discourse analysis is a major area of research and discussion in linguistics, and the

discourse of American politics is a popular area of discussion, particularly the discourse of

Barack Obama. I have found a number of articles on political discourse analysis and several

on the speeches of Barack Obama. I have found an article that analyses the same speech as I

have, and I will use a number of the conclusions from this article to compare and contrast

with my own conclusions. The article, Critical Discourse Analysis of Obama's Political

Discourse by Juraj Horváth, concentrates more on longer sections of text and interprets these

sections for their ideologies. He does include a brief word frequency analysis, but does not

concentrate on pronouns as I have.

5. Findings and discussion

 5.1 Word frequency analysis

“The speech consists of 2403 words, the pronoun “we” being the absolute champion of this

count, with its absolute occurrences being reaching 62, which can be attributed to an

inclusiveness of Obama.” (Horváth n.d.)

The frequency with which the speaker uses a particular word can show how that person sees

their place within the world or at least that was my understanding when I began my analysis.

To give a more accurate indication of the frequency of a particular word within a speech it is

important to account for the total number of words in the speech. Any particular word is

likely to occur fewer times in a shorter speech. To make the comparison more accurate I

converted each word to a percentage of the total number of words spoken in the speech. I

then plotted these percentages on a graph (see Figure 1) and found that the lines on the graph

followed almost the same path for each of the speeches I analysed. To confirm my

hypothesis, I included another speech by Barack Obama and found that it too followed a

similar pattern. However, the frequency with which Obama uses any particular pronoun in his

speech is only part of the picture. How he uses them and to whom he is referring are also part

of the narrative that should be analysed. Fairclough (2001:106) describes two relational

values for pronouns: ‘linguistically inclusive’ we, which includes the speaker and audience,

and the ‘linguistically exclusive’ we, which includes the speaker and others but not the

audience. In paragraphs 16 and 18 he uses the ‘inclusive’ we to mean the government rather

than the whole population. These two paragraphs are the only ones in which he is clearly

using the ‘exclusive’ we to indicate the government and these eleven times are approximately

17% of the total occurrences. The other occurrences are clearly intended to indicate the

people in an inclusive manner. In his second inaugural speech, George W. Bush does not

indicate who he is referring to as clearly, but I estimate that there are eighteen occurrences

that could indicate either the government or the people, and a further eleven occasions that

clearly indicate the government. These represent 38% and 23% of the total occurrences and
more than 60% in total. The number of times Bush says “we” in a manner that can only be

interpreted as indicating the people is less than 40% opposed to Obama’s 83%. The greater

use of the morphemes “you” and “us” as well as “we” and the less frequent use of “I” (see

Figure 2) would indicate that Obama’s speech is intended to appear more intimate as he

speaks to the audience as though they were a single individual in a conversational style. This

has been noted by Fairclough (cited in Talbot, Atkinson and Atkinson 2003:85) “conversation

discourses, at one time confined to the private domain, have increasingly been appropriated

for use in the public sphere.”

Figure 1
Figure 2

To indicate a global perspective in his discourse Obama uses the morpheme “nation” twelve

times and on five occurrences it is preceded by “our” to indicate a shared ownership. As part

of this global perspective he often links the “common sense” goals of America with those of

the rest of the world, or portrays them as being common to all nations. He also argues that the

achievement of many of these goals is dependent on the outside world; by doing so argues for

co-operation with other nations instead of an “America first” solution. In paragraph 25 he

argues that “we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor

can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect.” This is a far more

conciliatory stance than other presidents and invites not only the audience in America to

change, but also for America to lead the other affluent nations in helping the poor nations of

the world.

5.2 Lexis and phrase analysis

Barack Obama’s election campaign was based on a call for change. As an indication of his

intention to bring about that change he uses the morpheme “new” eleven times and speaks of

a “new era”, twice, and a “new age”, twice. To show the immediacy of those changes, he uses

the morpheme “now” six times and “today” six times and “this day” a further three times. To
demonstrate the absolute necessity for these changes he uses the imperative “must” eight

times during his speech. These lexical choices demonstrate his intention to force through

changes as quickly as possible. Barack Obama’s change in ideology can be seen in paragraph

15 when he implies that previous administrations have protected “narrow interests” and put

off “unpleasant decisions”. He demonstrates his desire for change by saying “that time has

surely passed” and that we must “begin again”.

Barack Obama uses very little alliteration or assonance, which would be more frequent in

other forms of discourse, but he does use repetition of words or phrases. In paragraphs 6, 7

and 8 he begins the sentence with “Today” in paragraph 6 and then “On this day” in 7 and 8.

All three of paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 begin with “for us”. In paragraph 15, three sentences

begin with “our” and a fourth begins with “but our”. In paragraph 16, the phrase “we will” is

uttered six times. These mainly occur at the beginning of the sentence but the last two

sentences are very short and repeat the same structure and length. “All this we can do. All this

we will do.” This use of repetition helps to give his speech rhythm or meter. This almost

musical quality makes his speeches more comfortable for the audience to listen to. By

stressing some of these repeated words and phrases he is able to focus attention on those

ideologies he wants to emphasize.

5.3 Section or paragraph analysis

He acknowledges that others have a different ideology and question his plans by saying

“Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions”, but he references history to

give declarative rebuttal of their doubts, “For they have forgotten what this country has

already done.” By using a historical reference, he creates a common sense construct that does

not allow negotiation without first denying a shared constructed narrative of the achievements

of the nation. This shared constructed narrative can be seen as a social representation that
allows Obama “to establish an order which will enable individuals to orientate themselves”.

(Moscovici cited in Höijer 2011) Moscovici describes a social representation as “a system of

values, ideas and practices [that] enable communication to take place among members of a

community by providing them with a code for social exchange”

In paragraph 20 he refutes the ideology of Bush by claiming his choice was not only wrong

but the idea that a choice was needed was wrong: “we reject as false the choice between our

safety and our ideals”. He again uses a historical reference to create a common sense

construct, using a particular example instead of the earlier, more general one in paragraph 17.

The founding fathers are a powerful symbol in American culture, therefore invoking their

spirit is a popular ploy in political speeches. The constitution holds a particularly central role

in the legal system as well as the psyche of America: by referencing the drafting of the

constitution as an argument against one of the policies of the Bush presidency (the use of

waterboarding at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, widely reported in news media) he indicates

that he has not only the moral, but also the legal, force of the constitution behind his common

sense construct. “Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine,

drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the

blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for

expediency’s sake.”

Another ideological difference can be seen in paragraph 18, where the role and scale of the

government in determining social policy is challenged. “The question we ask today is not

whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works.” Obama uses a

grammatical metaphor which is “an incongruent realization of meanings involving

transference of grammatical units from one domain to another.” (Zhang 2004) He makes a

declarative statement in the interrogative form, and then uses the two possible outcomes to

this question to state his policy on government reform.

One of the speech’s traditions is to include a biblical quotation this is often used to show how

the president’s religious beliefs are part of his moral code. American politics is supposedly

secular but has been exclusively Christian and predominately white Protestant. Obama does

include a biblical quote, but the quote and the position of the quote would suggest a different

purpose. Obama uses Christian ideology less frequently to form his “common sense”

constructs. Horváth claims that this quote, “But, in the words of Scripture, the time has come

to set aside childish things.” is aimed at the Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and non-believing

Americans. The quote is from the New Testament, 1 Corinthians 13:11, dealing with St.

Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth. The passage starts with “When I was a child, I talked

like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put

childish ways behind me.” And ends with “And now these three remain: faith, hope and love.

But the greatest of these is love.” This would suggest that he sees himself as growing into a

man by becoming president, and he is putting aside his childish prejudices and embracing the

world. On examining the preceding paragraph it is possible that another purpose can be

suggested: “On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false

promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our

politics.” I believe that at least part of Obama’s intention is to seek more co-operation from

the Republicans in the other branches of the American legislature. The “recriminations and

worn-out dogmas” is a reference to the ideologies that separate the two main parties and that

had been preventing progress on a number of issues. It may also be a reference to the

religious dogmas that can be divisive as regards certain policies. Saying that they are “worn-

out” could be seen as seeking greater consensus on those policies.

Another tradition is to use a quote from a historical figure, and Obama uses a quote from

George Washington. “Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when

nothing but hope and virtue could survive … that the city and the country, alarmed at one

common danger, came forth to meet … it.” This is used towards the end (paragraph 33) and

was used by Washington to rally the people at a time of difficulty and this is how Obama uses
it. It can also be seen as a summary of the main narrative of his speech, a crisis that was

overcome through the people coming together and defeating a common danger.

The grand American narrative is a normal part of this type of discourse, and is given as a

series of short narratives that can be as short as a sentence or a few words. Short narratives or

stories were used in all the speeches I have analysed, and Obama’s speech contains a number

of these including:

The continuation of the office of president: he states the number of presidents and the

different conditions that existed when they came to office. He reminds the audience that

America has continued not because of the leadership of the president, but because of “We the

People”. (Paragraph 2)

Sacrifice of others: he lists the sacrifices of previous generations that have created the nation.

This includes those who created the nation by emigrating to America, those who helped to

create its wealth through hard work and those who have protected it through wars.

(Paragraphs 11, 12, 13)

Science as a tool for good: he says that “we will” use science to lay a foundation for growth

and that technology’s wonders can improve health care, harness the sun and wind for energy

needs and transform education. (Paragraph 16)

America as a leader not a dictator: he uses non-specific examples of America being part of

alliances to confront threats from other nations. (Paragraph 21)

Continuous improvement in the integration of society: he acknowledges that America is a

multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-faith country and that despite problems it has been able

to integrate these different factions into society. (Paragraph 23)

Racial discrimination is unacceptable: he links civil war and segregation together in the same

sentence and describes them as bitter swill and a dark chapter. (Paragraph 23)
The triumph of civil liberties: he uses his own story as a metaphor for the changes in the level

of equality in American society. He presents this as a victory and thus as something to be

valued. (Paragraph 31)

6. Conclusion

The uses of pronouns in political speeches follow approximately the same pattern but it is

what these pronouns are intended to convey in terms of whom or what is included in the

group that demonstrates the inclusivity of the president. Barack Obama is more inclusive and

employs a more intimate style of discourse. He includes the audience in his intentions and

uses social representations to form common sense constructs for many of his policies. He

clearly has different ideology to George W Bush and many of his predecessors and this can

be seen in his short narratives. Assimilating other cultures and working with others to the

advantage of all, irrespective of race, wealth, gender, political or religious belief is what

Obama believes to be the way forward for America as well as a defining part of its’ history.

He places science before religious dogma while accepting the religious beliefs of others and

asks for cooperation on policies that are divisive on religious grounds. Horváth quotes

Fairclough saying that “meanings are produced through interpretations”, and although I have

interpreted some aspects of the speech differently it is nevertheless true that all speech acts

will be interpreted differently by each person.

Notes

1. I used George W. Bush’s second inaugural speech as a statistical comparison to

Barack Obama’s as it was of a similar length and delivered at a similar point in
American history.
2. All inaugural speeches are available online at
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/inaugurals.php
3. I used an interactive New York Times article on the inaugural speeches from 1789 to
the present for background information. This information was used to confirm ideas
about the circumstances behind some of the speeches although no additional
information was used as part of the essay. The article is available online at
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/01/17/washington/20090117_ADDRESSES
.html
 4. References

Allen, K., (2012) Meaning and Speech Acts. [PDF] Available at:
http://arts.monash.edu.au/linguistics/staff/kallan-speech-acts.php [Accessed 16/05/2012]

Chilton, P., (2003) Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice, Abingdon, Routledge.

Fairclough, N., (2001) Language and Power. Harlow, Pearson Education Limited

Höijer, B., (2011) Social Representations Theory A New Theory for Media Research
Nordicom Review vol32 issuse2, pp. 3-16 [PDF] available at:
www.nordicom.gu.se/common/publ_pdf/345_hoijer.pdf [accessed 15/05/2012]

Horváth, J., (n.d.) Critical Discourse Analysis of Obama's Political Discourse, [PDF]
Available online at www.pulib.sk/elpub2/FF/Ferencik2/pdf_doc/6.pdf [Accessed
27/04/2012]

Leifeld, P., (2010) Political Discourse Networks – The missing link in the study of policy-
oriented discourse. [PDF] Available at:
www.philipleifeld.de/cms/upload/Downloads/leifeld_ecpr_paper.pdf [Accessed 27/04/2012]

Seelye, K. Q., (2009) The Past as a Guide for Obama’s Address. New York Times, [online] 17
January Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/us/politics/18speech.htm

Sheyhol, J., (n.d.) Critical Discourse Analysis [PDF] available at:

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.carleton.ca%2F
%7Ejsheyhol%2Fcda.htm&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F
%2Fhttp-server.carleton.ca%2F~jsheyhol%2Farticles%2Fwhat%2520is
%2520CDA.pdf&ei=DwetT5LAIs348QOXuqi_Cg&usg=AFQjCNEBbakNZai1i496smhBT
Qm4-theBg [Accessed 25/04/2012]

Talbot, M., Atkinson, K., Atkinson, D., (2003) Language and Power in the Modern World.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Van Dijk, T. A., (2001) Critical Discourse Analysis [PDF] Available at:
www.discourses.org/OldArticles/Critical/discourse/analysis.pdf [Accessed 27/04/2012]

Zhang, Z. X., (2004) A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM in Political Debates [PPT]

Available at: www.celea.org.cn/2007/attachment/5-14-2.ppt [Accessed 29/04/2012]
Appendixes
Word frequency analysis of pronouns in inaugural speeches
George George Bill Bill Ronald Ronald
Barack George H Jimmy
word W Bush W Bush Clinton Clinton Reagan Reagan
Obama Bush Carter
2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st
I 3 9 11 2 7 26 6 12 23

We 62 37 47 42 51 60 43 69 57

Us 23 3 11 27 14 13 8 27 25

You 14 12 5 0 7 16 4 7 13

They 17 3 4 10 3 7 1 6 12

Them 4 2 2 6 2 3 0 2 4

Our 67 50 50 63 57 44 35 55 57

My 2 2 3 6 7 13 8 8 5

Your 3 0 3 0 0 5 3 1 8

Their 10 10 4 4 4 3 3 7 7
Total no
2428 2079 1632 2190 1625 2319 1252 2582 2471
of words

Word frequency expressed as percentages of total number of words used

George George Bill Bill Ronald Ronald

Barack George H Jimmy
word W Bush W Bush Clinton Clinton Reagan Reagan
Obama Bush Carter
2nd 1st 2nd 1st 2nd 1st
I 0.123 0.428 0.674 0.091 0.431 1.121 0.479 0.464 0.931

We 2.551 1.758 2.879 1.918 3.138 2.567 3.434 2.672 2.307

Us 0.947 0.143 0.674 1.233 0.861 0.561 0.639 1.045 1.012

You 0.576 0.570 0.366 0 0.431 0.689 0.319 0.271 0.526

They 0.699 0.143 0.245 0.456 0.185 0.302 0.079 0.232 0.485

Them 0.165 0.095 0.122 0.274 0.123 0.129 0 0.077 0.162

Our 2.757 2.376 3.064 2.877 3.508 1.897 2.795 2.131 2.307

My 0.082 0.095 0.184 0.274 0.431 0.561 0.639 0.309 0,202

Your 0.123 0 0.184 0 0 0.216 0.239 0.038 0.323

Their 0.412 0.475 0.245 0.183 0.246 0.129 0.239 0.271 0.283
Total no
2428 2079 1632 2190 1625 2319 1252 2582 2471
of words

Word frequency comparison between Obama and Bush with number of occurrences
and percentage of the total number of words used

word Barack Obama 1st percentage George W Bush 2nd percentage

 I 3 0.123 9 0.428

We 62 2.551 37 1.758

Us 23 0.947 3 0.143

You 14 0.576 12 0.57

They 17 0.699 3 0.143

Them 4 0.165 2 0.095

Our 67 2.757 50 2.376

My 2 0.082 2 0.095

Your 3 0.123 0 0

Their 10 0.412 10 0.475