A comparative interpersonal analysis of identity construction in Chinese and American leaders’ political speeches

Abstract

Although political discourse has been extensively examined from various perspectives, comparative studies of identity construction in political speeches by leaders from different countries remain relatively limited. Drawing on Halliday’s interpersonal metafunction within Systemic Functional Grammar, this study investigates how Chinese and American leaders construct political identities through interpersonal resources in the mood and modality systems. The analysis is based on the English version of China’s Government Work Report (GWR) and the United States’ State of the Union Address (SUA), aiming to identify similarities and differences in identity construction and to explore the underlying motivations behind these discursive choices. The findings reveal that declarative clauses are the most frequently employed mood resource in both GWR and SUA, followed by imperative and interrogative clauses. In terms of personal pronoun use, the Chinese leader shows a clear preference for the first-person plural pronouns we and us, whereas the American leader more frequently employs the first-person singular pronouns I and me, as well as the second-person pronoun you. Regarding modality, GWR predominantly adopts median-value modal operators, while SUA favors high-value modal operators. Moreover, SUA demonstrates greater diversity in both clause types and modal operators than GWR. These linguistic choices contribute to the construction of distinct political identities. In GWR, the Chinese leader is represented as a determined executor, authoritative guide, and responsible statesman who emphasizes collective wisdom and shared efforts in serving the people and the nation. In contrast, SUA portrays the American leader as a strategic politician, persuasive speaker, and inspiring guide who highlights personal charisma and capacity to achieve his political ideals and engage diverse stakeholders. The differences in identity construction can be largely attributed to the distinct political systems and ideological orientations of the two countries.