Words that do things: Rhetorical Strategies and speech-acts pragmatics in Arafat (1974) and Mandela (1964)

Abstract

This paper investigates how rhetorical devices and speech-act pragmatics combine to produce political effects in two emblematic freedom-fighter speeches: Yasser Arafat’s 13 November 1974 address to the United Nations General Assembly and Nelson Mandela’s 20 April 1964 Statement from the Dock (Rivonia Trial). Using a mixed-methods protocol that pairs fine-grained close reading with a reproducible sentence-level annotation scheme, we coded rhetorical devices (metaphor, anaphora, antithesis, narrative, ethos, etc.), primary illocutionary force (Searle’s taxonomy), perlocutionary intent, and a binary felicity indicator for each sentence (Arafat N ≈ 123; Mandela N = 62). Quantitative analyses include device–act contingency tables, χ² tests with Cramér’s V (χ² = 42.8, df = 16, p < .001; V = .38), bootstrap confidence intervals, and robustness checks after collapsing rare categories; inter-coder reliability exceeded κ = .90 for primary layers after codebook refinement. Results show systematic device→act mappings: Arafat’s rhetoric clusters metaphor and antithesis with declaratives and assertives, facilitating institutional uptake in a diplomatic forum; Mandela’s rhetoric clusters anaphora, narrative, and pathos with commissives and assertives, producing moral authority in a courtroom setting. We introduce the concept of rhetorical felicity scaffolds—formal devices that help satisfy illocutionary felicity conditions—and offer a comparative model in which institutional venue shapes device→act repertoires and distinct perlocutionary payoffs. The study contributes a transparent, replicable method for linking rhetorical form to pragmatic force and advances theory on how oratory performs political legitimation.