Critical Discourse A nalysis of COVID-19 P olitical Discourse: Through a Comparison of Speeches by Donald Trump and Andrew Cuomo

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 139-165
Author(s):  
Park Seohee
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Donald Trump

scholarly journals THE CRITIQUES AND IDEOLOGIES SHARED IN THE INAUGURATION SPEECH OF DONALD TRUMP (A STUDY OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Imron Hizbullah ◽  
Muhammad Taufiq Al Makmun
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Discursive Practice ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Three Dimensional Model ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Aspect ◽  
Political Condition

<em>This paper investigates the Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in studying the inauguration speech of Donald Trump at the Capitol Hill, Washington DC on January 20, 2017. The objective of the study is to uncover the hidden messages regarding ideologies shared and critiques appointed to Obama’s presidency. The paper uses the theory of CDA by Norman Fairclough by focusing on the three aspects of research which are (1) micro or linguistic analysis, (2) Mezzo or discursive analysis, and (3) macro or contextual analysis. The three dimensional model of CDA is aimed to uncover the ideologies shared and critiques appointed to based on linguistic features, socio-political aspect, and discursive practice. The American Dream is represented in seven issues risen which are (1) US economic condition during Obama’s presidency, (2) US political condition during Obama’s presidency, (3) US social condition during Obama’s presidency, (4) The concept of making America great again, (5) Anti-radical Muslim immigrants, (6) America First, and (7) Nationalism. The result of the study reveals that the speech brought some ideologies or thoughts shared to the audiences and might change the people’s perception on Obama’s two periods of presidency who is considered as failure.</em>

scholarly journals Trump, memes and the Alt-right: Emotive and affective criticism and praise

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 789-809
Author(s):  
Lyndon C.S. Way
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
New Politics ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Authority Figures ◽  
Critical Discourse Studies ◽  
Discourse Studies ◽  
Political Decisions ◽  
The Ideal

Internet memes are the most pervasive and malleable form of digital popular culture (Wiggins 2019: vii). They are a way a society expresses and thinks of itself (Denisova 2019: 2) used for the purpose of satire, parody, critique to posit an argument (Wiggins 2019, see also Ponton 2021, this issue). The acts of viewing, creating, sharing and commenting on memes that criticise or troll authority figures have become central to our political processes becom[ing] one of the most important forms of political participation and activism today (Merrin 2019: 201). However, memes do not communicate to us in logical arguments, but emotionally and affectively through short quips and images that entertain. Memes are part of a new politics of affectivity, identification, emotion and humour (Merrin 2019: 222). In this paper, we examine not only what politics memes communicate to us, but how this is done. We analyse memes, some in mainstream social media circulation, that praise and criticise the authoritarian tendencies of former US President Donald Trump, taken from 4Chan, a home of many alt-right ideas. Through a Multimodal Critical Discourse Studies approach, we demonstrate how images and lexical choices in memes do not communicate to us in logical, well-structured arguments, but lean on affective and emotional discourses of racism, nationalism and power. As such, though memes have the potential to emotionally engage with their intended audiences, this is done at the expense of communicating nuanced and detailed information on political players and issues. This works against the ideal of a public sphere where debate and discussion inform political decisions in a population, essential pillars of a democratic society (Habermas 1991).

scholarly journals THE ANALYSIS OF IDEOLOGIES IN DONALD TRUMP’S POLITICAL SPEECHES ON NATIONAL SECURITY : A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rize Rahmi Rahmi
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
National Security ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Cultural Practice ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Discursive Practice ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Ideological Discourse ◽  
Political Speeches ◽  
Ideological Structure

Although there were many studies of Political Discourse had been done in CDA approach, but still few studies concern withrelation of ideology and language in the discourse. This study aims to, 1) find the ideological discourse structureswhich are used to enhance ideology in political speeches delivered by Donald Trump and 2) reveal the ideologies found in the speeches of Donald Trump about National Security. The analysis in this study is based on Fairclough’s(1992 )framework of Critical Discourse Analysis which consists of three levels of analysis; textual, discursive practice and socio-cultural practice. Then, for textual analysis, the writer used one analytical tool that is the theory of Ideological Discourse Structure of the discourse by Van Dijk (2000). The results showed that Donald Trump used language tactfully to achieve his goal on politics. The conclusion obtained is that Donald Trump enhances fascist ideology in his speeches which can be seen through the ideological structure of discourse which is found in his political speech on National Security.

scholarly journals Pronouns and Metaphors in Obama’s and Trump’s Inaugural Speeches: A Comparative Analysis through Critical Discourse Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-147
Author(s):  
Ogba ThankGod Igiri ◽  
Jacinta Onyekachi Awa ◽  
Martin Chukwuemeka Ogayi ◽  
Raphel I. Ngwoke
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Conceptual Metaphor Theory ◽  
President Obama ◽  
Political Messages ◽  
Linguistic Resources ◽  
Political Ideologies ◽  
American Interest ◽  
Metaphor Theory

A political speech is usually characterized by the use of different linguistic techniques and strategies that allow politicians to convey their political messages and persuade people of their ideologies and thoughts. The American presidential inaugural address is therefore a form of political discourse that imbues the characteristics of both written and oral discourse. This study consequently looked at how Presidents Barrack Obama and Donald Trump of America have used Linguistic resources (Pronouns and metaphors) to construct individual and collective ideologies and persuade America to accept their political ideologies. This exploration was carried out within the frameworks of Lakoff and Johnson Conceptual Metaphor Theory, Charter is – Black’s Critical Metaphor Theory and the content method of data analysis. The corpus was drawn from the respective official websites of Barrack Obama and Donald Trump. It was discovered that their speeches were characterized by skilful choice of rhetorical strategies to make their speeches effective in order to convince the electorates. President Obama used more of inclusive pronouns and metaphors to support and advocate for multilateralism and internationalism while Donald Trump used pronouns and metaphors that distanced him from the corrupt government that led to unemployment in America while supporting and advocating a strong American interest.

Interviewing for accountability

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 390-413
Author(s):  
Damian J. Rivers ◽  
Andrew S. Ross
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
National Conference ◽  
Discursive Strategy ◽  
Interview Performance ◽  
Discourse Historical Approach

Abstract During the National Policy Institute’s national conference in Washington D.C. on Saturday November 19th, 2016, Richard Spencer delivered a speech in praise of the election victory of President Donald Trump. Shortly after the conference, Spencer was an invited guest on the News One Now programme in which he participated in a 32-minute interview with black journalist, host and managing editor Roland Martin. Drawing attention to the ideological aspects of the Martin/Spencer interview performance, we adopt the analytical lens of the Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA) to Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Musolff 2014; Reisigl and Wodak 2009; Wodak 2001, 2009) to explore argumentation as a discursive strategy through topoi or argumentative warrants (Reisigl and Wodak 2009; Wodak 2009, 2011, 2015; Wodak and Boukala 2015).

The Discourse of Turkish Press on 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections and the Inauguration of Donald Trump

2019 ◽  
pp. 161-187
Author(s):  
Rengim Sine Nazli ◽  
Kemal Avci
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
News Reports ◽  
Study Results ◽  
The World ◽  
The Media ◽  
The U.S

Academic studies that form the basis of critical paradigm are collected around the theme of “ideological mediation of texts in the media.” These studies focus on the news reports as the most influential products of the media. The aforementioned studies emphasize that objectivity, which is the leading notion in traditional journalism, is shaped in favor of the involved parties, and therefore examine the discourse of the news with the aim of revealing these aspects by utilizing a number of methods. This study analyzed how the week following the U.S. Presidential election held on November 8, 2016 and won by Donald Trump; and the week after Trump's inauguration and taking of office after President Barack Obama on January 20, 2017 were portrayed in Turkish newspapers holding different ideological stances. The study utilized van Dijk's Critical Discourse Analysis Method. The front pages of newspapers with different ideological stances such as Sözcü, Sabah and Hürriyet newspapers were taken as the samples of the study. The study results pointed that newspapers shaped their news in line with their ideological expectations as was the case in Sabah newspaper sample. It was also observed that Trump was reported as the boss of the world, the richest US president, racist, Islamophobic and nationalist in other two newspapers included in the study.

scholarly journals Trump and Muslims: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Islamophobic Rhetoric in Donald Trump’s Selected Tweets

SAGE Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 215824402110041
Author(s):  
Mohsin Hassan Khan ◽  
Farwa Qazalbash ◽  
Hamedi Mohd Adnan ◽  
Lalu Nurul Yaqin ◽  
Rashid Ali Khuhro
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
The United States ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Political Polarization ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Sphere

The emergence of Donald Trump as an anti-Muslim-Islam presidential candidate and victory over Hillary Clinton is an issue of debate and division in the United States’ political sphere. Many commentators and political pundits criticize Trump for his disparaging rhetoric on Twitter and present him as an example of how Twitter can be an effective tool for the construction and extension of political polarization. The current study analyzes the selected tweets by Donald Trump posted on Twitter to unmask how he uses language to construct Islamophobic discourse structures and attempts to form his ideological structures along with. The researchers hypothesize that Islamophobia is a marked feature of Trump’s political career realized by specific rhetorical and discursive devices. Therefore, the study purposively takes 40 most controversial tweets of Donald Trump against Islam and Muslims and carried out a critical discourse analysis with the help of macro-strategies of the discourse given by Wodak and Meyer and van Dijk’s referential strategies of political discourse. The findings reveal that Trump uses language rhetorically to exclude people of different ethnic identities, especially Muslims, through demagogic language to create a difference of “us” vs. “them” and making in this way “America Great Again”.

scholarly journals ARGUMENTATIVE STATEMENTS IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES OF THE U.S: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-174
Author(s):  
Rohmani Nur Indah ◽  
Andini Khoirunnisa
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Claim Data ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Self Presentation ◽  
Mind Control ◽  
Toulmin’S Model

This study investigates the argumentative statements of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the debates. By employing two theories, Van Dijk's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Toulmin's model of argument, it aims to expose how various ideologies are expressed in the structure of arguments. It uses Toulmin (2003) model of argument to analyze the structures of argumentation during the debates constituting six elements (i.e. claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal). While Van Dijk’s framework covering three levels of discourse structure (the meaning, the argumentation and the rhetoric) is used to analyze the reproduction of racism, manipulation, and Islamophobia. The result indicates the discourse of the candidates contributes the reproduction of manipulation by focusing on the positive self-presentation of “us” (civilized) and negative other-presentationof “them” (terrorists) as a mind control of the audience.

scholarly journals Strategies of Legitimisation and Delegitimisation in Selected American Presidential Speeches

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (40) ◽  
pp. 11-29
Author(s):  
Zorica Trajkova ◽  
Silvana Neshkovska
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Pragmatic Aspect ◽  
Language Strategies ◽  
The Right ◽  
Pragmatic Strategies ◽  
Insight Into

[full article and abstract in English] Politicians invest a lot of time and effort to win elections and present themselves in the best possible manner. They use language strategies to present and legitimise themselves as the right choice. And if they are the right choice, then their opponent is obviously not, so while they are trying to acclaim themselves and their political party, they use strategies to delegitimise and attack their opponents and the policy they represent. This paper aims to conduct a critical discourse analysis of the speeches of the two main political opponents in the last elections in the USA, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. The research gives an insight into the manipulative function of language and covers two aspects: the lexical-semantic and pragmatic aspect and is based on the supposition that the strategies politicians use while talking about themselves and describing their opponents differ. As expected, they use more positive terminology to talk about themselves and their policies, and negative terminology to criticise the opponent’s policy. They also employ different pragmatic strategies, such as intensifiers and inclusive pronouns, to involve the audience into the discourse and convince them in their arguments. Finally, although carried out on a relatively small corpus, the analysis gives an insight into the language techniques employed by politicians to legitimise themselves and delegitimise their opponent and thus win the elections.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document