Donald Trump’s Denial Speeches of the 2020 United States Presidential Election’s Results: A Critical Discourse Analysis Perspective

Mohammad Saedeen, Naser N. AlBzour

Abstract


The primary concern of the present study is to provide a critical discourse analysis of Donald Trump’s denial speeches of the 2020 United States presidential election’s results. Using Van Dijk’s framework of critical discourse analysis, this study investigates the linguistic features in five speeches of Donald Trump delivered after announcing the results of the US presidential election. The data analysis is conducted focusing on the use of 25 discursive devices presented by Van Dijk (2006), which represent the micro-level of text analysis to reveal the ideologies of positive self-representation and negative other-representation which represent the macro-level of text analysis. The findings of the study show that Trump made use of the majority of the discursive devices, with a special emphasis on using the following: lexicalization, evidentiality, example/illustration, number game, polarization, actor description, hyperbole, categorization, victimization, and authority. Furthermore, the analysis at the macro-level shows that Donald Trump used the ideologies of positive self-representation and negative other-representation, but he relied more on using negative other-representation. The findings also show that Trump used these discursive devices to justify his denial of the election results and gain the empathy of American people by showing a positive image of himself and his supporters while portraying others negatively by emphasizing their bad deeds during the election.

Keywords


Actor Description, Authority, Categorization, Critical Discourse Analysis, Discursive Devices, Evidentiality, Illustration, Hyperbole, Ideologies, Lexicalization, Number Game, Polarization, Victimization

Full Text:

PDF

References


Alhumaidi, M. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of Al-Ahram and Aljazeera’s online coverage of Egypt’s revolution, Doctoral dissertation. University of Florida.

Al-Saideen, Mohammad A. (2021). Donald Trump’s Denial Speeches of the 2020 United States Presidential Election’s Results: A Critical Discourse Analysis Perspective. (Unpublished MA Thesis, AABU), Mafraq: AlAlBayt University.

Bayram, F. (2010). Ideology and political discourse: a critical discourse analysis of erdogan’s political speech. Annual Review of Education, Communication and Language Sciences, Vol.7, 23-40.

Bello, U. (2013). “If I could make It, you too can make it!” Personal pronouns in political discourse: a CDA of President Jonathan’s presidential declaration speech. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(6), 84-96.

Chilton, P. A. (2004). Analyzing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.

Coffin, C. (2001). ‘Theoretical Approaches to Written Language—A TESOL Perspective.’ Burns, A. and Coffin, C. (eds.) Analyzing English in a Global Context: A Reader. Oxon: Routledge.

Darweesh, A. D., & Muzhir, H. D. (2016). Representation of the Syrian crisis in the American political speeches: A critical discourse Analysis. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 3(1), 40-48.

Matić, D. (2012). Ideological Discourse Structure in Political Speeches. Komunikacija i kultura online, Godina III, broj 3, 54-78.

Post, M. D. (2009). Representations of Meaning Within Textual Personas: An Analysis of 2008 US Presidential Campaign Speeches. Master Thesis. University of Birmingham.

Rashidi, N., & Souzandehfar, M. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of the debates between Republicans and Democrats over the contribution of war in Iraq. JoLIE, 3, 54-81.

Rogers, R. (2004). An Introduction to Critical Discourse Analysis In Education. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers Mahwah, New Jersey.

Sardabi, N., Biria, R., & Azin, N. (2014). Rouhan’s UN speech: A change in ideology or strategy. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied Linguistics World (IJLLALW), 7(3), 84-97.

Shakoury, K. (2018). Critical Discourse Analysis of Iranian Presidents' addresses to the United Nations General Assembly (2007-2016), master thesis, University of Saskatchewan.

Van Dijk, T. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse and Society,4(2), 249-83.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1995). Discourse analysis as ideology analysis. In Christiina Schaffner and Anita L. Wenden (Eds.). Language and Peace. Dartmouth: Aldershot. (pp.17-33).

Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Political discourse and ideology. In Clara Ubaldina Lorda & Montserrat Ribas (Eds.), Anàlisi del discurs politic. Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Institut Universitari de Lingüística Aplicada (IULA), Barcelona, 207-225.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2003). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352-371). Oxford: Blackwell

Van Dijk, T. A. (2004). Ideology and Discourse. Pompeu Fabra, University, Barcelona. Retrieved from http://www.discourses.org/UnpublishedArticles/Ideology%20and%20discourse.pdf

Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Politics, ideology and discourse. In: Ruth Wodak, (Ed.), Elsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics. Volume on Politics and Language, 728-740.

Wodak R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis and the study of doctor-patient interaction. See Gunnarsson et al 1997, pp. 173–200

Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, England: Sage.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.13n.1.p.32

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2010-2022 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD.

Advances in Language and Literary Studies

You may require to add the 'aiac.org.au' domain to your e-mail 'safe list’ If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox'. Otherwise, you may check your 'Spam mail' or 'junk mail' folders.