Critical Discourse Analysis of Persuasive Appeals and Ideological Frameworks in Harris and Biden’s 2024 Campaign Rhetoric
محورهای موضوعی : Research in English Language PedagogySabaa Zaid Jawad Witwit 1 , Fatemeh Karimi 2 , Salih Mahdi Adday Al-Mamoori 3 , Sahar Najarzadegan 4
1 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
3 - Department of English Language, College of Education for Human Sciences, University of Babylon, Hilla, Iraq
4 - Department of English, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
کلید واژه: Alternative futures, critical discourse analysis, deictic space theory, framing theory, ideological frameworks, persuasive appeals, proximization theory,
چکیده مقاله :
Political campaign rhetoric is a crucial tool for shaping public perception, mobilizing support, and influencing electoral outcomes, especially in highly mediated and polarized contexts. This study examined the political campaign rhetoric of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign, highlighting its role in shaping public perception and influencing electoral outcomes in polarized contexts. By employing a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the research analyzed selected rally speeches and debate transcripts to identify persuasive strategies and ideological frameworks within their discourse. The methodology integrated CDA principles with Discourse Space Theory, Proximization Theory, Alternative Futures, and Framing Theory, enabling a thorough exploration of how the candidates positioned themselves and articulated their visions. The analysis deconstructed texts to identify key elements such as deictic centers, spatial and temporal positioning, and proximization strategies, while coding rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) and dominant ideological themes. The findings highlight a consistent use of persuasive structures that create an inclusive ‘Us’ narrative, appealing to shared American values, empathy, and collective identity. Temporal proximization strategies emphasize the urgency of future visions, focusing on themes such as democracy, social justice, equality, and national security. Claims are supported by factual evidence, expert endorsements, and relatable personal narratives, presenting a positive and achievable future in contrast to negative alternatives. These insights deepen the understanding of political persuasion and promote better media literacy and critical engagement with political discourse.
Political campaign rhetoric is a crucial tool for shaping public perception, mobilizing support, and influencing electoral outcomes, especially in highly mediated and polarized contexts. This study examined the political campaign rhetoric of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign, highlighting its role in shaping public perception and influencing electoral outcomes in polarized contexts. By employing a qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), the research analyzed selected rally speeches and debate transcripts to identify persuasive strategies and ideological frameworks within their discourse. The methodology integrated CDA principles with Discourse Space Theory, Proximization Theory, Alternative Futures, and Framing Theory, enabling a thorough exploration of how the candidates positioned themselves and articulated their visions. The analysis deconstructed texts to identify key elements such as deictic centers, spatial and temporal positioning, and proximization strategies, while coding rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos) and dominant ideological themes. The findings highlight a consistent use of persuasive structures that create an inclusive ‘Us’ narrative, appealing to shared American values, empathy, and collective identity. Temporal proximization strategies emphasize the urgency of future visions, focusing on themes such as democracy, social justice, equality, and national security. Claims are supported by factual evidence, expert endorsements, and relatable personal narratives, presenting a positive and achievable future in contrast to negative alternatives. These insights deepen the understanding of political persuasion and promote better media literacy and critical engagement with political discourse.
Al-Hindawi, F. H., Mohammad Al-Ameedee, H., & Al-Joboori, A. M. (2017). The use of rhetorical questions as a persuasive device in political discourse. International Journal of English Linguistics, 7(4), 133. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v7n4p133
Altheide, D. L. (2006). Terrorism and the politics of fear. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58(4), 707-731. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x
Benoit, W. L. (2014). Communication in political campaigns. Peter Lang Publishing.
Bil-Jaruzelska, A., & Monzer, C. (2022). All about feelings? Emotional appeals as drivers of user engagement with Facebook posts. Politics and Governance, 10(1), 172-184. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i1.4758
Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2005.00130.x
Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Journal of Pragmatics, 49(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.01.004
Cap, P. (2014). The language of fear: Communicating threat in public discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. A., & Schäffner, C. (1997). Introduction: Themes and principles in the analysis of political discourse. In P. A. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse (pp. 1-44). John Benjamins.
Crawford, N. C. (2014). Institutionalizing passion in world politics: Fear and empathy. International Theory, 6(3), 535-557. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1752971914000256
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Dunmire, P. L. (2011). Projecting the future through political discourse: The case of the USA PATRIOT Act. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction (pp. 258-284). Sage.
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration: Toward a philosophy of reason, value, and action. University of South Carolina Press.
Gee, J. P. (2014). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315819679
Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks. International Publishers.
Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.
Hansen, L. (2018). Security as practice: Discourse analysis and the Bosnian War (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Kinnvall, C. (2019). Populism, ontological insecurity and Hindutva: Modi and the masculinization of Indian politics. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 32(3), 283-302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09557571.2019.1588851
Koselleck, R. (2004). Futures past: On the semantics of historical time. Columbia University Press.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant!: Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Maceyko, M. (2021). Political campaigns, voter outreach, and American democracy: Socializing effective participation and citizen agency in the United States. American Anthropologist, 123(3), 539-551. https://doi.org/10.1111/aman.13608
Malka, A., & Costello, T. H. (2023). Professed democracy support and openness to politically congenial authoritarian actions within the American public. American Politics Research, 51(3), 327-342. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x221109532
Martín Rojo, L., & van Dijk, T. A. (1997). ‘There was a problem, and it was solved!’ Legitimating the expulsion of ‘illegal’ migrants in Spanish parliamentary discourse. Discourse & Society, 8(4), 523-566. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926597008004005
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). Sage.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
Schaffner, C., & Chilton, P. (Eds.). (2002). Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Nelson-Hall.
Tucker, J. A., Guess, A., Barberá, P., Vaccari, C., Siegel, A., Sanovich, S., Stukal, D., & Nyhan, B. (2018). Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: A review of the scientific literature. Hewlett Foundation. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144139
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (2020). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as discourse. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2009). Methods of critical discourse analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.
Zappavigna, M. (2018). Searchable talk: Hashtags and social media metadiscourse. Bloomsbury Publishing.
