A Critical Discourse Analysis into Rhetoric and Ideology in Donald Trump’s 2024 Presidential Campaign: An Introduction to Vilification Theory

محورهای موضوعی : نشریه تخصصی زبان، فرهنگ، و ترجمه (دوفصلنامه)

Sabaa Zaid Jawad Witwit ¹ , Fatemeh Karimi ² , Salih Mahdi Adday Al-Mamoori ³ , Sahar Najarzadegan ⁴

1 - Department of English, Isf. C., Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran
2 - Department of English, Isf. C., 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, Isf. C., Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

تاریخ دریافت : 1404/01/09 تاریخ پذیرش : 1404/04/27 تاریخ انتشار : 1404/05/12

کلید واژه: Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), Ideology, Persuasive Pragmatics, Political Rhetoric, Vilification Theory,

چکیده مقاله :

This study examined the rhetoric of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign through a critical discourse analysis framework, introducing vilification theory (VT) as a novel analytical lens. Employing a qualitative design, the study analyzed transcripts of eight campaign rallies and debates purposively selected to capture a representative range of Trump’s political discourse. Data collection involved accessing transcripts from official campaign websites, news outlets, and online archives. The analytical framework integrated deictic space theory, proximization theory, and analysis of alternative futures to identify persuasive pragmatic structures. VT was applied by identifying vilifying speech acts (derogatory labeling, negative stereotyping, etc.) and analyzing their function in constructing in-group identity and delegitimizing opponents. The analysis revealed a consistent persuasive strategy characterized by “us vs. them” framing, emotional appeals, and the strategic use of vilification to mobilize support and promote a specific political agenda. The study’s findings underscore the potential implications of normalized vilification in political discourse for democratic debate and social cohesion.

چکیده انگلیسی:

This study examined the rhetoric of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign through a critical discourse analysis framework, introducing vilification theory (VT) as a novel analytical lens. Employing a qualitative design, the study analyzed transcripts of eight campaign rallies and debates purposively selected to capture a representative range of Trump’s political discourse. Data collection involved accessing transcripts from official campaign websites, news outlets, and online archives. The analytical framework integrated deictic space theory, proximization theory, and analysis of alternative futures to identify persuasive pragmatic structures. VT was applied by identifying vilifying speech acts (derogatory labeling, negative stereotyping, etc.) and analyzing their function in constructing in-group identity and delegitimizing opponents. The analysis revealed a consistent persuasive strategy characterized by “us vs. them” framing, emotional appeals, and the strategic use of vilification to mobilize support and promote a specific political agenda. The study’s findings underscore the potential implications of normalized vilification in political discourse for democratic debate and social cohesion.

منابع و مأخذ:

Aagaard, J. (2018). Do artifacts have politics and how do we know it? From Borgmann’s device paradigm to mediation theory. In J. Aagaard, J. Kyrre, B. Friis, J. Sorenson, O. Tafdrup, & C. Hasse (Eds.), Postphenomenological methodologies: New ways in mediating techno-human relationships (pp. 171–98). Lexington Books.
Adegoju, A., & Oyebode, O. O. (2015). Humour as discursive practice in Nigeria’s 2015 presidential election online campaign discourse. Discourse Studies, 17(6), 643-662. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602378
Al-Hindawi, F., Al-Salman, A., Abed, M., & Mahdi, H. (2017). Rhetorical devices in political discourse. Journal of Babylon Center for Humanities Studies, 7(3), 353-376.
Al-Kawwaz, A. M., & Altamimi, A. B. A. (2020). The impact of translation in stabilizing political discourse. Journal of Critical Studies in Language and Literature, 1(1), 1-15.
Al Ramiah, A., Hewstone, M., Dovidio, J. F., & Penner, L. A. (2011). The multiple faces of social discrimination: Measurement challenges and complexities. In The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 127-148). SAGE Publications Ltd.
Aristotle. (2007). Rhetoric (W. R. Roberts, Trans.). Dover Publications. Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bagheri Masoudzade, A., & Shekarian Behzadi, A. (2023). Integration of foreign culture in English instruction: Iranian EFL learners and teachers’ views in academic context. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation (LCT), 5(2), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.30495/LCT.2023.1988993.1091
Bankert, A. (2024). When politics becomes personal. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009052290
SALAU, J. A., MAMUDU, G. K., & VITOWANU, G. J. (2024). Women and Political Participation in Nigeria: A Critical Assessment and the Way Forward. Humanities & Language: International Journal of Linguistics, Humanities, and Education, 1(5), 308-323.
Baviera, T., Sampietro, A., & García-Ull, F. J. (2019). Political conversations on Twitter in a disruptive scenario: The role of “party evangelists” during the 2015 Spanish general elections. The Communication Review, 22(2), 117-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2019.1599642
Benoit, W. L. (2007). 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
Bohner, G., Erb, H.-P., & Siebler, F. (2008). Information processing approaches to persuasion: Integrating assumptions from the dual- and single-processing perspectives. In W. B. Crano & R. Prislin (Eds.), Attitudes and attitude change (pp. 161–188). Psychology Press.
Boone, L. E. (2015). Contemporary marketing. Cengage Learning Canada Inc.
Browne, S. (2018). Language, rhetoric, and social interaction. Routledge.
Cap, P. (2013). Proximization: The pragmatics of crisis construction. Journal of Pragmatics, 59(2), 293–307.
Cap, P. (2014). Proximization and the contemporary war novel. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Chen, L. J., & Reeves, A. (2011). Turning out the base or appealing to the periphery? An analysis of county-level candidate appearances in the 2008 presidential campaign. American Politics Research, 39(3), 534-556. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X10385286
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Chilton, P. (2013). ‘Frames of reference and the linguistic conceptualization of time: Present and future’. In: Jaszczolt, K. M. and Saussure, L. (Eds) Time: Language, Cognition, and Reality. Oxford:Oxford University Press. 236-58.
Chilton, P. (2014). Language, space and mind: The conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Chilton, P. A. (2017). ‘Toward a neuro-cognitive model of socio-political discourse, and an application to the populist discourse of Donald Trump.’ Langage et société 160-161(2-3), 237-249.
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 63-86.
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. (2016). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Crippen, M., & Klement, V. (2020). Philosophy of the city: Architectural values, political affordances and selective permeability. Open Philosophy, 3(3), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1515/opphil-2020-0112
Dunmire, P. L. (2011). Constructing alternative futures: Ideology, genre, and the rhetoric of change. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 14(4), 589-617.
Edelman, M. J. (1964). Symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press.
Edelman, M. J. (1971). Politics as symbolic action. Markham Publishing Company.
Edelman, M. J. (2013). Political language: Words that succeed and policies that fail. Academic Press.
Edelman, M. J. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. University of Chicago Press.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of group identity, prejudice, and the perceived threat from immigrants. Journal of Social Issues, 61(3), 389-414.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Media discourse. Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N. (2009). Language and globalization. Routledge.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. Routledge.
Finlayson, A. (2012). Rhetoric and the political theory of ideologies. Political Studies, 60(4), 751-767. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2012.00948.x
Ford, B. Q., Feinberg, M., Thai, S., Gatchpazian, A., & Lassetter, B. (2023). The political is personal: The costs of daily politics. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hdz97
Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Houghton Mifflin.
Halmari, H., & Virtanen, T. (2008). Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Harris, Z. S. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28(1), 1-30.
Hasse, C. (2015). Actor-network theory. In D. M. Gorman (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of communication research methods (pp. 14–16). SAGE Publications, Inc.
Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1989). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books.
Hogg, M. A. (2016). Social identity theory. In B. A. Reynolds & N. J. Allen (Eds.), Theory and research in cultural studies. Wiley.
Ihde, D. (1990). Technology and the lifeworld: From garden to earth. Indiana University Press.
Jackson, S. (2014). Black celebrity, racial politics, and the press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887043
Jarrahzade, Z., & Hashamdar, M. (2022). Discrepancies between the speech of male and female in lecturing: Language management in focus. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation (LCT), 4(2), 66–87. https://doi.org/10.30495/LCT.2022.1951506.1055
Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2019). The discourse reader (3rd 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.
Langton, R. (1993). Speech acts and unspeakable acts. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 22(4), 305-330.
Laslett, P. (1996). Locke and Hobbes on natural law. In K. Haakonssen (Ed.), Natural law and moral philosophy: From Grotius to the Scottish enlightenment (pp. 147-176). Cambridge University Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Lemke, J. L. (2005). Textual politics: Discourse and social dynamics. Taylor & Francis.
LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. Wiley.
MacQuarrie, E. F., & Mick, D. G. (1996). Figures of rhetoric in advertising: Rhetorical figures are a means of making advertising copy more aesthetically appealing. Journal of Consumer Research, 22(4), 424–438.
Malka, A. and 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
Muntigl, P. (2002). Politicizing migrants: Disagreement in Austrian parliamentary debates. Discourse & Society, 13(1), 45-73.
Nguyen, C. (2019). Emotions and populist support. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/e2wm6
Odzuck, E. & Günther, S. (2022). Digital campaigning as a policy of democracy promotion: applying deliberative theories of democracy to political parties. Zeitschrift Für Politikwissenschaft, 32(2), 507-530. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41358-021-00308-w
Ofstehage, A., Wolford, W., & Borras, S. (2022). Contemporary populism and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 47(1), 671-696. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-124635
Pattison, S. (2014). Seeing things their way: Rhetoric and social motivation in advertising. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Peffley, M., Yair, O., & Hutchison, M. (2024). Left-right social identity and the polarization of political tolerance. Political Research Quarterly, 77(1), 30-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129231189759
Perloff, R. M. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Petev, N. (2021). Construction and specificity of political myth as an instrument of dialogue and influence. Studia Humanitatis, 20(3), 15-29. https://doi.org/10.15393/j12.art.2021.3762
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2012). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer-Verlag.
Poole, E., & Williamson, M. (2023). Disrupting or reconfiguring racist narratives about Muslims? the representation of British Muslims during the COVID crisis. Journalism, 24(2), 262-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/14648849211030129
Power Inquiry (Great Britain), Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust, & Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. (2006). Power to the People: The Report of Power: an Independent Inquiry Into Britain's Democracy: the Centenary Project of the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust. Power Inquiry.
Rasool, M. M. U., Naeem, A., & Rehman, A. S. U. (2024). An analysis of discursive manipulative strategies and rhetorical devices in political interviews of ousted Prime Minister Imran Khan. Pakistan Languages and Humanities Review, 8(1), 46–59. https://doi.org/10.47205/plhr.2024(8-I)05
Roberts, W. R. (2007). Aristotle, Rhetoric. [Electronic Edition]. The Internet Classics Archive. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.html
Rosenberger, R. (2018). Why it takes both postphenomenology and STS to account for technological mediation the case of LOVE Park. In J. Aagaard, J. Kyrre, B. Friis, J. Sorenson, O. Tafdrup, & C. Hasse (Eds.), Postphenomenological methodologies: New ways in mediating techno-human relationships (pp. 171–98). Lexington Books.
Said, E. W. (1977). Orientalism. Vintage.
Said, E. W. (2015). Covering Islam: How the media and the experts determine how we see the rest of the world (2nd ed.). Vintage.
Said, E. W. (2007). From Oslo to Iraq and the roadmap. Vintage.
Schmid, H.-J. (2012). Generalizing the apparently ungeneralizable: Basic ingredients of a cognitive-pragmatic approach to the construal of meaning-in-context. In Cognitive pragmatics (pp. 3-9). De Gruyter Mouton.
Schmid, J. (2012). Language, power and ideology in political discourse. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Seidel, G. (1985). Political discourse analysis. In T.A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis: Discourse analysis in society (Vol. 4, pp. 43-60). Academic Press.
Sousa, L., Fernandes, D., & Weiler, F. (2021). Is populism bad for business? assessing the reputational effect of populist incumbents. Swiss Political Science Review, 27(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/spsr.12411
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2016). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup relations: Situated action and social influence (pp. 191-210). Guilford Press.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2001). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Brooks/Cole.
Vahid Dastjerdi, H., & Nasri, N. (2012). Congratulation speech acts across cultures: The case of English, Persian, and Arabic. Journal of Language, Culture, and Translation (LCT), 1(2), 97–116.
van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 359-383.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A socio cognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
Verdonk, P. (2022). Stylistics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Widdowson, H. G. (2008). Text, context, and pretext: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Blackwell Publishing.
Williams, R. (2012). Affordances and the new political ecologies. Social Media + Society, 10(1), 1-14.
Wodak, R., & Reisigl, M. (2005). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of exclusion. Routledge.
Wuttke, E. M., & Foos, A. K. (2021). Toward an interdisciplinary theory of affordances: Connecting embodied cognition, rhetoric, and the psychology of perception. Review of Communication, 21(1), 27-48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2020.184113
Zavershinskiy, V., Kolmykova, O., & Lomovskaya, O. (2022). Peculiarities of language manipulation in political discourse. Amazonia Investiga, 11(57), 79-86.