Article Citation: Hauwa Giwa-Ali & Ahmadu M. Dauda (2024). Critical Discourse Analysis of Polarization and Political Pronouns in President Donald Trump’s 2024 Victory Speech. DEGEL: The Journal of the Faculty of Arts and Islamic Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1. ISSN 0794-9316
CRITICAL
DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF POLARIZATION AND POLITICAL PRONOUNS IN PRESIDENT DONALD
TRUMP’S 2024 VICTORY SPEECH
By
Hauwa
Giwa-Ali & Ahmadu M. Dauda
Abstract
Key
words: Critical Discourse Analysis, polarization and political pronouns
Introduction
Language
functions as a medium for expressing ideas, opinions, and emotions. It serves
as a tool through which individuals argue, persuade, and challenge one another.
According to Fairclough (1992), ideology refers to the signification or
construction of reality that is embedded within various dimensions of meaning
in discursive practices. These practices, in turn, contribute to the
production, reproduction, or transformation of relations of power and
domination. Discourse analysis, therefore, reveals how ideological structures
influence communication and how ideologies are enacted and sustained through
both ordinary and political discourse. Scholars such as Fairclough (1992),
Fowler (1991), Hall (1982), and van Dijk (1993) emphasize the inseparable link
between language and ideology. Language possesses the capacity not only to
influence and persuade but also to transform belief systems, even across great
distances.
The United
States of America, as a global superpower, plays a significant role in shaping
international political dynamics. It is noteworthy that Donald Trump, the 45th
President of the United States, who was defeated by Joe Biden, has regained
public support and has been re-elected as the 47th President. His rhetorical
appeal and strategic use of language appear to have played a central role in
this political comeback. Consequently, it is necessary to critically examine
Trump’s speeches to uncover the linguistic choices and discursive strategies
that contributed to his renewed popularity. These will be identified,
explained, and analyzed within the framework of Critical Discourse Analysis.
Literature
Review
Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA) can be historically traced to the Frankfurt School
before the Second World War (Agger, 1992; Rasmussen, 1996). However, its
practical application emerged prominently in the United Kingdom and Australia
toward the late 1970s. CDA has since been associated with other critical
philosophical developments within the social sciences, including
sociolinguistics, psychology, and sociology, which explains the multiplicity of
its definitions across disciplines (Ibañez & Iñiguez, 1997; Singh, 1996;
Thomas, 1993). Fairclough (2001) defines CDA as a form of critical social
science that seeks to illuminate the challenges individuals face in everyday
social life and how such challenges might be overcome.
CDA is particularly concerned with how social power abuse,
dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted through
discourse, especially within socio-political contexts. As an interdisciplinary
analytical approach, CDA critically examines the roles of authority,
domination, and social inequality in discourse. While discourse analysis can be
applied to a wide range of communicative contexts, CDA specifically focuses on
social problems, particularly the role of language in constructing and maintaining
systems of power and domination (van Dijk, 2001). Wodak (2021) underscores that
CDA is primarily concerned with both transparent and opaque structural
relationships of dominance, discrimination, power, and control as they are
embedded in language use. As for CDA Wodak (2001) claims that critical
here means an indept study/examination thus dogging up the complexities,
educationist dogmatism and diachotomies being self reflexist Fairclough and
Wodak (1997) enlist eight categories or principles of CDA as:
i. CDA address social problems.
ii. Power relations are discursive.
iii. Discourse constitutes society and culture.
iv. Discourse does ideological work.
v. Discourse is historical.
vi. The link between text and society is mediated.
vii. Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory.
viii. Discourse is a form of social action.
CDA is
generally used in analyzing texts of politicians in order to reveal their
political agenda Cameron, (2001).
Political
Discourse Analysis (PDA)
van Djik (2006)
maintains the focus of PDA is on the analysis of political discourse
particularly with the reproduction of political power, power abuse or
domination through political discourse. Thus, both Fairclough (1995) and Van
Djik (2006) agree that PDA is basically above the discursive condition and
consequence of social and political inequality that result from political
domination. It is also imperative to note that PDA is a class of genre defined
by the social domains (which is politics of educational discourse, scientific
discourse, legal discourse, political discourse which encompasses government
deliberation, parliamentary debates, party programs, political interviews and
speeches by politicians etc. PDA apparently devices such strategies as persuasions
to examine such text.
Political
discourse serves as a platform for spreading ideologies, propose policies and
programs of politician and political parties. This promotes active democratic
participation and citizenship. Analyzing political discourse helps electorate
to actively participate and make inform decision during elections. It also
helps to evaluate the purposes, legitimacy and expected outcomes of various
political messages.
Persuasion
in Language use
Persuasion is
an important device that helps politicians to achieve their goals, it helps to
convince people faster than any other devices Ferarri, (2012). Lakoff (1972)
defines persuasion as the moves by a particular group of people/party to change
the behaviors, feelings intentions or view point of another group/party.
Pishghadam and Rasouli (2011). Maintains that persuasion is a direct speech act
performed by a speaker with the intention of making listener to perform an
action. Thereby reshaping/changing the listeners feeling, behaviors based on
his/her ideology Gass, (2018) maintains that politicians used persuasion to
influence their audience and gain their full support. Persuasion and rhetorics
can be used interchangeably as was the practices in ancient Greece with
philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, etc.
Rhetoric: Partington (2010)
claims rhetoric in the art of persuasive discourse, Fairclough (2012) on the
other hand states that persuasive language is written to cajole/persuade the
audience to buy a product with the believe that it is the best. van Djik (1997)
states that rhetoric is the art or study of persuasive public discoursed which
employs such Linguistics features as intensifiers, adjectives, lexical items as
well as non-linguistic features like metaphor, personification, repetition to
make discourse more expressive, persuasive develop an attractive.
Principle of
Persuasion:
Cialdini (2001)
postulates six principles
i. Reciprocation
Principle
This is based
on the law of karma which traditionally is believed that whatever one does to
others to be revisited on him thus politicians make big promises in return for
the peoples but.
ii.
Principle of Scarcity:
Here the
politicians create the impression that he is scarce to come by (that is his
likes are not many around). Therefore, he is a messiah.
iii. The
Principle of authority
The ranking of
the person in the society is what matters here thus out of respect for a party
leader his words are taken for real and he wins the people votes.
iv. The
principle of Consistency:
consistency
here refer to what is most liked/prioritized or desired by the people thus a
constant repetition of such promises creates a sense of commitment.
v. The
principle of Consensus
this principle
is based on majority carry the vote Cialdini (2001) states that consensus is a
principle of human behavior whereby people tend to determine what is correct
and what is not by examining the action of others, i.e, they assume that an
action is correct if pother person agree with it or when they are told that
many other persons are doing it. Persuaders in political discourse tend to used
this principle to project their candidates as consensus candidates who have
gained national acceptance.
vi. The
principle of liking
Here the
politicians gain peoples votes base on their affection for him because they
feel he likes them too, i.e., he identifies with them.
Rhetorical/persuasive
Strategies
Many linguistic
devices are used in discourse to persuade or convince the audience these items
are referred to as rhetorical persuasive strategies. Obeng (1997). Van Djik
(2011). Thomas et al (2004) have suggested the following persuasive strategies.
i.Creativity: this
helps in structuring a political discourse towards a show of truthfulness.
ii.Indirectness: Van
Djik (2011) claims this is similar to politeness whereby politicians spread
negative ideas about their opponents through invendos metaphors, circumlocution
etc.
iii.Intertextuality:
Genette (1983) says it’s the presence of a text in another text Fairclough
(1992) claims that all texts are intertextual as every text is a constituent of
another. Intertextuality is used by politicians to strengthen their speech and
reinforce religious, sociocultural and historical context. (Kitawa and Ozerova
(2019). Obeng (1997) claims that intertextuality increases the credibility of a
text and attracts the attention of the audience to believe in the speakers
words.
Choice of
lexis: the use of certain words highlights the seriousness of the speaker in
concerning people (Aman, 2005). Denham and Roy (2005) claim the choice of
vocabulary provides valuable insight into those words which surround or support
a concept,
Cohesion: this is a grammatical
and lexical connection that glue the text together to facilitate meaning.
Halliday and Hassan 1976) maintain cordial relationship between sentence
keeping relevance and harmony in between sentences.
Van Djik (1984)
maintain that whenever there is a social struggle or competition over different
aspect of life contrast comes in to play. Van Djik (2000) maintains that
repetition is a device that can be found in many discourse, it is form at the
word phrasal or sentential level and it is a current phenomenon.
Modality: modal verbs are used to
modify different proportion in order to create many semantic functions such as
probability, ability, possibility depending on the context of situation. A
speaker can employ both ‘deontic’ epistemic’ modality which means he can used
obligation, permission and probability or probability is his speech to exhibit
power by giving command, making true claims and announcement
References: personal pronoun
play an important role in sending persuasive message by political leader.
Thomas et al (2004). Says the first person pronoun ‘I’ is use in emphasizing
concept and in declaring some kind of responsibility ‘we’a third person pronoun
is used to show togetherness, inclusiveness or exclusiveness is exemplified
through the used of ‘our’we’us’ inclusive while the pronoun ‘they’’their’ them’
is exclusive. Other rhetorical devices are metaphor which is a strong
persuasive device representing abstract objects as concrete intities.
Personification is when non human intities are represented as human. Evidence
concretise the speakers claims or statement. Rhetorical questions state the
obvious thus they do not need an answer. Anology creates comparison.
Ideology in
politics: from
the perspective of CDA Datondji and Amousu (2019) define ideology as a mental
representation of the world with implication in power relation such as those of
domination and suppression ideologies are abstract mental system that Dorham
(2007) sees ideology as a political term an enlist it different conception thus:
i. A political believe system
ii. An action oriented set of political ideas
iii. The ideas of the ruling class.
iv. The world view of a particular social class or social group.
v. Political ideas that embodied or articulate class or social
interest.
vi. Ideas that for propagate false consciousness among the
exploited or oppressed.
vii. Ideas that situate the individuals within a social context
and generate a sense of collective belonging.
viii. An official sanctions set of ideas used to legitimize a
political system or regime.
ix. Embracing political doctrine that claim a monopoly of truth.
Empirical Studies
Scholars have
conducted research on various aspects of the theory of ideology and persuasion.
Ehirechi (2014), for instance, critically examined the ideological functions of
modal verbs used by Nigerian politicians during electioneering campaigns. Data
for the study were drawn from the political manifestos of Barrister Rotimi
Akeredolu of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and Dr. Olusegun Mimiko of
the Labour Party (LP) during the 2012 gubernatorial campaign. Employing
Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the analytical framework, the study
revealed that modal verbs such as will and shall appeared
with the highest frequency, indicating that the manifestos were heavily laden
with promises and pledges. Other modals, including can, must,
and may, were strategically used to express obligations,
intentions, and to solicit support—often with persuasive or manipulative
undertones. In contrast, the present study is a Critical Discourse Analysis of
polarization and the use of political pronouns in Donald Trump’s 2024 victory
speech. Particular attention is paid to the deployment of inclusive pronouns
such as we, us, and our, which are employed
to construct a sense of solidarity and identification with the masses, thereby
fostering collective identity and reinforcing political alignment.
Rashidi
and Rasti. (2012) research into the textual modes used by the west to
impose it own values and ideologies in its media representations especially
with the strong sanction against Iran. Data was obtained often from four news
report and stories taken from foremost US online Paper. The economists an
express, after applying Theo Van Leed Wen’s theory, the findings show. On the
other hand, this research is a critical discourse analysis of polarization and
political pronouns in Donald Trumps (2024) victory speech with clear indication
of the used of such inclusive pronouns as ‘we’, us’ and ‘our’ to show
identification with the masses
Methodology
This consists of how data is collected, presented and analyzed.
Data Collection: here data for this
research is downloaded from the internet.
Data
Presentation and Analysis: Data is presented after a careful extraction of aspects of
Donald Trumps Speech that highlight polarization and Pronouns (CDA Criteria).
Analysis follows simultaneously alongside the data presentation for easy
understanding, then discussion follow finally.
Theoretical
Framework
Various
theoretical frameworks have been developed for the analysis of Critical
Discourse Analysis (CDA), but the theoretical model adopted in this study is
Van Dijk’s Socio-Cognitive Approach (2006). This approach operates on two
levels of discourse analysis: the macro and the micro. The macro level
addresses issues of power, dominance, and inequality between social groups,
while the micro level focuses on language use, discourse structure, verbal
interaction, and communicative practices.
According to
Van Dijk, ideological discourse is generally organized around a dichotomous
strategy of positive self-presentation (boasting) and negative
other-presentation (derogation). He argues that CDA should not merely
examine the relationship between discourse and social structure but should also
account for the intervening cognitive dimensions of language users. These
include mental models, goals, and broader social representations such as
knowledge, attitudes, ideologies, norms, and values. Thus, the analysis of
discourse must circulate among the triadic components of society (or
culture/situation), cognition, and language. Van Dijk’s socio-cognitive model
clarifies the ideological dimension of the us versus them binary
and demonstrates the discursive structures and strategies employed to exercise
and sustain dominant power relations. Unlike other frameworks, Van Dijk insists
that discourse structures and social structures can only be meaningfully linked
through the mental representations of language users, both as individuals and
as members of specific social groups. These group-based ideologies, shaped by
social institutions, in turn influence the discourse produced by group members,
and such discourse is then used to maintain and reproduce social interaction
and ideological alignment.
Additionally,
the socio-cognitive approach aims to address problems of power abuse,
domination and resistance as found in discourse branching into three
categories: cognitive, social and discourse components. While the cognitive
includes memory, mental (personal cognition of the setting, participants, their
identities, roles and relationships action and events and social cognition
(socially shared knowledge, ideologies and opinions, the social components
deals with intergroup and intergroup relationships.
Van Djik (2007)
proposes the following in analyzing ideologies:
i. Emphasize
positive-things about its;
ii. Emphasize
negative things about them;
iii.
De-emphasize negative things about its;
iv.
De-emphasize positive things about them;
Other ways of
emphasizing or de-emphasizing positive and negative descriptions are headlining
foregrounding, Topicalization, active structures examples and illustrations
contrast paragraph order, metaphors, hyperboles, irony and some other
rhetorical devices can be used to emphasize positive things about us and
negative things about them. De-emphasize negative things about us and negative
things about them can be done with passive structures, small letter, euphemism,
implicit information, back grounding, hedging, vagueness modality disclaimers,
synonym, paraphrase and low-level description among Van Djik (2015)
i.Polarization:
this concerns representation of the agents i.e the positive representation of
the in-group and negative depiction of out group.
ii.The
pronouns “we (us, our) and they (them, there are regarded as political
pronouns. They are used to represent the actors and their enemies.
iii.Emphasis
of positive self description and negative other descriptions.
iv.Activities;
what the in-group does and must do are represented.
v.Norms
and values; what is good or bad depending on the ideologies of the group is
depicted as the justification of what is right might not be generally right in
the larger society.
vi.Interest;
it refers to the discourse representation of the groups struggle or interest.
While analyzing the linguistic items used as persuasive/rhetorical strategies
such as creativity, modality, inter textuality, coherence indirectness,
reference among others will be used. Even though these strategies have been
explained in the literature review. The ideological implications behind the use
of such strategies by the politicians will be revealed.
Data
presentation and analysis
Polarization
concerns the representation of agents. These agents are the party/group members
represented positively (+ve) as an in-group that is the peoples that belong to
Trumps party while a negative depiction (-ve) of the out-group represents the
other side (party members of Kamala Harris) that is the opposition. Therefore,
extracts of representations will be made in their original contextual mode.
1. And I want to thank Mike
Johnson. I think he’s doing a terrific job. I want to also thank my beautiful
Wife Melania first Lady who has the No. 1 bwst selling book in the country.
Trumps show of
gratitude to a member of his party whom he felt had worked so hard and even his
gratitude to his wife whom he already refers to as beautiful ‘first lady’ with
‘No. 1- bestselling book in the country’ shows +ve positive polarization
because they belong to some party with him he tries to show positive qualities
about them.
2. “… I want to thank my
whole family, my amazing children and they are amazing…everybody here thinks
their children are amazing but that’s a good thing when you think they are …….
what a help”
The amazing and
emphatic statement of gratitude in surprising and he also tried to carry along
other party members too that have children saying everybody would love to
commend his own child this selfishly concentrating on his family and the
families of his party members (this shows emphasis about positive actions of
his own children as well as other people’s children which has yielded positive
fruit of success.
3. My father in-law Victor is
tremendous. And we miss very much, Melania’s mother Amalija. We miss Amalija
don’t we ………. she was a great woman”
He doesn’t
leave out the deceased. Say his father in-law Victor was tremendous is positive
commendation. His statement about ‘missing’ his mother in-law and restatement
of missing her goes to show the respect he has for his wife’s parents even for
the sake of making an impact on the minds of peoples they will now see him as
somebody with great feelings and regard for the deceased in-laws even though
they’re no more, these are all positive (+in-group) affair. He claims Melania’s
mother was good in and out in fact she was a great woman.
4. “I want to
be the first to congratulate our great now, I can say vice President-elect of
the United States and his absolutely remarkable and beautiful wife, “Usha
Vance.” This is a very powerful statement because he has intelligently
announced whom amongst his party ‘big wigs’ he is going to elect as Vice
President from the wife of course everyone knows whom the husband is he refers
to the Vicw President elect as great (+ve) absolutely remarkable and beautiful
wife….” The three words here absolutely to show extremely remarkable (worth
being commended, and commendable and beautiful are all +ve in-group affair
showing appreciation for their loyalty and tireless hardwork, support
throughout the campaign.
5. “Everybody
up here is great. Everybody up here is very special”
The lexical
items great and special makes his supporters to have a sense of belonging –they
are referred to as great and very special thus showing them that they are
regarded as executive party members/supporter this is also +ve in-group affair.
6. “Oh let me
tell you, we have a new star. A star is born, Elon.”
He has turned
the Victory speech into a highly personalized conversation where he does a show
off of knowing everybody by name and the various individual contributions they
made. Elon in the quotation above refers to Elon Musk regarded as the worlds
richest man hence he refers to him as not just a star but ‘a star in born
showing and implying that he was the backbone of most of the party’s financial
expenditure dining the campaign. He appreciates the support of such a revered
and important personality in the society this is still +ve and in-group.
7. “This
campaign has been so historic in so many ways. We’ve built the biggest the
broadest the most unified coalition”
Trumps
boastfully tegs their party campaign as ‘historic’ because it is surprising for
someone that was ousted from office as the 45th President to be
reelected back as the 47th President. Therefore, it is not
surprising that he used such lexical items as built, biggest, and broadest
unified and coalition. This explains it all in nut shell as there was no
breakthrough by the opposition through the ranks of his party supporters they
got fused together and remained glued till the end of this is also +ve and
in-group (emphasizing positive things about its. The polarization is more
pronounced as not too much representation is highlight.
8. “… I’ve said
go into the enemy camp” ‘Enemy camp’ here is an extreme negative –ve out-group,
by reference to the opposition as ‘enemy’ he de-emphasis positive things about
them.
9. “They’ve
never seen anything like it is all of American history”. They’ve never seen it,
young and old men and women, rural and urban…” they’ve never seen anything… is
repeated twice thus emphasizing negative things about ‘them’ and impliedly
showing they have never experienced an overall responsive and supportive crowd.
This to de-emphases positive things about ‘them’ hence it is a –ve out-group
characteristic. The lexical items history, young, old rural and urban further
clarifies the polarity.
10. Political
Pronouns: these are pronouns used specifically by politicians to represent
their own party supportets as actors e.g ‘we’ (us, our) while ‘they’ ‘them’,
their, is a detrimental way of referring to the opposition as ‘enemies’ thus
de-emphasizing positive things.
11. “…. It’s
going to reach a new level of importance because we’ve going to help our
country heal-help our country heal”
We’re going to
help our country heal ‘we’ indicates a combined effort so it’s not just the
president that will be involved but the generality of Americans is going to
help ‘our’ is possessive it shows that the country (America) is in a bad state
of health their combined effort is needed in order to get the country back on
its feet.
12. “we made
history for a reason tonight and the reason is going to be just that we
overcame obstacles that nobody thought possible…”
‘We’ refers to
actors thus it is positive because it shows achievement on the side of his
party faithful as well as “….Overcame obstacles” implied topicalization of an
important active structure i’e overcoming obstacles (the action of the
opposition contesting against them at all) is seen as they emphasizing negative
things about them.
13. “But it’s a
political victory that our country has never seen before, nothing like this”
The landslide
victory is what is still being referred to with emphasis they emphasizing
negative things about ‘us ‘our’ country’ above indicates that the country
belongs to all of them. Thus its positive.
14. we’re going
to make you very proud of your vote” again ‘we’ refers to party/members
executive.
While ‘you’
refers to the voters (Americans) making them proud is living up to the promises
that have been made so this is emphasis of positive self description thus
emphasizing positive things about its.
15. “…. we’re
going to turn our country around, make it something very special, ‘we’ is third
person plural pronoun with the speaker inclusive ‘our’ is possessive showing
that the country does not voting to him alone but it belongs to all of them.
Thus creating a sense of belonging in the minds of the people thus emphasizing
positive things about its.
16. “we have to
protect our geniuses. We don’t have that many of them. We have to protect our
super geniuses.
The task of
securing such few gifted souls like Elon Musk is a task not just for one person
but the whole nation as not too many of such people are around. The party
members remain the actors thus emphasizing positive descriptions.
17. “…. We want
great education; we want a strong and powerful military….” Here education is
presented positively, the military is necessary to be strong while
de-emphasizing idea of going to war its necessary to have a military for
security purposes, thus de-emphasizing the negative aspect of war. (de-emphasis
negative things about its) ‘they’ ‘them’ ‘their’ are third person pronouns used
in reference to the enemy which is very sparing.
a. ‘They’ve
never seen anything like it in all of American history’ ‘
‘they’ve above
is a third person pronoun used to refer to the opposition (enemies) another
shock at the Land-slide victory.
b. They’re
never seen it, young and old, men and women rural and urban….” They here refer
to the third party (the opposition) to justify and buttress the stated fact,
thus represents the enemies tracing the victory down history here ‘whether
young or old, rural or urban… no where was it ever recorded thus Trump
emphasizes the negative things about them.
c. “They said,
he will start a war. I am not going to start a war. I am going to stop wars”
‘They’ above is
referring to the opposition de-emphasizing negative things about its and
emphasizing positive things about us. ‘war’ has been topicalised and there is a
strong statement not to promote or start a war in any way thus endearing
himself to the generality of people and winning over supporters of the
opposition as war has always been seen as detrimental to human lives and the
opposition backed up and promoted wars during their years in office.
Conclusion
Donald Trump
strategically focused on highlighting the achievements of his political party,
aligning himself with the electorate by foregrounding issues of shared
priority. His speech was characterized by the use of short, impactful
statements that emphasized the positive accomplishments of his party members.
Notably, he employed inclusive pronouns such as ‘we’, ‘us’,
and ‘our’ to underscore a strong sense of unity and collective
identity with his supporters and party affiliates. In contrast, non-inclusive
pronouns such as ‘they’, ‘them’, and ‘their’ were
used sparingly and primarily to refer to the opposition, thereby minimizing
their relevance and visibility within the discourse.
Trump also
demonstrated a calculated effort to project humility and emotional intelligence
by expressing appreciation for his major supporters and paying tribute to his
late in-laws. This strategy countered public perceptions of him as ill-mannered
or lacking decorum, revealing a more humanized and respectful persona. He
further reinforced this image by calling out party members by name,
acknowledging his own family as well as the families of his political allies,
thereby promoting a message of equality and shared purpose. Additionally, Trump
issued categorical statements against war promotion or support, using these
declarations to criticize the opposition implicitly. His deliberate avoidance
of naming or extensively discussing the opposing party, except through the
occasional third-person references, helped to diminish their credibility and
reinforce the ideological divide. This rhetorical strategy effectively elevated
the identity and perceived value of his own group while delegitimizing the
opposition through discursive exclusion.
References
Agger, B. (1992). The Discourse of domination: from
the Frankfort School to Postmodernism. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University
Press.
Ahmed. F. (2017). Knowledge sharing in a non-native
Language context: Challenges and strategies. J. inf. Sci. 44 248-264. 10.
1177/016555151683607 (Cross ref.)
Clayman, S.E., & Heritage, J (2002) The news
interview: Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching Languages to young Learners.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Cialdini R.B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice.
Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon
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).
Derakhshani, M., Nayif Qaiwer, S., Kazemian, B., &
Mohammadian, S. (2021). Critical Discourse Analysis and Rhetorical
Tropes in Donald Trump’s First speech to the UN.
Theory and Practice in Language studies, Vol. 11. No. 10,pp.
1224-1236 DOE
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research Methods in Applied
Linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Fairclough, N. & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical Discourse
Analysis. In T. van Dijk (Ed.),
Discourse studies: A Multidisciplinary introduction (vol. 2, pp.
258-284). London: Sage
Kazemian, B., & Hashemi, S. (2014). Critical discourse
analysis of Barack Obama’s 2012 Speeches: Views from systematic functional
linguistics and rhetoric. Theory and practice in
Language Studies (TPLS), 4 (6), 1178-1187. http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/
tpls.4.6.1178-1187
Kitaeva, E. & Ozerova, O. (2019). Intertextuality in
political Discourse, in O. Cakirtas (Ed.),
Language, power, and ideology in political Writing: Emerging
Research and opportunities. 143-170
Lakott, R. (1972). Language in Context. 48,
907-927.doi: 10.2307/411994
Obeng, S.G. (1993). The Pragmatics of Pronominal Usage:
Paper read at Linguistics Association of Ghana Meeting, Accra, Ghana
Partington, A. (2010) Persuasion in politics: A Text
London. LED.
Partington, A. (2018) Corpora and discourse: A most
congenial Relationship. international. Journal of corpus linguistics, 9
(3). 401-419.
Pishghadam, R. and p. Rasouli (2011). “A Cross-Linguistic study
of persuasive Strategies Used in Persian and English Language”. Research
Journal of international studies, 22, 7-17
Rashidi, N. & Rasti, A (2012). Doing (in) Justice to
Iran’s Nuke Activities A Critical Discourse Analysis of news reports of four
Western Quality Newspaper. Australia, Aust. J. Mar. freshwat. Res.
34(5): 805-811
Thomas, L. et al (2004). Language, Society and Power.
(2nd ed.) Routledge.
Van Djik, T. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse
Analysis Sage publications.
Van Djik, T. (1995). Discourse as Social Interaction:
Sage.
Van Djik, T. (2009). Discourse, Power, and Access:
Texts and Practices in Caldas-coulthard,
Van Djik, T. (2015). Discourse and context: A
Socio-Cognitive Approach, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Wodak, R. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History,
Agenda, Theory, and Methodology. In R. Wodak & Meyer (eds), methods of
Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 1-33) London: Sage.
Wodak, R. & Meyer M. (2001). Methods of critical
discourse Analysis. London: sage.
The official website of the DEGEL Jounal is https://www.degeljournal.com
0 Comments