Criitical Discourse Analysis Donald Trump2 [619891]

UNIVERSIT Y
College

TITLE OF THE PAPER
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS – DONALD TRUMP

Coordinating Teacher
Name Surname
Student: [anonimizat]

2019

CONTENT S

INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 4
1 CHAPTER 1. MANIPULATION THROUGH WORDS – INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO
CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS ………………………………………………………………………….. 6
1.1 Language and power …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6
1.1.1 Instrumentalization of language ………………………………………………………………………………………… 6
1.1.2 The Political Speech as Rhetorical Discourse ……………………………………………………………………….. 8
1.2 Critical Discourse Analysis – History and definitions ………………………………………………………………… 10
1.2.1 How it turns critical? – The History of Critical Discourse Analysis. …………………………………………. 10
1.2.2 What Critical Discourse Analysis is? – Definitions. …………………………………………………………….. 12
1.3 Glossary of some terms of Critical Discourse Analysis …………………………………………………………….. 13
2 CHAPTER 2. METHOLOGY OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS –
RHETORICAL DEVICES …………………………………………………………………………………………. 15
2.1 Introductory Formulas/Appellatives ……………………………………………………………………………………… 17
2.1.1 Appellatives That Address the Whole Audience …………………………………………………………………. 17
2.1.2 Appellatives That Address Specific (Categories of) Listeners ……………………………………………….. 19
2.1.3 Appellatives That Address the Both Spe cific (Categories of) Listeners and the Whole Audience . 19
2.2 Collateral Circumstances …………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20
2.3 The Opening Story ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20
2.4 Amplification ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
2.4.1 Repetition ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 21
2.4.2 Enumeration …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
2.4.3 Accumulation ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 22
2.4.4 The Supe rlative Value of Adjectives and Adverbs in the Positive and the Comparative Degrees . 23
2.5 Intertextuality ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 24
3 CHAPTER 3. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF DONALD J. TRUMP’S
SELECTED SPEECHES ……………………………………………………………………………………………. 25
3.1 Main features of Donald Trump’s discourse …………………………………………………………………………… 26
3.1.1 Simplicity ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 26
3.1.2 Repetition ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 27
3.1.3 Parataxis ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28
3.1.4 Frames ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 28

3.1.5 Informality …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 29
3.1.6 Punchy words ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 29
3.1.7 Deictic …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 30
3.1.8 Intensifiers ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
3.1.9 Inarticulation …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 31
3.1.10 Hearsay evidence ……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 32
3.2 Metaphors used by Trump ………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 32
3.2.1 Make America Great Again ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 33
3.2.2 The world is a mess ………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 35
3.2.3 The Nurturant Parent and the Strict Father Family …………………………………………………………….. 36
3.2.4 Moral order and Moral authority …………………………………………………………………………………….. 38
3.2.5 Legitimate authority ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 39
3.3 The Other ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 40
3.3.1 America First …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 41
3.3.2 The Establishment ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 43
CONCLUSIONS …………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 44
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 46
INTERNET RESOURCES ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 49

4 INTRODUCTION
In this paper I will analyze Donald’s Trump’s argumentative resources from a
Critical Discourse perspective. Mr. Trump presents himself as an outsider able to solve the
problems of America. He emphasizes the idea that he is not a typical politician, but one
who, having financed his own campaign for election, operates independently of all
established economic and political power. He insists on the belief that he has nothing to do
with the bureaucrats of Washington, or with the rest of the establishment. He presents
himself as a radical and an “antisystem personality”; he makes constant use of the social
media, namely Twitter and Facebook to create headlines of the media around the world. He
targets the press and political opponents as his main foes. His comments on immigration
have trig gered wide controversy. His victory outraged voters from the losing side. (And yet
his message has an undeniable appeal to many millions of American voters). Some of the
key questions that arise about Trump’s discourse are therefore: What is new about it? Is it
new to Americans? How distinctive is it from his predecessors’ styles? What similarities are
there between this type of discourse and the one in other countries?
Politics, power, and language constitute a broader triangle of organization, struggle
and expression. All of them are inseparably operational with one another: political agenda
are unpractical without power; power is dumb without language, and language is least
effective without power. The real instrument in the hands of political players is not power,
but powerful language i.e. language of power. Language of power does not mean merely
authoritative or dictatorial language, but it also involves powerful play upon words emerged
strictly and solely from power -oriented purposes. These power -orien ted purposes may be
open and/or secret in one’s discourse. Therefore, politics is the game of power mainly
played upon the ground of words. In addition to many others, these three phenomena
(politic, power, and language) mainly mark the ambit of ambition a t higher organizational
levels. However, politics remains to be an umbrella term involving necessarily power and
language (of power) within it. In language studies, the term ‘critical’ was first used to
characterize an approach that was called Critical Lin guistics (Fowler et al., 1979; Kress and
Hodge, 1979). Among other ideas, those scholars held that the use of language could lead to
a mystification of social events which systematic analysis could elucidate. ‘For example, a
missing by -phrase in English pa ssive constructions might be seen as an ideological means
for concealing or “mystifying” reference to an agent’ (Chilton, 2008). One of the most
significant principles of CDA is the important observation that use of language is a ‘social
practice’ which is both determined by social structure and contributes to stabilizing and

5 changing that structure simultaneously. Nowadays, this concept of critique is conventionally
used in a broader sense, denoting the practical linking of ‘social and political engagement ’
with ‘a sociologically informed construction of society ’ (Kings et al., 1973; Titscher et al.,
2000: 808). Hence, ‘critique’ is essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things
(Fairclough, 1995a: 747; see also Connerton, 1976: 11–39). The ref erence to the
contribution of Critical Theory to the understanding of CDA and the notions of ‘critical’ and
‘ideology’ are of particular importance (see Anthonissen, 2001 for an extensive discussion
of this issue). Critical theories, thus also CDA, want to produce and convey critical
knowledge that enables human beings to emancipate themselves from forms of domination
through self -reflection. So they are aimed at producing ‘enlightenment and emancipation’.
Such theories seek not only to describe and explain, but also to root out a particular kind of
delusion1.
In general, CDA as a school or paradigm is characterized by a number of principles:
for example, all approaches are problem -oriented, and thus necessarily interdisciplinary and
eclectic (see below). M oreover, CDA is characterized by the common interests in de-
mystifying ideologies and power through the sys – thematic and reproduceable investigation
of semiotic data (written, spoken or visual). CDA researchers also attempt to make their
own positions and interests explicit while retaining their respective scientific methodologies
and while remaining self -reflective of their own research process. The start of the CDA
network was marked by the launch of Van Dijk’s journal Discourse and Society (1990), as
well as by several books which were coincidentally (or because of a Zeitgeist) published
simultaneously and led by similar research goals.

1 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology,
Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009

6 1 CHAPTER 1. MANIPULATION THROUGH WORDS –
INTRODUCTORY NOTES TO CRITICAL DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS
1.1 Language and power
1.1.1 Instrumentalization of language
Politics, power, and language constitute a broader triangle of organization, struggle
and expression. All of them are inseparably operational with one another: political agenda
are unpractical without power; power is dumb without language, and language is least
effective without power. The real instrument in the hands of political players is not power,
but powerful language i.e. language of power. Language of power does not mean merely
authoritative or dictatorial language, but it als o involves powerful play upon words emerged
strictly and solely from power -oriented purposes. These power -oriented purposes may be
open and/or secret in one’s discourse. Therefore, politics is the game of power mainly
played upon the ground of words. In addition to many others, these three phenomena
(politic, power, and language) mainly mark the ambit of ambition at higher organizational
levels. However, politics remains to be an umbrella term involving necessarily power and
language (of power) within it. T he history of politics is reflected in the origin, development,
and economics of the institutions of government, the state2. The origin of the state is to be
found in the development of the art of warfare i.e. confrontation of power(s). Historically
speaking, all political c ommunities of the modern type owe their existence to successful
warfare at their back3. Emperors and other such unshared office -bearers were once
considered to be divine in a number of countries notably China and Japan etc. Inherited
royalty was considered to be rather divine line in many a country of the world (especially
ancient) until French Revolution blocked the way of this " divine right of kings ".
Nevertheless, the monarchy appears to be one of the longest -lasting political institutions:
roughly, from 2100 BC Sumerian kingship to the 21st century AD British Monarchy. The
kings of absolute monarchies used to rule their kingdoms with the assistance of an elite
group of advisors – an exec utive council which was quite instrumental to the maintenance of
their (kings’) powers. As these executives often had to negotiate for power with the one

2 FOUCAULT, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977
3 ZINN, Howard, A People -s History of The United States, Harper Perennial Modern Classics; Reissue edition,
2015

7 outside the monarchy, the constitutiona l monarchies started emerging. This was, probably,
the genesis of constitutional developments. Before such councils gave way to the embryo of
democracy, they rendered invaluable support and service to the institution of kingship by:

An unripe conqueror waged war, generally, upon the weak neighbor (s) for
vengeance or plunder, but well -established kingdoms used to prefer extracting tributes.
Councils were also responsible to keep the kings’ coffers full. Another significant task of
the council was to monit or and manage the needs of military service satisfactorily and the
establis hment of lordships on behalf of the kings for the collection of taxes smoothly.
‘Cabinet’ of modern day is the most develope d form of the same ‘council’. Nature intends a
happy life for man, and it is the one led in accordance with virtue. Political community has,
therefore, historically been recommended to arrange for securing life of virtue in the
citizenry4. Today politics i s, thence, the theory and practice of influencing other people(s)
on global, civil, and/or individual levels. It, more narrowly, refers to attaining, holding, and
exercising offices of governance i.e. an organized influence over a human community,
mainly a state. What is more, politics is the theory and/or practice of how to distribute and
organize power and resources within a specific s ocial group as well as between/among
groups. Various methods are applied in politics including promotion of individual political
agenda; inter political- parties dialogues, legislation, and exercising power involving warfare
against resisters. Politics is exercised in almost all the spheres of society, including all the
layers of social formations from clans and tribes to nation -states and, at times, the whole
globe even. A political system, today, refers to a framework of pow er-entrusting and
defining peacefully acceptable codes and methods of power within a particular society in
order to perpetuate a particular ideological operation by trying continuously to avert socio –
political collisions.5 Whenever the word ‘power’ is rec eived/perceived, the impressions
which click the minds first of all are that of influence of one over the other, influence, terror,
suppression, and command and control etc. In this connection, political play i.e. power, is
the key factor behind all the social evils as well as social good at a time. This renders the

4 FOUCAULT, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977
5 FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Language and Power, Longman, 1989 Securing the institution of kingship through heredity
Maintaining the traditions of the social order under the monarch
Providing the king with a good deal of knowledge and action dutifully

8 phenomenon of power extremely complex, and it comes to involve the power of language.
Power of language refers, at once, to the language which can serve power as well as which
can challenge or s abotage power. Power of language is, concisely interpreting, language of
power. Relation between language and power is one of the quite complex and ambiguous
kind. All types of power ultimately use language as the most influential tool. Power is
vested and manifested in language, and it is conveyed through it; it commands and dictates
through language, and others have to hear attentively and obey formally when power plays.
Power mainly instrumentalizes language for its exercise. This instrumentalization of
language involves skillful use of political rhetoric, representation of a particular ideology,
and seduction or trap through words i.e. ‘persuasion’. It extends from an individual political
speaker to broader/collective political representations, from spea king-style to the way of
thinking, from quality to the quantity of a political discourse. Implications of power –
language also include the discourses of the dominating (the rulers) and the dominated (the
ruled). As far as convincing through words is concerned (i.e. use of persuasive strategies),
powerful language can be observed in everyday matters, display of advertisement, tricks of
marketing, at workplaces, and even at family level .6
1.1.2 The Political Speech as Rhetorical Discourse
Political speeches are a sp ecific sub -genre of political texts7, which are products of
the political discourse. The term discourse in this formulation is used according to Norman
Fairclough’s Critical Discourse Analysis integrative approach8. This means that their form
and content, i.e. the linguistic structures and the message ‘transmitted’ by the political texts,
“are related to larger contexts of communicative settings and political functions”15.
Although a vague term, according to Schaffner, a political speech is generally seen as a
rhetorical product created and delivered in a political context: “Political texts are a part of
and / or the result of politics, they are historically and culturally determined”. Such a speech
can be described in terms of target audience and informati onal content, in terms of
pragmatic function, etc. When the audience and the informational content are considered the
main classification criteria, one can distinguish between political speeches that address:

6 FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Language and Power, Longman, 1989
7 SCHÄFFNER, Cf. Christina, Editorial: Political Speeches and Discourse Analysis, Current Issues in La nguage
and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1996
8 FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language, New York, Routledge,
2010

9
However, there is not an inherent relationship between the type of audience
addressed and the thematic informational content of the political speech: the same issues can
be approached, though in different ways, in both situations9. Moreover, there is not such an
implicit relationship between the speech being considered political and its locator as it is not
only the politicians who deliver political speeches. But if the audience is ‘ specialized ’, such
a locator is expected to be a professional, too. Useful for my forthcoming analysis is the
classification of political speeches in terms of their main pragmatic function, i.e. to its
locator’s intention. According to this criterion, the political speech as a type of rhetorical
discours e can be labeled as10:

The political speech as a type of rhetorical discourse has an outline similar to any
other such discourse. It consists of:

9 FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Language and Power, Longman, 1989
10 SCHÄFFNER, Cf. Christina, Editorial: Political Sp eeches and Discourse Analysis, Current Issues in Language
and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1996 Specialised audiences -i.e.the participants inthe so-called internal political communication process,
which usually takes place inwell defined settings)
Thegeneral public -i.e.theparticipants intheso-called external political communication process, which
cantake place inaparticular setting
Inciting or inflammatory
Seductive
Persuasive

10
1.2 Critical Discourse Analysis – History and definitions
1.2.1 How it turns critical? – The History of Critical Disco urse Analysis.
The CDA as a network of scholars emerged in the early 1990s11, following a small
symposium in Amsterdam, in January 1991. Through the support of the University of
Amsterdam, Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Gunther Kress, Theo van Leeuwen and
Ruth Wodak spent two days together, and had the wonderful opportunity to discuss theories
and methods of Discourse Analysis, specifically CDA. The meeting made it possible to
confront with each other the very distinct and different approaches, which have , of course,
changed significantly since 1991 but remain relevant, in many respects. In this process of

11 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology,
Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009 Introduction
•Greeting and Attention
Gatherer. This is the
part at the beginning of
the speech in which the
locutor greets and
capture the attention of
the listeners.
•Thesis. This is a
sentence in the
introduction specifying
the purpose and the
subject of the speech.
•Authority. This part
refers to the process of
introducing oneself to
the audience, if
necessary, and to the
locutor’s establishing
credibility to persuade
the audience that s/he
is trustworthy enough
to speak about the
subject .
•Summary. This is an
overview of the main
points of the speech
•Important Answer. Now
the locutor mentions, as
an answer to an implicit
question, why the
speech will be useful or
valuable to the
audience.Body
•Transition. This is a
sentence that signals to
the audience the end of
the introduction and
the beginning of the
main part of the
speech.
•Main Points. The
locutor provides a
detailed presentation
of the main points and
ideas of the speech
along with a
description of the
supporting ideas and
illustrative examples to
explain and clarify the
main points.Conclusion
•Transition. This takes
the form of a sentence
that signals to the
audience the end of the
body part of the speech
and the beginning of the
concluding part of the
speech .
•Paraphrasing of the
Main Points. The locutor
restates, usually using a
different wording, the
main points and ideas
and emphasises on
those parts of the
speech that s/he wants
the audience to
remember .
•Closing Statement. This
is a final sentence where
the locutor emphasises
the key statement. It can
be followed, but not
necessarily, by
•The Taking Leave
Statement. This is a
sentence that marks the
end of the whole
speech. The locutor may
use a classic salutation
formulation or he may
invoke God’s help for
the audience’s wellbeing
and for a good course of
the future events.

11 group formation, the differences and sameness were laid out: differences with regard to
other theories and methodologies in Discourse Analysis and sameness in a programmatic
way, both of which frame the range of theoretical approaches12. In the meantime, for
example, some of the scholars previously aligned with CDA have chosen other theoretical
frameworks and have distanced themselves from CDA (such as Gun ther Kress and Ron
Scollon); on the other hand, new approaches have been created which frequently find
innovative ways of integrating the more traditional theories or of elaborating them .
In general, CDA as a school or paradigm is characterized by a number of principles:
for example, all approaches are problem -oriented, and thus necessar ily interdisciplinary and
eclectic (see below). Moreover, CDA is characterized by the common interests in de-
mystifying ideologies and power through the systematic and repro duceable investigation of
semiotic data (written, spoken or visual). CDA researchers also attempt to make their own
positions and interests explicit while retaining their respective scientific methodologies and
while remaining self -reflective of their own research process. The start of the CDA network
was marked by the launch of Van Dijk’s journal Discourse and Society (1990), as well as by
several books which were coincidentally (or because of a Zeitgeist) published
simultaneously and led by similar resear ch goals. The Amsterdam meeting determined an
institutional start, an attempt both to constitute an exchange programme (ERASMUS for
three years), as well as joint projects and collaborations between scholars of different
countries, and a special issue of D iscourse and Society (1993), which presented the above –
mentioned approaches. Since then, new journals have been created, multiple overviews have
been written, and nowadays CDA is an established paradigm in Linguistics; cur – rently, we
encounter Critical Di scourse Studies, The Journal of Language and Politics, Discourse and
Communication and Visual Semiotics, among many other journals; we also find several e –
journals which publish critical research, such as CADAAD. Book series have been launched
(such as Dis course Approaches to Politics, Culture and Society), regular CDA meetings and
conferences take place, and handbooks are under way. In sum, CDA (CDS) has become an
established discipline, institutionalized across the globe in many departments and
curricula13. The tendency for critical practice to be linked to a socially transformative
agenda stems from a view of discourse (and ideology) as involving power relations.
Foucault indicated14 that one of five things discursively constructed by an archive is 'The
limits and forms of appropriation', which is concerned with who has access to what

12 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Mi chael, Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Sage Publications, 2002
13 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology,
Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009
14 FOUCAULT, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977

12 discourses. A relevant question Foucault notes is: 'How is struggle for control of discourses
conducted between classes, nations, linguistic, cultural or ethnic collectivities? '15 I have
suggested that the power of a discourse relates to its subscription base and the social status
of its subscribers. On this basis, some discourses are more powerful than others and
subscribers of non- powerful discourses are therefore marginalized and relatively
disempowered16.
1.2.2 What Critical Discourse Analysis is? – Definitions.
One of the founders of critical discourse analysis (CDA), Norman Fairclough, has
described it as aiming to systematically explore often opaque relationships of causality a nd
determination between (a) discursive practices, events and texts, and (b) wider social and
cultural structures, relations and processes; to investigate how such practices, events and
texts arise out of and are ideologically shaped by relations of power and struggles over
power. (1995, p. 132)
Summed up in a number of bullet points, CDA17:

The terms Critical Linguistics (CL) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) are often
used interchangeably. In fact, recently, the term CDA seems to have been preferr ed and is
being used to denote the theory formerly identified as CL. Nowadays, some scholars prefer

15 FOUCAULT, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977
16 LOCKE, Terry, Critical Discourse Analysis, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004
17 LOCKE, Terry, Critical Discourse Analysis, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004 views the systematic analysis and interpretation oftexts aspotentially revelatory ofways in
which discourses consolidate power and colonize human subjects through often covert position
calls
views reality as textually and intertextually mediated via verbal and non- verbal language
systems, and texts as sites for both the inculcation and the contestation of discourses
views human subjectivity as at least in part constructed or inscribed by discourse, and
discourse as manifested in the various ways people are and enact the sorts of people
they are
views power in society not so much as imposed on individual subjects as an inevitable
effect of a way par ticular discursive configurations or arrangements privilege the status
and positions of some people over others
views a prevailing social order as historically situated and therefore relative, socially
constructed and changeable
views discourse as coloured by and productive of ideology (however 'ideology' is
conceptualized)
views a prevailing social order and social processes as constituted and sustained less by the will of
individuals than by the pervasiveness of particular constructions or versions of reality – often
referred to as discourses

13 the term Critical Discourse Studies (CDS). For example, Teun van Dijk18 provides us with a
broad overview of the field of (C)DS, where one can identify the f ollowing developments:
between the mid -1960s and the early 1970s, new, closely related disciplines emerged in the
humanities and the social sciences. Despite their different disciplinary backgrounds and a
great diver – sity of methods and objects of investi gation, some parts of the new
fields/paradigms/linguistic sub -disciplines of semiotics, pragmatics, psycho – and
sociolinguistics, ethnography of speaking, conversation analysis and discourse studies all
deal with discourse and have at least seven dimensions in common.
1.3 Glossary of some terms of Critical Discourse Analysis
Text: 'Text' is used to refer to particular language usages with an identifiable
beginning and end situated in time and place. Texts can be considered the outcome of
discourse . That is, discourse is a process that produces text (Brown and Yule 1983: 25;
Widdowson 1979: 71). On this definition, texts are a 'trace' of the communicative act,
or discourse event (Brown and Yule 1983: 6). They may be spoken or written, where written
texts represent a (semi)permanent record. Of course, written texts may be records of spoken
texts. For some scholars, such as Gunther Kress and Theo van Leeuwen (2001) text is
conceived as multimodal rather than limited to linguis tic form. Texts are also concrete
realisations of discourses (Lemke 1995), which is to say that discourses find their expression
in text (Kress 1985: 27).
Discourse Event : For Norman Fairclough (1989, 1995) each discourse event is made
up of three dimensi ons or facets. There is th e text itself and the discourse practice of
producing and interpreting the text. Fairclough illustrates these layers in a three-
dimensional framework in which the connection between text and social practice is
mediated by discourse practice19.
Fairclough's three -dimensional framework : Corresponding w ith the three dimensions
of adiscourse event , Norman Fairclough proposes three dimensions of discourse analysis.
These are linguistic description of the text, interpretation of the relationship between
discursive processes (production and interpretation) and the text, and explanation of the
relationship between the discursive process and social phenomena. CDA has mainly been
concerned with linguistic description and social exp lanation. It has paid comparatively little

18 DIJK, Teun van, Cognitive context models and discourse. In M. Stamenow (Ed.). Language Structure, Discourse
and the Access to Consciousness. (pp. 189- 226). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997
19 FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language, New York, Routledge,
2010

14 attention to interpretation -stage analysis and especially the cognitive processes involved in
discourse20.
Genre: Texts also belong to different 'genres'. In contrast to ' register '. what captures
the genre of a text is not its lexicogrammatical features but the context itself in which the
text is produced (van Dijk 2008, 2009). This context can be defined according to the three
aspects of situation that determine r egister – field, tenor and mode. So for example,
newspaper reports and political speeches are two distinct text genres.
Intertextuality : The concept of intertextuality is based on Bakhtin and Voloshinov.
Texts are produced within an 'intertextual context'. That is, texts 'have histories, they belong
to historical series' (Fairclough 1989: 127).
Interdiscursivity : Interdiscursivity refers to the phenomenon whereby elements from
different discourses are combined in texts resulting in new hybrid or nodal discourses.
According to Fairclough (2003), interdiscursivity in text creates a hybridity of social
practices characteristic of the blurring of social boundaries.
Social Cognition : Teun van Dijk views discourses , or ideologies, in explicitly
cognitive terms. According to van Dijk21, textual structure and social structure are mediated
by social cognition , which is defined as ‘the system of mental representations and processes
of group members.
Topoi : The term ‘topos' has its roots in Rhetoric. It translates as a 'place ' where
arguments can be found. However, 'topos' is also translated as a rule or procedure . It is this
latter translation that is used in CDA, where topoi are conceived of as content -related
warrants which can be expressed as conditional 'conclusion rules' (Riesigl and Wodak 2001:
74). In CDA, topoi are understood as standard 'argumentation schemes' which 'represent the
common- sense reasoning typical for specific issues' (van Dijk 2000: 98). In other words,
they are arguments in which an implicit conclusion is presupposed by a premise (Reisigl and
Wodak 2001; van Dijk 2000; Wodak 2001).

20 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology,
Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009
21 DIJK, Teun van, Discourse and Power, Palgrave, 2008

15 2 CHAPTER 2. METHOLOGY OF CRITICAL DISCOURSE
ANALYSIS – RHETORICAL DEVICES
CDS specifically deals with complex social problems , for which it needs to apply or
to develop complex theories and methods from several disciplines, and at the same time, it
must satisfy the social criteria – such as being relevant for dominated groups. This means
that, on the whole, the criteria for CDS r esearch are often more demanding than those for
other forms of discourse studies22.
The critical impetus
The shared perspective and program me of CDA relate to the term ‘critical’ ‘Critical
Theory’ in the sense of the Frankfurt School, mainly based on the famous essay of Max
Horkheimer in 1937, means that social theory should be oriented towards critiquing and
changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented solely to
understanding or explaining it. The core concepts of such an understanding of Critical
Theory are23:

In language studies, the term ‘critical’ was first used to characterize an approach that
was called Critical Linguistics (Fowler et al., 1979; Kress and Hodge, 1979). Among other
ideas, those scholars held that the use of language could lead to a mystification of social
events which systematic analysis could elucidate. ‘For example, a missing by -phrase in
English passive constructions might be seen as an ideological means for concealing or
“mystifying” reference to an agent’ (Chilton, 2008). One of the most significant principles
of CDA is the important observation that use of language is a ‘social practice’ which is both
determined by social structure and contributes to stabilizing and changing that structure
simultan eously.
Nowadays, this concept of critique is conventionally used in a broader sense,
denoting the practical linking of ‘social and political engage – ment’ with ‘a sociologically
informed construction of society’ (Krings et al., 1973; Titscher et al., 2000: 808). Hence,
‘critique’ is essentially making visible the interconnectedness of things (Fairclough, 1995a:

22 LOCKE, Terry, Critical Discourse Analysis, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004
23 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology,
Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009 Critical Theory should improve theunderstanding ofsociety byintegrating allthemajor social sciences,
including economics, sociology, history, political sci-ence, anthropology and psychology
Critical Theory should bedirected atthetotality ofsociety initshistorical specificity

16 747; see also Connerton, 1976: 11–39). The reference to the contribution of Critical Theory
to the understanding of CDA and the notions of ‘critica l’ and ‘ideology’ are of partic – ular
importance (see Anthonissen, 2001 for an extensive discussion of this issue). Critical
theories, thus also CDA, want to produce and convey critical knowledge that enables human
beings to emancipate themselves from forms of domination through self -reflection. So, they
are aimed at producing ‘enlighten ment and emancipation’. Such theories seek not only to
describe and explain, but also to root out a particular kind of delusion24. In any analysis of
linguistic style, a numb er of rhetorical devices are worth considering because they are
“important generators and qualifiers of meaning and effect”25. Although such devices can be
employed at times in spontaneous common uses of language, they are especially the mark of
figurative language. Therefore, they are used in texts in which the language is or can be used
figuratively: literary texts, rhetorical discourses – such as political speeches, sermons, legal
speeches – also the news discourse, etc. What all these types of texts have in common,
beside the ‘permission’ to use the language figuratively, is the fact that their creation
involves a process of deliberate organization of the linguistic material, a process that allows
the locator , be it a speaker or a writer, to select the means of linguistic formulation that best
serve his or her ideas, emotions, attitudes, on the one hand, and aims, on the other. Whether
the figures of speech are selected consciously or not, the way in which they are given shape
in any type of text is a matter of individual creativity.
The rhetorical devices are generally divided into two categories: schemes (or
figures), and tropes.

24 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology,
Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009
25 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory cou rse for students of
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003 •“describe the arrangement of individual sounds
(phonological schemes), the arrangement of words
(morphological schemes), and sentence structure
(syntactical schemes)”Rhetorical schemes
•represent “a deviation from the common main
significance of a word or phrase (semantic figures) or
include specific appeals to the audience (pragmatic
figures)”Rhetorical tropes

17 The use of a rhetorical scheme or of a figure of speech in a text, be it written or
spoken or, cannot pass unnoticed to an observant eye (or ear) as the text in point becomes
stylistically marked. The stylistic analysis of such devices aims at pointing out the effects
that they achieve on the recipients and the possible reasons why they were employed in a
specific place in the text, as this can account for the locators’ personality in terms of
education and psychological traits of personality such as intentions, emotions, and attitudes.
The truth is that the effects of any stylistic device “differ from text to text and within texts,
depending on the immediate context”26.
2.1 Introductory Formulas/Appellatives
Irrespective of the topic of the speech, finding the appropriate introductory words is
one of the golden keys to the listeners’ minds and hearts. Among the rhetorical strateg ies
that politicians use at the beginning of their speeches, the introductory noun- phrases in the
Nominative of Address are commonplace27. These appellatives develop a double function: a
psychological one, and a social one. Psychologically, they draw everybody’s attention so
that they focus their listening: listeners are signaled the moment they are supposed to start
concentrating on the sp eaker and on what he says, as their role as recipients is now
acknowledged by both parties in such a speaking process. Socially, introductory formulas
are sometimes used to show respect to some important members of the audience and then to
the whole of it; other times they establish the contact with the whole audience directly,
without distinguishing between different categories of addressees. In what follows, some
frequent types of introductory formulas are analyzed . They are grouped according to
whether t hey single out any specific listeners or categories of listeners in the audience or
not.
2.1.1 Appellatives That Address the Whole Audience
Employing familiar formulas that address the whole audience at the beginning of a
speech has the effect of reducing the d istance between the orator and the audience; the
psychological barriers between the rostrum and the audience, i.e., between ‘I’, the famous
and more knowledgeable figure, and ‘you’, the large mass of indefinite common people, are

26 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for students o f
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003
27 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for students of
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003

18 broken down to a great ext ent28. Many times, these formulations sound colloquial as they do
not single out any specific category of listeners. They are preferred by orators especially
when issues of national and social importance are tackled. The main aim of such speeches is
that of persuading large masses of listeners about the importance of these issues and of the
steps to be taken from then on as far as they are concerned. Getting closer to the listeners’
minds and hearts is one effective way of persuasion as friendly advice is followed more
goodwill than orders. Moreover, ideas presented in a language familiar to everybody both in
terms of complexity and of register are more likely to be understood and adopted by those
addressed. Here are the most frequent such formulations29:

Some of these phrases have been used more frequently than others; thus, they have
reached the status of linguistic clichés or stereotypical appellatives, e.g. (my) fellow
citizens/ Americans, (my) friends, ladies and gentlemen. However, they have not lost their
seductive effects entirely. Even though these appellatives belong to a less formal register of
language, usually employed in talks between people of the same social status – such as
friends, acquaintances, colleagues – they are felt both warm and re spectful formulations as
the intention of the high social status locator who uses them is not to look down on the
addressees or to lower the tone unduly, but to show them that they are acknowledged as
equals. Sometimes, these appellatives are not the first words tha t orators address the
audience, the locator begins by only gre eting the audience; in other by thanking the

28 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for students of
literary studies in English develo ped at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003
29 Top 100 speches on http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ Friends and fellow citizens…
Fellow citizens of the Senate and of the House of Representatives…
My fellow -citizens …
Fellow citizens…
My fellow Americans…
My friends …
Ladies and gentlemen…

19 audience for the warm welcome or for applauses; in both these situations, no appellatives
are used. In many other examples, however, the appellatives come after a thanking formula,
a case in which the locator may address the whole audience, as in the following examples,
or, more usually, he may mention the name of some remarkable figures present together
with the reason why he is grateful to them. In such situations, this device combines with the
collateral circumstances of persons, a rhetorical device that will be taken up later, in section
2.2.
2.1.2 Appellatives That Address Specific (Categories of) Listeners
In the speech bank https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speechbank.htm , one or
several high officials or remarkable persons in the audience are addressed individually,
without any other reference to the rest of the audience (like: Yo ur Honor…, Mr.
President…, Mr. Chairman…, Reverend Meza, Reverend Reck, I’m grateful for your
generous invitation…, Your Eminences, Your Excellencies, Mr. President.., Mr. Speaker.. ,
etc.). This is not to say that these orators disregard the rest of the audience; their resorting to
such individualizing appellatives is strictly related to the content of their speech whose main
issue is, most of the times, if not a matter of only these individuals’ concern, then it is one of
general concern to which these individuals have contributed or can contribute a great
share30.
2.1.3 Appellatives That Address the Both Specific (Categories of) Listeners and
the Whole Audience
The greatest major ity of introductory formulas consist of examples in which the
locator first addresses one or several most important officials present and then the rest of the
audience collectively, sometimes using two or more plural noun phrases.When more than
one individual official is nominated, they seem to be arranged according to some rhetorical
rules of politeness; in the largest number of cases, the current president or the most
important person present is mentioned first, then the other prominent figures in the sta te,
individually or collectively, and then the rest of the audience, collectively31:

30 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for s tudents of
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003
31 Top 100 speches on http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/

20
Very frequently, the public speakers choose not to use any introductory formulas at
all, but to go directly to the introductory paragraph of their speech. This usually happens
when the locator intends to lay more stress than usual on the issues being communicated and
tackles them without delay . This is to say that not using appellatives at the beginning of the
speech is in itself a rhetorical d evice whose main aim is to signal the locator’s great concern
for the informational content of his argument.
2.2 Collateral Circumstances
In the majority of cases, whether they use any introductory formula or not, at the
beginning of their speeches orators res ort to a rhetorical device or structure whose main
function is to win the listeners’ benevolence and more credibility in their eyes by showing
the audience that they are well anchored in the realities that they all face namely, the
collateral circumstances , as Giambattista Vico calls it. In his Art of Rhetoric, he enumerates
the collateral circumstances of place, of time, of issues, and of persons32. The collateral
circumstances of any type are usually formulated in an ornamented language that aims at
stimulating the listeners’ aesthetic taste and at reducing the natural distance between the
speaker and the audience so that their benevolence to listen and willingness to accept the
speaker’s ideas are very much increased.
2.3 The Opening Story
Sometimes, orators f inely lead their audiences towards the proper argument of their
speech by telling them either a real story from their personal lives or an allegorical one. The
main function of this real or imaginary story is a didactical one: as in the warm- up activities
at the beginning of a classroom lesson, everybody’s attention is raised and focused on a

32 VICO, Giambattista, The Art of Rhetoric, Institutione s Oratoriae, 1711 -1741 “Mr. Speaker, Mr. President Pro Tempore, members of Congress, and fellow Americans…”
•George W. Bush, 20 September 2001, Freedom and Fear Are at War,
http://www.douglass.speech.nwu.edu
“Your Honor, ladies and gentlemen…”
•Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, 2 February 1953, Statement at the Smith Act Trial,
http://www.americanrhetoric.com
Mr. Vice President, Mr. Speaker, Members of the Senate , and of the House of Representatives .”
•Harry S. Truman, 12 March 1947, The Truman Doctrine, http://www.americanrhetoric.com

21 subject that can be easily followed due to its accessibility provided by its narrative form33. A
second certain cause -effect relationship, the facts to be presented in the argument proper
have to be related in the same way, according to the same logical arrangement, and a similar
if not identical conclusion has to be drawn from them. In other words, by resorting to this
device, the locator induces the logical mechanisms that the listeners have to apply in their
effort to understand the meanings of the argument, and to accept its truth value in
accordance with that proposed by the speech itself.
2.4 Amplification
Giambattista Vico defines amplification as “a certain type of a more elaborate
affirmation which, by means of moving the spirits, wins credibility in what must be said.34”
Although the phrase elaborate affirmation is vague due to the semantics of the adjective
elaborate, this definition suggests that amplification is both a rhetorical and a stylistic device
whose purpose is to persuade or dissuade the recipients of the mes sage by seducing them
with the beauty of the locator’s choice of words and complex formulation. In the present
section, the means of amplification in political speeches are approached at the phonetic, the
lexical, the morphological and the syntactic levels of the language.
2.4.1 Repetition
The repetition of a sound, of a word, or of a morpho- syntactic structure helps the
speaker to lay emphasis on a certain idea that otherwise may pass unnoticed by the listeners.
Examples of repetition are found in abundance in speeches, where it also has a didactic
function: listeners ‘learn’ and, as a consequence, will remember more easily what the
speaker repeats. The repeated structures are usually considered catch phrases that the
listeners leave home with and it is these phr ases that continue to work on their minds,
therefore, to affect them in one way or another and may produce attitudinal and behavioral
changes in the listeners long after the speech has been delivered to them.
2.4.2 Enumeration
By means of enumeration, speakers r eveal various facets of the ideas they state in
order to persuade listeners of the complexity of these ideas. The terms enumerated belong to

33 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for students of
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003
34 VICO, Giambattista, The Art of Rhetoric, Institutiones Oratoriae, 1711 -1741

22 the same lexical or morphological class, or they have identical syntactic structure, but their
form as a whole diff ers. These terms are constituent parts of the same sentence and in
writing they are separated by commas. Many times, these three types of enumeration are
combined so that the cognitive and the emotional effects that the argument achieves be
increased35.
2.4.3 Accumulation
Accumulation as a rhetorical device is similar to enumeration in that it puts together
a number of linguistic structures. However, between the two devices there are some
differences. Whereas enumeration links, in the same sentence, structures identical from a
morpho- syntactic point of view and similar semantically, accumulation may link – for a
remarkable number of times, at some distance from one another in the same linguistic
context – a variety of structures tha t only partially share syntactic and semantic resemblance.
However, it may repeat, at regular intervals, the same linguistic structure, a case in which
this structure is perceived as a refrain in the context in which it occurs. A borderline case
between th e two may be considered the situation in which a large number of identical
structures are enumerated36. The following excerpts illustrate accumulations of
enumerations of various structures :
“It is not astonishing that, while we are plowing, planting, and reaping, using all
kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in
metals of brass, iron, copper, silver, and gold; that while we are reading, writing and
ciphering, acting as clerks, merchants, and secretaries , having among us doctors, ministers,
poets, authors, editors, orators, and teachers; that we are engaged in all the enterprises
common to other men – digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific,
feeding sheep and cattle on the hillside, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in
families as husbands, wives, and children, and above all, confessing and worshipping the
Christian God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave – we are
called upon to prove tha t we are men?” (Frederick Douglass, op. cit)37 “To him [i.e., the
American slave] your celebration [i.e., the 4th of July] is a sham; your boasted liberty, an
unholy licence; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty

35 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for students of
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003
36 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for students of
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003
37 Top 100 speches on http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/

23 and heartless; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mock; your prayers and hymns,
your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade and solemnity, are to him
mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy […].” (Frederick Douglass, op. cit)
The excerpts above show that the locutor’s intention is to be highly explicit and persuasive
about the black people emancipation ideas that he advances. By providing as many
examples as possible illustrating various facets of these ideas in a society dominated by the
white men, he expresses his perplexity at the current state of affairs and gives voice to his
vehemence against it, and he manages to transmit these feelings to the listeners as well.
2.4.4 The Superlative Value of Adjectives and Adverbs in the Positive and the
Comparative Degrees
In order to persuade listeners by seducing them through words, speakers also resort
to superlative constructions. The rhetorical effect of such formulations resides in the
intensification of meaning that the so modified parts of speech – such as nouns and verbs –
acquire in the contexts in which superlatives are used. When pointing out the seriousness or
the greatness of certain events, states of affairs, even emotions, speakers frequently use
adjectives i n the positive degree of comparison with a superlative value. Sometimes these
parts of speech have an inherent [+ Superlative] meaning, i.e. they do not have forms for the
comparative and the superlative degrees (e.g. absolute, awesome, colossal, disastrous,
enormous, historic, immortal, maximum, perfect, unparalleled, unprecedented, etc.). Others
are regular adjectives that may form the comparative and the superlative after the usual rules
of the language, but they acquire this meaning in the context in which they are used (e. g.
deep, grand, profoundly, etc.). The following examples of such structures, alphabetically
arranged, have been taken from the political speeches quoted in the preceding sections:
awesome
responsibilityave bitterly fough t colossal investment deep humility
disastrous economic
policie shistoric battleimmortal words and
worksprofoundly grateful /
touched
tremendous prideunparalleled
prosperitywonderful
Republican /
statprofoundly
grateful / touchedunanimous
determination

24 These adjectives and adverbs38 come in handy when the speaker intends to describe
in a very few words a most colorful and impressive image that can be quickly grasped by
the listeners. The intonation is of much help when pointing them out. There is the danger,
however, of overusing them and consequently the y may lose their vitality and turn into
boring, if not annoying, clichés that can be more harmful than helpful to the impression that
the locator leaves on the listener39.
2.5 Intertextuality
According to Chris Baldick’s Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms40, the term
intertextuality was “coined by Julia Kristeva to designate the various relationships that a
given text may have with other texts”, relationships that “include anagram, allusion,
adaptation, translation, parody, pastiche, imitation, and other kinds of transformation”.
Among the rhetorical devices that politicians employ in their attempt to persuade their
audiences, providing relevant evidence and building a clear and appealing argumentation are
the most important ones. Even if the political discourse is a monologue; in order to persuade,
politicians have to be clear, brief, orderly, to say the truth or at least to make their words
sound true, to give the right amount of information so as to make their point credible, and,
more importantly, not to say something for which they do not have enough evidence.
Sometimes it is very difficult to provide personal details or expertise to support the
argument. As people have always looked up to religion and the great minds of history,
resorting to authori tative sources by means of quotations from the Bible and other religious
texts, from famous political speeches and scientific works, by quoting words of wisdom, or
literary texts written by renowned authors has proved to be a very economical and effective
rhetorical device in the art of persuasion The way in which a certain quotation is approached
and integrated in the argument is a matter of each locator’s ingenuity and oratorical talent.

38 BALDICK, Chris, Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms, Oxford University Press, 2004
39 MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An introductory course for students of
literary studies in English developed at the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003
40 BALDICK, Chris, Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms, Oxford Univer sity Press, 2004

25 3 CHAPTER 3. CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF
DONALD J. TRUMP’S SELECTED SPEECHES
In this chapter I will analyze Donald’s Trump’s argumentative resources from a
Critical Discourse perspective. Mr. Trump presents himself as an outsider able to solve the
problems of America. He emphasizes the idea that he is not a typical politician, but one
who, having financed his own campaign for election, operates independently of all
established economic and political power41. He insists on the belief that he has nothing to do
with the bureaucrats of Washington, or with the rest of the establ ishment. He presents
himself as a radical and an “antisystem personality”; he makes constant use of the social
media, namely Twitter and Facebook to create headlines of the media around the world. He
targets the press and political opponents as his main foes. His comments on immigration
have triggered wide controversy. His victory outraged voters from the losing side. (And yet
his message has an undeniable appeal to many millions of American voters). Some of the
key questions that arise about Trump’s discourse are therefore: What is new about it? Is it
new to Americans? How distinctive is it from his predecessors’ styles? What similarities are
there between this type of discourse and the one in other countries? Donald J. Trump is an
“off the spectrum” Presid ent42 who creates controversial headlines of the media around the
world. Where does his appeal come from? What is new about him? This chapter tries to
answer these questions from a Critical Discourse Analysis perspective. The chapter is
divided into three subchapters. The first one gives a general overview of Trump’s discourse
styles. The second one deals with the family model developed by George Lakoff in terms of
metaphors and more specifically with the representation of the strict father pattern in
Trump’s di scourse. The third and final subchapter is dedicated to the portrayal of “the
other” in Trump. Strategies to depict “otherness” are analyzed from an ideological discourse
viewpoint. Racism, immigration and Trump’s depiction of “the establishment” are not
neglected. Trump’s discourse is displayed in all sorts of manifestations: interviews,
speeches at rallies, posters, banners, freebies (caps and other gadgets), formal addresses or
legislative documents (executive orders). His love for social networks and na mely Twitter
are not to be neglected. Last but not least Mr. Trump’s non- verbal language reveals how
much importance he attaches to transmitting a relevant message to American citizens and to
the rest of the world. A good example of how his attitudes can s ummarize in a few seconds

41 Donald Trump Speech Analysis. Extracts taken from a Republican Presidential Debate CBS News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=uOEPpQAF -xA&app=desktop, ,[last retrieved 29/05/2019]
42 Donald Trump Speech Analysis. Extracts t aken from a Republican Presidential Debate CBS News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=uOEPpQAF -xA&app=desktop, ,[last retrieved 29/05/2019]

26 his ideology took place at a NATO Summit in Brussels when he shoved aside Prime
Minister of Montenegro to occupy the first rank of dignitaries. I mainly focus my work on
the following material: Donald Trump’s speech at the Republi can Convention, Inaugural
Speech and interview made by anchor David Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, on the
program ABC News “World News Tonight”. The sources of information are mainly
YouTube where a great amount of data is available. The web sites of di fferent journals or
Trump’s official pages constitute also a source of material. A special attention is paid to Mr.
Trump’s fondness of his Twitter accounts, which no doubt constitutes one of the “newness”
of this presidency. The retrieved data is analyzed from an intertextual point of view, as all
text have a predecessor. The second perspective used on the analysis is multidisciplinary.
Texts are not only regarded from a linguistic point of view but from other perspectives since
Mr. Trump is the main actor of the whole discourse. This requires a contextualization of
Trump’s discursive styles within a political theory frame.
3.1 Main features of Donald Trump’s discourse
To introduce the analysis of Donald Trump’s political discourse it is necessary to
give a gen eral overview of the main features of his discourses for getting a glimpse of who
Mr. Trump is and what his main concerns are, his ambitions, his likes and dislikes, his main
phobias as well as his passions. Trump presents himself as a “self -funder”, and a s a
“businessman who gets along with everybody”. Columbia University professor of
linguistics John McWhorter joins to discuss in the Interview on Trump43 the unique way
Donald Trump speaks which is unlike any president America's had before. Unlike the rest of
the candidates running for the election, he does not seem to be aware that he is being filmed
and acts naturally. Trump’s discourse is characterised by the following elements that are
displayed in all manifestations of his discourse.
3.1.1 Simplicity
Simplicity is one of the main features of his discourse and what renders it so unique.
Trump makes use of very simple words, a “down to earth” vocabulary that can be
understood by everyone. It is purposely unsophisticated, as sophistication and flowery
language is considered a feature of the establishment composed of politicians and
bureaucrats whom he bitterly criticises. A sample of how simple his words are, is shown in

43 Interview by anchor David Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC News "World News Tonight";
https:// www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd0exGVArQU, [last retrieved 29/05/2019]

27 this extract where 172 words are one syllable, 39 two syllables , 4 are three syllable and 2 ar e
4 syllable or more.
Example 1: Interview of Donald Trump on Jimmy Kimmel Live, December 16th,
201544
JIMMY KIMMEL: Isn’t it un -American and wrong to discriminate people based on
the religion?
DONALD TRUMP: But, Jimmy, the problem – I mean, look, I’m for it. But look,
we have people coming into our country that are looking for tremendous harm. You look at
the two – Look at Paris. Look at what happened in Paris. I mean, these people, they did not
come from Sweden, okay? Look at what happened in Paris. Look at what happened last
week in California, with, you know, people dead. Other people going to die, they’re so
badly injured. We have a real problem. There is a tremendous hatred out there. And what I
wanna do is find out what it – you know, you can’t solve a problem until you find out what’s
the root cause. And I wanna find out, what the problem, what’s going on. And, it’s
temporary. I’ve had so many people call me and say thank you. Now, if you r emember,
when I did that a week ago, it was like bedlam. All of a sudden– and you watch last night,
and you see people talking. They said, “Well, Trump has a point. We have to get down to
the problem.” The people that are friends of mine that called say, “ Donald, you have done a
tremendous service.” Because we do have a problem. And we have to find out what is the…
3.1.2 Repetition
The second most important feature of Trump’s argumentative resources is repetition.
He goes on some favoured words endlessly. Example s 2 and 3 are very illustrative of how
he repeats himself so that at the end the listener retains one single word: mistake or lawful.
Example 2: Republican Presidential Debate CBS News45
INTERVIEWER: Should President George W, Bush have been impeached?
DONA LD TRUMP: First of all, I have to say, as a businessman I get along with
everybody. I have businesses all over the world [crowd cheer] I know so many people in the
audience, by the way I’m a self funder. I don’t have – I have my wife and I have my son,
that’s all I have. I don’t have this. [ crowd cheer] So, let me just tell you. I get along with
everybody which is my obligation to my company, to myself, etc. Obviously, the war in Iraq
was a big mistake. You can take it any way you want, and it took – It too k Jeb Bush, if you

44 Donald Trump says Muslims support his plan on Jimmy Kimmel Live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqhg2FNzKHM&feature=youtu.be; [last retrieved 29/05/2019]
45 Republican Presidential Debate CB S News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=uOEPpQAF –
xA&app=desktop [last retrieved 29/05/2019]

28 remember at the beginning of this announcement when he announced for president, took
him five days – he went back, it was a mistake, it wasn’t a mistake – took him five days.
Before his people told him to say and he ultimately said, “it was a mistake”. The war in
Iraq. We spent 2 trillion dollars, thousands of lives – we don’t even have it – Iran’s taken
over Iraq with the second biggest oil reserves in the world. Obviously, it was a mistake,
George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistak es. But that one was a beauty. We should
have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the middle east.
Example 3: Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention46
“I have been honored to receive the endorsement of America’s Border Patrol Agents
and will work directly with them to protect the integrity of our lawful, lawful, lawful
immigration system, lawful. By ending catch -and-release on the border, we will stop the
cycle of human smu ggling and violence. Illegal border crossings will go down.”
3.1.3 Parataxis
The structure of his syntax is paratactic; therefore, he uses independent clauses and
sentences are juxtaposed. He is disinclined to the use of subordinate clauses and therefore to
conveying complex reasoning. The concepts he transmits are very simple and therefore
accessible to everyone. The above examples speak for themselves.
3.1.4 Frames
Trump constructs solid concepts out of two separate ideas, forming what is
denominated fixed beliefs b y the neuroscientist David Poeppel, or frames by the Cognitive
Linguist George Lakoff if we consider them from a metaphorical point of view. These
frames are repeated endlessly till they are transmitted from Trump to “every radio station,
every TV station, [and] every newspaper”. The audience shape the world through these
fixed beliefs that end up by constituting a brand of Trump. Samples are for instance the
following: “crooked Hillary”, “fake News”, “travel Ban”, “Muslim Ban”, “dishonest press”,
“dishones t stories”, “dishonest reporters” or “lousy president”. These frames share
something in common, a negative connotation which aim to portray a world full of dangers.
The President is very good at using negative terminology or by giving negative responses
when interviewed. See the reiteration of expressions like “tremendous”, “dead”, “bedlam”,
“problem” or “mistake” in the above example. Frames also appear very often in Trump’s

46 Donald Trump's speech at the Republican Convention; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVTuOyZDI0, [last
retrieved 30/05/2019]

29 tweets because this social network requires no more than 140 characters, so by usi ng a fixed
belief he is able to convey his message without further ado. Frames match his needs.
Example 4: Tweet 29/05/201947
Nothing changes from the Mueller Report. There was insufficient evidence and
therefore, in our Country, a person is innocent. The c ase is closed! Thank you.
Example 5: Tweet 13/06/201748
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump: “The Fake News Media has never been so
wrong and so dirty. Purposely incorrect stories and phony sources to meet their agenda of
hate. Sad!”
3.1.5 Informality
According to l inguist John McWhorter, Mr. Trump is “doing what anybody does”
and he talks the way Americans like to talk. His speech matches American taste; the same
that a certain kind of music or a type of food become a trendy commodity. For this author
informality is a brand of American people, and although some of his predecessors have
already shown a degree of informality Trump seems to epitomize it: rather than speaking, he
talks (McWhorter, 2017, p. 2).
Example 6: Tweet 15/02/2017
“The fake news media is going crazy with their conspiracy theories and blind hatred
@MSNBC & @CNN are unwatchable @fox and friends is great”.
3.1.6 Punchy words
Example 7: Donald Trump on the State of the Union interviewed by Jack Tapper,
CNN749
JACK TAPPER: Ok. Let me just finish my question. A 22 year old sees that. And
what the official tells to me is, do you think that 22 year old seeing Donald Trump saying
that with all those people cheering, do you think this disenfranchised, disaffected 22 Muslim
American is less or more likely to turn in to ISIS?

47 All the President's tweets By Amanda Wills and Alysha Love, CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/trump -tweets / , [last retrieved 29/05/2019]
48 All the President's tweets By Amanda Wills and Alysha Love, CNN
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/trump -tweets /, [last retrieved 29/05/2019]
49 Interview on CNN by Jack Tapper, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0P59ny4_5g and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUEP0hij8A0&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop [last retrieved
29/05/2019]

30 DONALD TRUMP: Jack, we gotta stop the problem. We can talk about it. For ever.
We can talk about it for ever. There’s a real problem. And it’s called radical Islamic
terrorism.
JACK TAPPER: Are you making things worse?
DONALD TRUMP: Wait a minute. Look, what’s worse, is it worse when they shoot
people, and they kill people, and the others laying in the hospital? What about Paris? Where
they have hundreds of people dead – in Paris! Same thing, It’s Paris, but same thing. And
many more people going t o die, they’re laying in the hospital practically dead. We’re got to
stop the problem. There’s a real problem.
3.1.7 Deictic
The role of deictic in Trump’s argumentative resources is so important and
significant that it would deserve to write a whole paper about it. Apart from using
imperatives and commands (“look”, “believe me”)50, he often uses the pronouns you/they in
order to establish the bina ry opposition between his supporters and the others, between an
unsophisticated America and the America of career politicians and Washington bureaucrats
represented by Hillary Clinton. Chapter 3 is dedicated to explain these ideas further. An
example of th is type of deictic can be seen in the following extract. Here the “other” is
portrayed as bad and negative.
Example 8: Discourse in Io wa during Presidential campaign51
DONALD TRUMP: People don’t know how great you are. People don’t know how
smart you are. T hese are the smart people. There are the smart people. There are the really
smart people. And they never like to say it. But I say it. And I’m a smart person. These are
the smart. We have the smartest people. We have the smartest people. And they know it.
And some say it. But they hate to say it. But we have the smartest people. [emphasis is
mine]
Another pair of pronouns that Trump uses is I/we. Trump makes a difference use of
these pronouns depending on whether he is a running candidate or an elected President. As a
running candidate he tends to use the first -person pronoun unless he addresses his
supporters as members of the same project. Notice this use in the following extract taken
from Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention at the Quickens Loan arena:

50 How Donald Trump answers a question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV -UzI, [last retrieved
29/05/2019]
51 Real Life Language. Donal d Trump Repetition Skills;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=no6r3KZ0f -Q&app=desktop [last retrieved
29/05/2019]

31 Who would have believed that, when we started this journey on June 15 of last yea r, and I
say we, because we are a team, would have received almost 14 million votes, the most in
history of the Republican Party. (…) I have joined the political arena so that the powerful
can no longer beat up on people who cannot defend themselves. Nobod y knows the system
better than me, which is why I alone can fix it. (…) My pledge reads :” I’M WITH YOU –
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE” I am your voice. On the other hand in the inaugural speech the
pronoun we predominates as Trump purports to give a message of national unity and to
build bridges with Democrats and the rest of Americans: “We do not seek (…) , we will
shine (…), we will reinforce (…) we will eradicate (…), we must speak our minds (…), we
will be protected (…), we must think big and dream even bigger (…)”
3.1.8 Intensifiers
Trump uses intensifiers with profusion. Expressions like “very”, “obviously”,
“great”, “tens of thousands” or “Yes, absolutely” remind the audience of the “businessman”
he purports to be. Citizens are treated like consumers and vote as a commodity sold by the
main actor of the discourse. Consequently he neglects any constraint to r ights and liberties
that are innate to anyone holding office, and depicts his goods (mainly his electoral
platform) like “attractive, simple and maximally unconstrained; yet the peculiar nature of
‘goods’ on offer makes it imperative that consumers’ access to them be controlled by rules
and safeguards”52.
3.1.9 Inarticulation
Trump sometimes behaves in an erratic way. His ideas are not completely consistent,
and his style is also chaotic. Inarticulation is an example of this behavior . At times his
prosody sounds a wkward as he interrupts himself constantly and he does not end sentences.
Example 9: President Trump sat down with "Face the Nation" moderator Margaret
Brennan, 201953
DONALD TRUMP: Look, having nuclear – my uncle was a great professor and
scientist and eng ineer, Dr. John Trump at M.I.T.; good genes, very good genes, O.K., very
smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart – you know, if you’re a
conservative, if I were a liberal, if, like, O.K…

52 FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Language and Power, Longman, 1989
53 Trump talks race, football, foreign policy and more ahead of the Super Bowl;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReCDMDK_uI4 [last retrieved 29/05/2019]

32 3.1.10 Hearsay evidence
Proof of evidence is given by presenting rumors as valid information. Dijk has
studied the influence of this sort of evidence in racist discourse (Dijk, 2003, p. 67).
According to this professor, every spokesman is responsible for what he says and he/she is
expected to produce relevant evidence. At the same time every culture establishes their own
criteria as to assess what is a valid proof and what is not. In modern societies media pieces
of news attain the status of credibility. That is why it is so common to back up statements
against immigrants, for instance, on information read on papers or that appear on the media.
As we can see on the example here given, Trump shows a god skill to use this mechanism.
Example 10: Interview on Jan. 25th, 2017, ABC News, “Wor ld News Tonight”54
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you know what’s important, millions of
people agree with me when I say that if you would’ve looked on one of the other networks
and all of the people that were calling in they’re saying, “We agree with Mr. Trump. We
agree”. They’re very smart people. The people that voted for me – – lots of people are saying
they saw things happen. I heard stories also. But you’re not talking about millions. But it’s a
small little segment. I will tell you, it’s a good thing that we’re doing because at the end
we’re gonna have an idea as to what’s going on. Now, you’re telling me Pew report has all
of a sudden changed. But you have other reports and you have other statements. You take a
look at the registrations; how many dead people a re there? Take a look at the registrations as
to the other things that I already presented .
3.2 Metaphor s used by Trump
To explain the basic tenets of metaphors and its repercussions on Trump’s speech I
will follow George Lakoff theories. According to Lakoff55, metaphor is pervasive in
everyday life, not just in language but in thought and action (…) our conceptual system thus
plays a central role in defining our everyday realities. If we are right in suggesting that our
conceptual system is largely metaphorical , then the way we think, what we experience and
what we do every day is very much a matter of metaphor. If metaphors are inherent in our
discourse, a key question results in finding out how unconscious they become, so that
speakers can develop strategies t o manipulate people’s thoughts. By way of introduction I
offer here three examples of metaphors illustrated with extracts from the President’s

54 Interview by anchor David Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25th, 2017, ABC News “World News Tonight”;
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript- abc-news -anchor -david -muir -interviews -president/story?id=45047602
[last retrieved 29/05/2019]
55 LAKOFF, George and JOHNSON, Mark, Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1980

33 discourse. Argument is War56: This metaphor is inherent in any political debate but it shows
special relevance in Trump’s discourse as he is prone to show the darker side of life as I
have already hinted and as we shall later see. “You are our greatest asset in helping our
movement deliver the truth to the American people. Which is why I need to take the
Mainstream Media Accountability Survey to do your part to fight back the media’s attacks
and deceptions.”57 Life is a Gambling Game. This metaphor appears in Trump’s statement
referring to the case of John McCain, whom he does not consider a war hero because he was
shot. For Lakoff the President’s reasoning is the following: “McCain got shot down. Heroes
are winners. They defeat big ba d guys. They don’t get shot down. People who get shot
down, beaten up, and stuck in a cage are losers, not winners.” Significant is Big . It is
another metaphor frequently used by Trump and that can be recovered in citations like this
one: “they defeat big bad guys”. Or this one taken from the interview by anchor David Muir
on ABC “World News Tonight”, Jan. 25th, 2017:
“This location was given to me. Mike Pence went up before me, paid great homage
to the wall. I went up, paid great homage to the wall. I then spoke to the crowd. I got a
standing ovation. In fact, they said it was the biggest standing ovation since Peyton Manning
had won the Super Bowl and they said it was equal. I got a standing ovation. It lasted for a
long period of time. What you do is take – take out your tape – you probably ran it live. I
know when I do good speeches. I know when I do bad speeches. That speech was a total
home run. They loved it. I could’ve. Life is Journey: It is an ever -present metaphor and it is
also noticeable in this extract: “In this journey, I’m so lucky to have at my side my wife
Melania and my wonderful children, Don, Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, and Barron (…)”58
3.2.1 Make America Great Again
“Make America Great Again” has become t he most popular slogan of Trump’s way
to the presidency. No matter how erratic and chaotic his campaign can seem, it was ever
present at any rally, being reproduced in caps, ads, banners and freebies. It now symbolizes
“Trumpism” as the general public asso ciates the slogan with him. According to an interview
given to the Washington Post on January 18th, 2017, he came across with the idea in 2012
and immediately had it registered and trademarked by his team of lawyers.13 Reagan has

56 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016
57 Donald Trump’s Facebook. Mainstream Media Survey:
https://www.facebook.com/trumpforcolorado/posts/261578327598259 [last retrieved 29/05/2019]
58 Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention; http://www.univision.com/noticias/convencion –
republicana/donald -trumps -speech -at-the-republican -convention, [last retrieved 29/05/2019]

34 already used “Let us Make America Great again” in his 1980 campaign, though he did not
trademark it. In the same interview Trump explains the reason the phrase inspired him. For
him: “it meant jobs. It meant industry and meant military strength. It meant taking care of
our veterans . It meant so much.” This phrase can be analyzed following the patterns of
metaphors developed by Lakoff59, that specifies that “states are locations in space: you can
enter a state, be deep in some state, and come out that state”. This was exactly the reas oning
used by British citizens in Brexit. Supporters of leaving the European Union thought that
stepping out of Brussels meant nothing but returning to the state of affairs back in 1972
when the UK became a formal member of the European Economic Communitie s. But as we
all know much has changed since that date and stepping out probably means today
something else. Mutatis mutandis the same reasoning can be extended to “Make America
Great Again”. What does Trump mean by “making America Great and Safe again” an d for
whom was or should be “greater” and “safer”? What is the ideal state he aims the country to
move backwards? Was it great upon the arrival to the Moon, was it great dropping down a
bomb on Hiroshima, was it great liberating Europe from the Nazis, was it great in the Big
Depression, was it great in the Spanish- American war, was it great when the Bill of Rights
was passed? What does he mean? There seems to be no way to know it for sure, however a
possible answer could be the desire to provide Americans w ith chance of rebirth. The idea
once again is not new. Burke on his article “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle” affirms that:
“Make America Greater Again” has become the most popular slogan of Trump’s way to the
presidency. No matter how erratic and chaotic his campaign can seem, it was ever present at
any rally, being reproduced in caps, ads, banners and freebies. It now symbolizes
“Trumpism” as the general public associates the slogan with him. According to an interview
given to the Washington Post on Janua ry 18th, 2017, he came across with the idea in 2012
and immediately had it registered and tra demarked by his team of lawyers60, Reagan has
already used “Let us Make America Great again” in his 1980 campaign, though he did not
trademark it. In the same inter view Trump explains the reason the phrase inspired him. For
him: “it meant jobs. It meant industry and meant military strength. It meant taking care of
our veterans. It meant so much.” This phrase can be analyzed following the patterns of
metaphors developed by Lakoff61, that specifies that “states are locations in space: you can

59 LAKOFF, George, Don't think of an Elephant. Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green
Publishing, 2004
60 How Donald Trump came up with ‘Make America Great Again’, The Washington Post on Jan. 18th, 2017,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how -donald- trump -came -up-with-make -america -great –
again/2 017/01/17/fb6acf5e -dbf7- 11e6- d423375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.4db4d5e7f26b [last retrieved
23/06/2017]
61 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016

35 enter a state, be deep in some state, and come out that state”. This was exactly the reasoning
used by British citizens in Brexit. Supporters of leaving the European Union thought t hat
stepping out of Brussels meant nothing but returning to the state of affairs back in 1972
when the UK became a formal member of the European Economic Communities. But as we
all know much has changed since that date and stepping out probably means today
something else. Mutatis mutandis the same reasoning can be extended to “Make America
Great Again”62.What does Trump mean by “making America Great and Safe again” and for
whom was or should be “greater” and “safer”? What is the ideal state he aims the count ry to
move backwards? Was it great upon the arrival to the Moon, was it great dropping down a
bomb on Hiroshima, was it great liberating Europe from the Nazis, was it great in the Big
Depression, was it great in the Spanish- American war, was it great when the Bill of Rights
was passed? What does he mean? There seems to be no way to know it for sure, however a
possible answer could be the desire to provide Americans with chance of rebirth.
3.2.2 The world is a mess
The World is a mess, has become another of the famous sentences that Trump
repeats in every opportunity he faces. The example here is taken once again from the
interview carried out by anchor David Muir for ABC News on “World News Tonight”, Jan.
25th, 2018:
Example 11:
PRESIDENT TRUMP: … David, I mean, I know you’re a sophisticated guy. The
world is a mess. The world is angry as it gets. What? You think this is gonna cause a little
more anger? The world is an angry place. All of this has happened. We went into Iraq. We
shouldn’t have gone into Iraq. We shouldn’t have gotten out the way we got out. The world
is a total mess. Take a look at what’s happening with Aleppo. Take a look what’s happening
in Mosul. Take a look what’s going on in the Middle East. And people are fleeing and
they’re going into Europe and all over the place. The world is a mess, David.
A fearful world vision is neither uncommon for the American culture nor for Trump.
In chapter 1 we have already seen examples of how prone Trump is to convey a negative
image of the society he pu rports to change. In the next subsection I will tackle the family
model designed by Lakoff using a metaphorical perspective. The strict father pattern is one
of these models and one of its main characteristics is precisely the vision of a world full of
threat and danger. But before analyzing these patterns I believe it is useful to take a previous

62 McWHORTER, John, How to listen to D onald Trump Every Day For Years. The New York Times, 2017

36 look to the “cosmogonic” visions that lay und the term Utopia was first coined by Thomas
More in the book of the same title written in 1516. Utopism is then deriv ed from the afore
mentioned word and turned into a political current, very successful in the past and now
experiencing a decline. Utopia is a perfect state where need has been abolished, the absence
of conflict prevails and violence and oppression are avoi ded. This state of affairs brings
about social harmony, freedom without limitation, total emancipation and in some cases the
elimination of the state. These principles explain why utopism has been developed by
different and antagonistic ideologies. We may find that utopic anarchism, primitive
socialism or communism share some of these ideas. Interestingly enough for this research is
to analyse the other side of the coin: the dystopias. A variation appears as an alternative
thought, the dystopia or inverted utopia. Its main aim is to highlight the negative tendencies
of the current society. Books like Brave New Worldby Aldous Huxley or 1984 by George
Orwell provide good samples. The decline of utopism seems to appear after the decades of
1960/70. According to Heywood (2010:418), this phenomenon is due to the
desradicalization of modern society and because movements of protest focus their attention
on the failures of the current society, but they neglect the conditions of future society. We
witness how globaliz ation has triggered a state of risk and uncertainty, created because of
the so-called connectivity of modern world. The fact that a relative minor event in one part
of the World can bring about a disaster at the other end of the Planet, creates a feeling o f
vulnerability and impotence. People tend to think that their destiny as well as the fate of
nations are out of control. For Heywood63 other facts add more pessimism to these
situations: The fight for energetic resources, the threat of ecologic disaster or the increasing
power of big corporations over governments that accelerate the rhythm of pollution. All
these predicaments hover over Trump’s discourse in one direction or another. He has been
considering global warming and climate change a hoax64 and there fore has ordered the
withdrawal of the USA from the Treaty of Paris. Notwithstanding his vision of the World is
chaotic and dangerous and takes advantage of it in order to sell his political platform to his
supporters.
3.2.3 The Nurturant Parent and the Strict F ather Family
To understand how various policy positions of conservatives hang together and as
part of his research in cognitive and brain sciences, Lakoff studied family values. He started

63 HEYWOOD, Andrew, Introducción a la Teoría Política, Valencia, Tirant lo Blanch, 2010
64 BAKER, Peter, Does Donald Trump Still Think Climate Change is a Hoax? No One Can Say, The New York
Times June 2nd, 2017

37 his research from the metaphorical premise that nation is a family and from here he
developed two patterns of family: the strict father and the nurturant parent. The first one is
male oriented, believes that the world is dangerous, considers that children are bad and need
to be punished and aims for the self -interest of m an and his self -fulfillment without
governmental interferences. The nurturant parent, on the other hand, is a non gender parent,
believes that the world is a good place to live and that children need protection, the same
way that the Earth needs environmental protection laws which will enable society to
progress. According to Lakoff65 the nurturant parent model is characterised by the following
features. The parent is gender neutral. Both parents (in case there are two) share household
responsibili ties. They believe that children are good and that they can become responsible,
self-disciplined and self -reliant through support and protection. Obedience comes out of
love and respect for the parents and not out of punishment. Parents hold legitimate aut hority
by explaining their offsprings the reasons of their decisions and why they serve the cause of
protection and nurturance. A major job of the nurturant parent is to protect an innocent and
helpless child from external danger. Children are protected “f rom cars without seat belts,
from smoking, from poisonous additives in food. So progressive politics focusses on
environmental protection, consumer protection, and protection from disease”66. Finally,
children are raised in order to feel empathy for others, to be compassionate and reach self –
fulfillment by nurturing others. In this model of family “nurturance takes priority over the
pursuit of self -interest”67. The strict father model on the other hand is male oriented. It is
based on the belief that the worl d is a dangerous place, evil and competitive. For this
pattern, “there will always be winners and losers. There is absolute right and absolute
wrong. Children are born bad […] therefore they have to be made good” (Lakoff, 2004, p.
7). As the strict father is a moral authority who knows right from wrong, children are
required to be obedient and it is through obedience how men become prosper and self –
reliant. Once the good children have become mature, “the strict father is not to meddle in
their lives. This translated politically into no government meddling”. (Lakoff, 2004, p. 8)
Does Mr. Trump fit in any of the above family models? Taking into consideration the
metaphor a nation is a family, Trump can be depicted like the father of the nation, someone
with en ough authority as to decide what is right and what is wrong. In the next section the

65 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016
66 LAKOFF, George, Don't think of an Elephant. Know your values and frame the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green
Publishing, 2004
67 LAKOF F, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016

38 concepts of order, morality and legitimate authority and their links with the strict father
model will be further developed.
3.2.4 Moral order and Moral authority
We have already seen that the President worries about the enforcement of law and
order in the country. As the strict father of Lakoff’s model, Trump emphasizes on the world
is “a dangerous place” issue. In this sense he goes along with the American trend of a
worldview inspired by violence and fear. The President is regarded as the father of the
nation who will provide protection against the violence that threatens the country. Here are
two examples of how he copes with this topic taken from Donald Trump’s speech a t the
Republican Convention: “Americans watching this address tonight have seen the recent
images of violence in our streets and the chaos in our communities. Many have witnessed
this violence personally; some have even been its victims. ”
“There should be no fear. We are protected, and we will always be protected. We
will be protected by the great men and women of our military and law enforcement and,
most importantly, we will be protected by God. ”
As it has been said the father in the strict moral family is regarded as a moral
authority. At the same time the metaphor of moral order plays a leading role in this type of
model. What lies underneath this thought is the natural hierarchy of power linked with the
Great Chain of Being. That means God has a moral responsibility for the well- being of
human beings, which in turn are superior and have a responsibility over animals, plants and
the rest of the nature. In Lakoff’s opinion 68: “For superpatriots, the U.S. ranks higher in the
moral order than any other nation in history. And there are people (typically, wealthy
people) who believe that the rich are morally superior to the poor. Indeed, that belief is
explicit in forms of Calvinism, where wordy goods are a reflection of righteousness.”69 If
this idea is linked with the metaphor a nation is a person, we consequently find out that there
are nations who are inferior than others, that there are good and bad nations; nations that
behave correctly and others that are mischievous, nations that abide by the rule s and others
that comply with the superior commands: “I have a different vision for our workers. It
begins with a new, fair trade policy that protects our jobs and stands up to countries that
cheat, which there are many. (…) We are going to enforce all trade violations, including
through the use of of taxes and tariffs, against any country that cheats. This includes

68 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016
69 Donald Trump’s speech at the Republ ican Convention; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVTuOyZDI0 [last
retrieved 30/05/2019]

39 stopping China’s outrageous theft of intellectual property, along with their illegal product
dumping, and their devastating currency manipulati on, they are the greatest currency
manipulators ever.”70 If the moral authority theory is applied in foreign policy in a strict
father environment, we find out that inferior nations are treated like children by the father –
superior -nation. In this situation the strict father does not negotiate, nor ask his children-
nations what they should do but tell them what is to be done. For Lakoff “ there is no back
talk. Communication is one -way. It is the same with the White House. That is, the president
does not ask; the president tells.”71 Mr. Trump’s intention of building a wall along the
border of Mexico and his announcement that it would be at the expense of the Aztec country
provides us with a good example of this procedure:
Example 12: Interview by anchor David Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC
News “World News Tonight”72
DAVID MUIR: What are you gonna say to some of your supporters who might say,
“Wait a minute, I thought Mexico was going to pay for this right at the start.”
PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, I’d s ay very simply that they are going to pay for it. I
never said they’re gonna pay from the start. I said Mexico will pay for the wall. But what I
will tell my supporters is, “Would you like me to wait two years or three years before I
make this deal ?” Becaus e we have to make a deal on NAFTA. We have to make a new trade
deal with Mexico because we’re getting clobbered.
3.2.5 Legitimate authority
Legitimate authority plays an important role in the configuration of the strict father
pattern. A parent knows better what the child’s interests are and once the child attains
maturity he is assumed “to act on his best interests for himself”73 and meddling on his
affairs is considered as an illegitimate interference. For Lakoff, this is an American
innovation of the strict fat her model . This way Americans feel resentment for any
illegitimate meddling in their sphere of action which is explained by Lakoff like this:
Advocates of Strict father morality show such a resentment of illegitimate authority, not just
toward meddling par ents but toward any moral authority seen to be illegitimately meddling

70 Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVTuOyZDI0 [last
retrieved 30/05/2019]
71 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Lib erals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016
72 Interview by anchor David Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC News “World News Tonight”;
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript- abc-news -anchor -david -muir -interviews – president/story?id=45047602
[last retrieved 29/05/2019]
73 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016

40 in their lives. The federal government is a common target. We regularly hear arguments that
the federal government doesn’t know what’s best for people, that people know what’s best
for themselves, and that the government is not acting in the interests of ordinary people.
How are these concepts implemented in Trump’s discourse? I have already pointed out the
rejection of the President towards any idea of “global warming” and conseque ntly towards
any environmental regulations. From his point of view these norms would prevent
Americans from developing their industrial activities and therefore they would hinder the
creation of jobs. His dislike of regulations is expressed for example her e: “Then we are
going to deal with the issue of regulation, one of the greatest job- killers of them all.
Excessive regulation is costing our country as much as $2 trillion a year, and we will end it,
very, very quickly. We are going to lift the restrictio ns on the production of American
energy ”.74 Trump’s attitude against regulations is complemented with his aversion towards
the establishment, which will be analysed in the final chapter of the paper.
3.3 The Other
The last chapter of this paper is dedicated to the analysis of the “otherness” in
Trump’s discourse. Trump focuses his attention in two types of others: the immigrants and
the bureaucrats. What do they have in common? How is the image of the “other”
represented? The “other” is portrayed from a binary form of representation75: They seem to
be represented through sharply opposed, polarized, binary extremes –good/bad,
civilized/primitive, ugly/excessively attractive, repelling -because- different/compelling
because -strange- and-exotic. And they are often required to be both things at the same time!
Sometimes the image that is given is “highly ambiguous” or “ambivalent”76.We find may
literary examples where readers are repelled and attracted at the same time by the “other”,
covered with a touched of se xual appeal and exoticism. Shakespeare characters like Caliban
or Othello provide good samples of this ambiguous attraction. The representation of the
“other” in ideological discourse in opinion of Dijk follows the strategy of given detailed
information about our positive aspects and the negative sides of the “others” and at the same
time being vague when talking about our failures. Negative information is very explicit,
crimes and misdemeanours of minorities are presented with a profusion of details while very

74 Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVTuOyZDI0 [last
retrieved 30/05/2019]
75 HALL, Stuart, The Spectacle of the "Other" in M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and S. J. Yates (editors), Discourse
Theory and Practice. L ondon: The Open University Press, 2001
76 DIJK, Teun van, Discourse and Power, Palgrave, 2008

41 few information is given of everyday racism. This strategy helps to build an inside/outside
pattern of the group, a we/they binary opposition.
3.3.1 America First
Another of Trump’s most known slogans is “America First”. It is a nationalist
approach that th rills his followers, it has already been used in other countries by other
political leaders in similar context and for similar purposes. It is very convenient in this
study to approach the concept of the “other” from the racist perspective. In his inaugura l
speech Trump could not let go the opportunity to introduce it: “We assembled here today
are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital and in every hall
of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward,
it’s going to be only America first. America first. ” The message is neither exclusive of
Trump nor new in the world of politics. As I have already mentioned intertextuality plays a
significant role in all types of discourse analysis and this is no exception. Wodak explains
how the Austrian party FPÖ led by Jörg Haider launched a proposal called “Österreich
zuerst” or Austria First77. The context that led Haider to back up his proposal in the decade
of the 1990 was very similar to the one that faces Trump: prevent immigrants from coming
into the country. As I have previously explained, the basic strategy of a racist discourse is to
portray an image of the other that highlights the “enemy’s” faults and our merits. This
pattern of behavior can be summarized like this according to the following model of Dijk78:

77 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, Sage Publications, 2002
78 DIJK, Teun van, Discourse and Power, Palgrave, 2008 Stress our positive aspects.
Stress their negative aspects.
Disregard our negative aspects.
Disregard their positives aspects.

42 With the help of this strategy it is built an image of the “other”, as someone brutal or
uncivilized . The “muslin ban” refers to all muslin as being terrorists without mentioning the
fact that most of the terrorist attacks perpetrated in US territory were carried out by
American citizens and disregarding that the majority of muslins in the world live pea ceful
and harmonic lives. The same thing can be said about immigrants. Trump emphasizes how
many aliens try to enter illegally into the country, but he does not say how many of them are
leaving. He highlights the number of them who commit crimes, but he is silent about the
number of them who hold no criminal record. Figures of criminality within American
citizens are also silenced. The “alien” is presented to the Americans as someone devoid of
any human trace, like sadist and uncivilized terrorists:
Example 13: Interview by anchor David Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC
News “World News Tonight”79
PRESIDENT TRUMP: I would do – I wanna keep our country safe. I wanna keep
our country safe.
DAVID MUIR: What does that mean?
PRESIDENT TRUMP: When they’re shoot ing – when they’re chopping off heads of
our people and other people, when they’re chopping off the heads of people because they
happen to be a Christian in the Middle East, when ISIS is doing things that nobody has ever
heard of since Mediaeval times, wou ld I feel strongly about water boarding? As far as I’m
concerned, we have to fight fire with fire. (…)
The extract shows another of Trump’s inconsistencies. If ISIS actions are savage and
barbaric, upholding torture methods like “water boarding” does not s eem very civilized or
proper of the Head of State of a modern democracy. In other occasions the apparent
negation strategy is used (Dijk, 2003, p. 64)80. Speakers seek to avoid receiving a negative
image when speaking about immigrants and they utter phrases like: “I have nothing against
X, but…” Here are some examples taken from Trump’s speeches : “By the way, I love
Mexican people, I have such a great relationship with Mexico, I hire thousands, people, the
rich, Mexicans, they are great people (…) I love M exican people. I love the spirit of the
Mexican people. I love them. ” “They are bringing crime, they are rapist and some – I
assume they are good people.81”

79 Interview by anchor David Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC News “World News Tonight”;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd0exGVArQU [last retrieved 29/05/2019]
80 DIJK, Teun van, Ideología y Discurso, Barcelona, Ariel, 2003
81 Donald Trump “loves Mexicans” (Episode 2);
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WUVP6l9Das&list=PL0aCgXWRSPSm5ycDzT87plXHoXl5f -xT- [last
retrieved 29/05/2019]

43 3.3.2 The Establishment
The second representation of “otherness” in Trump’s discourse is based on the
establishment, namely career politicians like Hillary Clinton, Washington bureaucrats and
“fake news” (the media). Those are his main foes and he targets all his verbal violence
against them. The positive/negative strategy is here implemented. The establishment is
depicted as formal and sophisticated, more worried about the political correctness of
language than to solve the real problems of the citizens. On the other hand, Trump speaks
like any of his supporters, in plain and unsophisticated English. He reaches out and touches
people’s hands and connects with citizens, who do not feel comfortable anymore with a high
elite society as they have abandoned them. Trump, again as father of the nation, provides
them with what they need when he says: “I will present the facts plainly and honestly. We
cannot afford to be so politically correct any more .”82 In his inaugural speech, he shows that
there is nothing flowery in his discourse delivered in a simple fashion: “We will no longer
accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing
anything about it. The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action. Do not
allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done. No challenge can match the heart and fight
and spirit of America. We will not fail. Our country will thrive and prosper again.”83 And
again, he targets the “establishment” when he talks to the audience by aiming to extract a
general truth out of an incident: “I have embraced crying mothers who have lost their
children because our politicians put their personal agendas before the national good. I have
no patience for injustice, no tolerance for government incompetence, no sym pathy for
leaders who fail their citizens.”84 This procedure shows another of the inconsistencies of
Trump’s discourse. On one hand he runs down the “establishment” and on the other hand he
himself is a billionaire and billionaires are just part of the esta blishment he criticizes. He
targets the typical politicians but he runs for the republican ticket, an ordinary political party
and member once again of the establishment.

82 Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVTuOyZDI0 [last
retrieved 30/05/2 019]
83 Donald Trump’s Inaugural Speech, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRBsJNdK1t0 [last retrieved 30/05/2019]
84 Donald Trump’s speech at the Republican Convention; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CVTuOyZDI0 [last
retrieved 30/05/2019]

44 CONCLUSIONS
After studying the main tenets of Trump’s discourse, I am in the position to answer
the question raised at the beginning of the paper: What is new in Trump’s discourse? But
before going into detailed explanations I would like to settle one premise. Donald J. Trump
is a great entertainer and that is its main appeal. Working only with transcripts does not
allow you to perceive how entertaining Trump is, no matter how inconsistent and chaotic his
speeches might seem. His tweeters do not provide either with this flavor so it is necessary to
watch him at rallies or TV interviews to get a taste of his appeal. He is fun, he is a salesman
and always keeps very American at the same time. His character, his sense of humor
matches perfectly the American way of being. In my opinion this is the main reason why he
is being able to reach out and touch Americans who belong to a middle and lower class and
who had the feeling of having been forsaken by politicians who did not speak their
language. Trump is unique because there has never been nothing like him before, he is
compl etely off the spectrum. He has never held office and his political positions are not
known in many occasions. His uniqueness derives also from his informality which has
various ways of expression. Not only his language is simple, but many a times borders t he
limit of state decorum. The President loves to tweet, and he is prone to engage himself in
discussions like the side of the crowd in the inauguration ceremony, which would be
consider irrelevant for any Head of State. Finally, and though he ascribes to the strict father
model of family of Lakoff, he could be considered a pragmatic conservative because he
supports the LGBTQ movement, wants to keep Social Security and Medicare and is against
certain policies of the pharmaceutical corporations85. On the othe r hand, there are many
aspects of Trump which are not new. As a strict father his vision of a dangerous world, full
of fear and threat is not unique, I would rather say that is indeed very American. Trump is
also very American in the way he reasons. Americans are very prone to use topoi of menace
or burden in order to justify his actions86. They also take hold of direct causation instead of
systemic causation to frame proposals .87 This way if immigrants flood in from Mexico
Trump builds a wall without thinking which might be the ultimate cause for this migration,
and if ISIS terrorist attack America, Trump bombs them without taking a second to reflect
about which might be the ultimate reason, maybe people are being stolen their natural

85 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016
86 WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory, and Methodology,
Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009
87 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016

45 resources… Once again, we come across with simplicity. Direct causation thinkers love it
simple, while systematic causation is complex. Once again, the direct causation seems to be
very characteristic of the American culture, or at least of a large majority of it.
And last but not least intertextuality provides us with an explanation for the non-
uniqueness of Trump. The President is neither unique when he affirms “America First”. We
have seen that the slogan had already been used in Austria in a similar context. I end this
paper with this citation taken from Lakoff which the ultimate sense of this research: The
cynical liberal explanation is the Orwellian one, that any Big Lie repeated often enough will
be believed. But that assumes an old- fashioned stimulus -response view of the h uman mind
that both ignores what is known about the human brain and the effects of culture. We are all
immersed in American Culture. Our cultural knowledge is physically encoded in the
synapses of our brains. People do not get new worldviews overnight. New ideas are never
entirely new88.

88 LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: The University of Chicago,
2016

46 BIBLIOGRA PHY
1. ALBA -JUEZ, Laura, Perspectives on Discourse Analysis. Theory and
Practice, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009;
2. ASLAM SIPRA, Muhammad and RASHID, Athar, Critical Discourse
Analysis of Martin Luther King's Speech in Socio- Political Perspective,
Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 4:27- 33, 2013;
3. AZAUSTRE, Antonio y CASAS, Juan, Manual de Retórica Española,
Barcelona, Ariel, 1997;
4. BAKER, Peter, Does Donald Trump Still Think Climate Change is a Hoax?
No One Can Say, The New York Times June 2nd, 2017;
5. BALDICK, Chris, Concise Dictionary of Literary Terms, Oxford University
Press, 2004;
6. CASADO, Yolanda, El Sistema Político de los Estados Unidos de América.
In P. Chávarri Sider a, I. Delgado Sotillos and P. Oñate Rubalcaba (Editors),
Sistema de Organización Política Contemporánea. Madrid: UNED, 500- 540,
2002;
7. DELGADO SOTILLOS, Irene, CHÁVARRI SIDERA, Pilar and OÑATE
RUBALCABA, Pablo, Sistemas de Organización Política Contemporáne a,
Madrid, UNED, 2002;
8. DIJK, Teun van , Discourse and Power, Palgrave, 2008;
9. DIJK, Teun van , Ideología y Discurso, Barcelona, Ariel, 2003;
10. DIJK, Teun van, Cognitive context models and discourse. In M. Stamenow
(Ed.). Language Structure, Discourse and the A ccess to Consciousness. (pp.
189-226). Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997;
11. FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of
Language, New York, Routledge, 2010;
12. FAIRCLOUGH, Norman, Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, Polity,
1992;
13. FAIRCL OUGH, Norman, Language and Power, Longman, 1989;
14. FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍNEZ, Dolores and TRUJILLO GONZÁLEZ,
Verónica, Obama and Bush: Their victory and non victory speeches.
Onomázein. Revista de lingüística, filología y traducción de la Pontificia
Universidad Cat ólica de Chile, 25:205- 217, 2012;

47 15. FOUCAULT, M., Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison.
Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977;
16. GARCÍA, Tomás Mena, Donald J. Trump: A critical discourse analysis,
Donald J. Trump: Un análisis crítico del discurso, Estudios Institucionales,
Vol. V, No. 8, p. 47- 73, 2018;
17. GRUNDY, Peter, Doing Pragmatics. London: Hodder Education, 2008;
18. HALL, Stuart, The Spectacle of the "Other" in M. Wetherell, S. Taylor and
S. J. Yates (editors), Discourse Theory and Practice. London: The Open
University Press, 2001;
19. HERNÁNDEZ -GUERRA, Concepción, Textual, intertextual and Rethorical
features in political discourse: The case of President Obama in Europe,
Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 8:59 -65, 2013;
20. HEYWOOD, Andrew, Introducción a la Teoría Política, Valencia, Tirant lo
Blanch, 2010;
21. LAKOFF, George and JOHNSON, Mark, Metaphors we live by. Chicago:
The University of Chicago, 1980;
22. LAKOFF, George, Don't think of an Elephant. Know your values and frame
the debate. Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2004;
23. LAKOFF, George, Moral Politics. How Liberals and Conservatives Think.
Chicago: The University of Chicago, 2016;
24. LESSNOFF, Michael H, La Filosofía Política del Siglo XX, Madrid, Akal,
2011;
25. LOCKE, Terry, Critical Discourse Analysis, Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2004;
26. McWHORTER, John, How to listen to Donald Trump Every Day For
Years.The New York Times, 2017;
27. MILDORF, Stefanie Lethbridge and Jarmilla, Basics of English Studies (An
introductory course for students of liter ary studies in English developed at
the English departments of the Universities of Tübingen, Stuttgart and
Freiburg, 2003;
28. SCHÄFFNER, Cf. Christina, Editorial: Political Speeches and Discourse
Analysis, Current Issues in Language and Society, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1996;
29. TUMULTY, Kaken, How Donald Trump came up with "Make America
Great Again". The Washington Post Jan. 18th, 2017;
30. VICO, Giambattista, The Art of Rhetoric, Institutiones Oratoriae, 1711- 1741;

48 31. WETHERELL, Margaret, TAYLOR, Stephanie and YATES, Simeon, J ,
Discourse Theory and Practice. London: The Open University Press, 2001;
32. WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Critical Discourse Analysis: History,
Agenda, Theory, and Methodology, Ruth Wodak, Michael Meyer, 2009;
33. WODAK, Ruth and MEYER, Michael, Methods of Cri tical Discourse
Analysis, Sage Publications, 2002;
34. ZINN, Howard, A People -s History of The United States, Harper Perennial
Modern Classics; Reissue edition, 2015.

49 INTERNET RESOURCES
1. All the President's tweets By Amanda Wills and Alysha Love, CNN
https://ed ition.cnn.com/interactive/2017/politics/trump -tweets/, [last retrieved
29/05/2019];
2. Donald Trump "loves Mexicans" (Episode 2);

m5ycDzT87plXHoXl5f -xT-, [last retrieved 29/05/2019];
3. Donald Trump on State of the Union. Interview with Jack Tapper in CNN.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0P59ny4_5g, [last retrieved
29/05/2019];
4. Donald Trump says Muslins support his plan on Jimmy Kimmel Live
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqhg2FNzKHM&feature=youtu.be; [last
retrieved 29/05/2019];
5. Donald Trump Speech Analysis. Extracts taken from a Republican
Presidential Debate CBS News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=uOEPpQAF –
xA&app=desktop, ,[last retrieved 29/05/2019];
6. Donald Trump's Facebook: https: //www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/, [last
retrieved 30/05/2019];
7. Donald Trump's Inaugural Speech,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRBsJNdK1t0, [last retrieved
30/05/2019];
8. Donald Trump's speech at the Republican Convention;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CV TuOyZDI0, [last retrieved
30/05/2019];
9. Donald Trump's website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/, [last retrieved
30/05/2019];
10. How Donald Trump answers a question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV -UzI, [last retrieved
29/05/2019];
11. Interview by anchor Dav id Muir on Wednesday, Jan. 25, 2017, ABC News
"World News Tonight"; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gd0exGVArQU,
[last retrieved 29/05/2019];

50 12. Lakoff, G. (2016). Understanding Trump's Use of Language. George Lakoff
Blog. https://georgeLakoff.com/blog, [last retrieved 29/05/2019];
13. Noam Chomsky on the new Trump era. Upfront Especial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB54XxbgI0E, [last retrieved
29/05/2019];
14. Top 100 speeches on http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/.