During the 2016 election, Donald Trump was characterized by his simple, pompous and repetitive language. However, studies have shown that sometimes he does not speak the way he used to. Critical discourse analysis suggests that political discourse analysis should include both the characterization of the text and the systematic description of the context. Thus, this study intends to evaluate stylistic features of Donald Trump’s political discourse based on the evolution over time as well as the genre variation by employing a comparison between Obama, Clinton and Trump. Results show that in debates, Trump uses less diverse vocabulary and simpler sentences. In campaign speeches, nonetheless, along with the change of circumstances, he sometimes employed a richer vocabulary and well-edited sentences. In addition, Trump’s speeches contain relatively more central themes in his campaign speeches. His concentration on political themes may meet key interests of a large proportion of electorates.
BenoitWLMcKinneyMSLance HolbertR (2001) Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs68(3): 259–273.
4.
BiberDConradS (2009) Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ČechR (2014) Language and ideology: Quantitative thematic analysis of New Year speeches given by Czechoslovak and Czech presidents (1949–2011). Quality & Quantity48(2): 899–910.
6.
ČechRGarabíkRAltmannG (2015) Testing the thematic concentration of text. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics22(3): 215–232.
7.
ChomaBLHanochY (2017) Cognitive ability and authoritarianism: Understanding support for Trump and Clinton. Personality and Individual Differences106: 287–291.
8.
CovingtonMAMcFallJD (2010) Cutting the Gordian Knot: The moving-average type-token ratio (MATTR). Journal of Quantitative Linguistics17(2): 94–100.
FaberDStephensJWallisVet al. (2017) Trump’s electoral triumph: Class, race, gender, and the hegemony of the polluter-industrial complex. Capitalism Nature Socialism28(1): 1–15.
12.
FaircloughN (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.
13.
FaircloughN (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (Language in Social Life series). London: Routledge.
GarsideR (1987) The CLAWS word-tagging system. In: GarsideRLeechGSampsonG (eds) The Computational Analysis of English: A Corpus-based Approach. London: Longman, pp. 30–41.
HirschJE (2005) An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America102: 16, 569–16, 572.
21.
HochschildAR (2016) The ecstatic edge of politics: Sociology and Donald Trump. Contemporary Sociology45(6): 683–689.
KincaidJPFishburneRPRogersRLet al. (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated readability index, fog count and Flesch reading ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report no. 8-75, February. Millington, TN: CNTECHTRA.
24.
KressG (1985) Linguistic Processes in Sociocultural Practice. Geelong, VIC, Australia: Deakin University Press.
25.
KubátM (2014) Moving window type-token ratio and text length. In: AltmannGČechRMačutekJet al. (eds) Empirical Approaches to Text and Language Analysis. Lüdenscheid: RAM, pp. 105–113.
26.
KubátMČechR (2016a) Quantitative analysis of US presidential inaugural addresses. Glottometrics34: 14–27.
27.
KubátMČechR (2016b) Text length and the thematic concentration of text. Mathematical Linguistics2(1): 5–13.
MorganMShanahanJ (2017) Television and the cultivation of authoritarianism: A return visit from an unexpected friend. Journal of Communication67: 424–444.
34.
PettigrewTF (2017) Social psychological perspectives on Trump supporters. Journal of Social and Political Psychology5(1): 107–116.
35.
PopescuII (2007) Text ranking by the weight of highly frequent words. In: GrzybekP (eds) Exact Methods in the Study of Language and Text. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 555–566.
36.
PopescuIIAltmannGGrzybekPet al. (2009) Word Frequency Studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
37.
PopescuIIAltmannG (2011) Thematic concentration in texts. In: KelihELevickijVMatskulyakY (eds) Issues in Quantitative Linguistics 2. Lüdenscheid: RAM, pp. 110–116.
QuamJRyshina-PankovaM (2016) ‘Let me tell you …’: Audience engagement strategies in the campaign speeches of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders. Russian Journal of Linguistics20(4): 140–160.
40.
ReisiglMWodakR (2009) The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. SAGE: London, pp. 87–121.
SavoyJ (2017a) Analysis of the style and the rhetoric of the 2016 US presidential primaries. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities. Epub ahead of print 13February. DOI: 10.1093/llc/fqx007
SchumacherEEskenaziM (2016) A readability analysis of campaign speeches from the 2016 US presidential campaign. Arxiv Preprint. Available at: https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05739
45.
SwalesJ (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
Van DijkTA (1998) What is political discourse analysis?Belgian Journal of Linguistics11(1): 11–52.
47.
Van DijkTA (2003) The discourse-knowledge interface. In: WeissGWodakR (eds) Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 85–109.
48.
Van DijkTA (2005) Contextual knowledge management in discourse production. In: WodakRChiltonP (eds) A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp. 71–100.
