Negotiating dominance on Facebook: Positioning of self and others in pro- and anti-Trump comments on immigration

Abstract

The article examines the use of the modal auxiliaries MUST and HAVE (GOT) TO in politically charged online communication. Comments from D. Trump’s official Facebook page were categorized according to the ideological position of the commenters and further divided into employing deontic or epistemic senses of the modals. The analysis was based on the assumption that the proportion of epistemic and deontic modals in the supportive and critical comments reflects the stances of equality or superiority assumed by the commenters. The hypothesis that pro- and anti-Trump camps assume different stances while debating immigration was confirmed as the proportion of deontic and epistemic senses of the modals differed significantly between the two groups. There were also differences in the use of passive voice referring to in- and out- groups. The results are used to make inferences about the underlying ideology of Trump supporters and the prevalent attitudes in the population under study.

Keywords

Anti-immigrant discourse corpus-assisted discourse study critical discourse analysis epistemic and deontic modality Facebook ideology modal auxiliaries passive voice political discourse stance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alonso-Almeida

González-Cruz

(2012) Exploring male and female voices through epistemic modality and evidentiality in some modern English travel texts on the Canaries. Research in Language 10(3): 323–343.

Baker

Gabrielatos

Khosravinik

, et al. (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society 19(3): 273–306.

Baratta

(2009) Revealing stance through passive voice. Journal of Pragmatics 41(7): 1406–1421.

Biber

(2006) Stance in spoken and written university registers. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 5(2): 97–116.

Billig

(1988) The notion of “prejudice”: Some rhetorical and ideological aspects. Text 8(1–2): 91–110.

Bou-Franch

Blitvich

PGC

(2014) Conflict management in massive polylogues: A case study from YouTube. Journal of Pragmatics 73: 19–36.

Brezina

(2012) Epistemic markers in university advisory sessions: Towards a local grammar of epistemicity. Doctoral Dissertation. Available at: https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/handle/2292/19372

Bybee

(1985) Morphology: A Study of Relation between Sound and Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Cap

(2017) From ‘cultural unbelonging’ to ‘terrorist risk’: Communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 15(3): 285–302.

10.

Coates

(1983) The Semantics of the Modal Auxiliaries. London; Canberra, ACT, Australia: Croom Helm.

11.

Collins

(2009) Modals and quasi-modals in world Englishes. World Englishes 28: 281–292.

12.

Conrad

Biber

(2000) Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In: Hunston

Thompson

(eds) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 56–73.

13.

Cornillie

(2010) An interactional approach to epistemic and evidential adverbs. In: Diewald

Smirnova

(eds) Linguistic Realization of Evidentiality in European Languages. Berlin; New York: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 309–330.

14.

Downing

Perucha

(2014) Modality and personal pronouns as indexical markers of stance: Intersubjective positioning and construction of public identity in media interviews. In: Marín-Arrese

Carretero

Hita

, et al (eds) English Modality: Core, Periphery and Evidentiality, vol. 81. Berlin; Boston, MA: Walter de Gruyter, pp. 379–410.

15.

Du Bois

(2007) The stance triangle. In: Englebretson

(ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 139–182.

16.

Duncan

(2017) The uses of hate: On hate as a political category. M/C: A Journal of Media and Culture 20(1). Available at: http://www.journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/view/1194

17.

Englebretson

(2007a) Grammatical resources for social purposes: Some aspects of stancetaking in colloquial Indonesian conversation. In: Englebretson

(ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 69–110.

18.

Englebretson

(2007b) Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In: Englebretson

(ed.) Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 1–25.

19.

Fairclough

(1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.

20.

Hardaker

(2010) Trolling in asynchronous computer-mediated communication: From user discussions to academic definitions. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behavior, Culture 6(2): 215–242.

21.

Harré

van Langenhove

(eds) (1999) Positioning Theory: Moral Contexts of International Action. Oxford: Blackwell.

22.

Hengeveld

(2004) Illocution, mood and modality. In: Booij

Lehmann

Mugdan

, et al (eds) Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Berlin: de Gruyter, pp. 1190–1202.

23.

Hogan

Haltinner

(2015) Floods, invaders, and parasites: Immigration threat narratives and right-wing populism in the USA, UK and Australia. Journal of Intercultural Studies 36(5): 520–543.

24.

Huber

(2016) Make America great again: Donald Trump, racist nativism and the virulent adherence to white supremacy amid US demographic change. Charleston Law Review 10: 215–248.

25.

Huddleston

Pullum

(2002) The Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

26.

Huschová

(2015) Exploring modal verbs conveying possibility in academic discourse. Discourse and Interaction 8(2): 35–47.

27.

Jaffe

(2009) Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In: Jaffe

(ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–28.

28.

Kassimeris

Jackson

(2015) The ideology and discourse of the English Defence League: ‘Not racist, not violent, just no longer silent’. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 17(1): 171–188.

29.

Kellner

(2017) American Horror Show: Election 2016 and the Ascent of Donald J. Trump. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

30.

Kiesling

(2009) Style as stance. In: Jaffe

(ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 171–194.

31.

Kilgarriff

Rychlý

Smrz

, et al. (2004) The sketch engine. In: Proceedings of the eleventh EURALEX international congress, Lorient, 6–10 July.

32.

Knoblock

(2017) Xenophobic trumpeters. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 5(2): 295–322.

33.

Kratzer

(1977) What must and can must and can mean. Linguistics and Philosophy 1(3): 337–355.

34.

Leech

(2004) Recent grammatical change in English: Data, description, theory. In: Aijmer

Altenberg

(eds) Advances in Corpus Linguistics. Leiden: Rodopi, pp. 61–81.

35.

Leong

(2014) The passive voice in scientific writing: The current norm in science journals. Journal of Science Communication 13(1): 1–16.

36.

Mair

Leech

(2006) Current changes in English syntax. In: Aarts

McMahon

(eds) The Handbook of English Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 318–342.

37.

Marlow

(2015) The American Dream? Anti-immigrant discourse bubbling up from the Coca-Cola ‘It’s Beautiful’advertisement. Discourse & Communication 9(6): 625–641.

38.

Millar

(2009) Modal verbs in TIME: Frequency changes 1923-2006. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(2): 191–220.

39.

Musolff

(2015) Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3(1): 41–56.

40.

Palmer

(1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

41.

Pew Research Center (2018) An examination of the 2016 electorate, based on validated voters, 9 August. Available at: https://www.people-press.org/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

42.

Reilly

Zamora

McGivern

(2005) Acquiring perspective in English: The development of stance. Journal of Pragmatics 37(2): 185–208.

43.

Richardson

Colombo

(2013) Continuity and change in anti-immigrant discourse in Italy: An analysis of the visual propaganda of the Lega Nord. Journal of Language and Politics 12(2): 180–202.

44.

Trump

(2015) Statement on preventing Muslim immigration [Facebook post], December 7. Available at: https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/10156386906600725

45.

Van Dijk

(1998) Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE.

46.

Van Dijk

(2001) Critical discourse analysis. In: Schiffrin

Tannen

Hamilton

(eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, pp. 349–371.

47.

Verstraete

(2001) Subjective and objective modality: Interpersonal and ideational functions in the English modal auxiliary system. Journal of Pragmatics 33(10): 1505–1528.

48.

Vold

(2006) Epistemic modality markers in research articles: A cross-linguistic and cross-disciplinary study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 16(1): 61–87.

49.

Wodak

(ed.) (1989) Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.