The strategy of demagoguery in Donald Trump’s thankful speech
Abstract
The article is focused on identifying local and speech strategies (tactics) that are subjected to the global strategy of demagoguery in American political discourse. The article concerns analysis of the definitions and synonyms of the term demagoguery. Such analysis confirmed the appropriateness of considering demagoguery as a specific strategy of political discourse. The results of the research ascertain that the term demagoguery is perceived differently in Ukrainian and English linguistic cultures. Ukrainians perceive demagoguery as a tool for deceiving and manipulation, while Englishmen think of it as of a method of leading a political game and broadening the voter base. The recipients of demagoguery in Ukrainian linguistic culture are uneducated groups of people, while in English linguistic culture the recipient is the people as a whole. Demagoguery as a specific strategy of political discourse is mainly used to influence the electorate through appealing to the feelings, instincts, and prejudices and through forming required political views and preferences. The analysis of the American sociologists’ works enabled us to identify the main features of demagoguery. They are the following: the focus on broadening the audience, using propaganda for manipulating the masses and entertaining character. Analysis of empirical evidence, Donald Trump's thankful speech, which was given at the Republican national convention in 2016, allows us to single out local strategies of demagoguery. The local strategies of demagoguery, which are typical for American political discourse, are the following: populism, manipulation, subjectivation, fascination, and information simplification. Moreover, the article identifies and describes speech tactics that are typical for each local strategy. Among them, there are tactics of empty promises, lies, accusing, ridicule, using slogans, vulgarization, intimidation, and a tactic of finding a scapegoat. The research also concerns analysis of the linguistic means used for the realization of every local strategy and speech tactic. The most frequently used linguistic means are usage of expressive language with positive and negative meaning, repetition, anthroponomy, and subjectivation.
Downloads
References
Belova, A.D. (1999). Amerikanizm, amerikanskij politicheskij diskurs i idiostil' prezidenta Teodora Ruzvel'ta [Americanism, political discourse and Theodore Roosevelt's idiomatic style]. Vіsnik Harkіvs'kogo derzh. un-tu. – Kharkiv. National Univ. Messenger, 430, 6–13 (in Russian)
Belova, A.D. (1997). Lingvisticheskie aspekty argumentacii [Linguistic aspects of reasoning]. Kyiv: Kyiv Univ. Publ.
Beljakova, O. V. (2007). Osobennosti argumentativnogo diskursa v sfere politicheskoj polemiki (na materiale jelektronnyh publikacij o vyborah v Bundestag FRG 2005 g.) Avtoref. diss. kand. filol. nauk [Specific features of reasoned discourse in the sphere of political polemics (based on electronic publications about Bundestag elections in Germany in 2005. Kand. philol. sci. diss.]. Samara (in Russian)
Gavrishina, I. N. (1990). Tipy i formy argumentacii (na materiale politicheskogo diskursa) [Kinds and forms of reasoning (based on political discourse material]. The meaning of the text in the communication process. Mos. in-t in. jaz. imeni M. Torez – Moscow Moris Torez institute of foreign languages, 363, 11–26 (in Russian)
Dejk, T. A. (1989). Jazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikacija [Language. Knowledge. Communication]. Moscow: Progress.
Melnychuk O. S., Kolomiyecz` V. T., & Tkachenko O. B. (ed.) (1985). Etymologichnyj slovnyk ukrayinskoyi movy: V 7 t. T. 2 [Ukrainian etymological dictionary in 7 volumes. V. 2] Kyiv: Naukova dumka.
Ivanov L.J. (2004). Piar est' piar – primery rechevoj manipuljacii v novom rossijskom politicheskom diskurse [PR is PR – illustrations of speech manipulations in new Russian political discourse]. Sprache. Literatur. Politik. Ost- und Südosteuropa im Wandel. Hamburg, 33–62.
Ivanova Ju. M. (2001). Jevfemizacija i disfemizacija kak strategii manipuljacii v politicheskom diskurse [Euphemisation and disphemisation as manipulative strategies in political discourse]. Jazykovaja lichnost': problemy kognicii i kommunikacii – Linguistic personality: the problems of cognition and communication. Volgograd: Kolledzh, 230–235.
Knorozov Ju. V. (1962). Ob izuchenii fascinacii [About fascinology studies]. Voprosy jazykoznanija – Questions of linguistics, 1, 163.
Kochkin M. Ju. (1999). Manipuljacija v politicheskom diskurse [Manipulations in political discourse]. Jazykovaja lichnost': problemy lingvokul'turologii i funkcional'noj semantiki – Linguistic personality: the problems of linguistic culture and functional semantics. Volgograd: Peremena, 26–30.
Kulikova O. V. (2000). Lingvostilisticheskie sredstva razvertyvanija argumentacii v publicisticheskom tekste (na mat. parlamentskih vystuplenij): avtoref. dis. kand. filol. nauk [Linguistical means of reasoning in a publicistyk text (based on materials of parliamental speeches) Kand. philol. sci. diss. synopsis]. Moscow (in Russian)
Panchenko, N. N. (2001). Manipuljativnost' politicheskoj reklamy [Manipulative features of political advertisement]. Jazykovaja lichnost': Problemy kognicii i kommunikacii – Linguistic personality: the problems of cognition and communication. Volgograd: Kolledzh, 225–230.
Docenko, P. P., and Yurchuk L. A. (ed.) (1971). Slovnyk ukrayinskoyi movy v 11 tomah.[Ukrainian dictionary in 11 volumes]. T. 2. Kyiv: Naukova dumka, 550 s.
Sokovnin V. M. (2003). Fascinacija kak nauka [Fascinology as a science]. Fascinologija – Fascinology, 1, 9–14.
Dal, V. I. (ed.) (1955). Tolkovyj slovar' zhivogo velikorusskogo jazyka [Explanatory dictionary of the living great Russian language]. Available at: http://slovardalja.net
Shevchenko, I. S., and Morozova, E. I. (2003). Diskurs kak myslekommunikativnoe obrazovanie [Discourse as cognitive-communicative phenomenon]. Vіsnik Harkіv. nac. un-tu. іm. V. N. Karazіna. – V. N. Karazin Kharkiv. National Univ. Messenger, 586, 33–38.
Shejgal, E. I. (2000). Jevfemizacija v politicheskom diskurse [Euphemisation in political discourse] Jazykovaja lichnost': problemy kreativnoj semantiki – Linguistic personality: the problems of creative semantics. Volgograd: Peremena, 158–171.
Chuck Jones (2019) Don't blame Obama for doubling the federal deficit. Forbes Media LLC. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2018/01/15/obamas-federal-debt-grew-at-a-slower-rate-than-reagan-h-w-bush-or-w-bush/#7334485b1917
Danny Vinik (2016) Donald Trump’s confused portrait of black America. POLITIKO. Available at: https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/10/donald-trumps-confused-portrait-of-black-america-000220
Donald Trump’s acceptance speech. Available at: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/21/12253426/donald-trump-acceptance-speech-transcript-republican-nomination-transcript
Doob, L. W., Robinson, E. S. (1935). Psychology and propaganda. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 179, 88–95.
English Cambridge dictionary. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/propaganda
English Oxford dictionary. Available at: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/demagogy
Gilbert, G. M. (1955). Dictators and Demagogues. Journal of Social Issues, 11, 52–53.
Gustainis, J. (1990). Demagoguery and Political Rhetoric: A Review of the Literature. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 20, 155–161.
Haun, M. W. (1971). A study in demagoguery: A critical analysis of the speaking of George Corley Wallace in the 1968 presidential campaign. Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois.
Logue, C., and Dorgan H. (1981). "The Demagogue". The Oratory of Southern Demagogues. Louisiana University Press, 1–11.
Luthin, R. H. (1954). American Demagogues: Twentieth Century. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
