Ideological and linguistic features of Donald Trump's tweets through critical discourse analysis

Ideological and Linguistic Features & CDA of Ethnicity in Donald Trump Tweets Abstract
This proposal provides an explanation of the study on the ideological and linguistic features of Donald Trump’s tweets from the standpoint of critical discourse analysis of ethnicity. The proposal first points out the need for this study and explains the benefit of this research. Then it explains the relevance of the framework that will be used to address the subject and the findings. It shows that the relationship between power, ideology and language can be seen in the use of the president’s Twitter account. The aim of the study is to understand why President Trump is so successfully provocative and polarizing in his tweets and what this means in terms of how power is exchanged in American society. The proposal describes the methodology to be used, what the analysis of the data is expected to show, and discusses in a preliminary way what the results and repercussions of these findings are likely to mean.

Introduction
The presidency of Donald Trump has been unlike any other in American history for many reasons, but from a linguistic perspective the president’s use of Twitter is of particular interest (Ott). Donald Trump’s tweets contain a combination of ideological and linguistic elements that in sum convey meaning to the public on issues of race, gender, power, ethnicity and patriotism (Blankenship). The president frames everything from professional sports to minority groups (such as Muslims and Hispanics) in ways that convey messages to constituents about these groups (McGannon, Butryn). The structure of the president’s tweets also facilitates that messaging. As language is a natural function of human interaction, it is helpful to understand how language is used, especially on a digital platform like Twitter where so much information can be packed into a few characters that are instantly communicated to millions around the world. The communicative power of Twitter as a platform is reason enough to analyze the ideological and linguistic features of the president’s tweets to see how the combination of language and ideology impacts the public. With Twitter’s position as a platform currently in the political spotlight along with the Black Lives Matter protests across the nation, it is worth exploring the relationship between the linguistics of President Trump’s tweets and the reception of those tweets on ideological grounds. If one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, it stands to reason that what has the potential to offend and trigger in one tweet from Trump also has the potential to inspire and fill with admiration for another. The critical discourse analysis (CDA) of ethnicity approach can provide an appropriate framework for understanding how President Trump uses ideology and language via Twitter to frame a message regarding minorities. Currently there is a need to understand more closely Trump’s approach to politics through the medium of Twitter simply because it is a relatively new linguistic medium with global reach (Gantt Shafer).
Politics has always been imbued with strands of discursive conflict, and as president Donald Trump is in a position lend extra gravitas to his words. In his tweets, one can identify various strands of discursive conflict: purpose of country, relationship between country and citizens, the issue of immigration, the threat of violence, and several others. President Trump has not been shy about asserting his views and promoting the views of his voter base via Twitter. Those views invariably reflect an orientation towards ethnicity that can be viewed as combative by some and as positive and needful by others. One’s ideological sympathies are likely to determine one’s reception of Trump’s tweets. For example, a person like Candace Owens can see a positive message in Trump’s tweets because she and Trump are simpatico in terms of socio-political orientation. A person like Ilhan Omar can see a negative message in Trump’s tweets because she and Trump at opposite ends of the socio-political spectrum, ideologically speaking. However, the degree to which Trump has become such a polarizing figure in the White House suggests that his use of language and his incessant use of Twitter have something to do with that polarization.
What is it about the words, patterns, structures of language, and delivery in Trump’s tweets that allow them to be so provocative and polarizing?
This proposal aims to examine the tweets of President Trump and to assess them from the CDA of ethnicity perspective. The purpose of examining the tweets from this perspective is to see how ethnicity factors into the linguistic discourse of President Trump via the medium of Twitter. Understanding his tweets from this perspective can perhaps bring insight into the overall question of why Trump’s tweets are so provocative and polarizing.
Research Question
How does Trump use language and ideology to convey messages imbued with ethnic and cultural meanings that can be taken so completely differently from the two main opposing political camps in America?
There are three parts to this question. The first part will dissect Trump’s linguistic uses on Twitter. The second part will explore how receivers of these tweets on the Left and on the Right view them in the light of their own ideological beliefs.
After these two parts are examined, the third part involves the synthesis of the findings of the first two parts. The synthesis aims to show how linguistics and ideology interact. The perspective from which this synthesis will be examined is that of CDA of ethnicity.
Literature Review
Gantt Shafer states that thematic analyses of popular media examples of President Trump’s anti-political correctness (PC) rhetoric can compared in a qualitative manner to the responses his tweets receive from those among the Twitterverse. What Gantt Shafer shows is that “neoliberal ‘postracial’ ideology can be used inversely to solidify feelings of white superiority and overt racist beliefs” and that Trump’s tweets act precisely in this manner (1). Trump specifically uses language that does not conform to the postracial worldview of the neoliberal ideological camp. On the contrary, his language on Twitter is antagonistic to such a worldview and, Gantt Shafer argues, it is deliberately chosen to incite the public and fan the flames of superiority. Rather than using language that is “colorblind” and neutral in terms of race and ethnicity, Trump uses language that is provocative and combative and meant to whip up a frenzy of feeling on both sides of the political aisle, according to Gantt Shafer. Her argument is that:
Bringing white racism to the forefront in this manner dismisses continued structural inequality and normalizes racist thinking as logical. This bringing back of backstage racist feelings to the frontstage is justified under the guise of being honest and simply “telling it like it is,” which creates an illusion of subtlety in expressing racist interpretations of issues. (Gantt Shafer 3)
Thus, Gantt Shafer condemns the linguistics of Trump and of his tweets. However, she is presenting her analysis from the standpoint of critical race theory. Her assumptions are that Trump’s beliefs and racist and that his rhetoric exposes this racism. From a CDA perspective, there is more to explore in terms of the give-and-take of ideology, linguistics and audience. It may not necessarily be so much an issue of race as an issue of honesty, for those who find Trump’s words refreshingly honest and open after experiencing decades of political correctness from politicians who use language in accordance with the neoliberal rules of postracialism.
Critical race theory stems from conflict theory. Conflict theory is based on the idea of Marx and is predicated on the notion that society is engaged in a continuous struggle that comes about as a result of there only being a finite supply of resources. From this seed, conflict theory emerged in sociology in response to structural functionalism, which posits that society functions as a result of various groups and organizations working together in a stable and functioning manner (Ritzer, Stepnisky, 2017). However, the stability is but one face of society, in conflict theory—the other face being one of conflict. There are those who conform and those who do not. There are those who accept integration even if it means subjugation and those who do not because they see themselves as valid and as having value that is being denied them by the powers of the ruling class.
The history of America is of course filled with policies that are inherently racist—from the institutionalization of slavery to the “separate but equal” clause of Plessy v. Ferguson to the numerous legislative acts of the 20th century that implicitly disadvantaged blacks and minorities. Discriminatory government policy has long been in effect in the US. For example, the Social Security Act of 1935 provided financial security for millions of workers—but not for domestic servants who were minorities (Asian, Hispanic, or African American) (PBS). The 1935 Wagner Act also discriminated against minorities by not allowing them to unionize (PBS). Minorities were thus kept from applying for higher-paying jobs. The Federal Housing Programs from 1930 to 1940 were another way racial stratification occurred, with low-cost loans being subsidized by the US government. All-white-communities benefited because they had the highest ratings while minority communities did not. Fair Housing did not really exist under these programs and policies for much of the 20th century. In the 1950s and 1960s more and more businesses and suburbs were linked by freeways, which gave further advantage to white communities and passed through black settlements but not in a positive way, as minorities continued to be locked out of the high-paying jobs and high-value communities. What PBS shows is that racial stratification was a reality in the US as there were over $120 billion worth of new housing loans subsidized by the government but only 2% of these loans went to minorities (PBS).
Yet racism has been conflated with controversial language in recent years, and controversial language has been conflated with hate speech if used by a person who is not permitted under the prevailing social norms of discourse to use such speech. Some explanation is needed here to understand the socio-linguistic norms that guide the present discourse on language and political correctness. From the onset, it is important to note that according to Mooney and Evans, political correctness could be defined as the utilization of language in a way that is neither demeaning, nor discriminatory (38). However, political correct language is not valued by all Americans to the same degree, for, as NPR observes, political correctness pits the concepts of inclusion as well as civility against free choice and free speech. Political correctness is essentially a liberal authoritarian approach to language and concepts that individuals on the Right view as an unconstitutional form of social control. Certain words that in the past were part of the common parlance have been deemed offensive in the new era of political correctness. Today, words like “fag” or “retard” that carried negative or insulting connotations if not literal, denotative meaning, are virtually banned in popular discourse and media. Yet in the 1980s, in the popular film Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure, “fag” was a pejorative frequently used by the starring characters. Other words, related to racism or sexism under the politically correct lexicon—such as “nigger” or “bitch”—are permitted socially when used by blacks or by women but not when used by whites or by straight males. Some words are acceptable for some people but not for others in a politically correct culture. Dave Chappelle can make liberal use of the word “nigger” in his stand-up, but when Michael Richards used the word to insult hecklers during his stand-up, he was socially excoriated and driven from the business.
As a matter of fact, Donald Trump has brought this issue up in one of his past rallies. In an August 2015 ‘Meet the Press’ appearance, Trump complained that the culture of political correctness was suffocating free speech (Morini). According to Marron, political correctness is responsible for an extremely restrictive socio-political environment. According to the author, prior to Trump (and to some extent even presently), it had become a norm for national interests as well as commonsense and truth to be suppressed in an attempt to promote or even advance ideals closely linked to equality and diversity. It therefore follows that as per this school of thought, political correctness not only threatens the safety and wellbeing of individual citizens, but also that of the entire nation. Marron is of the opinion that political correctness stifles self-expression. This, according to the author, is more so the case given that it enforces on people a duty to not offend other people – often at the expense of truth and honesty.
Conway pushes the point by arguing that, deep down, people do not like being barred from expressing their deepest feelings. From this perspective, President Trump can be seen as an outlet through which deeply held ideologies are permitted to come to the fore in an otherwise linguistically and culturally repressive society. Trump has used insensitive and abrasive language by referring to third world countries as “shithole countries” and to immigrants as “thugs,” “killers” and “rapists” (Woodhouse). President Trump has routinely used this language to promote the idea of a border wall to eliminate illegal immigration. His political opponents—like Alexandrio Ocasio-Cortez—routinely denounce both his language and his ideas and assert the politically correct doctrine of inclusivity. Thus, when Trump uses this type of language he is appealing to the right wing portion of the nation, which lumps together political correctness with liberal politics.
It would stand to reason that in as far as language is concerned in political discourse, there is no universalism. This is to say that there is no specific approach to language that will work all the time or lead to uniformity in perception. Instead, language reflects the culture—and Trump’s language represents a divided culture, namely that the Right wants to promote as opposed to the culture and politically correct language of the Left. The standards of political speech are clearly changing. As to whether this new trend in political, social, cultural and linguistic action will end in the eradication of PC language and values, remains to be seen (Morini).
From the standpoint of critical discourse analysis, it is helpful to show that language does reflect what people believe. Discourse analysis in linguistics focuses on the analysis of language within the context of its usage. Critical discourse analysis focuses on language as social practice. In other words, it looks at the relationship between language, power and ideology. What Fairclough asserted was that people who use language are not always consciously aware of the power or of the ideology that their words carry or reflect. Moreover, in a democratic society, power is a two-way street and both flows from and to the people: it is a factor in the development of social relationships—a give-and-take phenomenon and not necessarily an exchange in which there is the dominator and the dominated (Wartenberg).
Stereotypes exist because of pre-conceived ideas that are formed for a variety of reasons and propagated and perpetuated through groups and individuals. People tend to view their own groups better than they do others. The reason for this is that they have a sense of pride in their group (Hilton, Von Hippel). Social Identity Theory (SIT) posits that individuals develop a sense of who they are based on their group membership. So if a person belongs to a group, like a counter-culture group such as punk rockers, the person’s identity and sense of self will be shaped by his sense of belonging to that group. A Communist’s sense of identity will stem from his belonging to the Communist Party. However, identity can also be formed by seeing what one is not—i.e., not a member of another group, which is typically viewed as less favorable to one’s own group. SIT is also a way that people can put themselves in a position of superiority or inferiority to other groups (Branch et al.). As Branch et al. note, SIT can be used to show “why individuals seek to place themselves within or outside particular social groups and may suggest why some individuals could be more vulnerable” to attacks from other groups (11). With this in mind, the concept of social identity can be used to explain why some people identify one way and identify others in a different light. Ultimately it is about self-preservation and self-promotion. As McLeod notes, social groups are a source of pride and self-esteem, so it just makes sense that one would score one’s own group as better than another group. One wants to feel good about oneself and the group to which he belongs and by which he identifies.
Labeling theory was put forward by Edwin Lemert and is used to show how labels of deviance only have meaning because they are applied typically by people or groups who have power (Lumen). They stick because the people with power use them to define others. The labeled deviants embrace the label because they are 1) not in a position to defend themselves against since they do not have power, and 2) because they feel that if others are going to judge them and see them as deviants then they will just be deviants. An example of this from real life when lead singer/songwriter for the 90s grunge rock band Nirvana, Kurt Cobain, felt that society had labeled him a junkie, so he decided if that was how they were going to see him then he would just go with it and be a junkie: so he threw himself into heroin and became a heroin addict and struggled with drug abuse for years until his death. There is some sense that self-pity and despair plays a part in the individual who is labeled embracing the label out of a sense of powerlessness. Labeling theory helps to explain why stereotyping plays a part in power struggles (Lumen).
For one engaged in using language on Twitter, the way the president is, Fairclough’s framework for analysis is suited to make sense of that engagement. The reason for this is that Fairclough’s framework focuses on power, ideology and linguistics and the exchange among the three. There is the discursive event in and of itself that must be contextually analyzed. Then there is the interpretation and consumption of the discourse, and this will be different for different people based on their own ideologies and understandings of the event. Finally, the explanation that results from the event, its interpretation and consumption is the source of social relationships and the socio-cultural practice, in which “social identities” are developed (Fairclough 134). Thus, there is a major tie-in to labeling theory and SIT with respect to this topic and Fairclough’s framework.
Methodology
The methodology for this proposal is to examine tweets of President Trump from the 2015-2016 presidential campaign on through to the present day. The tweets will be selected from his own @realDonaldTrump twitter account and replies to his tweets will also be considered so as to provide insight into the discourse. Contextual information will be gathered from online news sources to provide a fuller understanding of what prompted the tweet and what the perspective of those responding might be based upon. There will be a special emphasis on ethnicity since this study will be exploring the relationship between linguistics, ideology and the role of ethnicity in that discourse. The Fairclough framework for CDA will be used for this study. While all tweets from the selected time period will be examined, the target number of tweets to be used will be 12, as there will be a great deal of tweet replies to sort through and a larger sample would likely make the study unwieldy for one person. Inclusion criteria will be contextual relevance, emphasis on ethnicity in tweet (implicitly or explicitly), and significant number of likes, retweets or responses (at least one thousand).
The language used in the tweets will be analyzed in terms of grammar, sentence structure, syntax, vocabulary, rhetoric and semantics. Themes will be identified through content analysis. Words will be analyzed for their literally and interpretive meaning. Trump’s use of positive versus negative adjectives to define supporters vs. ideological opponents will also be examined. The same will be done for those who reply to his tweets.
Simple sentence structure versus complex sentence structure will be examined. Complete sentences versus sentence fragments will also be looked at. Direct and indirect imperatives will receive attention, and how ethnic groups or people are characterized and represented will also be focused upon. The responses to these tweets and the news basis for them will be considered for contextualization purposes and how the exchange of power is processed thereupon will be illustrated.
One limitation, however, is that there must be an assumption of social preference made with respect to the tweet at the time it is tweeted. The problem with measuring social preferences is that there is no way to effectively tell whether individuals or groups represent a population’s preferences (Schaufele et al.). One explanation for this is that, as Bandura points out, individuals are influenced by peers, groups and media, and in turn influence all three as well. In other words, there is a constant interaction between individuals and groups that makes it a dynamic relationship and creates an environment in which neither is static.
The advantages of measuring social preferences using the group vs. individual evaluation process are that context can be altered to fit the measurement. As Schaufele et al. show, context will alter the outcomes of individual vs. group preferences. The identity of the individual will be subsumed into the group at certain times, and not at others. It depends first and foremost on why the individual is part of the group and whether the group represents completely or only partially the preferences of the individual. This is where the issue of doctrine and dogma comes into play: if the group has a defined set of dogmas that individuals are expected to hold the advantage of measuring social preferences from the group perspective is that one does need to go to every individual for a personal take on the matter. The group has already defined this for the whole and by affiliating with the group the individual chooses to allow that group to represent what the person prefers.
However, not every group has such a set of dogmas and not every individual furthermore wants to be part of a group that has them. Some groups are loosely organized around a singular concept and not around a set of beliefs. This can be seen in larger groups that form broad coalitions. The political divide that brings out the Left and Right groups in politics are an example of this phenomenon. Here it would not be sufficient to measure social preferences from the standpoint of the group because it is the individual who is going to have the end say, based on voting. This is where the matter of context comes into play. When the group is cohesive with a defined belief system, one can measure social preferences from the standpoint of the group. When the group is not cohesive but rather loosely organized, the social preferences should be measured by obtaining the perspective of the individual.
The disadvantages of this process are that it assumes preferences themselves are static, whereas it is also likely as Bandura explains that the process is ongoing and does not stop once a preference or cognitive stage has been reached. It is rather a stream of formation, in which there is a good deal of give and take among stakeholders in the development framework. There is no individual who is not impacted to some degree by groups and no group that is also not impacted to some degree by the individuals within it. These are interconnected and integrated sociological systems at play and a simple conception cannot adequately explain how the phenomenon of exchange works absolutely. There are theories about the exchange process, but assumptions about absolute indicators should be avoided because they reveal an inherent bias towards one’s own data process collection tool. The reality of the situation is that there is no one size fits all model for social preferences measuring and the reason is simply that there is no one size fits all or universal explanation for the relationship between individuals and groups.
Data Analysis
Data analysis is expected to show that ideology is manifested linguistically in response to provocation. Donald Trump’s tweets are apparently designed to provoke and to push people to declare sides: they are either for him or against him with respect to his tweets. The ideological details are not apparent on the surface—what is apparent is that there is a bold challenge made by the president and Americans paying attention to his tweets and using Twitter are compelled to determine whether they are for him or against him.
The extent to which support or disapproval shapes one’s ideology will likely be shown in terms of the type of words that supporters and opposing voices use. Sentence structure and adjectives are also expected to show how individuals label one another in an effort to marginalize one another or to make the other’s view seem invalid. The data is likely to show that the underlying issues are not actively discussed in a logical manner on Twitter and that the medium/platform is most frequently used merely to aggravate, provoke, attack or support a person or position in a terse but bold manner.
With respect to ethnicity, it is expected that examination of tweets by Trump and the responses they provoke will show a discourse that pits neoliberal postracism against traditional conservatism. Race neutral rhetoric is expected to be the language of the Left and race consciousness is expected to be found in the rhetoric and language of the Right. It is also expected that race will represent culture from contextual analysis of Right’s position, while from the Left’s position race will be synonymous with the terms of oppression and white supremacy. Thus, it is expected that the terms used in the discourse will have different definitions and contextual meanings for those involved in the discourse. Therefore, while it may seem that they are arguing over the same thing the reality is likely to show that they are actually arguing over two very different ideas without realizing it.
Discussion
Stereotypes often go unnoticed because of implicit and unconscious bias on the part of the people who perpetuate them. They do not realize that they are seeing others in terms of stereotypical generalizations, which, according to labeling theory are usually just ways for one group to try to marginalize another group. Unless one is able to recognize stereotypes as stereotypes one is not going to be able to overcome them—so recognizing them is the first important step. The easiest way to identify stereotypes is to reflect on one’s own reactions to situations in which one forms a quick judgment about a person without even really knowing anything about that person other than what he looks like, how he dresses, what he does, and so on. One could describe the person in a superficial way but one could not say he knows the person. Yet, one will form a judgment about that person based on that superficial description because he is stereotyping based on that description. One should first see that one is doing this on what is likely to be a routine basis—then one can take steps to overcoming stereotyping and to stop spreading bias.
Once it has been reflected on that a person is judging others based on superficial descriptions that lead to stereotyping, one can stop and ask why one is doing this.