CDA of Racism and Ethnicity in Trump's Tweets
This paper applies critical discourse analysis (CDA) using the Fairclough model to examine Donald Trump's tweets in terms of their ideological and linguistic dimensions, with particular focus on how those tweets affect ethnic minorities. Drawing on cultivation theory and agenda-setting theory, the paper situates Trump's Twitter discourse within a broader theoretical framework rooted in conflict theory and critical theory. The study reviews the literature on CDA methodology, explores the sociological underpinnings of power and discourse, and proposes a research design involving the analysis of positive, negative, and neutral Trump tweet threads. Ethical frameworks — virtue ethics, deontology, and utilitarianism — are also integrated to enrich the analysis of how political language operates within new media environments.
- Literature Review and CDA Principles: CDA defined, its eight core principles outlined
- Ideological and Linguistic Aspects of Trump's Tweets: Language and ideology revealed through tweet analysis
- Theoretical Framework: Fairclough Model, Cultivation, and Agenda-Setting: Fairclough model and communication theories applied
- CDA's Roots in Critical Theory and Conflict Theory: Conflict and critical theory ground the CDA approach
- Social Media as New Media: New vs. legacy media and discourse power dynamics
- Research Design and Approach: Methodology, ethics, and tweet thread selection rationale
- Conclusion: Open questions and synthesis of theoretical motivations
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper anchors its analysis in a well-defined theoretical stack — CDA, Fairclough's three-dimensional model, cultivation theory, agenda-setting theory, and conflict theory — and explains how each layer connects to the others before applying them.
- It acknowledges complexity rather than reducing Trump's tweets to a simple villain-victim narrative, noting that ethnic minority support for Trump complicates easy interpretations and motivates deeper inquiry.
- The integration of three ethical frameworks (virtue ethics, deontology, utilitarianism) into the CDA approach is a distinctive move that elevates the analysis beyond descriptive critique into normative territory.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates nested theoretical framing — situating a specific methodological tool (Fairclough's CDA model) within progressively broader theoretical contexts (critical theory, conflict theory, mass communication theories). This layering allows the author to justify each analytical choice and show how micro-level textual analysis connects to macro-level sociological questions about power, culture, and media.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a literature review establishing CDA's principles and Van Dijk's foundational work, then moves into the importance of the study and its ideological focus. A dedicated framework section introduces the Fairclough model and communication theories. Background sections on conflict theory, critical theory, and social media provide sociological grounding. The research design section proposes a concrete methodology (three tweet threads, CDA analysis), followed by a discussion of why CDA and ethical frameworks are appropriate. The conclusion synthesizes the paper's motivating questions and theoretical contributions.
Literature Review and CDA Principles
Van Dijk (2015) observes that critical discourse analysis (CDA) is discourse analysis "with an attitude" (p. 466). What is meant by this is that CDA is a lens through which a critical perspective on material is applied, allowing one to "take an explicit position and thus want to understand, expose, and ultimately challenge social inequality" (Van Dijk, 2015, p. 466). Van Dijk (2015) is explicit when he states that CDA itself is not a method. Rather, all methods of discourse analysis can be used and applied within CDA. CDA is therefore best understood by its characteristics and properties, which Van Dijk (2015) lists as eight basic principles or tenets:
- CDA addresses social problems.
- Power relations are discursive.
- Discourse constitutes society and culture.
- Discourse does ideological work.
- Discourse is historical.
- The link between text and society is mediated.
- Discourse analysis is interpretative and explanatory.
- Discourse is a form of social action (Van Dijk, 2015, p. 467).
These principles establish that CDA is focused on the sociological impact of language and discourse. Power relations are complex but can be simplified. In CDA, the foundation stones are critical theory and conflict theory, in which society is best characterized as being in a power struggle between two or more groups competing for vital resources, wherein the group with power attempts to prevent other groups from obtaining it (Wodak, 2001). CDA essentially looks at discourse from that same perspective.
Importance of the Study
It is important to consider how persons in power use the means of communication — or mass communication tools of new media — to control or influence discourse, and thereby influence receivers of the message (Lozano et al., 2017). When American people use hashtags on Twitter such as #ChineseVirus, it sends a message to ethnic minorities in the US that their native region of the world is responsible for killing millions of people (Pei & Mehta, 2020). When the President of the United States refers to the "Wuhan Virus" in his Twitter account, that message is also wrapped up in the context of power. As an influential leader of a populist movement, Trump is able to convey powerful messages that can create hostility towards groups that lack the power to defend themselves.
This study helps to explain how that power dynamic works and what those on the receiving end of the message can do in terms of being aware of it. Using cultivation theory and agenda-setting theory, it can be seen that Trump is using Twitter to communicate a message of animosity towards others, with the intention of rallying his base to further echo that message and create an oppressive action against those others. If the principles of equity are to be established in society, it is important that every stakeholder recognize the power dynamics at play when a powerful person like Trump takes to Twitter to give voice to antagonism against ethnic minorities.
Ideological and Linguistic Aspects of Trump's Tweets
The tweets of Donald Trump have ideological and linguistic dimensions that reveal a great deal about the discourse processes currently operating in America. The text of these tweets — how they are interpreted and explained — offers insight into the ideology and language of the powerful in opposition to the targeted groups who often receive antagonism from this source. When the text is in all capital letters, it signifies something more emphatic than standard text. Punctuation affects how text is read. The context of the tweet — what tweets came before and after — offers more clues about interpretation. The target or perceived target of the tweet also provides interpretive clues. Whether the language is formal or informal, whether it expresses a complete thought or an incomplete one, whether correct grammar is used or not — all of this provides additional points of information for interpretation.
Language is important to all groups, and all groups have what can be called their own in-group language. In academia there is an in-group language; in medicine there is an in-group language; in finance it is the same; and in politics, as well as in marginalized and ethnic groups, in-group languages can also be found. These languages and modes of discourse carry their own meaning with respect to critical and conflict theoretical lenses. Yet what do these languages say when it comes to cultivation theory or agenda-setting theory? Clearly there is an agenda at work when the president tweets, and clearly something is being cultivated.
For example, Ouyang and Waterman (2020) found in their analysis of Trump's tweets that the more negative the rhetoric used, the more the tweet is retweeted by followers. Most of Trump's tweets are rhetorically neutral — neither positive nor negative (Ouyang & Waterman, 2020). However, the tweets that energize the public and lead to an increase in discourse are those that contain negative rhetoric. That should be a signal of ideological cultivation that warrants closer examination (Oborne & Roberts, 2017).
The language used by Trump and the ideology expressed in his tweets also affects users, who may voice negative rhetoric in response as well as positive rhetoric, depending upon how they align with Trump's views (Frederick, Pegoraro & Schmidt, 2020). Thus, there is a reaction and pushback within the discourse that makes it more complex. Trump will retweet comments and respond to others, keeping the discourse alive over the course of days.
References
Anspach, N. M. (2020). Trumping the equality norm? Presidential tweets and revealed racial attitudes. New Media & Society, 1461444820936292.
Boyce, T. (2018). After #Charlottesville: Interrogating our racist past in the Trump era. Radical Teacher, 111, 49–56.
Dimitrov, K. (2018). Geert Hofstede et al.'s set of national cultural dimensions — popularity and criticisms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.02621.
Dyer, A. (2020). President, military leaders at odds over Confederate names and symbols. Retrieved from https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/military/story/2020-06-15/president-military-leaders-at-odds-over-military-protest-response-army-base-name-controversy
Fairclough, N., & Fairclough, I. (2018). A procedural approach to ethical critique in CDA. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(2), 169–185.
Frederick, E. L., Pegoraro, A., & Schmidt, S. (2020). "I'm not going to the f***ing White House": Twitter users react to Donald Trump and Megan Rapinoe. Communication & Sport, 2167479520950778.
Griffin, E., Ledbetter, A., & Sparks, G. (2015). A first look at communication theory. McGraw-Hill.
Horkheimer, M. (1972). Critical theory. Seabury Press.
Janks, H. (1997). Critical discourse analysis as a research tool. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 18(3), 329–342.
Kalantari Khandani, E., Farrokhi, M. H., & Ghonchepour, M. (2020). A critical discourse analysis of Trump's tweets based on Van Dijk model. ZABANPAZHUHI (Journal of Language Research), 12(34), 131–156.
Lozano, E., Cedeño, J., Castillo, G., Layedra, F., Lasso, H., & Vaca, C. (2017, April). Requiem for online harassers: Identifying racism from political tweets. In 2017 Fourth International Conference on eDemocracy & eGovernment (ICEDEG) (pp. 154–160). IEEE.
Oborne, P., & Roberts, T. (2017). How Trump thinks: His tweets and the birth of a new political language. Head of Zeus Ltd.
Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59–68.
Ouyang, Y., & Waterman, R. W. (2020). Trump tweets: A text sentiment analysis. In Trump, Twitter, and the American Democracy (pp. 89–129). Palgrave Macmillan.
Pei, X., & Mehta, D. (2020). #Coronavirus or #ChineseVirus?!: Understanding the negative sentiment reflected in tweets with racist hashtags across the development of COVID-19. arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.08224.
Ritzer, G., & Stepnisky, J. (2017). Modern sociological theory. SAGE.
Robertson, N., & Dewan, A. (2017). G20: World leaders at odds with Trump on trade, climate. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/07/08/europe/g20-trump-merkel-trade-climate-change/index.html
Van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. Discourse Analysis, 466.
Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about — a summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 1, 1–13.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.