Power Abuse in Political Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Trump’s Discourse

  • Dr. Shatha Naiyf Qaiwer Department of English - College of Education For Women - Baghdad University - Iraq
الكلمات المفتاحية: critical discourse analysis, legitimation, naming, nominalisation, political discourse, power, power abuse


This study examines the notion of power abuse in discourse. It presents the linguistic forms used in various expressions where power abuse is evident. It aims to investigate Trump’s representation of social groups which may involve positive presentation in one context and negative representation in another, thus, providing a detailed account of the way such representation is legitimised. For instance, the analysis reveals how Islam and /or Muslims are named, and how the naming is legitimised and relate to the dichotomies of US and THEM. Accordingly, naming strategies and other linguistic strategies of power abuse are examined to unveil the double-edged ideologies implied within them as we search for ‘inconsistencies in discourse’ (Wodak and Meyer, 2009).To account for the cognitive aspect of power abuse and exercise in discourse, the researcher draws upon van Dijk’s (2011) theory of epistemic discourse analysis, theory of discourse and manipulation (Van Dijk,2006) and van Lewueen’s (2007) frameworks of social actor’s representation and of legitimation strategies are drawn upon to demystify the manipulative strategies employed in the discourse examined.



1. ———. (2015). The Politics of Subjectivity in American Foreign Policy Dis-courses. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2. Ädel, A. (2010). ‘How to use corpus in the study of political discourse’. In A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Lin-guistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 591-604.
3. Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., & McEnery, T. (2012). Sketching Muslims: A cor-pus driven analysis of representations around the word ‘Muslim’in the British press 1998–2009. Applied linguistics, 34(3), 255-278.
4. Bakhtin, M (1981).The Dialogue Imagination. Austin: The University of Texas Press.
5. Beard, A. (2000). Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
6. Benwell, B & Stokeo, E (2006) Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh University Press
7. Bially Mattern, J.( 2014). “On Being Convinced: An Emotional Epistemology of International Relations.” International Theory 6 (3): 589
8. Biber, D. (1993). ‘Representativeness in corpus design’, Literary and Linguistic Computing 8(4): 243-257.‏
a. boundaries and identity’, European Urban and Regional studies 8(1), 7-28
9. Breeze, R. (2018). “Enemies of the people”: Populist performances in the Daily Mail reporting of the Article 50 case. Discourse, Context & Media.
10. Brown, D. (2017). The Clinton-Trump Corpus. Retrieved from http://www.thegrammarlab.com
11. Camiciottoli, B. C. (2013). Rhetoric in financial discourse: A linguistic analysis of ICT-mediated disclosure genres (Vol. 26). Rodopi.
12. Chiang, S. Y. (2015). Power and Discourse. The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, 1-17.
13. Chilton , P. and Schaffner, C. (1997). Discourse and Politics. In: Discourse Studies: a Multidisciplinary introduction . Vol II. Discourse as Structure and process. Van Dijk, T. (ed.) London: Sage
14. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago, IL.: Aldin
15. Eltanskaya, E., Arzhanovskaya, A., Linkova, Y., & Medvedeva, L. (2018). Representation of Semantic Power in Discourse of Institutionality. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 50, p. 01030). EDP Sciences.
16. English language. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
17. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. Harlow: Pearson.
18. Fowler, R. (1985). "power" in van dijk (ed). Handbook of Discourse Analysis, New York: Academic press.
19. Goffman, E. (2008). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior. Far Hill, NJ:
20. Grice, H. P. (2004). Logic and conversation. Berkeley: University of Califor-nia.
21. Heaney, J. G. (2013). ‘Emotions and power: a bifocal prescription to cure the-oretical myopia.’ Journal of Political Power 6 (3): 355–62.
22. Holland, J. & Solomon, TY (2014) ‘Affect is what the States make of it: Ar-ticulating Everyday Experience of 9/11’ Critical Studies on Security 2(3): 362-67
23. Hutchison, E. (2016). Affective Communities in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Hutchison, E. M. M. A., & Bleiker, R. (2017). Emotions, Discourse and Power in World Politics. International Studies Review, 19(3), 501-508.
25. Jabir, J. Kadhim & Al-Maryani, J (2013) ‘Power and Solidarity in the Iraqi Political Discourse’. Journal of Basrah Researches (Humanities Series).
26. Jeffries, L. (2010). Critical stylistics: The power of English: Perspectives on the
27. Johnston, B. (2008)Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
28. Kadmon, N (2001). Formal Pragmatics: Semantics, Pragmatics, Presupposition and Focus. Oxford: Blackwells
29. Karlberg, M. (2005). The power of discourse and the discourse of power: Pur-suing peace through discourse intervention. International journal of peace studies, 1-25.
30. Leech, G and Short, M (2007). Style in Fiction: A linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose. London: Pearson Education Limited
31. McEnery, T., Xiao, R. and Tono, Y. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An Advanced Research Book. London: Routledge.
32. Negm, M. S. (2015). Resisting power in discourse. Procedia-Social and Be-havioral Scienc es, 192, 284-289.
i. Pantheon Books.
33. Passi, A. (2001) ‘Europe as a social process and discourse: Considerations of place,
34. Ponton, D. (2007). Talking Us Round: Linguistic aspects of persuasive politi-cal rhetoric. Marston Gate: Lulu.com
35. Solomon, TY. (2014). “The Affective Underpinnings of Soft Power.” Europe-an Journal of International Relations 20 (3): 720–41
36. Tannen, D. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in con-versational discourse. UK: Cambridge University Press.
37. Taylor, S. (2003) ‘A Place for the future? Residence and continuity in wom-en’s narratives of their lives’, Narrative Inquiry 13(1), 193-215
38. Törnberg, A., & Törnberg, P. (2016). Muslims in social media discourse: Combining topic modeling and critical discourse analysis. Discourse, Context & Media, 13, 132-142.
39. van Dijk, T. A. (1998). Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach (1st ed.). Lon-don: SAGE publications.
40. Van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Socie-ty, 17(3), 359-383.
41. Van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse, knowledge, power and politics. Critical discourse studies in context and cognition, 43, 27. Christopher Hart (ed.), John Benjamins Publishing
42. Van Dijk, T. A. (2013). Discourse, power and access. In Texts and practic-es (pp. 93-113). Routledge.
43. Van Emeren, F., Houtlosser, P., & Francisca Snoeck Henkemans (2007) Ar-gumentative indicators in Discourse: A pragma dialectical Study. The Nether-lands: Springer.
44. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical dis-course analysis. Oxford University Press.‏
45. Wilson, J. (1990). Politically Speaking: The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
46. Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. Methods of critical dis-course analysis, 1, 63-95. London: Sage
47. Wodak, R. (2007). Discourses in European Union organizations: Aspects of access, participation, and exclusion. Text & Talk-An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, 27(5-6), 655-680.‏
48. Wodak, R. and Meyer, M. (2009). Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agen-da, Theory and Methodology. In R. Wodak and M. Meyer (eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. (2nd edn.). London: Sage, pp. 1-33.
كيفية الاقتباس
Dr. Shatha Naiyf Qaiwer. (2020). Power Abuse in Political Discourse: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Trump’s Discourse. مجلة الفنون والأدب وعلوم الإنسانيات والاجتماع, (52), 326-347. https://doi.org/10.33193/JALHSS.52.2020.93