Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-t28k2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-25T05:24:44.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Persuasive Politics

The Strategic Use of Negative Evaluations in US Election Campaign Tweets

from II - Persuasion and (New) Contexts of Use

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2025

By
Christian R. Hoffmann
Edited by
Sofia Rüdiger  and
Daria Dayter
Sofia Rüdiger
Affiliation:
Universität Bayreuth, Germany
Daria Dayter
Affiliation:
Tampere University, Finland
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an in-depth analysis of the strategic use of negative evaluations in the Twitter campaigns by the Republican and Democratic candidate for the US presidency in 2020. The study combines a corpus-linguistic method (key semantic domain method) with Martin and White’s Appraisal framework to systematically capture and compare the dispersion, frequency and contextual use of negative evaluations by Joe Biden and Donald J. Trump. The study shows how corpus-linguistic methods can be usefully employed to systematize the quantitative and qualitative exploration of attitudinal evaluations in mid-size language corpora. Further, results indicate that Donald Trump’s targets and objects of negative evaluation in 2020 have broadened compared to his previous Twitter election campaign. This is likely to reflect Trump’s new official status as leader of the government, needing to defend his actions and decisions. In turn, Joe Biden’s negative evaluations on Twitter criticise such government policies with the principal aim to present Biden as a challenger of the status quo, fighting to create new jobs for the ‘ordinary man’. This constitutes a clear change in campaign policies of the Democratic party compared to their Twitter campaign for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

Keywords

evaluationappraisalkey semantic domain methodDonald J. TrumpJoe Bidenpolitical discoursecorpus linguisticsTwittersocial mediapersuasion

Information

Type
Chapter
Information
Manipulation, Influence and Deception
The Changing Landscape of Persuasive Language
 , pp. 63 - 90
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Angouri, J., & Wodak, R. (2014). ‘They became big in the shadow of the crisis’: The Greek success story and the rise of the far right. Discourse & Society, 25(4), 540–565. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926514536955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, A. (2006). Critical discourse analysis of political press conferences. Discourse & Society, 17(2), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506058057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bello, U. (2013). ‘If I could make it, you too can make it!’ Personal pronouns in political discourse: A CDA of president Jonathan’s presidential declaration speech. International Journal of English Linguistics, 3(6), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v3n6p84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Zhang, M. (2018). Lexis and grammar as complementary discourse systems for expressing stance and evaluation. In de los Ángeles Gómez González, María & Lachlan Mackenzie, J. (Eds.), The construction of discourse as verbal interaction (pp. 201–226). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, R. (2020). Angry tweets: A corpus-assisted study of anger in populist political discourse. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 8(1), 118–145. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00033.breCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breeze, R. (2018). Emotion in politics: Affective-discursive practices in UKIP and Labour. Discourse & Society, 30(1), 24–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518801074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cabrejas-Peñuelas, A. B. (2020). Metaphor, metonymy and evaluation as political devices in American and Spanish parliamentary political discourse. Iberica, 40, 75–99.Google Scholar
Cabrejas-Peñuelas, A. B., & Diez-Prados, M. (2014). Positive self-evaluation versus negative other-evaluation in the political genre of pre-election debates. Discourse & Society, 25(2), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513515601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capone, A. (2010). Barack Obama’s South Carolina speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 42(11), 2964–2977. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.06.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2018). Analysing political speeches. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Charteris-Black, J. (2019). Metaphors of Brexit: No cherries on the cake? Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C. (2010). Hyperbole in English: A corpus-based study of exaggeration. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I., & Grieve, J. (2019). Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLOS One, 14(9), e0222062. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222062CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coesemans, R., & De Cock, B. (2017). Self-reference by politicians on Twitter: Strategies to adapt to 140 characters. Journal of Pragmatics, 116, 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 29–59. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.1.03culCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J., & Biber, D. (2020). ‘It’s just words, folks. It’s just words’. Donald Trump’s distinctive linguistic style. In Schneider, U. & Eitelmann, M. (Eds.), Linguistic inquiries into Donald Trump’s language: From ‘fake news’ to ‘tremendous success’ (pp. 17–40). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ekström, M. (2001). Politicians interviewed on television news. Discourse & Society, 12(5), 563–584. https://doi.org/10.1177/095792650101200500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A. (2014). I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution. Functions of Language, 21(1), 67–94. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.05fetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A., & Bull, P. (2012). Doing leadership in political speech: Semantic processes and pragmatic inferences. Discourse & Society, 23(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, A., & Weizman, E. (2018). ‘What I would say to John and everyone like John is…’: The construction of ordinariness through quotations in mediated political discourse. Discourse & Society, 29(5), 495–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518770259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hart, C. (2013). Event-construal in press reports of violence in two recent political protests: A cognitive linguistic approach to CDA. Journal of Language and Politics, 12(3), 400–423. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.12.3.05harCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hidalgo-Downing, L., & Hanawi, Y. (2017). Bush and Obama’s addresses to the Arab world: Recontextualizing stance in political discourse. In Aijmer, K. & Lewis, D. (Eds.), Contrastive analysis of discourse-pragmatic aspects of linguistic genres (pp. 187–209). Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, C. R. (2018). Crooked Hillary and Dumb Trump: The strategic use and effect of negative evaluations in US election campaign tweets. Internet Pragmatics, 1(1), 55–87. https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00004.hofCrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, J., & Kádár, D. Z. (2021). Cross-cultural pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, F., Bramlett, J. C., McKinney, M. S., & Hardy, M. M. (2020). Tweeting along partisan lines: Identity-motivated elaboration and presidential debates. Social Media + Society, 6(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120965518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jordan, K. N., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2017). The exception or the rule: Using words to assess analytic thinking, Donald Trump, and the American presidency. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 3(3), 312–316. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kreis, R. (2017). The ‘tweet politics’ of President Trump. Journal of Language and Politics, 16(4), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17032.kreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2010). Moral politics: How liberals and conservatives think. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Wehling, E. (2016). Your brain’s politics: How the science of mind explains the political divide. Andrews UK Limited.Google Scholar
Lanning, K. (2005). The social psychology of the 2004 US presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5(1), 145–152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2005.00060.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauerbach, G. (2013). The television election night broadcast: A macro genre of political discourse. In Cap, P. & Okulska, U. (Eds.), Analyzing genres in political communication: Theory and practice (pp. 135–186). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeb, L. (2017). Politicians on celebrity talk shows. Discourse, Context & Media, 20, 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Nouri, L. (2021). The discourse of the US alt-right online: A case study of the Traditionalist Worker Party blog. Critical Discourse Studies, 18(4), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2019.1708763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lundell, Å. K. (2010). The fragility of visuals: How politicians manage their mediated visibility in the press. Journal of Language and Politics, 9(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.9.2.03kroCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation. Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, D. R. (2008). Incumbency advantage in US presidential elections: The historical record. Political Science Quarterly, 123(2), 201–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayo, M. A., & Taboada, M. (2017). Evaluation in political discourse addressed to women: Appraisal analysis of Cosmopolitan’s online coverage of the 2014 US midterm elections. Discourse, Context & Media, 18, 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.06.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McArthur, T. (1981). Longman lexicon of contemporary English. Longman.Google Scholar
McIntyre, D., & Walker, B. (2010). How can corpora be used to explore the language of poetry and drama? In O’Keeffe, A. & McCarthy, M. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 516–530). Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McWhorter, J. (2017). Language Expert: Donald Trump’s Way of Speaking Is ‘Oddly Adolescent’. The 11th Hour with Brian Williams, MSNCBC, 16 September 2017. Retrieved from www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qwnpa3KhT4YGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, M. (2011). The accountability interview, politics and change in UK public service broadcasting. In Ekström, M. & Patrona, M. (Eds.), Talking politics in broadcast media: Cross-cultural perspectives on political interviewing (pp. 33–55). John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oddo, J. (2011). War legitimation discourse: Representing ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ in four US presidential addresses. Discourse & Society, 22(3), 287–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926510395442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, R. E. (2003). ‘Cherie: lawyer, wife, mum’: Contradictory patterns of representation in media reports of Cherie Booth/Blair. Discourse & Society, 14(5), 559–579. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030145002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Partington, A., & Taylor, C. (2017). The language of persuasion in politics: An introduction. Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potts, A., & Semino, E. (2019). Cancer as a metaphor. Metaphor and Symbol, 34(2), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926488.2019.1611723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proctor, K., & Su, L. I.-W. (2011). The 1st person plural in political discourse: American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3251–3266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, J. E., & Wodak, R. (2009). Recontextualising fascist ideologies of the past: Right-wing discourses on employment and nativism in Austria and the United Kingdom. Critical Discourse Studies, 6(4), 251–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903180996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06rayCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S., & McEnery, T. (2004). The UCREL semantic analysis system. Proceedings of the beyond named entity recognition semantic labelling for NLP tasks workshop, Lisbon (pp. 7–12). https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/1783/1/usas_lrec04ws.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P., & Garside, R. (1998). The CLAWS web tagger. ICAME Journal, 22, 121–123.Google Scholar
Reyes, A. (2011). Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions. Discourse & Society, 22(6), 781–807. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ronan, P. (2021). Tweeting with Trump. Anglistik, 32, 76–83. https://doi.org/10.33675/ANGL/2021/2/7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, A. S., & Caldwell, D. (2020). ‘Going negative’: An appraisal analysis of the rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter. Language & Communication, 70, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. J. (2020). Donald Trump, legitimisation and a new political rhetoric. World Englishes, 39(4), 623–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, U., & Eitelmann, M. (Eds.). (2020). Linguistic inquiries into Donald Trump’s language: From ‘fake news’ to ‘tremendous success’. Bloomsbury.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoor, C. (2017). In the theater of political style: Touches of populism, pluralism and elitism in speeches of politicians. Discourse & Society, 28(6), 657–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517721082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Semino, E., Hardie, A., Koller, V. & Rayson, P. (2005). A computer-assisted approach to the analysis of metaphor variation across genres. Metaphorik.de, 15, 141–160.Google Scholar
Sowińska, A. (2013). A critical discourse approach to the analysis of values in political discourse: The example of freedom in President Bush’s State of the Union addresses (2001–2008). Discourse & Society, 24(6), 792–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513486214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stopfner, M. (2021). Just thank God for Donald Trump: Dialogue practices of populists and their supporters before and after taking office. Journal of Pragmatics, 186, 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2019). Emotions, media and politics. Polity Press.Google Scholar
White, P. R. R. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Sydney. www.prrwhite.info/prrwhite,%201998,%20Telling%20Media%20Tales%20(unpublished%20PhD).pdfGoogle Scholar
Wodak, R. (2020). The politics of fear: The shameless normalization of far-right discourse. Sage.Google Scholar
Zhang, Y. (2017). Transitivity analysis of Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s first television debate. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(7), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.6n.7p.65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Accessibility standard: Inaccessible, or known limited accessibility

The PDF of this book is known to have missing or limited accessibility features. We may be reviewing its accessibility for future improvement, but final compliance is not yet assured and may be subject to legal exceptions. If you have any questions, please contact accessibility@cambridge.org.

Content Navigation

Table of contents navigation
Allows you to navigate directly to chapters, sections, or non‐text items through a linked table of contents, reducing the need for extensive scrolling.
Index navigation
Provides an interactive index, letting you go straight to where a term or subject appears in the text without manual searching.

Reading Order & Textual Equivalents

Single logical reading order
You will encounter all content (including footnotes, captions, etc.) in a clear, sequential flow, making it easier to follow with assistive tools like screen readers.

Visual Accessibility

Use of colour is not sole means of conveying information
You will still understand key ideas or prompts without relying solely on colour, which is especially helpful if you have colour vision deficiencies.
Use of high contrast between text and background colour
You benefit from high‐contrast text, which improves legibility if you have low vision or if you are reading in less‐than‐ideal lighting conditions.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×