Cover not available
Article published In:
Integrating dialogue
Edited by Răzvan Săftoiu and Adrian Pablé
[Language and Dialogue 8:1] 2018
► pp. 21–42

The persuasive use of pronouns in action games of election campaigns

| Transilvania University of Braşov (Romania)
| Transilvania University of Braşov (Romania)
Action games of election campaigns are one of the best venues for politicians to team up with specialists in communication studies in order to build, review, construct or deconstruct their own or their opponent’s image with the purpose of persuading the electorate to vote for a certain political group. Various action games of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign are analysed with regard to different dialogic means used by the speaker in order to persuade the audience to vote for him. For instance, he evokes nationalistic views in his speeches and skilfully uses pronouns in order to establish his role as dominant, strong, and credible nominee for presidency. Since we focus on a particular practice in dialogic language use, we will show that the Mixed Game Model (MGM) is more appropriate to study the argumentative power of words than integrationism.
Keywords: action game, election campaigns, political speech, persuasion
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Theoretical background
    • 2.1The mixed game model vs. integrational linguistics
    • 2.2Games of positioning oneself as the best candidate
  • 3.The persuasive use of pronouns in action games of election campaigns
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2The persuasive use of pronouns in Donald Trump’s speeches
      • 3.2.1Targeting the audience
        • 3.2.1.1Using self-references
        • 3.2.1.2Establishing a bond with the audience
        • 3.2.1.3Dissociation
        • 3.2.1.4Authoritative leader
      • 3.2.2Targeting the opponents
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 26 April 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00003.saf
References (38)
References
Billig, Michael. 1995. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Bramley, Nicolette Ruth. 2001. Pronouns of Politics: The Use of Pronouns in the Construction of ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ in Political Interviews. Australian National University, Unpublished PhD thesis, Available online at [URL], Accessed on March 3, 2017.
Bruneau, Thomas J. 1973. “Communicative silences: forms and functions.” The Journal of Communication 231: 17–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul and Christina Schäffner. 1997. “Discourse and politics.” In Discourse as Social Interaction, vol. 21, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 206–230. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Duncker, Dorthe. 2011. “On the empirical challenge to integrational studies in language.” Language Sciences 33 (4): 533–543. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ephratt, Michal. 2008. “The functions of silence.” Journal of Pragmatics 401: 1909–938. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak. 1997. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse as Social Interaction, vol. 21, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk, 258–284. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Fetzer, Anita and Peter Bull. 2008. “‘Well, I answer it by simply inviting you to look at the evidence’. The strategic use of pronouns in political interviews.” Journal of Language and Politics 7(2): 271-289.Google Scholar
Hall, Kira, Donna M. Goldstein and Matthew B. Ingram. 2016. “The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gestures, spectacle.” Journal of Ethnographic Theory 6(2): 71–100. DOI logo.Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 1990. “The integrationist critique of orthodox linguistics.” In The Sixteenth LACUS Forum 1989, ed. by M. P. Jordan, 63–77. Lake Bluff: LACUS.Google Scholar
. 1993. “Integrational Linguistics.” In Actes du XVe Congrès International des Linguistes, vol. 11, ed. by A. Crochetière, J. -C. Boulanger, and C. Ouellon, 321–323. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval.Google Scholar
. 1998. Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
. 2008. Mindboggling: Preliminaries to a Science of the Mind. London: Pantaneto Press.Google Scholar
. 2009. Integrationist Notes and Papers 2006–2008. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia. 2010. “Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices.” In European Parliaments under Scrutiny, ed. by Cornelia Ilie, 57–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jakobson, Roman, 1960. “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” in Style in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok. New York and London: Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2016. “Understanding Trump.” Available online at [URL]. Accessed onOctober 6, 2017.
Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lund, Søren. 2012. “On Professor Roy Harris’s ‘Integrational Turn’ in Linguistics.” RASK 35(1): 3–42.Google Scholar
Neagu, Maria-Ionela. 2015. “Political debates: Deliberation, persuasion, and ethos construction.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria Ionela-Neagu and Stanca Măda, 85–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Orman, Jon and Adrian Pablé. 2016. “Polylanguaging, integrational linguistics and contemporary sociolinguistic theory: a commentary on Ritzau.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism 19(5): 592–602. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pablé, Adrian and Christopher Hutton. 2015. Signs, Meaning and Experience. Integrational Approaches to Linguistics and Semiotics. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Săftoiu, Răzvan. 2018 forth. “To speak or not to speak. Notes on silence as a dialogic speech act”. Revue Roumaine de Linguistique LXIII1.Google Scholar
Schiappa, Edward. 2003. Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University.Google Scholar
Sifianou, Maria. 1997. “Silence and Politeness.” In Silence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives ed. by Adam Jaworski, 63–84. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1975. “Indirect speech acts.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31, ed. by Peter Cole, J. L. Morgan, 59–82. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2003. “Dialogue Analysis 2000: Towards a human linguistics.” In Dialogue Analysis 2000, ed. by Marina Bondi, 15–28. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “The argumentative power of words or how to move people’s minds with words.” L’analisi Linguistica e Letteraria XVI1: 73–92.Google Scholar
. 2009. Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011a. “Power in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue 1(2): 233–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011b. “Paradigm changes in linguistics: From reductionism to holism.” Language Sciences 331: 544–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Professional action games. Theory and practice.” In Professional Communication across Languages and Cultures, ed. by Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu, 43–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. “Persuasion or the integration of grammar and rhetoric.” In Persuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu, Maria Ionela-Neagu and Stanca Măda, 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne. 1998. Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, John. 1990. Politically Speaking. The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
. 1963. Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Kayam, Orly
2018. Donald Trump’s rhetoric. Language and Dialogue 8:2 ► pp. 183 ff. DOI logo
Pablé, Adrian
2018. Abandoning the simple by disintegrating the sign?. Language and Dialogue 8:1 ► pp. 84 ff. DOI logo
Pablé, Adrian
2019. Integrating the (dialogical) sign: or who's an integrationist?. Language Sciences 75 ► pp. 72 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.