Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Persuasive pragmatics in US presidential campaign discourse

A corpus-based comparison of Trump and Harris in the 2024 election

ORCiD logo with link | Xi’an International Studies University
 | Chang’an University
Published online: 7 July 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.25137.xia
Abstract
In this study, we compare the persuasive pragmatics of campaign speeches delivered by Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in key swing states during the 2024 US presidential election, with particular attention to peripheral-route processing within the Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM). Employing corpus-assisted methods and a four-dimensional framework — issue content, thematic focus, linguistic features, and rhetorical strategies — the study examines how discourse features are associated with distinct persuasive orientations in contemporary political communication. The findings indicate that Trump’s discourse is characterized by simplicity, repetition, negative affect, broader crisis narratives, and story-driven interaction, foregrounding identity-based, affective, and heuristic cues that are more compatible with peripheral-route persuasion and a populist communicative style. In contrast, Harris’s discourse emphasizes greater lexical and syntactic complexity, structured reasoning, positive and value-based appeals, and policy-oriented framing, aligning more closely with central-route processing and an institutional mode of communication. These contrasting patterns demonstrate how linguistic and rhetorical resources are differentially mobilized across candidates. The study contributes to research on political pragmatics and post-truth communication by showing how micro-level discourse features systematically relate to broader persuasive orientations that shape audience engagement, highlighting the increasing salience of heuristic and affective cues in fragmented information environments.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Persuasion studies
    • 2.1Elaboration Likelihood Model
    • 2.2Political persuasion in the post-truth political context
    • 2.3Quantitative indicators of peripheral-route persuasion
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Data analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Campaign issues and campaign focus
    • 4.2Campaign language
    • 4.3Campaign rhetoric
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Note
  • References
References (49)
References
Abejón-Mendoza, Paloma, and Javier Mayoral-Sánchez. 2017. “Persuasión a través de Facebook de los candidatos en las elecciones generales de 2016 en España [Persuasion through Facebook by candidates in the 2016 Spanish general elections].” El Profesional de la Información 26 (5): 928–938. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Albalat-Mascarell, Ana, and María Luisa Carrió-Pastor. 2019. “Self-Representation in Political Campaign Talk: A Functional Meta-Discourse Approach to Self-Mentions in Televised Presidential Debates.” Journal of Pragmatics 1471: 86–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anthony, Laurence. 2024. AntConc (Version 4.3.1) [Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. [URL]
Associated Press News. 2024. “AP VoteCast: How America Voted in 2024.” Retrieved March 27, 2025, from [URL]
Barrow, Bill. 2024. “Inside ‘the Weave’: How Donald Trump’s Rhetoric Has Grown Darker and Windier.” AP News. [URL]
Bennett, W. Lance. 2012. “The Personalization of Politics: Political Identity, Social Media, and Changing Patterns of Participation.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 644 (1): 20–39. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonikowski, Bart. 2017. “Ethno-Nationalist Populism and the Mobilization of Collective Resentment.” The British Journal of Sociology 68 (S1): S181–S213. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bronstein, Jenny. 2013. “Like Me! Analyzing the 2012 Presidential Candidates’ Facebook Pages.” Online Information Review 37 (2): 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bronstein, Jenny, Noa Aharony, and Judit Bar-Ilan. 2018. “Politicians’ Use of Facebook during Elections: Use of Emotionally-Based Discourse, Personalization, Social Media Engagement and Vividness.” Aslib Journal of Information Management 70 (5): 551–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chepurnaya, Alena. 2023. “Modeling Public Perception in Times of Crisis: Discursive Strategies in Trump’s COVID-19 Discourse.” Critical Discourse Studies 20 (1): 70–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crabtree, Charles, Matt Golder, Thomas Gschwend, and Indriđi H. Indriđason. 2020. “It’s Not Only What You Say, It’s Also How You Say It: The Strategic Use of Campaign Sentiment.” The Journal of Politics 82 (3): 1044–1060. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2022. “A Framework for the Study of Persuasion.” Annual Review of Political Science 25 (1): 65–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erikson, Edward. 2008. “‘Hillary Is My Friend’: MySpace and Political Fandom.” Rocky Mountain Communication Review 4 (2): 3–16.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fording, Richard C., and Sanford F. Schram. 2017. “The Cognitive and Emotional Sources of Trump Support: The Case of Low-Information Voters.” New Political Science 39 (4): 670–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gallardo-Paúls, Beatriz, and Salvador Enguix Oliver. 2016. Pseudopolítica: el discurso político en las redes sociales [Pseudopolitics: Political Discourse in Social Media]. Valencia: University of Valencia Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gerodimos, Roman, and Jákup Justinussen. 2015. “Obama’s 2012 Facebook Campaign: Political Communication in the Age of the Like Button.” Journal of Information Technology and Politics 12 (2): 113–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gooch, Andrew. 2018. “Ripping Yarn: Experiments on Storytelling by Partisan Elites.” Political Communication 35 (2): 220–238. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Danielle McNamara, and Max M. Louwerse. 2003. “What Do Readers Need to Learn in Order to Process Coherence Relations in Narrative and Expository Text?” In Rethinking Reading Comprehension, ed. by Anne P. Sweet, and Catherine E. Snow, 82–98. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Kasper M., and Rasmus Tue Pedersen. 2008. “Negative Campaigning in a Multiparty System.” Scandinavian Political Studies 31 (4): 408–427. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howe, Lauren C., and Jon A. Krosnick. 2017. “Attitude Strength.” Annual Review of Psychology 681: 327–351. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002. “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (8): 1091–1112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kayam, Orly. 2017. “The Readability and Simplicity of Donald Trump’s Language.” Political Studies Review 16 (1): 73–88. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Ivy Brown Rovner. 2009. “Negative Campaigning.” Annual Review of Political Science 12 (1): 285–306. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lim, Elvin T. 2008. The Anti-Intellectual Presidency: The Decline of Presidential Rhetoric from George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McNamara, Danielle S., Arthur C. Graesser, Philip M. McCarthy, and Zhiqiang Cai. 2014. Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
National Popular Vote. 2025. “Almost All (94%) of 2024 Presidential Campaign Was Concentrated on 7 States.” Retrieved March 27, 2025, from [URL]
Pardos-Prado, Sergi, and Iñaki Sagarzazu. 2016. “The Political Conditioning of Subjective Economic Evaluations: The Role of Party Discourse.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (4): 799–823. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Parry-Giles, Trevor. 2010. “Resisting a ‘Treacherous Piety’: Issues, Images, and Public Policy Deliberation in Presidential Campaigns.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 13 (1): 37–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. “The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 191: 123–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ridout, Travis N., and Kathleen Searles. 2011. “It’s My Campaign, I’ll Cry If I Want to: How and When Campaigns Use Emotional Appeals.” Political Psychology 32 (3): 439–458. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roiz, Miguel. 1994. Técnicas modernas de persuasión [Modern Techniques of Persuasion]. Madrid: Eudema.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rowland, Robert C. 2021. The Rhetoric of Donald Trump: Nationalist Populism and American Democracy. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Valli, Chiara, and Alessandro Nai. 2023. “Let Me Think About It: Cognitive Elaboration and Strategies of Resistance to Political Persuasion.” Media Psychology 26 (2): 89–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1996. “Ideological Discourse Analysis.” MOARA: Revista Eletrônica do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Letras 2 (6): 13–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2006. “Discourse and Manipulation.” Discourse & Society 17 (3): 359–383. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vavreck, Lynn. 2009. The Message Matters: The Economy and Presidential Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Venizelos, Giorgos. 2023. “Donald Trump in Power: Discourse, Performativity, Identification.” Critical Sociology 49 (4–5): 647–667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Warner, Benjamin R., and Mary C. Banwart. 2016. “A Multi-Factor Approach to Candidate Image.” Communication Studies 67 (3): 259–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Williams, Laron K., Katsunori Seki, and Guy D. Whitten. 2016. “You’ve Got Some Explaining to Do: The Influence of Economic Conditions and Spatial Competition on Party Strategy.” Political Science Research and Methods 4 (1): 47–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhou, Yaxian, Yufei Yuan, Kai Huang, and Xiangpei Hu. 2024. “Can ChatGPT Perform a Grounded Theory Approach to Do Risk Analysis? An Empirical Study.” Journal of Management Information Systems 41 (4): 982–1015. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue