Volume 1, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-3851
  • E-ISSN: 2542-386X
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


While there is extensive research on the language of twitter, our knowledge of the pragmatics of particular twitter genres (and sub-genres) is still piecemeal. At the same time, in the past decades, political discourse analysis has widened our understanding of how language can be used instrumentally to alter or manipulate public interaction, meanings and opinions. However, it has seldom examined the evaluative load of political communication in much detail. To this end, the paper, on the one hand, serves to illuminate the pragmatics of political tweets as a twitter genre. On the other hand, the study brings to the fore the strategic use of negative evaluations in political online campaigning and discusses its potential (and actual) socio-political ramifications. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of negative evaluations largely draws on Martin and White’s Appraisal framework ( 2005 ) and is based on a compatible study by Cabrejas-Peñuelas and Díez-Prados (2014) . I track down, classify and categorize the negative evaluations of a subset of twitter posts by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a self-compiled corpus of 1965 tweets, with a view to evaluation types, their relative frequencies and dispersion across the corpus, as well as objects and targets of evaluation. The quantitative analysis is then completed by a qualitative examination of the objects and targets of evaluation in both twitter profiles as well as a closer look at the recurrent language used to evaluate the political “other”. The results show that Trump makes more flexible (and strategic) use of negative evaluations (both in terms of types, frequency and distribution), while Clinton’s negative evaluations are less frequent, less diverse and, thus possibly, less convincing.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bednarek, Monika
    2006Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    1999Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bühler, Karl
    1934Sprachtheorie. Die Darstellungsfunktion der Sprache. Jena: Verlag von Gustav Fischer.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cabrejas-Peñuelas, Anna B. , and Mercedes Díez-Prados
    2014 “Positive self-evaluation versus negative other-evaluation in the political genre of pre-election debates.” Discourse & Society25(2): 159–185. doi: 10.1177/0957926513515601
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926513515601 [Google Scholar]
  5. Capp, Piotr , and Urszula Okulska
    (eds.) 2013Analyzing Genres in Political Communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.50
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.50 [Google Scholar]
  6. Chin, Delenn , Anna Zappone , and Jessica Zhao
    2015 “Analyzing Twitter sentiment of the 2016 presidential candidates.” https://web.stanford.edu/~jesszhao/files/twitterSentiment.pdf (last accessed07/11/2017).
  7. Conway, Bethany A. , Kate Kenski , and Di Wang
    2015 “The rise of Twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda‐setting effects in the presidential primary.” Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication20(4): 363–380. doi: 10.1111/jcc4.12124
    https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12124 [Google Scholar]
  8. Drasovean, Anda , and Caroline Tagg
    2015 “Evaluative language and its solidarity-building role on TED.com: An appraisal and corpus analysis.” Language @ Internet12. oro.open.ac.uk/id/eprint/44604 (accessed07/03/2017)
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Dunmire, Patricia L.
    2012 “Political discourse analysis: Exploring the language of politics and the politics of language” Language and Linguistics Compass6 (11): 735–751. doi: 10.1002/lnc3.365
    https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.365 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eggins, Suzanne , and Diana Slade
    1997Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fetzer, Anita
    (ed.) 2013The Pragmatics of Political Discourse. Explorations across Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.228
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.228 [Google Scholar]
  12. 2014 “I think, I mean and I believe in political discourse: Collocates, functions and distribution.” Functions of Language21(1): 67–91. doi: 10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21.1.05fet [Google Scholar]
  13. Fetzer, Anita , and Peter Bull
    2012 “Doing leadership in political speech: semantic processes and pragmatic inferences.” Discourse & Society23(2): 127–144. doi: 10.1177/0957926511431510
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511431510 [Google Scholar]
  14. Fowler, Roger
    1996Linguistic Criticism (2nd edn.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Greenwood, Shannon , Andrew Perrin , and Maeve Duggan
    2016 “Social media update 2016.” www.pewinternet.org/2016/11/11/social-media-update-2016/ (last accessed07/11/2017).
  16. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1985An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Haarman, Louann , and Linda Lombardo
    (eds.) 2009Evaluation and Stance in War News: A Linguistic Analysis of American, British and Italian Television News Reporting of the 2003 Iraqi War. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hood, Susan
    2010Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. Basingstoke: Palgrave McMillan. doi: 10.1057/9780230274662
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662 [Google Scholar]
  19. Hunston, Susan
    1993 “Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing.” InRegister Analysis, ed. by Mohsen Ghadessy , 57–73. London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. 2000 “Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts.” InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston , and Geoffrey Thompson , 176–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunston, Susan , and Geoffrey Thompson
    (eds.) 2000Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 “Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics” InStyle in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok , 350–377. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Kreis, Ramona
    2017 “The ‘Tweet politics’ of President Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics16(4): 607-618. doi: 10.1075/jlp.17032.kre.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17032.kre [Google Scholar]
  24. Labov, William
    1997 “Some further steps in narrative analysis.” Journal of Narrative and Life History7: 395–415. doi: 10.1075/jnlh.7.49som
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.49som [Google Scholar]
  25. Lauerbach, Gerda
    2006 “Discourse representation in political interviews: The construction of identities and relations through voicing and ventriloquizing.” Journal of Pragmatics38(2): 196–215. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.06.015 [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin, James R. , and Peter R. R. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  27. Miller, Donna R.
    2004 “‘Truth, justice and the American Way’: The appraisal system of judgement in the US House debate on the impeachment of the President 1998’ InCross-cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, ed. by Paul Bayley , 271–300. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil [Google Scholar]
  28. Miller, Donna R. , and Jane H. Johnson
    2013 “‘Register idiosyncratic’ evaluative choice in Congressional debate: a corpus-assisted comparative study.” InSystematic-Functional Linguistics: Exploring Choice, ed. by Lise Fontaine , Tom Bartlett , and Gerard O’Grady , 432–453. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139583077.026
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.026 [Google Scholar]
  29. Montgomery, Martin
    2017 “Post-truth politics? Authenticity, populism and the electoral discourses of Donald Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics16(4): 619-639. doi: 10.1075/jlp.17023.mon.
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17023.mon [Google Scholar]
  30. O’Donnell, Mick
    2012 “Appraisal analysis and the computer.” Revista Canarias de Estudios Ingleses. 65: 115–30.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Ott, Brian L.
    2017 “The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement.” Critical Studies in Media Communication34 (1): 59–68.10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686 [Google Scholar]
  32. Page, Ruth
    2012Stories and Social Media: Identities and Interaction. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Perlmutter, David D.
    2008 “Political blogging and campaign 2008: A roundtable.” The International Journal of Press/Politics13(2): 160–170. doi: 10.1177/1940161208315742
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208315742 [Google Scholar]
  34. Puschmann, Cornelius
    2009 “Lies at Wal-Mart. Style and the subversion of genre in the Life at Wal-Mart blog.” InGenres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre, ed. by Janet Giltrow , and Dieter Stein , 49–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.188.03pus
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.03pus [Google Scholar]
  35. Reber, Elisabeth
    2014 “Constructing evidence at Prime Minister’s Question Time: An analysis of the grammar, semantics and pragmatics of the verb ‘see’.” Intercultural Pragmatics11(3): 357–387. doi: 10.1515/ip‑2014‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2014-0017 [Google Scholar]
  36. Reyes, Antonio
    2011 “Strategies of legitimization in political discourse: From words to actions.” Discourse & Society22(6): 781–807. doi: 10.1177/0957926511419927
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419927 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schubert, Christoph
    2010 “Narrative sequences in political discourse: Forms and functions in speeches and hypertext frameworks.” InNarrative Revisited: Telling a Story in the Age of New Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann , 143–162. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.199.08sch
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.199.08sch [Google Scholar]
  38. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie
    1996 “Image-building through modality: The case of political interviews.” Discourse & Society7: 389–415. doi: 10.1177/0957926596007003005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926596007003005 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1997 “Modal (un)certainty in political discourse: A functional account.” Language Sciences19: 341–356. doi: 10.1016/S0388‑0001(96)00068‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0388-0001(96)00068-X [Google Scholar]
  40. Sinclair, John M. , and Malcolm Coulthard
    1975Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, Geoffrey , and Laura Alba-Juez
    (eds.) 2014Evaluation in Context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/pbns.242
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242 [Google Scholar]
  42. Towner, Terri , and David A. Dulio
    2012 “New media and political marketing in the United States: 2012 and beyond.” Journal of Political Marketing11 (1–2): 95–119. doi: 10.1080/15377857.2012.642748
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2012.642748 [Google Scholar]
  43. Vásquez, Camilla
    2014 “‘Usually not one to complain but …’: Constructing identities in user-generated online reviews.” InThe Language of Social Media. Identity and Community on the Internet, ed. by Philip Seargeant , and Caroline Tagg , 65–90. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137029317_4
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_4 [Google Scholar]
  44. Walker Rettberg, Jill
    2008Blogging. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Wiebe, Janyce , Theresa Wilson , and Claire Cardie
    2005 “Annotating expressions of opinions and emotions in language.” Language Resources and Evaluation39(2–3): 165–210. doi: 10.1007/s10579‑005‑7880‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-005-7880-9 [Google Scholar]
  46. Zappavigna, Michele
    2014 “Ambient affiliation in microblogging: Bonding around the Quotidian.” Media International Australia151: 97–103.10.1177/1329878X1415100113
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1329878X1415100113 [Google Scholar]
  47. 2015 “Searchable talk: the linguistic functions of hashtags.” Social Semiotics25(3): 274–291. doi: 10.1080/10350330.2014.996948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2014.996948 [Google Scholar]
  48. 2017 “Evaluation.” InThe Pragmatics of Social Media, ed. by Christian R. Hoffmann , and Wolfram Bublitz , 435–459. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110431070‑016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110431070-016 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Appraisal Theory; corpus pragmatics; evaluation; political discourse analysis; Twitter
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error