1887
image of “We were cocked & loaded to retaliate”
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The diplomatic relationship between the USA and Iran has long been fraught and is characterised by various conflicts and the implementation of economic sanctions. It can be argued that the relationship became even more hostile after Donald Trump was elected president of the US. Trump’s sentiments towards Iran were made public through his behavior on Twitter, both before and after he took over the Presidency. These sentiments have been a mix of negative and sometimes positive views and opinions. This study uses a corpus of Trump’s tweets that explicitly mention ‘Iran’ as the basis of a linguistic analysis and applies to it the analytical framework of from Systemic Functional Linguistics. More specifically, this study focuses on how he established an Us vs. Them dichotomy. While the analysis shows that Iran has been generally portrayed negatively by Trump, there were several tweets where the Iranian government was appraised positively, too. More interestingly, in those tweets, he seemed to target Obama and democrats and represent them negatively while Iran was assessed in positive terms.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00069.mak
2021-08-30
2022-05-27
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Alba-Juez, Laura
    2018 “Emotion and Appraisal Processes in Language: How are they Related?” InThe Construction of Discourse as Verbal Interaction, edited byMaria de los Angeles Gomez Gonzalez and Lachlan Mackenzie, 227–250. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.296.09alb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.296.09alb [Google Scholar]
  2. Alba-Juez, Laura, and Geoff Thompson
    2014 “The Many Faces and Phases of Evaluation.” InEvaluation in Context, edited byLaura Alba-Juez and Geoff Thompson, 3–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.01alb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.01alb [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Bryan
    2017 “Tweeter-in-Chief: a Content Analysis of President Trump’s Tweeting Habits.” Elon Journal of Undergraduate Research in Communications8 (2): 36–47. https://www.elon.edu/u/academics/communications/journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/153/2017/12/Fall2017Journal.pdf#page=36
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981 “The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays”, edited byMichael Holquist, trans.Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bednarek, Monika
    2006Evaluation in Media Discourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, Douglas, and Edward Finegan
    1989 “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse9 (1): 93–124. doi:  10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  7. Blakemore, Erin
    . 8January 2020 “U.S.-Iran Tensions: From Political Coup to Hostage Crisis to Drone Strikes.” https://www.history.com/news/iran-nuclear-deal-sanctions-facts-hostage-crisis. Accessed9 January 2020. https://www.history.com/news/iran-nuclear-deal-sanctions-facts-hostage-crisis
  8. Breeze, Ruth
    2017 “Tired of Nice People? An Appraisal-Based Approach to Trump’s Dichotomies.” Cultura, Lenguaje y RepresentacIón18: 7–25. www.e-revistes.uji.es/index.php/clr/article/view/2714
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2019 “Emotion in Politics: Affective-Discursive Practices in UKIP and Labour.” Discourse & Society30 (1): 24–43. doi:  10.1177/0957926518801074
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518801074 [Google Scholar]
  10. 2020 “Angry Tweets: A Corpus-Assisted Study of Anger in Populist Political Discourse.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict8 (1): 118–145. doi:  10.1075/jlac.00033.bre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlac.00033.bre [Google Scholar]
  11. Carroll, Oliver
    . 18January 2020 “Russia Says Iran Shot Down Passenger Plane After US Jets were Sent to its Borders.” Independent. Accessed18 January 2020. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-iran-plane-shooting-us-soleimani-fighter-jets-border-a9288781.html
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Ceron, Andrea, and Giovanna d’Adda
    2016 “E-campaigning on Twitter: The Effectiveness of Distributive Promises and Negative Campaign in the 2013 Italian Election.” New Media & Society18 (9): 1935–1955. doi:  10.1177/1461444815571915
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815571915 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chilton, Paul
    2017 “‘The People’ in Populist Discourse: Using Neuro-Cognitive Linguistics to Understand Political Meanings.” Journal of Language and Politics16 (4): 582–594. doi:  10.1075/jlp.17031.chi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17031.chi [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins, Sean
    . 14January 2020 “Iran Makes Plane Crash Arrests, but Continues to Blame the US for the Disaster.” VOX. Accessed19 January 2020. https://www.vox.com/world/2020/1/14/21065218/iran-ukrainian-plane-crash-arrests-soleimani-blame-us
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Crockett, Zachery
    2016 What I Learned Analyzing 7 Months of Donald Trump’s Tweets. Vox. Accessed23/7/2018fromhttps://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/11603854/donald-trump-twitter
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Duncombe, Constance
    2019 “The Politics of Twitter: Emotions and the Power of Social Media.” International Political Sociology13 (4): 409–429. doi:  10.1093/ips/olz013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/ips/olz013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Enli, Gunn
    2017 “Twitter as Arena for the Authentic Outsider: Exploring the Social Media Campaigns of Trump and Clinton in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” European Journal of Communication32 (1): 50–61. doi:  10.1177/0267323116682802
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682802 [Google Scholar]
  18. Enli, Gunn, and Anja Aaheim Naper
    2015 “Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s Tweets in the 2012 US Presidential Election Campaign.” InThe Routledge Companion to Social Media and Politics, edited byAxel Bruns, Gunn Enli, Eli Skogerbo, Anders Olof and Christian Christensen, 364–377. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315716299‑27
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315716299-27 [Google Scholar]
  19. Fuoli, Matteo
    2018 “A Stepwise Method for Annotating Appraisal.” Functions of Language25 (2): 229–258. doi:  10.1075/fol.15016.fuo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15016.fuo [Google Scholar]
  20. Gimenez, Elsa, and Natalie Schwarz
    2016 “The Visual Construction of ‘the People’ and ‘Proximity to the People’ on the Online Platforms of the National Front and Swiss People’s Party.” Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie41 (2): 213–242. doi:  10.1007/s11614‑016‑0200‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11614-016-0200-3 [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday, Michael
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoffmann, Christian R.
    2018 “Crooked Hillary and Dumb Trump.” Internet Pragmatics1 (1): 55–87. doi:  10.1075/ip.00004.hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00004.hof [Google Scholar]
  23. Hood, Susan
    2010Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Discourse. London: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230274662
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662 [Google Scholar]
  24. Hood, Susan, and James Martin
    2005 “Invoking Attitude: The Play of Graduation in Appraising Discourse.” Revista Signos37 (58): 195–220. https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/1542
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hunston, Susan
    2000 “Evaluation and the Planes of Discourse: Status and Value in Persuasive Texts.” InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, edited bySusan Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 176–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hunston, Susan, and Geoffrey Thompson
    2000Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Katzman, Kenneth, and Paul K. Kerr
    2016Iran Nuclear Agreement. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Kayam, Orly
    2018 “The Readability and Simplicity of Donald Trump’s Language.” Political Studies Review16 (1): 73–88. doi:  10.1177/1478929917706844
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917706844 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2020 “Straight to the People: Donald Trump’s Rhetorical Style on Twitter in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Language and Dialogue10 (2): 149–170. doi:  10.1075/ld.00064.kay
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00064.kay [Google Scholar]
  30. KhosraviNik, Majid
    2015Discourse, Identity and Legitimacy: Self and Other in Representations of Iran’s Nuclear Programme. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.62
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.62 [Google Scholar]
  31. 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]
  32. Kreiss, Daniel
    2016 “Seizing the Moment: The Presidential Campaigns’ Use of Twitter during the 2012 Electoral Cycle.” New Media & Society18 (8): 1473–1490. doi:  10.1177/1461444814562445
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814562445 [Google Scholar]
  33. Krzyżanowski, Michał, and Joshua A. Tucker
    2018 “Re/Constructing Politics through Social & Online Media: Discourses, Ideologies, and Mediated Political Practices.” Journal of Language and Politics17 (2): 141–154. doi:  10.1075/jlp.18007.krz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.18007.krz [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee, Jasmine C., and Kevin Quealy
    2016 “The 282 People, Places and Things Donald Trump has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List.” The New York Times25. flubu.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/The_282_People_Places_and_Things_Donald_Trump_Has_Insulted_on-Twitter.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Liu, Dilin, and Lei Lei
    2018 “The Appeal to Political Sentiment: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s Speech Themes and Discourse Strategies in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Discourse, Context & Media25: 143–152. doi:  10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Makki, Mohammad, and Michele Zappavigna
    . In Press. “Out-Grouping and Ambient Affiliation in Donald Trump’s Tweets about Iran: Exploring the Role of Negative Evaluation in Enacting Solidarity.” Pragmatics.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin, James, and Peter White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  38. Moffitt, Benjamin
    2015 “How to Perform Crisis: A Model for Understanding the Key Role of Crisis in Contemporary Populism.” Government and Opposition50 (2): 189–217. doi:  10.1017/gov.2014.13
    https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2014.13 [Google Scholar]
  39. 2016The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Moffitt, Benjamin, and Simon Tormey
    2014 “Rethinking Populism: Politics, Mediatisation and Political Style.” Political Studies62 (2): 381–397. doi:  10.1111/1467‑9248.12032
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12032 [Google Scholar]
  41. O’Donnell, M.
    2008 “UAM Corpus Tool”. Available to download from: www.corpustool.com.”
  42. Ott, Brian L.
    2017 “The Age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the Politics of Debasement.” Critical Studies in Media Communication34 (1): 59–68. doi:  10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/15295036.2016.1266686 [Google Scholar]
  43. Pain, Paromita, and Gina Masullo Chen
    2019 “The President is in: Public Opinion and the Presidential Use of Twitter.” Social Media+ Society5 (2): 1–12 doi:  10.1177/2056305119855143
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119855143 [Google Scholar]
  44. Pollack, Kenneth
    2004The Persian Puzzle: Deciphering the Twenty-Five-Year Conflict between the United States and Iran. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Reidel, Bruce
    . December 2017 “Who are the Houthis, and why are we at War with them?”. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2017/12/18/who-are-the-houthis-and-why-are-we-at-war-with-them/
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Reyes, Antonio
    2020 “I, Trump: The Cult of Personality, Anti-Intellectualism and the Post-Truth Era.” Journal of Language and Politics19 (6): 869–892. doi:  10.1075/jlp.20002.rey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.20002.rey [Google Scholar]
  47. Ross, Andrew S., and David Caldwell
    2020 “‘Going Negative’: An APPRAISAL Analysis of the Rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter.” Language & Communication70: 13–27. doi:  10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  48. Ross, Andrew S., and Damian J. Rivers
    2018 “Discursive Deflection: Accusation of “Fake News” and the Spread of Mis-and Disinformation in the Tweets of President Trump.” Social Media+ Society4 (2). doi:  10.1177/2056305118776010
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118776010 [Google Scholar]
  49. 2020 “Donald Trump, Legitimisation and a New Political Rhetoric.” World Englishes39 (4): 623–637. doi:  10.1111/weng.12501
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12501 [Google Scholar]
  50. Ross, Monique, and Annabelle Quince
    . 4January 2020 “Why America and Iran Hate Each Other.” ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-04/history-why-america-and-iran-hate-each-other/11589584
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Samoilenko, Sergei A., E. Shiraev, J. Keohane, and M. Icks
    2016 “Character Assassination.” The SAGE Encyclopedia of Corporate Reputation1: 115–118. https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/research/funded-research-projects/global-informality-project
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Trevisan, Piergiorgio
    2018 “‘Tweeting Engagement’. Strategies of Identity Construction and ‘Alignment-Disalignment’ in Donald Trump’s Use of Social Media.” Lingue e Linguaggi28: 337–353. sibaese.unisalento.it/index.php/linguelinguaggi/article/view/19196
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Trump, Donald, and Tony Schwartz
    1987The Art of the Deal. Random House: New York.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Twiplomacy Study
    Twiplomacy Study 2018 Retrieved from: https://twiplomacy.com/blog/twiplomacy-study-2018/. Accessed10 January 2019.
  55. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1998 “Opinions and Ideologies in the Press.” InApproaches to Media Discourse, edited byAllan Bell and Philip Garrett, 21–63. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 2004 “Politics, Ideology and Discourse.” InElsevier Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, edited byRuth Wodak, 728–740. London: Elsevier.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2013 “Ideology and Discourse.” InThe Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, edited byMichael Freeden, Lymen Tower Sargent and Marc Stears, 176–196. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Wahl-Jorgensen, Karin
    2018 “Media Coverage of Shifting Emotional Eegimes: Donald Trump’s Angry Populism.” Media, Culture & Society40 (5): 766–778. doi:  10.1177/0163443718772190
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718772190 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wells, Chris, Dhavan V. Shah, Jon C. Pevehouse, Jung Hwan Yang, Ayellet Pelled, Frederick Boehm, Josephine Lukito, Shreenita Ghosh, and Jessica L. Schmidt
    2016 “How Trump Drove Coverage to the Nomination: Hybrid Media Campaigning.” Political Communication33 (4): 669–676. doi:  10.1080/10584609.2016.1224416
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2016.1224416 [Google Scholar]
  60. Wignell, Peter, Kay O’Halloran, and Sabine Tan
    2019 “Semiotic Space Invasion: The Case of Donald Trump’s US Presidential Campaign.” Semiotica 2019 (226): 185–208. doi:  10.1515/sem‑2017‑0109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0109 [Google Scholar]
  61. Wignell, Peter, Sabine Tan, Kay L. O’Halloran, and Kevin Chai
    2021 “The Twittering Presidents: An Analysis of Tweets from @BarackObama and @realDonaldTrump.” Journal of Language and Politics20 (2): 197–225. https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlp.19046.wig. 10.1075/jlp.19046.wig
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19046.wig [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00069.mak
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jlac.00069.mak
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: discourse analysis ; Iran ; outgroups ; Trump ; democrats ; ingroups ; representation ; appraisal
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