Volume 8, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


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.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Billig, Michael
    1995Banal Nationalism. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bramley, Nicolette Ruth
    2001Pronouns of Politics: The Use of Pronouns in the Construction of ‘Self’ and ‘Other’ in Political Interviews. Australian National University, Unpublished PhD thesis, Available online atwww.openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/46225, Accessed onMarch 3, 2017.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bruneau, Thomas J.
    1973 “Communicative silences: forms and functions.” The Journal of Communication23: 17–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1973.tb00929.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1973.tb00929.x [Google Scholar]
  4. Chilton, Paul and Christina Schäffner
    1997 “Discourse and politics.” InDiscourse as Social Interaction, vol.2, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk , 206–230. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Duncker, Dorthe
    2011 “On the empirical challenge to integrational studies in language.” Language Sciences33 (4): 533–543. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.013 [Google Scholar]
  6. Ephratt, Michal
    2008 “The functions of silence.” Journal of Pragmatics40: 1909–938. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.03.009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, Norman and Ruth Wodak
    1997 “Critical Discourse Analysis.” InDiscourse as Social Interaction, vol.2, ed. by Teun A. van Dijk , 258–284. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 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 Politics7(2): 271-289.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Hall, Kira , Donna M. Goldstein and Matthew B. Ingram
    2016 “The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gestures, spectacle.” Journal of Ethnographic Theory6(2): 71–100. doi: 10.14318/hau6.2.009.
    https://doi.org/10.14318/hau6.2.009 [Google Scholar]
  10. Harris, Roy
    1990 “The integrationist critique of orthodox linguistics.” InThe Sixteenth LACUS Forum 1989, ed. by M. P. Jordan , 63–77. Lake Bluff: LACUS.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 1993 “Integrational Linguistics.” InActes du XVe Congrès International des Linguistes, vol.1, ed. by A. Crochetière , J. -C. Boulanger , and C. Ouellon , 321–323. Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Université Laval.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 1998Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2008Mindboggling: Preliminaries to a Science of the Mind. London: Pantaneto Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2009Integrationist Notes and Papers 2006–2008. Gamlingay: Bright Pen.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ilie, Cornelia
    2010 “Identity co-construction in parliamentary discourse practices.” InEuropean Parliaments under Scrutiny, ed. by Cornelia Ilie , 57–79. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.38.04ili [Google Scholar]
  16. Jakobson, Roman
    1960 “Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics.” inStyle in Language, ed. by Thomas Sebeok . New York and London: Press of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and John Wiley & Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lakoff, George
    2016 “Understanding Trump.” Available online athttps://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/understanding-trump-2/. Accessed onOctober 6, 2017.
  18. Lave, Jean and Etienne Wenger
    1991Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511815355
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815355 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lund, Søren
    2012 “On Professor Roy Harris’s ‘Integrational Turn’ in Linguistics.” RASK35(1): 3–42.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Neagu, Maria-Ionela
    2015 “Political debates: Deliberation, persuasion, and ethos construction.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu , Maria Ionela-Neagu and Stanca Măda , 85–101. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.05nea
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.05nea [Google Scholar]
  21. Orman, Jon and Adrian Pablé
    2016 “Polylanguaging, integrational linguistics and contemporary sociolinguistic theory: a commentary on Ritzau.” International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism19(5): 592–602.10.1080/13670050.2015.1024606
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2015.1024606 [Google Scholar]
  22. Pablé, Adrian and Christopher Hutton
    2015Signs, Meaning and Experience. Integrational Approaches to Linguistics and Semiotics. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Săftoiu, Răzvan
    2018 forth. “To speak or not to speak. Notes on silence as a dialogic speech act”. Revue Roumaine de LinguistiqueLXIII.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Schiappa, Edward
    2003Defining Reality: Definitions and the Politics of Meaning. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Sifianou, Maria
    1997 “Silence and Politeness.” InSilence: Interdisciplinary Perspectivesed. by Adam Jaworski , 63–84. Berlin: de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Searle, John R.
    1975 “Indirect speech acts.” InSyntax and Semantics, vol.3, ed. by Peter Cole , J. L. Morgan , 59–82. New York, Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Weigand, Edda
    2003 “Dialogue Analysis 2000: Towards a human linguistics.” InDialogue Analysis 2000, ed. by Marina Bondi , 15–28. Berlin: de Gruyter. doi: 10.1515/9783110933253.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110933253.15 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2008 “The argumentative power of words or how to move people’s minds with words.” L’analisi Linguistica e LetterariaXVI: 73–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2009Language as Dialogue. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  30. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  31. 2011a “Power in dialogic interaction.” Language and Dialogue1(2): 233–242. doi: 10.1075/ld.1.2.04wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.1.2.04wei [Google Scholar]
  32. 2011b “Paradigm changes in linguistics: From reductionism to holism.” Language Sciences33: 544–549. doi: 10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2011.04.031 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2012 “Professional action games. Theory and practice.” InProfessional Communication across Languages and Cultures, ed. by Stanca Măda and Răzvan Săftoiu , 43–60. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.17.04wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.17.04wei [Google Scholar]
  34. 2015 “Persuasion or the integration of grammar and rhetoric.” InPersuasive Games in Political and Professional Dialogue, ed. by Răzvan Săftoiu , Maria Ionela-Neagu and Stanca Măda , 1–18. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/ds.26.01wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.26.01wei [Google Scholar]
  35. Wenger, Etienne
    1998Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511803932
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803932 [Google Scholar]
  36. Wilson, John
    1990Politically Speaking. The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Wittgenstein, Ludwig
    1953Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1963Philosophical Investigations, 3rd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): action game; election campaigns; persuasion; political speech
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