1887
image of Out-grouping and ambient affiliation in Donald Trump’s tweets about Iran
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper explores communing affiliation and out-grouping in a corpus of Trump’s tweets about Iran. Communing is a form of ‘ambient affiliation’ ( ) which offers a way of understanding how Trump attempts to build alignments with his audience without necessarily directly engaging with them, since he tends to ignore replies to his tweets. The paper focuses on three affiliation strategies: (mustering community), (garnering attention), and (dialogistic positioning). It draws on Appraisal framework to consider how these affiliation strategies are used to foster communing around ideation-attitude couplings, typically couplings associating Iran with negative or . P affiliation was found to be the most prominent affiliation strategy used by Trump to garner attention through his rhetorical tendency toward hyperbole.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20048.mak
2021-08-23
2021-09-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail M.
    1981 “The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays, ed.” Michael Holquist, trans. Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981)84 (8): 80–2.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 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
  4. 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. 10.1177/1461444815571915
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815571915 [Google Scholar]
  5. Chappell, Bill
    . June21 2019 “Trump Says He Called Off Strike On Iran Because He Didn’t See It As ‘Proportionate’.” Accessed20 February 2020. https://www.npr.org/2019/06/21/734683701/trump-reportedly-orders-strike-on-iran-then-calls-off-attack-plan
  6. Coesemans, Roel, and Barbara De Cock
    2017 “Self-reference by Politicians on Twitter: Strategies to Adapt to 140 Characters.” Journal of Pragmatics116: 37–50. 10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2016.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  7. Conway-Silva, Bethany A., Christine R. Filer, Kate Kenski, and Eric Tsetsi
    2018 “Reassessing Twitter’s Agenda-Building Power: An Analysis of Intermedia Agenda-Setting Effects During the 2016 Presidential Primary Season.” Social Science Computer Review36 (4): 469–483. 10.1177/0894439317715430
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317715430 [Google Scholar]
  8. Dolezal, Martin, Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik, and Wolfgang C. Müller
    2017 “Who Will Attack the Competitors? How Political Parties Resolve Strategic and Collective Action Dilemmas in Negative Campaigning.” Party Politics23 (6) 666–679. 10.1177/1354068815619832
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815619832 [Google Scholar]
  9. 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. 10.1177/0267323116682802
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323116682802 [Google Scholar]
  10. Frame, Alex, and Gilles Brachotte
    2015 “Le tweet stratégique: Use of Twitter as a PR Tool by French Politicians.” Public Relations Review41 (2): 278–287. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2014.11.005 [Google Scholar]
  11. Grant, Will J., Brenda Moon, and Janie Busby Grant
    2010 “Digital Dialogue? Australian Politicians’ Use of the Social Network Tool Twitter.” Australian Journal of Political Science45 (4): 579–604. 10.1080/10361146.2010.517176
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2010.517176 [Google Scholar]
  12. Han, J.
    2015 “# Feminism is Not a Dirty Word’: Axiology, Ambient Affiliation and Dialogism in Discourses Surrounding Feminism in Microblogging.” Honours Thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoffmann, Christian R.
    2018 “Crooked Hillary and Dumb Trump.” Internet Pragmatics1 (1): 55–87. 10.1075/ip.00004.hof
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ip.00004.hof [Google Scholar]
  14. Hokayem, Emile
    2014 “Iran, the Gulf States and the Syrian Civil War.” Survival56 (6): 59–86. 10.1080/00396338.2014.985438
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00396338.2014.985438 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hood, Susan
    2010Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. London: Springer. 10.1057/9780230274662
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230274662 [Google Scholar]
  16. 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 byHunston, Susan and Geoff Thomson: 176–207. London: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. KhosraviNik, Majid, and Mahrou Zia
    2014 “Persian Nationalism, Identity and Anti-Arab Sentiments in Iranian Facebook Discourses: Critical Discourse Analysis and Social Media Communication.” Journal of Language and Politics13 (4): 755–780. 10.1075/jlp.13.1.08kho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.13.1.08kho [Google Scholar]
  18. Knight, Naomi
    2010 “Laughing Our Bonds off: Conversational Humor in Relation to Afiliation” PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Knight, Naomi K.
    2013 “Evaluating Experience in Funny Ways: How Friends Bond Through Conversational Hum.” Text & Talk33 (4–5): 553–574. 10.1515/text‑2013‑0025
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-0025 [Google Scholar]
  20. Kreis, Ramona
    2017 “The “Tweet Politics” of President Trump.” Journal of Language and Politics16 (4): 607–618. 10.1075/jlp.17032.kre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17032.kre [Google Scholar]
  21. Kroenig, Matthew
    2018 “The Return to the Pressure Track: The Trump Administration and the Iran Nuclear Deal.” Diplomacy & Statecraft29 (1): 94–104. 10.1080/09592296.2017.1420529
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09592296.2017.1420529 [Google Scholar]
  22. Krugman, Paul
    2016 “Donald Trump’s “Big Liar” Technique.” The New York Times.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 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.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Litt, Eden, and Eszter Hargittai
    2016 “The Imagined Audience on Social Network Sites.” Social Media+ Society2 (1): 1–16. 10.1177/2056305116633482
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116633482 [Google Scholar]
  25. Martin, J. R., and P. R. R. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  26. Martin, James R.
    2008 “Innocence: Realisation, Instantiation and Individuation in a Botswanan Town.” Questioning linguistics: 27–54.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Marwick, Alice E., and Danah Boyd
    2011 “I Tweet Honestly, I Tweet Passionately: Twitter Users, Context Collapse, and the Imagined Audience.” New Media & Society13 (1): 114–133. 10.1177/1461444810365313
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313 [Google Scholar]
  28. O’Donnell, M.
    2008 “UAM Corpus Tool. Available to download from: www.corpustool.com.”
  29. 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]
  30. Pain, Paromita, and Gina Masullo Chen
    2019 “The President is in: Public Opinion and the Presidential Use of Twitter.” Social Media+ Society5 (2): doi:  10.1177/2056305119855143
    https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119855143 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pollack, Kenneth
    2004The Persian Puzzle: Deciphering the Twenty-five-Year Conflict Between the United States and Iran. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Rauchfleisch, Adrian, and Julia Metag
    2016 “The Special Case of Switzerland: Swiss Politicians on Twitter.” New Media & Society18 (10): 2413–2431. 10.1177/1461444815586982
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815586982 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ross, Andrew S., and David Caldwell
    2020 “‘Going Negative’: An APPRAISAL Analysis of the Rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter.” Language & Communication70: 13–27. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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]
  35. Sarkhoh, Nadia, and Majid KhosraviNik
    2020 “Social Media Discourses of Arabism and the Negotiation of Self in the Middle East.” World Englishes39 (4): 609–622. 10.1111/weng.12502
    https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12502 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sclafani, Jennifer
    2017Talking Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse, and Political Identity. Lodnon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315276885
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276885 [Google Scholar]
  37. Stieglitz, Stefan, and Linh Dang-Xuan
    2013 “Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media – Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior.” Journal of Management Information Systems29 (4): 217–248. 10.2753/MIS0742‑1222290408
    https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222290408 [Google Scholar]
  38. 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. 10.1515/sem‑2017‑0109
    https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2017-0109 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wodak, Ruth
    2015 “Critical Discourse Analysis, Discourse-Historical Approach.” InThe International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction, edited byTracy, Karen: 1–14. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi116 [Google Scholar]
  40. Yoon, Ho Young, and Han Woo Park
    2014 “Strategies Affecting Twitter-Based Networking Pattern of South Korean Politicians: Social Network Analysis and Exponential Random Graph Model.” Quality & Quantity48 (1): 409–423. 10.1007/s11135‑012‑9777‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-012-9777-1 [Google Scholar]
  41. Zappavigna, Michele
    2011 “Ambient Affiliation: A Linguistic Perspective on Twitter.” New Media & Society13, no.5: 788–806. 10.1177/1461444810385097
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810385097 [Google Scholar]
  42. 2014 Coffeetweets: Bonding Around the Bean on Twitter. InThe Language of Social Media, edited bySeargeant, Philip and Caroline Tagg: 139–160. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137029317_7
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_7 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2018Searchable Talk: Hashtags and Social Media Metadiscourse. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2021 “Ambient Affiliation in Comments on YouTube Videos: Communing Around Values About ASMR.” 外国语44, no.1: 21–40.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Zappavigna, Michele, and James R. Martin
    2018 “# Communing Affiliation: Social Tagging as a Resource for Aligning Around Values in Social Media.” Discourse, Context & Media22: 4–12. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.08.001 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20048.mak
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/prag.20048.mak
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: Twitter ; Appraisal ; Donald Trump ; ambient affiliation ; coupling ; Iran
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