An Investigation of Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers as Persuasive Strategies in Donald Trump’s 2016 Campaign Speeches

Document Type: Original Article

Authors

1 PhD Candidate of TEFL, Department of English, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran

2 PhD in TEFL, Department of English, Shahrekord Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shahrekord, Iran

10.34785/J014.2020.749

Abstract

Interpersonal metadiscourse is considered as a significant mean of smoothing communication between the speaker/writer and listener/reader. The present study intends to explore the concept and type of interpersonal metadiscourse markers employed by Donald Trump’s campaign speeches as a persuasive strategy. Descriptive qualitative research design is used in the present study. Dafouz’s (2008) classification of interpersonal metadiscourse markers was employed to analyze the gathered data. The results revealed that Trump made use of all categories of interpersonal metadiscourse markers namely hedges, certainty markers, attributors, attitude markers, and commentaries, in his campaign speeches. The frequency of attitude markers and commentaries was more than other types of metadiscourse markers in Trump’s campaign speech, which demonstrates that he attempted to persuade the public to vote for him through making an emotional link.

Keywords


Abdollahzadeh, Esmaeel. “Poring Over the Findings: Interpersonal Authorial Engagement in Applied Linguistics Papers.” Journal of Pragmatics, No. 43, 2011, pp. 288-297. 

Amiryousefi, Mohammad and Rasekh Eslami. “Metadiscourse: Definitions, Issues, and Its Implications for English Teachers.” English Language Teaching, No. 3, 2010, pp. 159-167.

Blagojevic, Savka. “Metadiscourse in Academic Prose: A Contrastive Study of Academic Articles Written in English by English and Norwegian Native Speakers.” Studies about languages, Vol. 4, No. 1, 2004, pp. 60-67. 

Cap, Piotr. “Towards the Proximization Model of the Analysis of Legitimization in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 17-41. 

Dafouz, Emma. “Metadiscourse Revisited: A Contrastive Study of Persuasive Writing in Professional Discourse.” Estudios Ingleses de la Universidad Complutense, No. 11, 2003, pp. 29-52.

---. “The Pragmatic Role of Textual and Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in the Construction and Attainment of Persuasion: A Cross-Linguistic Study of Newspaper Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 40, 2008, pp. 95-113.

Dahl, Trine. “Textual Metadiscourse in Research Articles: A Marker of National Culture or of Academic Discipline?” Journal of Pragmatics, Vol. 36, No. 10, 2004, pp. 1807-1825.

Dehkordi, Mojdeh Ebrahimi and Hamid Allami. “Evidentiality in Academic Writing.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies, No. 2, 2012, pp. 1895-1904.

Esmer, Elçin. “Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers in Turkish Election Rally Speeches Delivered by Pro-Turkish and Pro-Kurdish Leaders.” Athens Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 4, 2015, pp. 367-384.

Estaji, Masoomeh, and Roya Vafaeimehr. “A Comparative Analysis of Interactional Metadiscourse Markers in the Introduction and Conclusion Sections of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering Research Papers.” Iranian Journal of Language Teaching Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 37-56. 

Holtgraves, Thomas M., and Benjamin Lasky. “Linguistic Power and Persuasion.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology, No. 18, 1999, pp. 196-205.

Hu, Guangwei, and Cao, Feng. “Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English and Chinese-medium journals.” Journal of pragmatics, Vol. 43, No. 11, 2011, pp. 2795-2809. 

Hyland, Ken. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London and New York: Continuum, 2005a.

---. “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies, Vol. 7, 2005b, pp. 173-192.

---. “Persuasion, Interaction, and the Construction of Knowledge: Representing Self and Others in Research Writing.” IJES, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2008b, pp. 1-23.

McGrath, Lisa, and Maria Kuteeva. “Stance and Engagement in Pure Mathematics Research Articles: Linking discourse features to disciplinary practices.” English for Specific Purposes, Vol. 31, 2012, pp. 161-173. 

Namaziandost Ehsan, and Sajad Shafiee. “Gender Differences in the Use of Lexical Hedges in Academic Spoken Language among Iranian EFL Learners: A Comparative Study.” International Journal of Research in English Education, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2018, pp. 64-80.

---. Gender differences in the use of lexical hedges in academic spoken language among Iranian EFL learners: a comparative study. International Journal of Research in English Education, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2018, pp. 64-80.

Noorian, Mina, and Reza Biria. “Interpersonal Metadiscourse in Persuasive Journalism: A Study of Texts by American and Iranian EFL Columnists.” Journal of Modern Languages, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 64-79.     

Reyes, Antonio. “Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions.” Discourse and Society, Vol. 22, No. 6, 2011, pp. 781-807. 

Rojo, Martin L., and T. A. van Dijk. “There Was a Problem, and It Was Solved! Legitimating the Expulsion of Illegal Immigrants in Spanish Parliamentary Discourse.” Discourse and Society, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1997, pp. 523-567. 

Sari, Aryati Meiga. Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers Used in Michelle Obama’s Speech. Diss. Dian Nuswantoro University, 2014.

Sepehri, Mehrdad, Mehrnnoosh Hajijalili, and Ehsan Namaziandost. “Hedges and Boosters in Medical and Engineering Research Articles: A Comparative Corpus-Based Study.” Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. Vol. 9, No. 4, 2019, pp. 215-225.

Shea, Daniel, and Michael Burton. Campaign Craft, the Strategies, Tactics, and Art of Political Campaign Management. Westport: Praeger, 2006.

Sugiyono. Memahami Penelitian Kualitatif. Bandung: Alfabeta, 2010.

Sukma, P. B. “Interpersonal Metadiscourse Markers as Persuasive Strategies in Barack Obama’s 2012 Campaign Speeches.” Aksara, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2017, pp. 283-293.

Takimoto, Masahiro. “A Corpus-Based Analysis of Hedges and Boosters in English Academic Articles.” Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2015, pp. 95-105.

Tse, Polly, and Ken Hyland. “So What Is The Problem This Book Addresses? Interactions in Academic Book Reviews.” Text and Talk, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2006, pp. 767-790.

van Dijk, T. A. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” eds. Deborah Tannen, Deborah Schiffrin and Heidi Hamilton, Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell, 2001, pp. 352-371.

Yang, Yingli. “Exploring Linguistic and Cultural Variations in the Use of Hedges in English and Chinese Scientific Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, No. 50, 2013, pp. 23-36.

Yipei, Nun, and Liu Lingling. “Investigating the Interpersonal and Textual Meaning of Stevejobs’ Stanford Speech in Terms of Hyland’s Metadiscourse Theory.” International Journal of Language and Linguistics, Vol. 1, No. 4, 2013, pp. 90-96.