<>
Volume 8, Issue 3 (9-2025)
JSAL 2025, 8(3): 27-44 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Almulla N A, Alyousef H S. (2025). A Comparative Analysis of the Engagement Resources in the Harris-Trump 2024 Presidential Debate: A corpus-based study [In English]. JSAL. 8(3), 27-44.
URL: http://jsal.ierf.ir/article-1-189-en.html
URL: http://jsal.ierf.ir/article-1-189-en.html
1- Majmaah University, Department of English Language, Majmaah, Saudi Arabia , naif.a.mulla@gmail.com
2- Professor, Department of English Language and Literature Faculty of Arts, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2- Professor, Department of English Language and Literature Faculty of Arts, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Abstract: (1549 Views)
The Engagement system of the Appraisal framework provides a descriptive characterization of how speakers/writers express their interpersonal positionings in terms of what kind of representation they use to show other voices in and in terms of how they engage with that representation. The present study employed the Engagement system to analyze the presidential debate held between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in September 2024 Presidential Debate. It attempted to explore the most common engagement resources employed by Harris and Trump to enact interpersonal meanings. The findings showed that both speakers used more dialogically contractive resources than expansive. This indicates that the candidates’ stance is that of more challenging the space for alternative positions rather than opening it up for alternative voices. Interestingly, Harris used more proclaiming resources of concur and pronounce than did Trump to set herself against alternative positions. Trump’s high use of expansive resources of entertain seems to be an employed strategy of giving the impression of friendly openness calling for all voices and then ending with what would be allowing only for those agreeing with him to be let in. While the study is limited to the small data size, the findings provide us with insights into the most commonly employed engagement resources in Harris and Trump’s speeches.
Keywords: Appraisal Framework, Engagement Resources, Discourse Analysis, Harris-Trump 2024 Presidential Debate
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Discourse Analysis
Received: 2025/05/2 | Accepted: 2025/06/27 | Published: 2025/09/1
Received: 2025/05/2 | Accepted: 2025/06/27 | Published: 2025/09/1
References
1. Al Fajri, B., Atmantika, Z. H., & Adhitya, G. N. (2022). "An appraisal analysis on Joe Biden's rhetoric of gun control". Rubikon: Journal of Transnational American Studies, 9(2), pp. 244-253. DOI: 10.22146/rubikon.v9i2.77904 [DOI:10.22146/rubikon.v9i2.77904]
2. Aljuraywi, J. A., & Alyousef, H. S. (2022). "Attitude in political discourse: An Appraisal analysis of Attitude in Donald Trump and Joe Biden's interviews on 60 Minutes". Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 18(3), pp. 176-193. http://www.jlls.org/index.php/jlls/article/view/4678
3. Bakhtin, M. M. (2010). The dialogic imagination: Four Essays by M.M. Bakhtin (Vol. 1). University of Texas Press.
4. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.
5. Halliday, M. A. K. (2014). Introduction to Functional Grammar. Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen, 4th edition, Taylor & Francis. [DOI:10.4324/9780203783771]
6. Hidalgo-Tenorio, E., & Benítez-Castro, M. Á. (2022). "Trump's populist discourse and affective politics, or on how to move 'the People' through emotion". Globalisation, Societies and Education, 20(2), pp. 86-109. DOI: 10.1080/14767724.2020.1861540 [DOI:10.1080/14767724.2020.1861540]
7. Liu, D., & Lei, L. (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 & media, 25, pp. 143-152. DOI: 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001 [DOI:10.1016/j.dcm.2018.05.001]
8. Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
9. Quam, J., & Ryshina-Pankova, M. (2016). ""Let me tell you...": Audience engagement strategies in the campaign speeches of Trump, Clinton, and Sanders". Russian Journal of Linguistics, 20(4), pp. 140-160. DOI: 10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-140-160 [DOI:10.22363/2312-9182-2016-20-4-140-160]
10. Ross, A. S., & Caldwell, D. (2020). "'Going negative': An APPRAISAL analysis of the rhetoric of Donald Trump on Twitter". Language & Communication, 70, pp. 13-27. DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003 [DOI:10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003]
11. Song, W. (2019). An adaptation-based study on attitude resources in political discourse: A case study of president Trump's State of the :union: Address in 2018. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(7), pp. 288-296. DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.77025 [DOI:10.4236/jss.2019.77025]
12. Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marixism and the Philosophy of Language. Translated by L. Matjka and I. R. Titunik. Seminar Press, Inc.
13. Zhao, Y., Wu, T., & Zhang, H. (2020). "A typical politician vs. a lunatic businessman: Different language styles of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump". International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(2), pp. 26-39. DOI: 10.5539/ijel.v10n2p26 [DOI:10.5539/ijel.v10n2p26]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |