Did his rhetoric 'incite' Capitol riots? : a critical discourse analysis of Trump's speeches on election fraud

Abstract

The unconventional rhetoric of Donald Trump, the former U.S. president, has attracted extensive scholarly interest since his rise to power in 2016. In the recent 2020 election, the presidential candidate made continuous assertions about election fraud and his use of provocative language, especially that he adopted in the “Save America” rally speech, was accused of “inciting” the violent insurrection at Capitol Hill on January 6, 2021, which resulted in five deaths and numerous injuries. Aiming to complement the existing body of work on Trump’s political rhetoric, this paper investigates the ex-president’s use of linguistic resources to establish legitimacy of his voter fraud claims in three of his speeches that targeted the American general public. Following Fairclough’s (2010) three-dimensional model for critical discourse analysis, this study examines the strategies of legitimization (Reyes, 2011) and their linguistic manifestations via Martin and White’s (2005) Appraisal framework. Results from the quantitative and qualitative analytical procedures reveal how Trump utilizes resources from the Appraisal taxonomy to perform (de)legitimization in his political discourse, and it is uncovered that the then president deploys a kind of rationality – one of the five legitimization strategies proposed by Reyes (2011) – that is different from the common-sensical logical argumentation usually found in political communication. Findings from this study illuminate how Trumpism, a new political rhetoric, demands thorough understanding and meticulous analysis – only by unveiling the rhetorical strategies through which the politician establishes legitimacy of his propositions can one develop a critical perspective to Trump’s and other politicians’ political language, which is used to persuade or manipulate their addressees to act in favor of their political agenda.