Rationale
Political discourse just like any other genre of discourse has its own unique structures of language and an investigation on the particular nature of such a structure is an important academic pursuit According to Fairclough, political discourses are decision and action oriented He also added that such decisions are made in the context of uncertainty and disagreement as can be seen in campaign speeches where politicians not only use language to express their ideas and feelings but also to re-shape the opinions of the electorate In this study, we attempted to bring out some descriptive and interpretive aspects of Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech
I chose Trump‟s Speech for the following reasons First, it is easy to see that so far there have been many research papers on political speeches of famous and influential people like Barrack Obama, John McCain, Tony Blair, etc However, little attention has been given to seemingly banal speech such as Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech Secondly, as a representative of the most powerful country in the world, his political ideologies, if any, may have implications for the rest of the world
This study therefore intends to fill this gap by investigating how the experiential and the interpersonal meanings are realized through the systems of transitivity and modality choices Since representations in texts are socially, politically and economically motivated and since they are increasingly becoming influential, it is important to try and find out how these hidden meanings should be understood.
Research Objectives
The current study utilizes Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) model to unmask the use of power and hidden strategies through language use Also the study analyzes and uncovers the experiential, interpersonal meanings of the wordings and grammatical structures of Trump‟s language use
In summary, the specific objectives are to provide a critical analysis of Donald Trump‟s political discourse based on Fairclough‟s framework to find out the way hidden power and ideologies are shown in the speech and to study Donald Trump‟s use of language to win favor with his audience.
Research Questions
To obtain the aims of the study, the following research questions have been posed:
1 How is ideology represented in Donald Trump‟s Campaign Announcement speech?
2 How does Donald Trump use language to achieve his goals?
2.1 How do the choices of Process Types and Participant Roles made in the Announcement Speech realize experiential meaning?
2.2 How do the Modality choices made in the Announcement Speech realize the interpersonal meaning?
Scope of the Study
The study adopted Fairclough‟s (1989, 1995, 2010) tenets of CDA as well as the works of the CDA theorists such as Van Dijk (195, 2001) and Wodak (1997) It only concerned itself with the principles of CDA in sync with the research questions It also employed Systemic Functional Linguistics by Halliday (1985, 1994, 2004) to provide analytic tools
It similarly, made references to other theoretic studies on Systemic Functional Linguistics
Specifically, reference was made to Halliday‟s model of transitivity and modality patterns
On this, the study analyzed the major process types: Material, Mental and Relational processes The other process types: behavioral, verbal and existential were only analyzed when their occurrence was salient in the selected text The study similarly, analyzed modality purely as contextually conceived in modal auxiliary
Within the Announcement Speech, the study only concerned itself with the transitivity systems and the modality choices within the themes of Immigration and National Security because they were the most salient The other themes: Obamacare, Economy, Education and Unemployment were only used to illustrate the concepts: Ideology and Power.
Significance of the Study
This is one of the newest attempts to explore and discover interrelation of discourse structures and ideological structures of Donald Trump‟s Presidential Campaign Announcement speech in the United States Presidential Election, 2016 as a good sample of his language use in presidential campaign
Theoretically, this study provides a support to CDA theories From an objective view as linguists when approaching discourses, CDA analysts can find out ideology and power hidden behind words
Practically, this study is submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements of my degree of Master in English Linguistics Moreover, with the investigation of Donald Trump‟s speech it may provide the researcher another approach to political speech analysis from CDA viewpoint
CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
This chapter presents literature review which includes an overview of DA and CDA Then it goes to introduce some key concepts for the study which focuses on both CDA and SFL.
Literature Review
An overview of DA
Discourse analysis is a broad field which is related to use of language in context
According to Tistcher (2000, p 42), ''discourse is a broad term with different definitions, which 'integrate a whole palette of meanings'' Discourse analysis takes into account different theoretical and methodological approaches such as linguistic, anthropology, philosophy, psychology and sociology The nature of language is closely related to the demands that we make on it and the functions it has to serve In the most concrete terms, these functions are specific to a culture ''The particular form has taken by the grammatical system of language is closely related to the social and personal need that language is required to serve'' (Halliday, 1978, p 142)
One of the important features of DA is to study authentic texts and conversations in the social context The early DA was concerned with the internal structure of texts Halliday's systematic functional linguistics is a new evolution against internal structure of texts
According to Halliday (1978), texts should encode both personal and social processes In other words, texts should be generated, comprehended and put into a social context
Discourse analysis is based on micro and macro levels Therefore, both linguistic and social analyses are important Discourses are interpreted as communicative events because discourses between people convey messages beyond that of what is said at directly What is important in such discourse is the social information which is transferred allusively.
An overview of CDA
At the end the 1970s, CDA was established as one of the domains of research in discourse studies It is known as an approach that is based on the union of language studies and social theory (Fairclough, 1992) CDA investigates how social power is misused and how
Key Concept to the study
CDA
CDA can be viewed as an analytic approach whose major concern is the way dominance, social power and inequality are enacted, reproduced and resisted in a text, social and political contexts (Van Dijk 2001: 352, 2003: Fairclough: 2010) According to Young and Harrison (2004: 3), CDA focuses on espousing ideologies hidden in language Such ideologies naturalize the unequal power relations but once they are brought to the fore, they can be contested The primary concern of CDA, therefore, is to show the relationship between language, power and ideology on the one hand and that of social change and social identity on the other CDA does this by looking at the role discourse plays in the production and maintenance of unequal power relations and dominance (Weiss and Wodak 2003; Mr Gregor 2011:4) These roles are summarized by Wodak and Fairclough into seven principles namely: (a) the role of discourse in social problems; (b) the relationships between power and discourse; (c) how discourse constitutes culture and society; (d) how discourse is ideologically marked; (d) the historical nature of discourse; (e) the mediated relationship that exists between text and society; (f) the interpretive and explanatory orientation of CDA
Although significant variations exist in CDA‟s approaches, Haig (2011) argues that two key facets of CDA still remain consistent; the relationship between language and power on the one hand and the way language creates and maintains an unequal power relations on the other hand
CDA is used in this study to find out how transitivity patterns and modality choices construct experiential and interpersonal meanings in Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech These choices will then be subjected to Fairclough‟s (1989, 1995, 2010) three tier framework of doing CDA: description, interpretation and explanation.
Discourse
CDA develops discourse socially in such a way that it involves social conditions of production (e.g., text) as well as social conditions of interpretation It is the linguistic form of social interaction that is either embedded in social context of situation or that it interprets the social system that constitutes the culture of institutions or society as a whole
It is a product of its environment and it functions in that environment through the process of interaction and semantic choice Text is the realization of such environment It treats discourse as a type of social practice including visual images, music, gestures, and the like that represent and endorse it On the other hand, texts are produced by socially situated speakers and writers For participants in discourse, their relations in producing texts are not always equal: there will be a range from complete solidarity to complete inequality
Meanings come about through interaction between readers and receivers and linguistic features come about as a result of social processes, which are never arbitrary In most interactions, users of language bring with them different dispositions toward language, which are closely related to social status (Fairclough, 1989) In CDA, discourse is defined in terms of social practice
In CDA, discourse is defined as a type of social practice and the context of language is crucial (Fairclough, 1989, 1993, 2003; van Dijk 1993, 1997, 2001;; Wodak, 1996, 2000,
2001) Discourse involves both written and spoken language as a form of social practice (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997, p 35) Following Fairclough (1995), Reisigl and Wodak
(2000) consider discourse as "a way of signifying a particular domain of social practice from a particular perspective" In seeing discourse as a social practice, Fairclough (1989) shows that a critical analyst is not only concerned with analyzing texts, but with analyzing the relationships between texts, processes, and their social conditions In doing so, three dimensions of critical discourse analysis arise accordingly: description that concerns the formal properties of the text that concerns with what a text says, interpretation that concerns the relationship between text and interaction, and explanation that concerns the relationship between interaction and social context, (Fairclough, 1989)
There is a dialectical relationship between particular discursive practices and the specific fields of action (including situations, institutional frames and social structures) in which they are embedded Social settings affect and are affected by discourse In other words, discourse shape social settings and it is shaped by them (Wodak, 2007) Social structures as well as social events are parts of social reality and the relationship between social structures and social events depends upon mediating categories, which Fairclough called
„social practices‟, the forms of social activities, which are articulated together to constitute social fields, institutions, and organizations (Fairclough, 2003)
Van Dijk (1993, p 251) argues that CDA 'prefers to focus on the elites and their discursive strategies for the maintenance of inequality' through studying top down relations of dominance than to bottom-up relations of resistance, compliance and acceptance To him, this will often be effective and adequate, because it is easy to assume that directive speech acts such as commands or orders may be used to enact power, and hence also to exercise and to reproduce dominance Similarly, it is easy to examine the style, rhetoric, or meaning of texts for strategies that aim at the concealment of social power relations, for instance by playing down, leaving implicit or understating responsible agency of powerful social actors in the events represented in the text CDA, hence, studies the relation between society, discourse and social cognition, which is the necessary theoretical and empirical interface that should be examined in detail Social cognition is the missing link between discourse and dominance, a feature that distinguishes CDA from other non-critical approaches
In this respect, Critical Discourse Analysis looks at the way elements of both spoken and written texts are organized It does this with the goal of trying to establish the salient political and ideological features resident in the texts
Van Dijk (1993:249: Fairclough 1989: Wodak 2001: Holmes 2005:33) agreed with the notion of power in CDA by pointing out that it is an integral part of it He added that discourse entails manifestations of power imbalances made worse and reinforced by either explicit or implicit references Similarly, Fowler and Kress (1979:188) posit that language is a consolidation of the structures which shape it and it is not only used to manipulate people but also to establish and maintain the power of state agencies, corporations and institutions This is made possible by use of direct and indirect speech acts or by processes in which the ideology of a culture or a group is linguistically marked, articulated and tacitly affirmed The present study hinges on these assertions because through transitivity choices some power relations are foregrounded while others are backgrounded An analysis of process types, for instance, may show the participants favoured by the power relations.
Ideology
Ideology has been a central area of investigation in Critical Discourse Analysis (Kress and Hodge, 1979; Fairclough, 1989, 1992; Wodak 1989; Van Dijk, 1989) This is so because discourse or any other semiotic behaviour has been identified by major linguistic scholars as a location of ideology
One major problem immediately noticeable to anyone attempting to study Ideology is the difficulty in trying to establish its specific definition To enable us proceed with the present study, two approaches to the definition Ideology are explored as follow
First is the view of Ideology as a „specific set of symbolic representations (Blommaert, 2005:158) These include: discourses, images, arguments and so forth Such symbolic representations Blommaert adds are operated by particular groups or actors who are identifiable by their use of such ideologies This view could involve reference to particular positions within a political system (factionalism) such as progressivism, conservatism, reactivism and so forth These Ideologies characterize participants who subscribe to them as seen, for instance, in actors who exhibit socialist symbolic representations because they subscribe to the Ideology of Socialism
The second approach to the definition of Ideology relates to its view as a general phenomenon that characterizes the totality of a particular social or political system Such Systems are practiced by every member of the group that subscribes to it This view emphasizes that Ideology represents the „cultural,‟ Ideational aspects of a particular socio- political system Ideology relates to both the normal perceptions individuals have of the world as a system as well as natural activities involved in it Such activities sustain social relations, power structures and the patterns of thought which serve to reinforce the common sense
The present study adopts this latter view of Ideology as a common sense and defines it as a form of influence or manipulation in order to win acceptance
In texts, ideological notions can be implicit or explicit Explicit ideologies can be usually seen in the form of offensive and insensitive language to the institutional subjects such the use of the word „rapists‟ in reference to Mexican Immigrants by Donald Trump It can also entail the use of ingroup or outgroup depiction to refer to different participants in the selected text
Further, it can additionally contain the use of language that portrays „self‟ in a positive light while painting the „other‟ in a negative light Such a view is supported by van Dijk who considers that such method emphasizes the speaker‟s good things but de- emphasizes the other participant‟s good things or backgrounds the speaker‟s bad things but foregrounds the bad things of the other actors
On the other hand, implicit ideologies take the form of promotion This can be illustrated by the following example drawn from Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech: I would build a wall and have Mexico pay for it Scholars of Critical Discourse Analysis concur that dominant Ideologies are characterized by the following features:
They are stabilized and legitimized by discourse such a manner that obscures the effects of power and Ideology
They have the ability to naturalize discourse by making it appear „normal‟ or „common sense.‟
They flourish and are sustained by hegemony
They may be sustained by the dominated individuals albeit unawares Such dominated groups even if aware of the dominant Ideologies, may find it difficult to wriggle their way out
The present study employs the context of use to study how linguistic features bring out both implicit and explicit Ideologies in the selected text.
CDA and SFL
The SFL model is anchored on the idea that language is a system of meaning which affords a speaker a number of grammatical choices in the course of a communicative event The meaning of language, therefore, is configured through these choices which are also embodied in the structure of the clause As Bloor & Bloor (2013:3) point out, „SFL involves the idea that a language consists of a set of systems which offer speakers or writers unlimited choices and ways of creating meaning.‟ Halliday (as cited in Fontaine, 2013:22) agree with this view by pointing out that „the clause is a multifunctional unit of language.‟
This implies that the clause is an embodiment of different meanings at the same time
The three meanings of the clause pointed out by Halliday (1985) as working together include (a) the experiential metafunction (which represents the human experience and corresponds to the view of the clause as representation); (b) the interpersonal metafunction (enacts personal and social relationship and corresponds to the view of clause as exchange); (c) the textual metafunction (which relates to the discursive flow of the text and corresponds to the view of the clause as a message) (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014)
It can, thus, be seen that each metafunction is a distinct in its functions However, the present study focuses only on the experiential and interpersonal metafunctions Two systems are employed to realize them; Transitivity as an element to bring out the experiential meaning in the Announcement speech and Modality as a tool to reveal the relationship between Donald Trump as a speaker and his audience
2.2.4.1 Transitivity Systems as a Framework of Experiential Meaning
Transitivity system according to Halliday (1985:101-102) refers to the experiences of language structures as semantic arrangements comprising process types, participants and circumstantial elements Transitivity, thus, relates to how meanings are expressed in the clause and how processes are manifested in language (Simpson, 2004:22)
These experiences are expressed through six processes including material, mental, relational, verbal, existential and behavioral processes
Material process is known as process of doing and happening It expresses the notion that some entity „does‟ something which may be done „to‟ some other entity In this type of process, there are two participants role, namely: Actor and Goal The actor is able to affect the flow of events of another participant in the clause known as the Goal or Beneficiary
Mental process is known as process of sensing It refers to the process of remembering, knowing, and other mental actions that involve the use of the mind There are two participants, namely: Senser and Phenomenon An analysis of the mental process with regards to the issue of immigration is important because through mental clauses that the speaker uses, his opinion, perception and his particular identity may be revealed
Relational process is known as process of being It can be differentiated into three types:
Attributive process with Carrier and attribute participants, Identifying process with Token and Value participants and Possessive process with Possessor and Possessed participants
According to Halliday and Simpson, these processes are key grammatical tools for classifying, assessing, identifying and evaluating people, concepts or objects (Halliday, 2004:214; Simpson, 2004:25-26) It is important to investigate relational processes in order to find out how immigrants are classified based on the types of attributes attached to them and the meanings ascribed to those attributes
Verbal Process is known as process of „saying‟ (Halliday &Matthiessen, 2014:252) In the theme immigration, verbal processes involve the sayer, the verbiage and the target
Existential Process is known as process of existence and happening This type of process suggests that something exists (Simpson 2004:25)
Behavioral process is known as the process of behaving Grammatically they are intermediate between material and mental process This means that behavioral process includes the action process but the action is done with consciousness, for example: breathing, dreaming, smiling, waving, laughing, coughing, watching, listening etc The majority of behavioral process clauses have one participant that is called as Behaver (the agent who behaves) If there is any second participant, it will be called as Behaviour
2.2.4.2 Modality System as A Framework of Interpersonal Meaning
Modality can be expressed through the mood of sentences, auxiliary verbs, modal adjuncts and tense (Kress and Fowler 1979; Halliday 1985; Faweet 2008:68-83) Its analysis is used in the present study to attempt to bring out the interpersonal meaning and to express social roles between the speaker and the hearer Fowler and Kress (1979:200) define modality thus: Linguistic constructions which express speaker‟s and writer‟s attitudes towards themselves, towards their interlocutors, towards their subject matter, their social and economic relationships with the people they address; and the actions which are performed via language (ordering, accusing, promising and leading
It can thus, be inferred that the use of modality in the clause to establish the judgment and the opinion of the speaker towards his topic and hearers Modality, therefore, relates to the validity of what is being predicated, stated, questioned, commanded or offered It may also refer to social relationship within the clause (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2014:177) Further, it relates to the intermediate between the positive and negative poles (the gap between the choices of „yes‟ and „no‟ that allows speakers to attach expressions of attitude, belief and obligation to what they say (Simpson, 2004:123) This intermediacy varies in propositions and proposals In proposition, in between certainties of „it is‟ and „it isn‟t lie the relative probability of „it must be,‟ „it will be,‟ and „it may be.‟ Whereas in proposals, in between the definitive „do‟ and „don‟t‟ lie the discretionary options „you must do.‟ „You should do‟ and „you may do.‟ Modals can help unpack the writer‟s standpoint to the reader by bringing out tentativeness or other aspects of interpersonal meaning Similarly, as Simpson (2004:23) posit, it can also be a significant part of establishing personal identity
Two main types of modality, epistemic modality and deontic modality, were chosen for the analysis in this study
Modalization known as epistemic modality is a sub-type of linguistic modality that deals with a speaker's evaluation/judgment of, degree of confidence in, or belief of the knowledge upon which a proposition is based In other words, epistemic modality refers to the way speakers communicate their doubts, certainties, and guesses - their "modes of knowing" More technically, epistemic modality may be defined an evaluation of the chances that a certain hypothetical state of affairs under consideration (or some aspect of it) will occur, is occurring, or has occurred in a possible world which serves as the universe of interpretation for the evaluation process Downing and Locke (1992: 332) hold similar view and point out that the knowledge the speaker has about what he is saying; his knowledge of the world or simply his assessment of the truthfulness of the preposition in terms of possibility, probability and certainty The present study looks at Epistemic Modality along the same line
Deontic Modality also known as Modulation in Systemic Functional Linguistics, is also connotative in meaning Unlike Epistemic Modality, it entails obligation, permission, willingness, ability or appeal These expressions include „must‟, „should‟, „ought‟, „may‟, „can‟ and the like The deontic modal concepts, which these words are often used to express, are interesting in many ways First, there are logical connections between them – for example, they can be ordered in terms of strength That I must go home now entails that I ought to go home now, and that proposition furthermore entails that I may go home now Yet, the inferences in the other direction from „may‟ to „ought‟ and from „ought‟ to „must‟
The view of speaker involvement in deontic modality is supported by Halliday (1970:335) who posits that it is “a form of participation of the speaker in the speech event” which serves a crucial role in negotiating interpersonal meaning through language Halliday adds that it expresses wants, desires, commands, obligations, permission and undertakings This can be exemplified as captured below:
Obligation/ necessity must, should, ought to, have to
Main approaches to CDA
Fairclough‟s (1989, 2000, 2010) approach to CDA is also the main base of this study, the approach looks at language as a crucial element in constituting, maintaining and changing social relations of power Fairclough‟s interest is in not only trying to find out how language figures in everyday talk but also in how it constructs identity and portrays ideology and power He considers language as a part of the society That is, language shapes the society and the society shapes language in the sense that: (a) people communicate in ways that are socially conditioned (b) People‟s communication embodies social effects as seen in both conscious and private communicative events On the other hand, the society is shaped by language in the sense that language is an integral part of the social process
Fairclough, further, adds a three-layered method of doing Critical Discourse Analysis which conforms to the implications mentioned above These include: description, interpretation and explanation
Besides the work of Fairclough, Van Dijk (1995, 2001, 2003) takes a socio cognitive perspective in his analysis of discourse He looks at what role discourse plays in the (re) production and resistance of dominance Further, he views dominance as the exercise of institutional social power leading to social, cultural, political, ethnic, class, racial and ethnic inequality Van Dijk identifies mental control where those in control of discourse dominate the less powerful through mind control, as being used to actualize dominance This mental control, as Van Dijk points out, does not only involve the censure of information conveyed to the dominated but also the manner in which it is relayed Van Dijk further adds that it entails the control of discourse context such that: the communicative event, time, place and the participants involved are defined
Wodak (2001) takes a historical perspective to the study of discourse Her approach, similarly, sheds more light to the present study because just like Fairclough‟s approach, it acknowledges the dialectical relationship between discourse and society Besides, it views language as possessing the power and ideology which is used by the dominant participants to convey their norms and values Further, Wodak‟s approach just like Fairclough‟s proffers that readers and participant‟s interpretation of texts differ not only on the basis of their background knowledge but also on the basis of their position This notion is used in the present study to account for the varied ideologies and power relations in the selected text
Review of previous studies on political discourse
CDA has been used widely by many researchers to analyze political speeches The following studies have been conducted on political discourses
Post (2009) employed CDA to analyze the selections of social actors and social actions from the 2008 campaign speeches of Barack Obama and John McCain He found that language was used to make salient the most notable linguistic images and socio- semantic features implemented by the texts‟ writers to facilitate not only the nominee‟s perceived societal values, but to also shape individual interaction within society through such perceived social values as articulated by representations of social actors and social actions He also showed how Obama shaped his identity through the manipulation of social actors and social actions to facilitate not only the ideological positions the nominees would strive to reproduce, but also the textual personas they have assiduously created for themselves via their ideological positions and representations of meaning For Obama, meaning was utilized to shape the majority of categories within his discourse
Similarly, Alvi and Abdul Baseer (2002) investigated how Obama used rhetorics and his linguistic ability to convince and persuade his listeners of his propositions They showed how he used story-telling, rhetorical questions and answers, appeal to authority, salutations as emotion booster, free verbal repetitive constructions, verbal and syntactic parallelism
They pointed out how he uses his linguistic artisanship to draw his credible image in the minds of his listeners, and to convince them that a war on Iraq is not a solution
Horvath (2009) examined Obama‟s inaugural speech using CDA He found that Obama employed persuasive strategies in his public speaking to support his covert ideology He also found that the key ideologies expressed in Obama‟s speech are pragmatism, liberalism, inclusiveness, acceptance of religious and ethnic diversity and unity
Similarly, Obaid and Fahad (2012) used CDA to analyze Obama‟s “historical” speech in Cairo (2009) They attempted to understand how language is used as part of the Obama‟s attempt to draw a new position and identity for America in the global community in general and in the Islamic community in particular They showed how Obama used language to convey the start of a new era of peace and consent, away of the discourse of
“coercion” during the eight years of the former administration
Wang (2010) analyze Obama‟s presidential speeches from the modality and transitivity perspective She explored how political discourse was used to convey the ideology of power Wang showed how Obama employed the simple language, transitivity and modality to express his nearness to his people, and to arouse the American citizen‟s confidence in their president
Hoyer (2008) used CDA to analyze the British ex-prime minister; Tony Blair selected speeches, in regards to the war on Iraq Hoyer revealed how Blair employed discourse to convey his ideological stance, which tries to legitimize the war on Iraq Blair legitimized his supporting stance in regards to the war on Iraq by highlighting the security discourse in which he showed that Britain needs to defend herself This expresses Tony Blair‟s worldview Hoyer also found that media at that time played a role in supporting Blair‟s stance in regards to the war on Iraq
These studies largely focused on political discourses of Obama as manifested in his speeches and interviews However, there has been very little linguistic research on political discourse of Donald Trump and thus, the study intends to fill this gap.
Chapter summary
This chapter deals with the literature review and theoretical background of the study First, for the literature review it gives a brief overview on Discourse analysis and Critical
Discourse Analysis Then it provides key concepts which include CDA, Discourse, SFL and some main approaches to CDA Finally it reviews briefly on previous studies of political discourse These studies were anchored on the theoretic underpinnings of Critical Discourse Analysis Fairclough‟s (1989,2010) three tier model of description, interpretation and explanation was most employed for the analysis because it is text oriented approach
This chapter provides the method and design for the Research Then it goes to introduce the social context of the data Finally it describes in detail the analysis procedure of the data.
Research Method
Qualitative research model was chosen as the research method of the present study It was directed on the view that qualitative research is on meaning Qualitative research was applied because in analyzing the selected text to find answers for the research questions a lot of explanation and interpretation of the text, its discursive practice and social practice was required.
Research Design
The study made use of qualitative research design The research involved the following stages
First, the transcripts of the announcement speech were downloaded from the internet A comparison was made between the speech and the original video of Donald Trump speech to make sure that the texts selected are the same as spoken texts Secondly, the speech was coded into clauses The clauses were then analyzed to help highlight the recurring themes
Then the most salient themes were identified This was also to allow the researcher reduce the themes to a manageable number and to create hierarchies
Afterwards, representative clauses were selected in order to realize the process types, participants and the circumstantial elements Further, the clauses were analyzed for modality as they form part of interpersonal meaning The data was subsequently tabulated to capture the frequency of the transitivity systems and modality choices inherent in the clauses shown The data was narrowed down to percentages for ease of analysis Once this was done, the data was interpreted and a discussion on how transitivity patterns and modality choices brought out the identified themes established.
Data and its social context
Purposive sampling method was adopted to select the data The data for this study is Trump‟s Announcement Speech which is in the form of written texts collected from the website: http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/
Trump formally announced his candidacy on June 16, 2015, with a campaign rally and speech at Trump Tower in New York City Trump declared that he would self-fund his presidential campaign, and would refuse any money from donors and lobbyists He majorly anchored his campaign on issues such: unemployment, illegal immigration, Islamic Terrorism, National Security and Obamacare Additionally, his campaign advocated for the reduction of corporate tax by 15% as well as the replacement of Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) with another free-market plan He also promised to renegotiate trade deals and create millions of jobs for American workers To push through his agenda, he built his campaign around the slogan, “Make America Great Again” which resonated well with many Americans, particularly male, young single middle class, white, blue-collar and those without college degrees
In the general election, Trump ran against Democrat Hillary Clinton, the first female presidential candidate from a major political party The race was divisive, in part due to a number of inflammatory remarks and tweets made by Trump about minorities and other groups While some members of the Republican establishment distanced themselves from the candidate, Trump‟s supporters admired his outspokenness and business success, along with the fact that he wasn‟t a politician
As the election neared, almost all national polls predicted a victory for the Democratic nominee However, on November 8, 2016, in what was viewed by many people as a stunning upset, Trump and his vice-presidential running mate, Governor Mike Pence of Indiana, defeated Clinton and her running mate, Senator Tim Kaine of Virginia Trump won reliably red states as well as important swing states including Florida and Ohio, and racked up 306 electoral votes to his rival‟s 232 votes Clinton won the popular vote
Though Trump was widely underestimated as a candidate, first by his opponents for the Republican nomination and later by Hillary Clinton, his Democratic rival He finally was elected the 45th president of the United States Many observers considered it was a stunning political upset and blamed errors in polls, partially attributed to pollsters overestimating Clinton's support among well-educated and nonwhite voters, while underestimating Trump's support among white working-class voters The polls were relatively accurate, but media outlets and pundits alike showed overconfidence in a Clinton victory despite a large number of undecided voters and a favorable concentration of Trump's core constituencies in competitive states It was a decisive demonstration of power by a largely overlooked coalition of mostly blue-collar white and working-class voters who felt that the promise of the United States had slipped their grasp amid decades of globalization and multiculturalism.
Data analysis procedure
The study employed Fairclough‟s (1989, 1995, 2010) CDA as theoretical framework
Halliday‟s (1985, 1994, 2004) framework of SFL was used as an adjunct theory to provide linguistic tools for analysis at the micro-linguistic level Specifically, transitivity patterns and modality choices were investigated The two were chosen because they were suitable for the present study whose objectives are to find out how the experiential and interpersonal meanings are brought out through discourse of the recurring themes
A qualitative approach based on Fairclough‟s three tier model of description, interpretation and explanation was adopted This implies the study was descriptive as it focused on both micro and macro discourse analysis At the micro-level, analysis was based on the description of the linguistic choices resident in the selected excerpts Similarly, it also involved interpretation of the identified linguistic choices At the macro-level, the explanation and assessment of how the transitivity systems and modality choices in the selected text brought out the experiential and interpersonal meanings was established
Firstly, description focuses on the identification of the formal linguistic features resident in a text Such features are subsequently labeled as per the descriptive framework In the course of this description, the researcher takes a position similar to that of the participants but uses an explicit interpretive framework
In order to describe the formal features in a text, an evaluation of potential choices is established This is done with the view of finding out the patterns of options in the discourse activity which actual properties of the text emanate from Key elements of grammar identified, and which are in line with the present study, include: (a) the nature of the experiential values grammatical features process; (b) whether there are important features of relational modality To answer the first question, the following must be born in mind:
1) What types of processes and participants predominate?
3) Are processes what they seem?
5) Are sentences active or passive?
6) Are sentences positive or negative?
On the other hand, to answer the second question one has to consider the following: i) The authority of one participant in relation to the other (relational modality) ii) The strength with which a particular proposition is endorsed (expressive modality)
At the Interpretive stage, the manner in which participants draw from their ideological, social and cognitive endowments in their bid to better understand discourse is determined
The researcher at the interpretive stage therefore, seeks to address three key concerns: (a) the kind of interpretation that participants are giving to intertextual and situational context;
(b) the kind of discourse that is being drawn upon and which relates to the systems of phonology, vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, schemata, frames and scripts; and (c) whether the answers to the concerns raised in (a) and (b) vary based on participants or change as the interaction goes on However, the present study will only concern itself with transitivity and modality patterns within the grammatical system The interpretive stage will be used to unpack the hidden meanings and to correct pretenses of independence on the part of discourse subjects Since interpretation primarily looks at which elements of the member recourses are relied upon in the production of discourse, there is need to account for the changes in social constitution which then necessitates the explanatory stage
The explanation stage aims at portraying discourse as ingrained in social processes which are based on social theory This helps to bring out covert ideologies invisible to lay interpretation as it avails a broader base upon which individual communicative events can be placed and upon which their meanings can be drawn These bases relate to: (a) the interplay between social structures and discourse; (b) reproductive effects that discourses have on structures as in whether they change or sustain them
Key issues that the explanation phase addresses include: (a) the power relations at the immediate, institutional and social level, that shape the discourse in question (b) the aspects of member resource relied on and which are ideological in nature (c) the position of discourse in relation to contestations at the situational, institution and societal levels As such, the explanatory phase gives grounds for overcoming the shortcomings of lay consciousness in dealing with the implicit aspects of discourse
CHAPTER FOUR FINDINGS AND DISSCUSSION
This chapter provides the analyses and findings of three issues which relate to the Research questions: Ideology, Transitivity Systems and Modality within recurring themes of immigration and national security in the selected text.
Ideology realized in the recurring themes
Ideology of self- promotion and other- rejection
Political candidates normally present themselves or their group in positive light while painting the other participant or group in negative light This notion is exemplified at the very first words in his speech as in the following excerpt
Wow Whoa That is some group of people Thousands So nice, thank you very much That‟s really nice Thank you It‟s great to be at Trump Tower It‟s great to be at a wonderful city, New York And it‟s an honor to have everybody here This is beyond anybody‟s expectations There has been no crowd like this And I can tell, some of the candidates, they went in They didn.t know the air-conditioner didn‟t work They sweated like dogs They didn‟t know the room was too big, because they didn‟t have anybody there How are they going to beat ISIS? I don‟t think it‟s gonna happen.(Excerpt from Appendix clause 1 - 19)
The speaker presents other candidates in negative light while figuring a positive image of him He uses ironical phrases such as „sweated like dogs,‟ didn‟t have anybody there‟ to talk about other candidates while using lexical items such as „thousands,‟ „no crowd like this‟ to project himself in positive light and this also shows the ideological representation between „us‟(in-group) and „them‟ (out-group)
The Ideology of positive representation of „self‟ and negative „other‟ representation is captured in the excerpt below:
Our country is in serious trouble We don‟t have victories anymore We used to have victories, but we don‟t have them When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let‟s say China in a trade deal? They kill us I beat China all the time All
By using expressions „serious trouble,‟ „killing us‟ and „no victories anymore, he implies that the current American administration is in a bad circumstance Then he projects himself in positive light as in “I beat China all the time”
Another way of positive „self‟ representation and negative „other‟ representation is brought out in excerpt 3 below:
And remember the $ 5 billion website? $ 5 billion we spent on a website and to this day it doesn‟t work A $ 5 billion website I have so many Websites, I have them all over the place I hire people, they do a website It costs me $3 $ 5 billion website
Setting two opposite sides between him and Obama administration by repeating the phrase
A $ 5 billion website on one hand and stating his $ 3 website on the other hand, he wants voters to see that he is good at managing finance much more better than the current administration
Further example of Ideological enactment can be seen in excerpt 4 below:
We have people that aren‟t working We have people who have no incentive to work But they‟re going to have incentive to work, because the greatest social program is a job And they‟ll be proud, and they‟ll love it, and they‟ll make much more than they would they would‟ve ever made, and they‟ll be- they‟ll be doing so well, and we‟re going to be thriving as a country, thriving It can happen I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created I tell you that (Excerpt from Appendix clause 293 - 305)
The speaker blames the current administration led by the Democratic Party for the issue of unemployment and directly affirms that he is the gift that God brings to solve this problem through the clause „I will be the greatest jobs president God ever created‟
This is perhaps meant to paint himself in a positive way in the eyes of the electorate and to blur any possibility of a positive conceptualization of his opponents.
Ideology as a tool of Persuasion
In many excerpts below, the speaker has applied ideology as a tool so as to convince voters to stand on his side
I watch the speeches of these people, and they say the sun will rise, the moon will set, and all sorts of wonderful things will happen And people are saying, what‟s going on? I just want a job I don‟t need the rhetoric I want a job And that‟s what is happening And it‟s going to get worse…(Excerpt from Appendix clause 182-194)
The speaker uses the deictic expression „these‟ to refer to politicians generally Such deictic expressions are important as they draw the attention of the audience to the circumstance of the utterance In the above case, the speaker exploits the issue of unemployment as seen in the repetition of clause: I want a job However, this is just an avenue for the speaker to influence his audience to accept him The excerpt further provides the audience with two sets of leaders to choose from, that is, leadership full of rhetoric on the one hand and the other which is action oriented
But Obamacare kicks in in 2016 Really big league It is going to be amazingly destructive Doctors are quitting I have a friend who‟s a doctor, and he said to me the other day, „Donald, I never saw anything like it I have more accountants than I have nurses They have no plan now.‟‟ We have to repeal Obamacare and it can be- and it can be replaced with something much better for everybody Let it be for everybody But much better and much less expensive for people and the government And we can do it (Excerpt from Appendix clause 209-225)
The speaker expresses special concern for the American people in not being supplied a quality healthcare by talking about the current inadequate situation of the Obamacare program and giving some of his friend doctor‟s opinion about this issue Then he urges people to abolish this program by using the electorates‟ power in the clause We have to repeal Obamacare
The phrase much better and much less expensive is meant to show that their votes for the current president were not really wise The speaker then is persuading his audience to stand on his side and share his through the clause let it be for everybody The speaker is trying to draw himself as a positive image in the eyes of his audience
In excerpt 7 below, the speaker tries to persuade listeners into his team by narrowing the power gap between them in an attempt to gain their support
Excerpt 7 They are ripping us We are rebuilding China We‟re rebuilding many countries
China, you go there now, roads, bridges, schools, you never saw anything like that
They have bridges that make the George Washington Bridge look like small potatoes And they‟re all over the place We have all the cards, but we don‟t know how to use them We don‟t even know that we have the cards, because our leaders don‟t understand the game We could turn off that spigot by charging them tax until they behave properly.(Excerpt from Appendix clause 425-437)
Take the example of a powerful image of a growing China in all aspects though in terms of power relationship, the United States is in a more dominant position, he implicitly show that the American people are being taken away lots of benefits and opportunities Then by using the inclusive pronominalWe in the clause We could turn off that spigot by charging them tax until they behave properly the speaker implies that he and the voters are the same, he appeals everyone to end this situation together.
Ideology as a tool of Negotiation
The use of Ideology as a vehicle of negotiation is captured in the following excerpts:
Take a look at the deal he‟s making with Iran He makes that deal, Israel maybe won‟t exist very long It‟s a disaster, and we have to protect But… so we need people- I‟m a free trader But the problem with free trade is you need really talented people to negotiate for you If you don‟t have talented people, if you don‟t have great leadership, if you don‟t have people that know business, not just a political hack that got the job because he made a contribution to a campaign, which is the way all jobs, just about, are gotten, free trade is terrible.(Excerpt from Appendix clause 337-348)
The above excerpt is a good example of how the speaker uses ideology as a vehicle of negotiation He states the problem of free trade and projects himself as the only solution for that issue and then implicitly emphasizes that American citizens will have to wait until he is elected into power to fix the issue
Another example of Ideology as a tool of negotiation is shown in the excerpt below:
We‟ve got nothing We‟ve got Social Security that‟s going to be destroyed if somebody like me doesn‟t bring money into the country All these other people want to cut the hell out of it I‟m not going to cut it at all; I‟m going to bring money in and we‟re going to save it (Excerpt from Appendix clause 549-554)
Referring to Social Security- an essential source of livelihood to a vast majority of Americans, the speaker highly appreciates himself in contributing to save Social Security
He goes on to negotiate with the electorate as seen in the declarative clause I‟m going to bring money in which points to a personal commitment to deal with the issue at hand
Moreover, to narrow the gap between him and his audience, he uses „we‟ as in We‟re going to save it Again, the speaker does this to demonstrate to the audience that they are joined together in a common destiny.
Transitivity systems realizing the recurring themes
Process Types and Participant Roles in the Theme of Immigration
The issue of Immigration is characterized by the use of six process types which are explored in the section below:
Material processes are employed to bring out different views as listed in the following excerpts:
When do we beat Mexico at the border? They are laughing at us, at our stupidity
The use of material process can be captured as in example 1
Actor Pr Material Goal When do we Beat Mexico at the border?
In this example, Trump puts American in the agentive position which may imply that American should be more powerful than other participant – Mexico in terms of transitivity
However, by using the interrogative form, his actual aim is to figure others in negative light He perhaps implies that Obama and the present administration fail in fulfilling his promises to the electorate This is done to win favour of the electorate
When Mexico sends its people, they are not sending their best They are not sending you They are sending people that have lots of problems They are bringing drugs
They are bringing crimes.(Excerpt from Appendix clause 42-49)
Trump describes Mexico as actor of „sending‟ and „bringing‟ process in which Mexico is portrayed as an agent violating the Americans‟ rights Similarly, the excerpt above brings out the ideology of negative „other‟ representation These are captured in material processes below:
Actor Pr:Material Circumstantial Example 2 They are sending people that have lots of problems Example 3 They are bringing Drugs
Example 4 They are bringing Crime
Emphasizing on the goals that the actor brings, Donald Trump represents Mexican Immigrants in bad light and blames them for bringing „drugs‟ and „crimes‟ and impinging on the interests of America
Excerpt 3 But I speak to the border guards and they tell us what we‟re getting And it only makes common sense It only makes common sense They‟re sending us not the right people
Actor Pr: Material Goal Example 5 I speak to the border guards and they tell us what we are getting
In terms of transitivity, Trump is depicted in agentive position while the immigrants are cast as a target or victim of his actions In the clause, the speaker draws himself as a leader capable of ascertaining the truth from the border guards By this, he indirectly affirms his power then persuades the electorate to believe in his ability
It‟s coming from more than Mexico It‟s coming from all over South and Latin America, and its coming probably from the Middle East But we don‟t know We have no protection and we have no competence We don‟t know what‟s happening
And it‟s got to stop and it‟s got to stop fast (Excerpt from Appendix clause 57-65)
Example 6 and 7 below reflect the ideology of negative „other‟ representation
Senser Pr: Cognition Phenomenon Example 6 We don‟t know
Example 7 We don‟t know what‟s happening
By using the negative form repeatedly in those above mental processes, the speaker expresses his personal feeling on the issue of immigration as a major threat to American citizens He then implicitly blames the present administration for not being capable of dealing with the issue of immigration which leads to the present unexpected situation
These processes can be seen in the following examples drawn from the issue of immigration
Excerpt 5 The U.S has become a dumping ground for other people‟s problems
There is another example of negative „other‟ representation as following:
Carrier Pr; Relational Attributes Example 8 The U.S as become a dumping ground for other people‟s problems
Assigning The U.S with a negative attribute – dumping ground, the speaker aims to ridicule the present state of affairs, thus, paints it in negative light in the eyes of the electorate Moreover, by using present perfect tense, he wants to emphasize the long duration of being taken advantage by others and this problem still exists at the moment By this, he implicitly urges the electorate to do something right to stop that situation
Excerpt 6 They are sending people that have lots of problems, and they‟re bringing those problems with us They are bringing crime They are rapists and some, I assume, are good people
The relational process in this excerpt is one again an example of the ideology of positive
„us‟ representation and negative „other‟ representation
The immigrants are portrayed as carriers of the negative attribute „rapists‟ This description is meant to paint the government as unable to safeguard American interests
There is one verbal clause „tell‟ is used as in the following example drawn from excerpt 3 :
Example 10 They tell us what we‟re getting
The verbiage “what we‟re getting” is used with a purpose of showing his concern to the problem of illegal immigration This is one of the speaker‟s persuasions to gain support from listeners
The existential processes related to the theme of immigration can be drawn from excerpts 3 and 4 as below:
Pr: Exist Existent Example 11 It only makes common sense Example 12 It‟s coming from Mexico Example 13 It‟s coming from all over south and Latin America Example 14 It‟s coming probably – probably – from the Middle
These Existential clauses show how people immigrated into America They refer to the view that the U.S is getting more and more dangerous and poor immigrants This helps to raise the electorates' consciousness to what they are really facing The speaker again present the government in bad light to make sure that there isn‟t any possible positive conceptualization of the present administration in the eyes of the electorate
Consider the following examples drawn from excerpt 1 which further serves to illustrate the use of ideology as a tool of persuasion
Example 15 They are laughing at us
Example 16 They are laughing at our stupidity
In the above examples, Mexico is inscribed as the Behaver with the U.S as the Target of that behavior The clause reveals that the speaker is subtly appealing to his audience to do something to remedy the current state of affairs The placement of the U.S as the Target in the phrase “our stupidity”, serves to buttress the speaker‟s appeal to the conscience of his audience
The use of Transitivity in the theme Immigration reflects the way Trump persuades his audience to reflect on the effect of illegal immigration on the American society He does this by making use of material, mental, relational, existential, verbal and behavioural processes His aim is to make the audience buy into his observations, ideas and suggestions.
Process Types and Participants roles in the Theme of National Security
The theme of National Security is characterized by all the process types However, for the purposes of the present study, we shall focus on the major process types most prevalent in the selected text These include: Material Processes, Mental Processes and Relational Processes
Material processes are the most used in the portrayal of the state of security in America First, the study focuses on the issue of Islamic Terrorism and then looks at other aspects of National Security The issue of Islamic Terrorism is shown in the excerpts below:
Excerpt 7 Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East And it has got to stop fast
From the above excerpt, the evaluation of the spread and effect of Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East is exemplified as in the following example
Example 17 Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the
This is another example of using ideology as a tool of persuasion Islamic Terrorists are presented as actors intentionally impinging on the entity Middle East The use of material process „eating up‟ and the circumstantial element „large portions‟ implicitly affects the electorate conscience in voting for the speaker
The use of ideology as a tool for manipulation is captured in the excerpt below:
They just built a hotel in Syria Can you believe this? They built a hotel When I have to build a hotel, I pay interest They don‟t have to pay interest, because they took the oil which I said we should have taken
The material processes in this excerpt are shown in examples 18– 21 below:
Actor Pr: Material Goal Example 18 They just build a hotel in Syria
Example 20 They took the oil
In example 18 and 19, the speaker appears to confirm and reassure his audience that as a responsible and lawful American citizen, he must pay interest in accordance with the law
He foretold his interest payment information to assure voters that he would comply with all laws as set in the US Constitution Therefore, this is an attempt by the speaker to express himself in a positive light in the eyes of voters when he draws the current government to be unable to deal with Islamic terrorism
In example 20 and 21, the use of material process „took‟ in the first sentence construes the Islamic terrorists as having the power and the ability to gain access to oil This portrays them as not only taking control of the situation but as also affecting what is going on; an indication of their power On the other hand, the material process‟ left‟ does not refer the kind of power as that of Islamic terrorists but expresses American as weak and seemingly dumb
We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq We have wounded soldiers who I love…they‟re great…thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers
From the above excerpt two material processes can be seen:
Actor Pr: Material Goal Example 22 We Spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion Example 23 We Lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq
In these two examples, Trump uses the pronominal „we‟ to show his audience that they are as the same and he cares about their welfare He paints the present government in negative light by pointing out the huge sums of money it spent in Iraq
By repeating the word „$2trillion‟ and thousands, Trump emphasizes on what American lost and brings out Iraq grammatically and ideationally as a beneficiary of U.S‟s actions
Trump then implicitly negatives the present government presentation This is the way he influences and manipulates his audience as they are likely to interpret issues from his point of view
The ideology of negative „other‟ representation is further developed in the excerpt below:
Excerpt 10 And we have nothing We can‟t even go there We have nothing And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it
From the above excerpt, the following material processes can be seen
Actor Pr: Material Goal Example 24 We can‟t even go $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion
Example 25 We Give Iraq(Beneficiary ) equipment
In these examples, Trump depicts that although supplying a lot of money and equipment to Iraq, American did not get any benefit from them Moreover Iraq is not able to ensure American security interests as portrayed in the clause „The first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it‟
In the excerpt below, the use of ideology as a weapon of persuasion is brought out:
Excerpt 11 And believe me; you look at the border with Yemen You remember Obama a year ago, Yemen was a great victory Two weeks later the place was blown up
Everybody got out – and they kept our equipment
From the excerpt, the following material processes can be identified
Actor Pr: Material Goal Example 27 Everybody got out
Example 28 They Kept our equipment
In these examples, the speaker places the Islamic Terrorists in agentive position of power which means they have power to do things that may harm to America The speaker then assigns Yemen an agentive position with the U.S occupying the weaker position of the Goal to suggest to his audience that he suffers just like they do but is prepared and ready to remedy the situation All of this is done in attempting to win the electorate favor
Another example of using material processes to persuade the audience can be seen in the following excerpt:
I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I‟ll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border And I still have Mexico pay for that wall
Example 29 I will build a great, great wall on our southern border
Trump outlines his plans to solve the problem of illegal immigration by placing himself as the Actor of the material process „build‟ He praises himself as a good person who not only has ability and experience in dealing with these issues but also a leader who is committed and serious in his resolve to overcome the security situation
I will find, within our military, I will find the General Patton or I will find General MacArthur, I will find the right guy I will find the guy that‟s going to take that military and make it work Nobody will be pushing us around (Excerpt from Appendix clause 810-815)
The following material process can be drawn from the above excerpt
In these examples, Donald Trump constantly presents himself in an agentive position to highlight his personality He knows that General Patton and General MacArthur are highly valued in the public eye therefore he chooses them as his choice of the Goal in those material processes The repetition of the material clause “I will find” emphasizes to the electorate that he is capable of getting someone with similar characteristics to solve the issue of National Security in America
Modality types realizing the recurring themes
Epistemic Modality
The modal „will‟ according to Fairclough (2010) is a high affinity modal used to mark futurity It involves the addresser making a high level of commitment to the proposition he is making For the purposes of the present study, the modal „will‟ has been used 8 times as shown in the extracts below: a „I will build a great wall.‟‟ b „I will have Mexico pay for the wall‟ c „I will find, within our military, I will find the General Patton.‟ d „I will find the General MacArthur.‟ e „I will find the right guy.‟ f „I will find the guy that‟s going to take the military and make it really work.‟ g „Nobody, nobody will be pushing us around.‟ h „I will never be in a bicycle race.‟
These examples given above show the use of Modal „will‟ in the selected text Donald Trump uses the modal „will‟ to reveal his strong commitment and determination to solve the urgent problems of Immigration and National Security with a careful plan listed
The use of modal „will‟ in (a) can be considered a way he uses to persuade and manipulate the electorate to vote for him He appears as very committed to sorting out the issue of Mexican immigrants In (b-f) the modal „will‟ is followed by the lexical verb „find‟ which reinforces Donald Trump‟s determination to fix the issue of Security by suggesting high regarded people for the position In (g) Donald Trump uses the modal „will‟ with the adverb „never‟ to reconfirm his political commitment in protecting and bringing back the American interests.
Deontic Modality
This section analyzes the following modal auxiliaries: would, can, should, May and the quasi modal auxiliaries‟ „have to‟ and‟ has to.‟ These modals are mostly associated with the modality cline of strong to medium deontic meanings (Huddleston & Pellum 2002: 177)
The modals are classified into various categories for easier analyses as shown in table two below:
Table 4.3 : Deontic modals by sub-category in the texts
Modal Totals in themes Immigration and National Security
4.3.2.1 Modal of Desirability in the selected text
Table 4.4 : Frequency of counts of modals of desirability
Modals of desirability Immigration National security
Table 3 shows that Donald Trump uses more modals of desirability (8) in the theme National Security compared to the theme of Immigration (1 count) This could be attributed to his desire to demonstrate the power imbalance between America and other Actors
The modal auxiliary typically associated with desirability is “should” though sometimes it can also be expressed through the modals “would” and “ought”
Consider the use of the modal „would‟ in the clause below:
I would build a great wall and nobody builds walls better than me
In this clause, Donald Trump occupies the agentive position in the above clause signaling that he possesses the power to address the matter once elected into office Though he uses the modal „would‟ to express his desire to solve the problem of Mexican immigrants, his use of the low modal „would‟ can also be interpreted as minifying his power and authority over the matter at hand This enables him to escape responsibility in future in case the promise does not materialize
The modal of desirability is also used as a tool of mind control in the following example:
They took the oil that when we left Iraq; I said we should have taken (Excerpt from Appendix clause 75)
In the above example, the speaker uses the modal „should‟ to point the conscience of his audience He implicitly blames the present administration for not taking the oil as it left Iraq and this would be a big loss to America Notice that the verbal clause possessing the modal „would‟ is preceded by the material process „took‟ with the terrorists occupying an agentive position which implies they are powerful This is one of the speaker‟s attempt to influence the electorate to reject any candidate who has relationship with the present administration
Another variant of the modal „should‟ found to characterize the theme of National Security is „ought to‟ which is used as a tool of Ideological persuasion This is resident in the excerpt below:
They always keep our equipment We ought to send used equipment, right? They always keep our equipment We ought to send real junk, because, frankly,it would be – we ought to send our surplus We‟re always losing this gorgeous brand-new stuff
In this excerpt, the modal „ought to‟ is repeated three times The speaker indicates unequal social and power relations by constructing America as agentive position with the power to send Iraq military equipment, while Iraq as deserving „used equipment‟ or „junk‟ for that matter Moreover, the use of the adverb „frankly‟ presupposes the agreement in what he is saying
Consider another excerpt where the modal „would‟ is used:
Last week, I read 2,300 Humvees- these are big vehicles – were left behind for the enemy 2,000? You would say maybe two, maybe four? 2,300 sophisticated vehicles, they ran and the enemy took them
The speaker paints the government in negative light by using modal „would‟ to question the wisdom of the government, through its military, leaving behind expensive vehicles to the enemy He repeated the number „2300‟ inn order to portray himself as very concerned with number of expensive vehicles America lost and seems to suggest that under his leadership this would not happen
An example of the use of modal „would‟ as a tool of negative „other‟ representation is shown in the excerpt below:
Saudi Arabia, they make $ 1 billion a day; $ 1 billion a day I love the Saudis
Many are in this building They make a billion dollars a day Whenever they have problems, we send over the ships We say, “We‟re gonna protect.” What are we doing? They‟ve got nothing but money If the right person asked them, they would pay a fortune They would not be there except for us
In the excerpt above, the speaker uses the modal „would‟ and negative variant „would not‟ to demonstrate to his audience that Saudi Arabia would not be as wealthy as they are, were they not getting the support of U.S government The negative variant of the modal „would‟ in the clause: „they would not be there except for us, constructs Saudi Arabia as impinging on the resources of America courtesy of the present administration This paints the government in bad light in the eyes of the electorate On the other hand, the speaker uses the modal „would‟ in the conditional clause to imply the situation is not likely to change unless the right person is elected into office
An example of „would‟ for personality profiling is captured in the example below:
Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump Nobody
In this example, the speaker uses the modal „would‟ with the lexical adjective „tough‟ to demonstrate his commitment and seriousness to the electorate He projects his personality to the electorate through expressions; „Nobody‟, „tougher‟, „on ISIS‟, and so forth Notice also that instead of using an anaphor to refer back to himself, he uses the proper noun;
„Donald Trump‟ to foreground his personality as the best suited for the presidency This is a subtle way the speaker uses to portray himself as the only hope for the country
4.3.2.2 Modal of Obligation in the selected text
The models of obligation are used by speakers to convey authority, supremacy or decisiveness in dealing with issues at hand
The modals of obligation across the two themes are summarized in the table below:
Table 4.5: Frequency count of modals of obligation in the selected data
Modal Theme of immigration Theme of national Security
Firstly, Donald Trump uses „has to‟ and „have to‟ as tools for mind control and manipulation as in the following excerpt
We have no protection and we have no competence we don‟t know what‟s happening And it has got to stop and it has got to stop fast
The speaker makes use of the pronominal „we‟ to portray him as one of them , one of the victims of the insecurity affecting America However, the contexts in which the quasi modal „has to‟ has been used in the excerpt above signals an infinite obligation whose bearer is not provided This is perhaps an evasion of future responsibility by Donald Trump in case the issue of illegal immigration is not addressed by his prospective administration Further, the quasi modal „has to‟ is preceded by the cognitive lexical
„know‟ which perhaps is meant to provoke his audience to reflect on how bad the issue of illegal immigrants had been handled by the current administration This, a subtle way the speaker uses to win the loyalty of his audience
Another example of „have to‟ as a tool for mind control is resident in the excerpt below:
When I have to build a hotel, I pay interest They don‟t have to pay interest
Chapter Summary
This chapter provides analyses and findings of the Research Questions Firstly, in terms of ideology, the analysis finds that the speaker uses ideology of self- promotion and other- rejection to present him in a positive light He also uses as a tool of persuasion negotiation to influence the electorate to vote for him Secondly, in terms of Transitivity System, Transitivity processes investigated help bring out power imbalance among the participants involved Mexico, Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Terrorists In terms of modality, interrogation of modality has revealed a relationship between language, ideology, and power Similarly, the analysis has revealed that modality structures are employed in positive representation of „self‟ and negative representation of the „other‟
This chapter provides the major findings of the study, makes conclusions and presents the implications from the findings of the study It begins by presenting key findings of the research Then it goes ahead to present the conclusions of the study and the implications for further research The chapter draws to a close with recommendations for further research.
Main findings of the study
The analysis shows that Donald Trump's Announcement Speech is created in a way that brings out Ideology dominance and manipulation Such tools are used to get support from the electorates However, whether politicians promise to be implemented is another matter
This is so because politicians in most cases make high promises to voters with the sole purpose of securing their votes and not necessarily contributing any meaning
The study finds out that Donald Trump mostly places himself in positions of greatest emphasis of the sentence which in my opinion reveals him as arrogant and divisive
The Obama administration is always presented in a negative light and is blamed for all consequences caused by its bad presentation Transitivity systems were used to portray America in agentive positions as weak subordinate to other participants in all aspects
Similarly, America is brought out in sensers of Phenomena which reflects no accomplishment while participants such ISIS and Islamic Terrorists are becoming more powerful and dangerous
Modality choices used in the selected text also helps to represent the speaker in positive light while foretelling the opponent's failures Donald Trump represents himself interpersonally in agentive positions show he has the ability to positively affect the lives of Americans that affect the lives of the other but portrays the Obama administration as clueless This interpersonally positions his views as authoritative as seen in his promise to construct a wall at the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it However, since the validity of such a statement has not been empirically ascertained it can perhaps be considered tentative
Further, Interrogation of modality has revealed a relationship between language, ideology, and power For instance, the social role Donald Trump assigns himself allows him to employ both epistemic and deontic modals to shape the behaviour of his audience
More modals of obligation in the theme of National Security are used with the purpose of telling the audience what they should think rather than inviting them to make their own minds In this regard, he can perhaps be said to be engaging in the construction of something Jowett and O‟Donnell (2007:7) might classify as propaganda or what Van Djik
Conclusion
The study has exhibited that through the use of Fairclough‟s (1989) CDA framework it is possible to define features which influence in some way the perceptions and actions of the electorate without them being conscious of this influence As van Dijk (1997:4) points out, discourse control of people‟s minds seems an effective “way to reproduce dominance and hegemony.” This is definitely an area of concern for the electorate as well as politicians
Transitivity systems and modality choices can be used to realize social actors whose linguistic choices are presented as normal and natural but in fact holding the view of inequality and injustice If the hidden meanings of these perceptions are not decoded by Critical Discourse Analysis, they can influence the audience to accept the dominant view as the truth
Moreover, transitivity systems have proven very important in discovering the participants involved by pointing out their relationship to each other; whether they are actively or passively involved in the process The analysis has further discovered the relationship between meanings and wordings that account for the organization of linguistic features in the Announcement Speech Finally, the transitivity systems have shown how speakers not only encode in language reflect their opinion but also how they show their experiences of the world around them
In general, the result of this study showed that, CDA can be regarded as a valuable opportunity to identify all hidden realities such as power, ideological strategy, persuasive technique and linguistic device underlying a politician discourse which has been naturalized.
Implications
The present paper reveals a tendency of shifting from quantitative empirical research to interpretive inquiry The paper also makes vivid the fact that the American presidential debates represent an ideology rich discourse which provides chances for researchers to make their own contributions within the discourse in question
Critical Discourse Analysis can explore the relationships among language, ideology and power It provides a new idea and method to analyze public addresses The theoretical framework of Fairclough‟s in combination is really very effective for the analysis So it is worth for us to pay more attention to, especially in pedagogy In education, teachers can use this approach with its three dimensions, or stages, to raise critical language awareness among students when they analyze communicative events.
Limitations and Recommendations for Further Research
The present study has investigated Donald Trump‟s Announcement Speech with the view of unpacking the hidden ideologies and power relations However due to the scope of the present study, the analysis was only limited to the major process types and participants roles within the selected texts Little focus was given to other process types such as; behavioral, verbal and the existential clauses despite the fact that each of them ascribes varying degree of agency to participants Similarly, there were mainly five themes in the speech but only two themes were chosen for the analysis Another limitation is that the research results were my personal interpretation based on the analysis of only one speech of Donald Trump Moreover, I didn‟t have opportunity to check the listeners‟ reaction or feeling at that time but just collected data on the internet This might affect my interpretation
For further research, following recommendations might be taken into consideration
Other studies could adopt a comparative approach to investigate whether the use of Transitivity Systems and Modality choices in the Announcement Speeches of the other U.S Presidential candidates are conditioned by party specific tendencies
A similar study can be conducted on the Announcement Speeches of other political parties in the U.S to find out the extent to which the research findings of the present study can be generalized
1 Blommaert, J (2006) Discourse: A Critical Introduction United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press
2 Chalaby, J.K (1997) Beyond the Prison-House of Language: Discourse as a Sociological Concept British Journal of Sociology, 47(4), 684-698
3 Chilton, Paul (2004) Analyzing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice Routledge (Taylor and Francis)
4 Chouliaraki, L & Fairclough, N (1999) Discourse in Late Modernity: Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis Great Britain: Edinburg University Press
5 Eggins, S (2004) An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nded) London:
Bloomsbury Academic (2nd Edition) UK: Centre For Language and Communication Research: Cardiff University
6 Fairclough, N (1995a) Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language
7 Fairclough, N (1995b) Media Discourse London: Edward Arnold
8 Fairclough, N.; Wodak, R (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis In T Van Dijk (Hg.):
Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction , 2, 258-284 London: SAGE Publications
9 Fairclough, N.; Wodak, R (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis In T Van Dijk (Hg.):
Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction , 2, 258-284 London: SAGE Publications
10 Fairclough, N (2001) Critical Discourse Analysis as A Method In Social Scientific Research In R Wodak and M Meyer (Hg.): Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis
11 Fairclough, N (1991) Language and Power London: Longman
12 Fowler, r (1985) Power in T.A Van Dijk (ed) Handbook of Discourse Analysis,
Vol.4 London: Academic Press, Inc 61-82
13 Fowler, R Hodge, B., Kress, G., Trew, T (1979) Language and Control London:
14 Gilbert Weiss & Ruth Wodak (Eds.) (2003) Critical Discourse Analysis Theory and
Interdisciplinarity (pp 85-109) Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave-MacMillan
15 Graham, P (2003) “Critical Discourse Analysis and Evaluative meaning:
Interdisciplinarity as a Critical Turn.” In, Weiss & Wodak (Eds): Critical Discourse Analysis: Theory and Interdisciplinarity New York: Palgrave Macmillan
16 Haig, E (2011) “A Critical Discourse Analysis and Systemic Linguistic Approach to Measuring Participant Power in Radio Bulletin About Youth Crime” In, Studies in Media and Society, 3, 45-70
17 Halliday, M.A.K (1970) Functional Diversity in Language as Seen from a
Consideration of Modality and Mood in English.” Functions of Language, 6, 322-361
18 Halliday, M.A.K (1978) Language as a Social Semiotic London: University Park
19 Halliday, M.A.K (1985) An Introduction to Functional Grammar London: Edward
20 Halliday, M A.K (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2nd edition)
21 Halliday, M.A.K, (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rd Edition)
Rev.Mat Liessen C London: Edward Arnold.
22 Halliday, M.A.K and Malthiessen, M.I.M (2014) Halliday‟s Introduction to
Functional Grammar, 4th Edition New York: Routledge
23 Lilian, D.L (2008) Modality, Persuasion and Manipulation in Canadian Conservative
Discourse.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines Vol.2 (1):
24 Palmer, F.R (2001) Mood and Modality Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
25 Simpson, P (2004) Stylistics: A Resource Book for Students London & New York:
26 Van Dijk, T (2001) Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics Universitat Pompeu:
27 Wodak, R & Meyer, M (2001) (Eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis
28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_2016_presidential_campaign
Website: http://time.com/3923128/donald-trump-announcement-speech/
Appendix: Transcript of Trump’s Announcement Speech, June 16 th 2015
1 Wow Whoa That is some group of people Thousands
2 So nice, thank you very much
3 That’s really nice Thank you
4 It’s great to be at Trump Tower
5 It’s great to be in a wonderful city, New York
6 And it’s an honor to have everybody here
7 This is beyond anybody’s expectations
8 There’s been no crowd like this
10 some of the candidates, they went in
12 the air-conditioner didn’t work
15 the room was too big,
16 because they didn’t have anybody there
17 How are they going to beat ISIS?
20 Our country is in serious trouble
21 We don’t have victories anymore
22 We used to have victories,
23 but we don’t have them
24 When was the last time anybody saw us beating, let’s say, China in a trade deal?
26 I beat China all the time All the time
27 When did we beat Japan at anything?
28 They send their cars over by the millions,
29 and what do we do?
30 When was the last time you saw a Chevrolet in Tokyo?
32 They beat us all the time
33 When do we beat Mexico at the border?
34 They’re laughing at us, at our stupidity
35 And now they are beating us economically
36 They are not our friend,
38 But they’re killing us economically
39 The U.S has become a dumping ground for everybody else’s problems Thank you
41 and these are the best and the finest
42 When Mexico sends its people,
43 they’re not sending their best
44 They’re not sending you
45 They’re not sending you
46 They’re sending people that have lots of problems,
47 and they’re bringing those problems with us
51 And some, I assume, are good people
52 But I speak to border guards
53 and they tell us what we’re getting
54 And it only makes common sense
55 It only makes common sense
56 They’re sending us not the right people
57 It’s coming from more than Mexico
58 It’s coming from all over South and Latin America,
59 and it’s coming probably— probably— from the Middle East
61 Because we have no protection
62 and we have no competence,
63 we don’t know what’s happening
64 And it’s got to stop
65 and it’s got to stop fast
66 Islamic terrorism is eating up large portions of the Middle East
69 They just built a hotel in Syria
72 When I have to build a hotel,
74 They don’t have to pay interest,
75 because they took the oil that, when we left Iraq, I said we should’ve taken
76 So now ISIS has the oil,
77 and what they don’t have, Iran has
78 And in 19— and I will tell you this,
79 and I said it very strongly, years ago,
82 and I want to have the strongest military that we’ve ever had,
83 and we need it more now than ever
86 because you’re going to totally destabilize the Middle East
87 Iran is going to take over the Middle East,
88 Iran and somebody else will get the oil,
89 and it turned out that Iran is now taking over Iraq
91 Iran is taking over Iraq,
92 and they’re taking it over big league
93 We spent $2 trillion in Iraq, $2 trillion
94 We lost thousands of lives, thousands in Iraq
95 We have wounded soldiers, who I love, I love —
96 they’re great — all over the place, thousands and thousands of wounded soldiers
98 We can’t even go there
100 And every time we give Iraq equipment, the first time a bullet goes off in the air, they leave it
101 Last week, I read 2,300 Humvees— these are big vehicles— were left behind for the enemy 2,000?
102 You would say maybe two, maybe four? 2,300 sophisticated vehicles,
104 and the enemy took them
105 Last quarter, it was just announced our gross domestic product— a sign of strength, right?
110 Our labor participation rate was the worst since 1978
111 But think of it, GDP below zero, horrible labor participation rate
112 And our real unemployment is anywhere from 18 to 20 percent
116 A lot of people up there can’t get jobs
118 because there are no jobs,
119 because China has our jobs
120 and Mexico has our jobs
122 But the real number, the real number is anywhere from 18 to 19 and maybe even 21 percent,
123 and nobody talks about it,
124 because it’s a statistic that’s full of nonsense
125 Our enemies are getting stronger and stronger by the way,
126 and we as a country are getting weaker
127 Even our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work
128 It came out recently they have equipment that is 30 years old
129 They don’t know if it worked
130 And I thought it was horrible
131 when it was broadcast on television,
132 because boy, does that send signals to Putin and all of the other people that look at us and they say,
133 “That is a group of people,
134 and that is a nation that truly has no clue
135 They don’t know what they’re doing
136 They don’t know what they’re doing.”
137 We have a disaster called the big lie: Obamacare Obamacare
138 Yesterday, it came out that costs are going for people up 29, 39, 49, and even 55 percent,
139 and deductibles are through the roof
140 You have to be hit by a tractor, literally, a tractor, to use it,
141 because the deductibles are so high,
144 And remember the $5 billion website?
145 $5 billion we spent on a website,
146 and to this day it doesn’t work A $5 billion website
148 I have them all over the place
151 It costs me $3 $5 billion website
153 because politicians are all talk, no action
155 They will not bring us— believe me— to the promised land
157 As an example, I’ve been on the circuit making speeches,
158 and I hear my fellow Republicans
159 And they’re wonderful people
161 They all want me to support them
162 They don’t know how to bring it about
163 They come up to my office
164 I’m meeting with three of them in the next week
168 Could we have your support?
170 How do we do it?”
173 And they don’t talk jobs
174 and they don’t talk China
175 When was the last time you heard China is killing us?
176 They’re devaluing their currency to a level that you wouldn’t believe
177 It makes it impossible for our companies to compete, impossible
179 But you don’t hear that from anybody else
180 You don’t hear it from anybody else
182 I watch the speeches of these people,
186 all sorts of wonderful things will happen
194 And it’s going to get worse,
196 Obamacare really kicks in in ’16, 2016
197 Obama is going to be out playing golf
198 He might be on one of my courses
201 I have the best courses in the world,
204 I have one right next to the White House, right on the Potomac
205 If he’d like to play,
207 In fact, I’d love him to leave early and play,
208 that would be a very good thing
209 But Obamacare kicks in in 2016
211 It is going to be amazingly destructive
214 and he said to me the other day,
215 “Donald, I never saw anything like it
216 I have more accountants than I have nurses
218 My patients are beside themselves
219 They had a plan that was good
220 They have no plan now.”
221 We have to repeal Obamacare,
222 and it can be— and—
223 and it can be replaced with something much better for everybody
224 Let it be for everybody But much better and much less expensive for people and for the government
225 And we can do it
226 So I’ve watched the politicians
227 I’ve dealt with them all my life
228 If you can’t make a good deal with a politician,
229 then there’s something wrong with you
230 You’re certainly not very good
231 And that’s what we have representing us
232 They will never make America great again
233 They don’t even have a chance
235 they’re controlled fully by the lobbyists, by the donors, and by the special interests, fully
239 I have lobbyists that can produce anything for me
244 Because we have to stop doing things for some people, but for this country,
247 and it has to stop now
249 our country needs a truly great leader,
250 and we need a truly great leader now
251 We need a leader that wrote “The Art of the Deal.”
252 We need a leader that can bring back our jobs, can bring back our manufacturing, can bring back our military, can take care of our vets
253 Our vets have been abandoned
254 And we also need a cheerleader
256 when President Obama was elected,
258 “Well, the one thing, I think he’ll do well
259 I think he’ll be a great cheerleader for the country
260 I think he’d be a great spirit.”
264 that he would be a great cheerleader
267 You’re right about that
273 We need somebody that can take the brand of the United States and make it great again
277 we need somebody that literally will take this country and make it great again
283 “Dad, you’re going to do something that’s going to be so tough.”
285 all of my life, I’ve heard that a truly successful person, a really, really successful person and even modestly successful cannot run for public office
287 And yet that’s the kind of mindset that you need to make this country great again
288 So ladies and gentlemen…I am officially running… for president of the United States,
289 and we are going to make our country great again
291 Our country has tremendous potential
293 We have people that aren’t working
294 We have people that have no incentive to work
295 But they’re going to have incentive to work,
296 because the greatest social program is a job
297 And they’ll be proud,
298 and they’ll love it,
299 and they’ll make much more than they would’ve ever made,
301 they’ll be doing so well,
302 and we’re going to be thriving as a country, thriving
304 I will be the greatest jobs president that God ever created
306 I’ll bring back our jobs from China, from Mexico, from Japan, from so many places
307 I’ll bring back our jobs,
308 and I’ll bring back our money
309 Right now, think of this:
311 We owe Japan more than that
315 and then they loan us back the money,
316 and we pay them in interest,
317 and then the dollar goes up
318 so their deal’s even better
319 How stupid are our leaders?
320 How stupid are these politicians to allow this to happen?
322 I’m going to tell you— thank you
323 I’m going to tell you a couple of stories about trade,
324 because I’m totally against the trade bill for a number of reasons
325 Number one, the people negotiating don’t have a clue
326 Our president doesn’t have a clue
328 He’s the one that did Bergdahl
330 they get five killer terrorists that everybody wanted over there
333 We get a no-good traitor,
334 and they get the five people that they wanted for years,
335 and those people are now back on the battlefield trying to kill us
336 That’s the negotiator we have
337 Take a look at the deal he’s making with Iran
339 Israel maybe won’t exist very long
341 and we have to protect Israel But…
344 But the problem with free trade is you need really talented people to negotiate for you
345 If you don’t have talented people,
346 if you don’t have great leadership,
347 if you don’t have people that know business, not just a political hack that got the job because he made a contribution to a campaign, which is the way all jobs, just about, are gotten,
349 Free trade can be wonderful
350 if you have smart people,
351 but we have people that are stupid
352 We have people that aren’t smart
353 And we have people that are controlled by special interests
354 And it’s just not going to work
355 So, here’s a couple of stories happened recently
356 A friend of mine is a great manufacturer
359 and they dump all their stuff,
362 because, frankly, I have an obligation to buy it,
363 because they devalue their currency so brilliantly,
364 they just did it recently,
365 and nobody thought they could do it again
366 But with all our problems with Russia, with all our problems with everything— everything, they got away with it again
367 And it’s impossible for our people here to compete
368 So I want to tell you this story
369 A friend of mine who’s a great manufacturer, calls me up a few weeks ago
381 “I can’t get it into China
384 and they actually sent it back
386 they talked about all sorts of crap that had nothing to do with it.”
388 “Oh, wait a minute, that’s terrible
391 “Yeah, they do it all the time with other people.”
394 “Yeah So I finally got it over there
395 and they charged me a big tariff
396 They’re not supposed to be doing that
398 Now, they do charge you tariff on trucks,
399 when we send trucks and other things over there
402 They wanted their patents and all their secrets
403 before they agreed to buy planes from Boeing
404 Hey, I’m not saying they’re stupid
407 I just sold an apartment for $15 million to somebody from China
408 Am I supposed to dislike them?
409 I own a big chunk of the Bank of America Building at 1290 Avenue of the Americas, that I got from China in a war Very valuable
411 The biggest bank in the world is from China
412 You know where their United States headquarters is located? In this building, in Trump Tower
415 “Oh, you don’t like China?”
417 But their leaders are much smarter than our leaders,
418 and we can’t sustain ourself with that
422 take the New England Patriots and Tom Brady
423 and have them play your high school football team
424 That’s the difference between China’s leaders and our leaders
427 We’re rebuilding many countries
428 China, you go there now,
429 roads, bridges, schools, you never saw anything like it
430 They have bridges that make the George Washington Bridge look like small potatoes
431 And they’re all over the place
432 We have all the cards,
433 but we don’t know how to use them
434 We don’t even know that we have the cards,
435 because our leaders don’t understand the game
436 We could turn off that spigot by charging them tax
438 Now they’re going militarily
439 They’re building a military island in the middle of the South China sea A military island
440 Now, our country could never do that
441 because we’d have to get environmental clearance,
442 and the environmentalist wouldn’t let our country—
443 we would never build in an ocean
444 They built it in about one year, this massive military port
445 They’re building up their military to a point that is very scary
446 You have a problem with ISIS
447 You have a bigger problem with China
448 And, in my opinion, the new China, believe it or not, in terms of trade, is Mexico
449 So this man tells me about the manufacturing
453 But I have another one, Ford
454 So Mexico takes a company, a car company that was going to build in Tennessee,
456 Everybody thought the deal was dead Reported it in the Wall Street Journal recently
457 Everybody thought it was a done deal
459 and that’s going to be it, going into Tennessee Great state, great people
460 All of a sudden, at the last moment, this big car manufacturer, foreign, announces they’re not going to Tennessee
461 They’re gonna spend their $1 billion in Mexico instead Not good
462 Now, Ford announces a few weeks ago that Ford is going to build a $2.5 billion car and truck and parts manufacturing plant in Mexico
463 $2.5 billion, it’s going to be one of the largest in the world Ford Good company
464 So I announced that I’m running for president
466 … one of the early things I would do,
467 probably before I even got in—
471 I know the smartest negotiators in the world
475 You get a lot of them that are overrated
479 because the newspapers get buffaloed
480 But they’re not good
481 But I know the negotiators in the world,
482 and I put them one for each country
484 We will do very, very well, very, very well
485 But I wouldn’t even waste my time with this one
486 I would call up the head of Ford, who I know
489 I understand that you’re building a nice $2.5 billion car factory in Mexico and that you’re going to take your cars and sell them to the United States zero tax, just flow them across the border.”
490 And you say to yourself,
491 “How does that help us,” right?
492 “How does that help us?
497 Let me give you the bad news
498 Every car and every truck and every part manufactured in this plant that comes across the border, we’re going to charge you a 35-percent tax,
499 and that tax is going to be paid simultaneously with the transaction,
501 Now, here’s what is going to happen
502 If it’s not me in the position,
503 it’s one of these politicians that we’re running against,
504 you know, the 400 people that we’re (inaudible)
505 And here’s what’s going to happen
506 They’re not so stupid
507 They know it’s not a good thing,
508 and they may even be upset by it
509 But then they’re going to get a call from the donors or probably from the lobbyist for Ford
511 “You can’t do that to Ford,
512 because Ford takes care of me
513 and I take care of you,
514 and you can’t do that to Ford.”
515 And guess what? No problem
516 They’re going to build in Mexico
517 They’re going to take away thousands of jobs
518 It’s very bad for us
519 So under President Trump, here’s what would happen:
520 The head of Ford will call me back,
521 I would say within an hour after I told them the bad news
522 But it could be he’d want to be cool,
523 and he’ll wait until the next day
525 they want to be a little cool
526 And he’ll say, “Please, please, please.”
527 He’ll beg for a little while,
528 and I’ll say, “No interest.”
529 Then he’ll call all sorts of political people,
530 and I’ll say, “Sorry, fellas No interest,”
531 because I don’t need anybody’s money
539 And by the way, I’m not even saying that’s the kind of mindset, that’s the kind of thinking you need for this country
540 So— because we got to make the country rich
545 We got $18 trillion in debt
546 We got nothing but problems
547 We got a military that needs equipment all over the place
548 We got nuclear weapons that are obsolete
550 We’ve got Social Security that’s going to be destroyed if somebody like me doesn’t bring money into the country
551 All these other people want to cut the hell out of it
552 I’m not going to cut it at all;
553 I’m going to bring money in,
554 and we’re going to save it
555 But here’s what’s going to happen:
556 After I’m called by 30 friends of mine who contributed to different campaigns,
557 after I’m called by all of the special interests and by the— the donors and by the lobbyists—
558 and they have zero chance at convincing me, zero—
559 I’ll get a call the next day from the head of Ford
564 “Mr President, we’ve decided to move the plant back to the United States,
565 and we’re not going to build it in Mexico.”
569 There are hundreds of things like that
570 I’ll give you another example
571 Saudi Arabia, they make $1 billion a day $1 billion a day
573 Many are in this building
574 They make a billion dollars a day
576 we send over the ships
580 They’ve got nothing but money
581 If the right person asked them,
583 They wouldn’t be there except for us
585 you look at the border with Yemen
586 You remember Obama a year ago,
588 Two weeks later, the place was blown up
590 and they kept our equipment
591 They always keep our equipment
592 We ought to send used equipment, right?
593 They always keep our equipment
594 We ought to send some real junk,
595 because, frankly, it would be—
596 we ought to send our surplus
597 We’re always losing this gorgeous brand-new stuff
598 But look at that border with Saudi Arabia
599 Do you really think that these people are interested in Yemen?
600 Saudi Arabia without us is gone
602 And I’m the one that made all of the right predictions about Iraq
603 You know, all of these politicians that I’m running against now—
604 it’s so nice to say I’m running as opposed to if I run, if I run
606 But all of these politicians that I’m running against now,
607 they’re trying to disassociate
610 it took him five days to answer the question on Iraq
611 He couldn’t answer the question
616 He was unable to answer the question,
617 is Iraq a good thing or bad thing?
619 He couldn’t answer the question
620 How are these people gonna lead us?
622 how are we gonna go back and make it great again?
627 They can’t even answer simple questions
629 But Saudi Arabia is in big, big trouble
630 Now, thanks to fracking and other things, the oil is all over the place
631 And I used to say it,
632 there are ships at sea, and this was during the worst crisis, that were loaded up with oil,
633 and the cartel kept the price up,
634 because, again, they were smarter than our leaders
635 They were smarter than our leaders
636 There is so much wealth out there that can make our country so rich again, and therefore make it great again
641 We have to do it
642 And we need the right people
643 So Ford will come back
644 They’ll all come back
646 this is going to be an election, in my opinion, that’s based on competence
647 Somebody said — thank you, darlin’
648 Somebody said to me the other day, a reporter, a very nice reporter,
649 “But, Mr Trump, you’re not a nice person.”
653 People that know me, like me
654 Does my family like me?
658 By the way, speaking of my family, Melania, Barron, Kai, Donnie, Don, Vanessa, Tiffany, Evanka did a great job
659 Did she do a great job?
660 Great Jared, Laura and Eric, I’m very proud of my family
662 So the reporter said to me the other day,
663 “But, Mr Trump, you’re not a nice person
664 How can you get people to vote for you?”
668 “I think that number one, I am a nice person
669 I give a lot of money away to charities and other things
670 I think I’m actually a very nice person.”
672 “This is going to be an election that’s based on competence,
673 because people are tired of these nice people
674 And they’re tired of being ripped off by everybody in the world
675 And they’re tired of spending more money on education than any nation in the world per capita, than any nation in the world,
676 and we are 26th in the world,
677 25 countries are better than us in education
678 And some of them are like third world countries
679 But we’re becoming a third word country, because of our infrastructure, our airports, our roads, everything
680 So one of the things I did, and I said, you know what I’ll do
682 Because a lot of people said,
684 Number one, he won’t want to give up his lifestyle.”
685 They’re right about that,
688 so nobody knows what I’m worth
689 And the one thing is that when you run, you have to announce and certify to all sorts of governmental authorities your net worth
692 I’m proud of my net worth
693 I’ve done an amazing job
695 I started off in a small office with my father in Brooklyn and Queens,
700 I learned so much just sitting at his feet playing with blocks listening to him negotiate with subcontractors
702 But he used to say,
703 “Donald, don’t go into Manhattan
705 We don’t know anything about that
709 I gotta build those big buildings
712 And after four or five years in Brooklyn, I ventured into Manhattan
713 and did a lot of great deals— the Grand Hyatt Hotel
714 I was responsible for the convention center on the west side
715 I did a lot of great deals,
716 and I did them early and young
717 And now I’m building all over the world,
719 But they all said, a lot of the pundits on television,
720 “Well, Donald will never run,
721 and one of the main reasons is he’s private
722 and he’s probably not as successful as everybody thinks.”
725 nobody’s ever going to know
727 because I’m really proud of my success
730 I’ve employed tens of thousands of people over my lifetime
734 So a large accounting firm and my accountants have been working for months,
735 because it’s big and complex,
736 and they’ve put together a statement, a financial statement, just a summary
737 But everything will be filed eventually with the government,
738 and we don’t [use] extensions or anything
739 We’ll be filing it right on time
741 And it was even reported incorrectly yesterday,
743 “He had assets of $9 billion.”
745 “No, that’s the wrong number
746 That’s the wrong number Not assets.”
747 So they put together this
750 I made it the old-fashioned way
755 and it’s unions good and some bad and lots of people that aren’t in unions,
756 and it’s all over the place and building all over the world
757 And I have assets— big accounting firm, one of the most highly respected— 9 billion
758 And I have liabilities of about $500 million
759 That’s long-term debt, very low interest rates
760 In fact, one of the big banks came to me
762 “Donald, you don’t have enough borrowings
763 Could we loan you $4 billion”?
769 But in two seconds, they give me whatever I wanted
770 So I have a total net worth, and now with the increase, it’ll be well-over $10 billion
But here, a total net worth of—net worth, not assets, not— a net worth, after all debt, after all expenses, the greatest assets— Trump Tower, 1290 Avenue of the Americas, Bank of America building in San Francisco, 40 Wall Street, sometimes referred to as the Trump building right opposite the New York— many other places all over the world
773 I’m not doing that to brag,
778 I’m doing that to say that that’s the kind of thinking our country needs
780 We have the opposite thinking
783 We have people that don’t have it
784 We have people that are morally corrupt
785 We have people that are selling this country down the drain
786 So I put together this statement,
787 and the only reason I’m telling you about it today is because we really do have to get going,
788 because if we have another three or four years—
790 we’re at $8 trillion now
791 We’re soon going to be at $20 trillion
792 According to the economists— who I’m not big believers in, but, nevertheless, this is what they’re saying—
793 that $24 trillion— we’re very close—
794 that’s the point of no return $24 trillion
795 We will be there soon
796 That’s when we become Greece
797 That’s when we become a country that’s unsalvageable
798 And we’re gonna be there very soon
799 We’re gonna be there very soon
800 So, just to sum up, I would do various things very quickly
801 I would repeal and replace the big lie, Obamacare
803 and nobody builds walls better than me,
805 and I’ll build them very inexpensively,
806 I will build a great, great wall on our southern border
807 And I will have Mexico pay for that wall
809 Nobody would be tougher on ISIS than Donald Trump Nobody
810 I will find — within our military,
811 I will find the General Patton
812 or I will find General MacArthur,
813 I will find the right guy
814 I will find the guy that’s going to take that military and make it really work
815 Nobody, nobody will be pushing us around
816 I will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons
817 And we won’t be using a man like Secretary Kerry that has absolutely no concept of negotiation, who’s making a horrible and laughable deal, who’s just being tapped along as they make weapons right now, and then goes into a bicycle race at 72 years old, and falls and breaks his leg
819 And I promise I will never be in a bicycle race
821 I will immediately terminate President Obama’s illegal executive order on immigration, immediately
822 Fully support and back up the Second Amendment
825 Through stupidity, in a very, very hard core prison, interestingly named Clinton, two vicious murderers, two vicious people escaped,
826 and nobody knows where they are
827 And a woman was on television this morning,
830 and she was telling other people,
836 And now since this happened”—
837 it’s up in the prison area—
838 “my husband and I are finally in agreement,
839 because he wanted the guns
840 We now have a gun on every table
841 We’re ready to start shooting.”
843 So protect the Second Amendment
847 Bush is totally in favor of Common Core
848 I don’t see how he can possibly get the nomination
850 He’s in favor of Common Core
851 How the hell can you vote for this guy?
852 You just can’t do it
854 education has to be local
856 Nobody can do that like me
858 It will be done on time, on budget, way below cost, way below what anyone ever thought
859 I look at the roads being built all over the country,
860 and I say I can build those things for one-third
861 What they do is unbelievable, how bad
863 we’re building on Pennsylvania Avenue, the Old Post Office,
864 we’re converting it into one of the world’s great hotels
865 It’s gonna be the best hotel in Washington, D.C
866 We got it from the General Services Administration in Washington The Obama administration
868 It was the most highly sought after— or one of them,
869 but I think the most highly sought after project in the history of General Services
873 Well, I got it for two reasons
874 Number one, we’re really good
875 Number two, we had a really good plan
876 And I’ll add in the third,
877 we had a great financial statement
878 Because the General Services, who are terrific people, by the way, and talented people, they wanted to do a great job
879 And they wanted to make sure it got built
880 So we have to rebuild our infrastructure, our bridges, our roadways, our airports
881 You come into La Guardia Airport,
882 it’s like we’re in a third world country
883 You look at the patches and the 40-year-old floor
886 You look at these airports,
887 we are like a third world country
888 And I come in from China
889 and I come in from Qatar
890 and I come in from different places,
891 and they have the most incredible airports in the world
892 You come to back to this country
893 and you have LAX, disaster
894 You have all of these disastrous airports
895 We have to rebuild our infrastructure
896 Save Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security without cuts
898 Get rid of the fraud
899 Get rid of the waste and abuse,
901 People have been paying it for years
902 And now many of these candidates want to cut it
903 You save it by making the United States, by making us rich again, by taking back all of the money that’s being lost
904 Renegotiate our foreign trade deals
905 Reduce our $18 trillion in debt,
908 We have artificially low interest rates.