International Journal of Linguistics Studies

ISSN: 2754-2599
DOI: 10.32996/ijls
IJLS
AL-KINDI CENTER FOR RESEARCH
Journal Homepage: www.al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/ijls AND DEVELOPMENT

| RESEARCH ARTICLE

Discursive Tactics in Political Rhetoric: A Van Dijk Framework Analysis of the Trump-Biden
Debate 2024
Hamid Tarad Lafta
Ph.D./Lecturer, Translation department, Arts College, Wasit University, Iraq-Wasit
Corresponding Author: Hamid Tarad Lafta, E-mail: [email protected]

| ABSTRACT
The present study investigates discursive tactics in political rhetoric employed by President Joe Biden and Trump in their debate
in 2024. Van Dijk Framework Analysis (1995) of discursive tactics in political is adopted to study the Discursive Tactics in relation
to the Trump-Biden Debate 2024. Findings showed that Biden used a variety of discursive methods, such as reference to
presupposed historical circumstances, to attain a high level of persuasiveness. His word choice suggested that he and his
government had already embraced an ideological shift and were trying to convince the rest of the country to follow. Moreover,
to awaken people’s emotions and desires, Biden engaged with sensitive social issues such as family struggles, young people’s
future, social security, economic issues, and so on. The analysis revealed several hidden ideologies adopted by the speaker and
his administration, such as new policies for dealing with America’s economic crises, a significant shift in his country’s international
strategies, and his support for women’s rights. This study concluded that the speech maintained current power relations, had
the essence of a military and strategic success statement, and sent vital military signals with a transitional and future ideological
nature.

| KEYWORDS
Political rhetoric, Van Dijk, Discursive Tactics, Biden, Trump.

| ARTICLE INFORMATION
ACCEPTED: 15 September 2024 PUBLISHED: 04 October 2024 DOI: 10.32996/ijls.2024.4.3.10

1. Introduction
A political debate is a crucial aspect of political communication, characterized by candidates presenting proposals for action rather
than focusing on truth values, with arguments on both sides that cannot be objectively aggregated due to their multidimensional
nature (Kock, 2007). Political debates broadcasted that have been used as an area where contestants strive to outdo each other in
gaining the favor of the electorate see every individual seeking power taking pride in themselves as well as undermining the
credibility of their competitors (Krapyva & Sukhenko, 2022). Televised political debates are regarded as better ways of transporting
information where one can reach the public directly, in several instances, and even while holding opposite opinions (Drăgan, 2016).

A perfect example depicting van Dijk’s (1998) “ideological square” in his political discourse approach could be witnessed in the
2024 debate between Trump and Biden, which exploited modes of portraying ‘us’ positively and ‘them’ negatively (Apirakvanalee
& Zhai, 2023). In shaping the perceptions as well as decisions of voters, political debates can really determine who wins elections
from the times past. What Research has shown is that, amongst other things, debates are useful in altering people's views regarding
politicians, therefore making some people like their opponents even though they belong to different political parties, hence
minimizing partisanship (Brierley et al., 2020). Furthermore, more sophisticated forms of visual interfaces, e.g., hypervideo
technology, may promote critical thinking among citizens by enhancing their understanding of the televised political debates and
ultimately contribute to the change of their views on various political issues (De Liddo et al., 2021). Moreover, the perception
perceived in debates during elections by audiences from one president to another has profound implications for voter choice and

Copyright: © 2024 the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Published by Al-Kindi Centre for Research and Development,
London, United Kingdom.
Page | 89
Discursive Tactics in Political Rhetoric: A Van Dijk Framework Analysis of the Trump-Biden Debate 2024

leadership within opposers (Diez et al., 2020). However, it’s important to note the media can alter the perceptions of voters and
change the outcomes of elections by distorting information after debates (Cavgias et al., 2019).

In a political scene the use of rhetoric is significant since it not only influences the way people view some issues affecting them but
also what they prioritize. This happens through changing people's minds and shaping the context of debates, among others, which
are done by politicians for their personal reasons (Vössing, 2021). From the time he became President of America up to this point,
Donald Trump has always been using abusive language as a way of discrediting his opposition in the public domain; he always
comes out on top (Krapyva & Sukhenko, 2022). Political debates matter in a democratic society for several reasons. They furnish
voters with substantial information about the candidates’ qualities, policy standpoints, and conduct, which shape their appraisal
and voting behavior (Brierley et al., 2020; South et al., 2020).

While prior studies have examined the use of discursive tactics in political debates, especially in past elections, there has been
limited focus on the 2024 Biden-Trump debate. Existing research does not fully explore the ideological frameworks and rhetorical
strategies that shaped public perception in this recent debate. This study fills that gap by applying Van Dijk's Framework Analysis
to reveal hidden ideologies and strategic discursive methods employed by both candidates.

2. Literature Review
Van Dijk employs various dominant discursive strategies in his linguistic analysis, focusing on social cognition, social context
analysis, and critical discourse analysis (Susanti & Pujiono, 2023) (Usman, 2022) (Indriyawati & Hudiyono, 2023) (Winingsih et al.,
2022). He brings together cognitive, communication, and social/cultural dimensions. He combines semantic, syntactic, and
pragmatic elements with functional discursive methods. Critical Discourse Analysis is used by van Dijk to analyse essays at the
micro and macro-level in order to identify societal cognition and online political speech/social contexts (Susanti & Pujiono, 2023)
(Usman, 2022) (Indriyawati & Hudiyono, 2023) (Winingsih et al., 2022). Van Dijk's model reveals how discourses are constructed
by analyzing various aspects such as syntax, stylistics, and semantics, portraying different perspectives and biases in media
representations of political events and societal issues(Usman, 2022) (Indriyawati & Hudiyono, 2023) (Winingsih et al., 2022).

His socio-cognitive approach to critical discourse analysis assists in revealing the power abuse, dominance, and inequality that are
perpetuated by the elites through the discourses; Van Dijk's discursive strategies, as outlined in other different research papers,
are very important in shaping our level of understanding of language and social disparity (Güler, 2019). By analyzing political party
speech texts, Van Dijk's model aids in revealing the representation of marginalized groups, such as women, in political discourse,
shedding light on issues like gender discrimination and violence (Susanti & Pujiono, 2023). Furthermore, his work emphasizes the
critical analysis of power dynamics and discursive strategies that lead to hate, discrimination, and rejection of others, showcasing
the impact of language on social power dynamics and inequality (el Mouden, 2020). Additionally, the application of Van Dijk's
model in educational settings has shown significant improvements in writing proficiency, indicating the effectiveness of his
discursive strategies in addressing social inequalities in language learning environments (Yuliyanto et al., 2023).

Van Dijk's discursive strategies are about the techniques employed in discourse to achieve particular communicative objectives,
particularly with regard to social power and domination. Teun A. van Dijk, an eminent scholar of Discourse analysis, examined in
depth how power relations are established and maintained through the use of language. Hence, his work concentrates more on
examining texts and speech in society to reveal hidden power relations and ideologies. In this article, we will focus on positive self-
presentation through language and negative presentation of others. However, this work is critical research to study texts and talk
within society’s contexts and reveal any underlying power structures or ideologies. Strategic Use of Language: Positive Self-
Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation: This involves highlighting positive aspects of oneself or one’s group while
emphasizing negative aspects of others.

3. Methodology
This article used Van Dijk's Discursive Strategies () as a model to analyze the debate between Biden & Trump in 2024. The data
was collected from https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/27/politics/read-biden-trump-debate-rushtranscript /index.html. Hence, the
focus of this article will be only on three Discursive Strategies, namely Strategic Use of Language, Positive Self-Presentation, and
Negative Other-Presentation. This involves highlighting positive aspects of oneself or one's group while emphasizing negative
aspects of others. Rhetorical Figures and Argumentation: Using rhetorical devices such as metaphors, hyperbole, and irony to
persuade or influence the audience. Implicit Meanings and Presuppositions: These involve meanings that are implied rather than
explicitly stated, often relying on shared knowledge or assumptions.

4. Results and Discussion

The word cloud, as shown in Figure 1, effectively captures the main talking points and strategies used by both candidates. Trump's
emphasis on past economic success and handling of the pandemic contrasts with Biden's focus on economic recovery, job creation,
Page | 90
 IJLS 4(3): 89-94

and criticizing Trump’s pandemic response. The frequent use of terms related to the economy, COVID-19, and spending highlights
these as critical areas of debate. The rhetorical devices employed by both candidates, such as hyperbole and repetition, are evident
in the prominent words and phrases.

Figure 1 word cloud

4.1 Key Observations:

1. Frequent Words:
o Biden: "Biden," "Trump," "problem," "money," "economy," "people," "COVID," "taxes," "corporate," "greed."
o Trump: "Biden," "Trump," "economy," "money," "COVID," "China," "great," "greatest," "depression."
2. Common Themes:
o Economy and Jobs: Both candidates frequently discuss the economy, highlighting their achievements and criticizing
the other's handling of economic issues.
o COVID-19 Pandemic: The pandemic is a significant topic, with references to its impact and handling by both
administrations.
o Spending and Deficit: Discussions around spending, taxes, and the deficit are prominent, reflecting their differing
economic policies.
o Criticism of Opponent: Both candidates frequently mention each other, focusing on criticizing the other's policies
and decisions.

4.2 Highlighted Information:

1. Economy:
o Trump: Emphasizes having had the "greatest economy" before COVID-19 and blames the pandemic for economic
setbacks. Uses the words "great," "greatest," and "economy" frequently to reinforce his point.
o Biden: Focuses on economic recovery and job creation, highlighting "jobs," "money," and criticizing Trump's
economic management. Points to "corporate greed" as a significant issue.
2. COVID-19 Pandemic:
o Trump: Mentions COVID-19 in the context of it being an external factor ("coming in from China") that impacted the
economy. He emphasizes his response to avoid a "Great Depression."
o Biden: Criticizes Trump’s handling of the pandemic, implying mismanagement and a lack of a serious strategy. Uses
terms like "pandemic," "handled," and "serious strategy."
3. Spending and Deficit:
o Trump Points out the necessity of spending to avoid economic collapse due to COVID-19. Uses the term "money"
often to justify his administration's expenditures.
o Biden: Talks about the need to address corporate greed and mentions raising "taxes" on the wealthy to solve
economic issues. Highlights the "deficit" as a problem left by Trump.

4. Rhetorical Devices:
o Hyperbole: Words like "greatest" and "ever" are used by Trump to exaggerate his administration’s achievements.

Page | 91
Discursive Tactics in Political Rhetoric: A Van Dijk Framework Analysis of the Trump-Biden Debate 2024

o Repetition: Both candidates use repetition to emphasize their key points (e.g., Biden repeating "there’s more to be
done").

Table 1. Discursive Tactics

Category Biden Trump
Positive Self-Presentation 14 15
Negative Other-Presentation 12 19
Rhetorical Devices 8 11
Implicit Meanings and Presuppositions 10 14

Table 1 shows the number of instances where each type of discursive strategy is employed by Biden and Trump in the analyzed
sections of the text.

4.3 Positive Self-Presentation

• Biden (14 instances): Biden frequently emphasizes his administration’s achievements, such as improving the economy,
handling the pandemic, and creating jobs. His strategy aligns with Van Dijk's concept of "ingroup favoritism," where the
speaker highlights the positive attributes and actions of their own group to build credibility and legitimacy.
• Trump (15 instances): Similarly, Trump often refers to the successes of his presidency, particularly emphasizing economic
prosperity and handling of the COVID-19 crisis. This tactic is used to reinforce his image as a strong leader, adhering to the
strategy of "positive self-presentation" that reinforces the speaker’s authority and effectiveness.

4.4 Negative Other-Presentation

• Biden (12 instances): Biden uses negative other-presentation to criticize Trump’s administration, particularly on issues like
the mishandling of the pandemic and the economic collapse. This tactic, known as "outgroup derogation," is used to contrast
the speaker’s positive achievements with the failures of the opponent, highlighting incompetence or moral failings.
• Trump (19 instances): Trump employs negative other presentations even more extensively, criticizing Biden’s handling of
various issues, particularly economic and border security matters. This aligns with Van Dijk's framework, where emphasizing
the shortcomings of the opposition is a key strategy to diminish their credibility and strengthen one’s own position.

4.5 Rhetorical Devices

• Biden (8 instances): Biden’s use of rhetorical devices includes repetition, rhetorical questions, and comparisons to past
administrations. These devices serve to emphasize key points and persuade the audience, reflecting Van Dijk's view that
rhetorical strategies are essential in shaping perceptions and influencing public opinion.
• Trump (11 instances): Trump’s rhetoric is often characterized by hyperbole, repetition, and emotionally charged language.
According to Van Dijk, such rhetorical devices are powerful in political discourse because they can simplify complex issues,
evoke strong emotional responses, and reinforce the speaker's narrative.

4.6 Implicit Meanings and Presuppositions

• Biden (10 instances): Biden uses implicit meanings and presuppositions to imply that the previous administration’s actions
were detrimental without directly stating them. This technique aligns with Van Dijk's analysis of how presuppositions shape
the audience's understanding by assuming shared knowledge or beliefs that are not explicitly mentioned but are taken for
granted.
• Trump (14 instances): Trump frequently uses presuppositions to imply that his administration’s actions were necessary and
successful while the current administration is failing. Van Dijk highlights that such implicit meanings are often more persuasive
because they subtly guide the audience’s interpretation of events without overtly challenging their beliefs.

4.7 Overall Analysis

Applying Van Dijk's Discursive Strategies to the Debate Text

To analyze the provided debate text using Van Dijk's Discursive Strategies, we will focus on the following aspects:

1. Positive Self-Presentation and Negative Other-Presentation

2. Rhetorical Devices (Metaphors, Hyperbole, Irony)
3. Implicit Meanings and Presuppositions

Page | 92
 IJLS 4(3): 89-94

4.7.1 Biden's Speech Analysis

a) Positive Self-Presentation:
• Job Creation and Economic Recovery:
o "We created 15,000 new jobs. We brought on – in a position where we have 800,000 new manufacturing jobs."
o Effectiveness: Biden uses specific numbers to highlight his administration’s achievements, aiming to build a positive
image of his leadership.
• Healthcare Improvements:
o "We brought down the price of prescription drugs... No senior has to pay more than $200 for any drug."
o Effectiveness: These statements aim to connect with the audience on a personal level by addressing everyday
concerns.

b) Negative Other-Presentation:
• Critique of Trump's Administration:
o "The pandemic are so badly handled; many people were dying. All he said was, it’s not that serious. Just inject a little
bleach in your arm."
o Effectiveness: By highlighting perceived failures and absurdities in Trump's handling of the pandemic, Biden attempts
to undermine Trump's credibility.

c) Rhetorical Devices:
• Irony:
o "Just inject a little bleach in your arm."
o Effectiveness: The use of irony here serves to ridicule Trump’s statements, making them appear out of touch and
dangerous.
• Repetition:
o "There’s more to be done. There’s more to be done."
o Effectiveness: Repetition emphasizes Biden's ongoing commitment to solving problems, reinforcing his dedication.

d) Implicit Meanings and Presuppositions:

• Economic and Social Critique:
o "The combination of what I was left and then corporate greed are the reason why we’re in this problem right now."
o Effectiveness: This presupposes that the issues are inherited from Trump’s administration and exacerbated by
corporate greed, indirectly attributing blame without detailed explanation.

4.7.2 Trump's Speech Analysis

a) Positive Self-Presentation:
• Economic Achievements:
o "We had the greatest economy in the history of our country."
o Effectiveness: Hyperbolic language aims to create a strong, positive impression of his economic leadership.
• Pandemic Response:
o "We got hit with COVID. And when we did, we spent the money necessary so we wouldn’t end up in a Great
Depression."
o Effectiveness: This statement aims to portray Trump as decisive and effective in crisis management.

b) Negative Other-Presentation:
• Critique of Biden's Administration:
o "He has not done a good job. He’s done a poor job. And inflation’s killing our country."
o Effectiveness: Directly blaming Biden for current economic woes seeks to diminish his credibility and leadership.

c) Rhetorical Devices:
• Hyperbole:
o "The greatest economy in the history of our country."
o Effectiveness: Hyperbole is used to magnify Trump's achievements, creating a larger-than-life image.
• Repetition:
o "We had – we had given them back a – a country where the stock market actually was higher than pre-COVID."
o Effectiveness: Repetition reinforces the idea of economic success under his administration.

Page | 93
Discursive Tactics in Political Rhetoric: A Van Dijk Framework Analysis of the Trump-Biden Debate 2024

d) Implicit Meanings and Presuppositions:

• Government Mandates Critique:
o "He created mandates; that was a disaster for our country."
o Effectiveness: Implicitly criticizes Biden’s handling of COVID-19 without delving into specifics, presupposing that
mandates were harmful.

5. Conclusion
The analysis of discursive tactics in political rhetoric, based on Van Dijk's framework, reveals their significant role in shaping the
ideologies and strategies of politicians during debates. Discursive tactics in political rhetoric, as analyzed through a Van Dijk
framework, play a crucial role in shaping the ideologies and strategies of politicians during debates (Siagian et al., 2022) (Mariah,
2023). Biden effectively employs a mix of specific achievements and personal anecdotes to craft a relatable and proactive image.
His use of irony and repetition emphasizes key points, while subtle implicit meanings assign blame to the previous administration.
The key differences between Trump's and Biden's policies are evident in various aspects. Trump's administration emphasized a
more confrontational security policy towards China, particularly regarding Taiwan, while Biden's administration has adopted a
more confrontational stance towards China, focusing on strategic competition and strengthening deterrence (Xiao, 2022). In
contrast, Trump relies on hyperbole and repetition to highlight his past achievements, constructing a strong, positive narrative. His
direct critiques of Biden, combined with implicit meanings, aim to resonate with his base, painting a stark picture of the current
administration. The key differences between Trump and Biden's policies are evident in various aspects. Trump's administration
emphasized a more confrontational security policy towards China, particularly regarding Taiwan, while Biden's administration has
adopted a strategy of strategic competition against China, focusing on economic and security policies (Xiao, 2022). Both candidates
demonstrate adept use of Van Dijk's discursive strategies, but their effectiveness largely hinges on the preexisting beliefs and
values of their audiences.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ORCID iD: (https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0870-0138)
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of
their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.

References :
[1] Apirakvanalee, L., & Zhai, Y. (2023). An ideological square analysis of the podcast discourse in “Chinese Dreams” of the BBC World Service. Critical Discourse
Studies, 20(4), 379-395.
[2] Brierley, S., Kramon, E., & Ofosu, G. K. (2020). The moderating effect of debates on political attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 64(1), 19-37.
[3] Cavgias, A., Corbi, R. B., Meloni, L., & Novaes, L. M. (2019). Edited democracy: media manipulation and the news coverage of presidential debates. FEA/USP.
[4] De Liddo, A., Souto, N. P., & Plüss, B. (2021). Let's replay the political debate: Hypervideo technology for visual sensemaking of televised election debates.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 145, 102537.
[5] Diez, N. L., Gulías, E. J., & Martínez, P. C. (2020). La percepción de los debates como factor de decisión en el comportamiento electoral en las Elecciones
Generales de abril de 2019. Revista Latina de Comunicación Social(76), 39-58.
[6] Drăgan, N. S. (2016). A semio-functional approach of relationship attacks-defenses for Presidential debates in Romania, from November 2014. Journal of Media
Research-Revista de Studii Media, 9(25), 36-49.
[7] El-Mouden, M. (2020). The Power and Discursive Abuse of the Media: Hate and Discrimination as Social Consequences Presentation and Interview with the
Socio-Cognitive Thinker Dr. Teun A. Van Dijk. International Journal of Research in Engineering, Science and Management, 3(12), 172-175.
[8] Güler, K. (2019). Discursive construction of an anti-immigration Europe by a Sweden Democrat in the European Parliament. Migration letters, 16(3), 429-439.
[9] Indriyawati, L., & Hudiyono, Y. (2023). Analisis Wacana Kritis Model Van Dijk pada Berita Online Pencucian Uang Pejabat. JBSI: Jurnal Bahasa dan Sastra
Indonesia, 3(01), 40-49.
[10] Kock, C. (2007). Dialectical obligations in political debate. Informal Logic, 27(3), 223-247.
[11] Krapyva, Y., & Sukhenko, A. (2022). Presidential Debate (on the material of the 2020 Election Campaign in the USA). The Journal of VN Karazin Kharkiv National
University. Series “Philology”(90), 6-10.
[12] Mariah, M. (2023). An Analysis Of Structures and Ideologies of Joe Biden’s Part in the Second United States Presidential Debate In 2020 Using the Critical Discourse
Analysis by Van Dijk KODEUNIVERSITAS041060# UniversitasBuddhiDharma].
[13] Siagian, M. S., Surip, M., & Dalimunthe, S. F. (2022). Analisis Wacana Kritis Teun A. Van Dijk pada Program Acara Newscast Isu Penundaan Pemilu 2024.
MUKADIMAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, Sejarah, dan Ilmu-ilmu Sosial, 6(2), 369-374.
[14] South, L., Schwab, M., Beauchamp, N., Wang, L., Wihbey, J., & Borkin, M. A. (2020). DebateVis: Visualizing political debates for non-expert users. 2020 IEEE
Visualization Conference (VIS),
[15] Susanti, S., & Pujiono, M. (2023). Critical Discourse Analysis of Teun A. Van Dijk's Model on Detik. Com and Kompas. Com News Texts About Citayam Fashion
Week. Britain International of Linguistics Arts and Education (BIoLAE) Journal, 5(3), 269-280.
[16] Usman, R. (2022). Critical Discourse Analysis Of Van Dijk On Voi News Of Formula E “Jakarta E-Prix” In Political Issues. Jle: Journal of Literate of English Education
Study Program, 3(01), 32-46.
[17] Vössing, K. (2021). Shaping public opinion about regional integration: the rhetoric of justification and party cues. Political Studies, 69(3), 492-513.
[18] Winingsih, W., Anshori, D., & Nurhadi, J. (2022). Analisis wacana kritis model Van Dijk terhadap isu pelemahan KPK dalam pemberitaan Narasi Newsroom.
LITERA, 21(1), 94-103.
[19] Xiao, H. (2022). Risk avoidance and deterrence: Duality of the US policy toward China. East Asian Affairs, 2(02), 2250007.
[20] Yuliyanto, A., Khotimah, K., & Pribadi, F. (2023). RELIGIOUS DISCOURSE IN NEWS REPORTS ON AL ZAYTUN ISLAMIC BOARDING SCHOOL. LiNGUA, 18(2).

Page | 94