How Trump tweets: A comparative analysis of tweets by US politicians
Abstract
This paper analyses tweets sent from Donald Trump’s Twitter account @realDonaldTrump and contextualises them by contrasting them with several genres (i.e. political and ‘average’ Twitter, blogs, expressive writing, novels, The New York Times and natural speech). Taking common claims about Donald Trump’s language as a starting point, the study focusses on commonalities and differences between his tweets and those by other US politicians. Using the sentiment analysis tool Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) and a principal component analysis, I examine a newly compiled 1.5-million-word corpus of tweets sent from US politicians’ accounts between 2009 and 2018 with a special focus on the question whether Trump’s Twitter voice has linguistic features commonly associated with informality, I-talk, negativity and boasting. The results reveal that all political tweets are grammatically comparatively formal and centre around the topics of achievement, money and power. Trump’s tweets stand out, however, because they are both more negative and more positive than the language in other politicians’ tweets, i.e. his Twitter voice relies far more strongly on adjectives and emotional language.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Ahmadian, Sara, Sara Azarshahi and Delroy L. Paulhus. 2017. Explaining Donald Trump via communication style: Grandiosity, informality, and dynamism. Personality and Individual Differences 107: 49–53.
Atkinson, Max. 1984. Our Masters’ Voices: The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Routledge.
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Björkenstam, Kristina Nilsson and Gintarė Grigonitė. 2020. I know words, I have the best words. Repetitions, parallelisms, and matters of (in)coherence. In Ulrike Schneider and Matthias Eitelmann eds., 41–61.
Blake, Aaron. 2016. Welcome to the next, most negative presidential election of our lives. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/29/clinton-and-trump-accept-their-nominations-by-telling-you-what-you-should-vote-against/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.0faae7f1e872 (6 July, 2018.)
Brown, Brendan. 2018. Trump Twitter Archive. http://www.trumptwitterarchive.com/ (10 April, 2018.)
Clarke, Isobelle and Jack Grieve. 2019. Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS ONE 14/9: e0222062.
Crockett, Zachary. 2016. What I learned reading 4,000 Trump and Clinton tweets. Vox. https://www.vox.com/2016/11/7/13550796/clinton-trump-twitter (12 April, 2018.)
Crystal, David. 2011. Internet Linguistics. A Student Guide. London: Routledge.
Egbert, Jesse and Douglas Biber. 2020. ‘It’s just words, folks. It’s just words’. Donald Trump’s distinctive linguistic style. In Ulrike Schneider and Matthias Eitelmann eds., 17–40.
Field, Andy, Jeremy Miles and Zoë Field. 2012. Discovering Statistics Using R. London: Sage.
Frischling, Bill. 2018. ‘Stable genius’ – Let’s go to the data. Factbl.og. https://factba.se/blog/2018/01/08/stable-genius-lets-go-to-the-data/ (12 April, 2018.)
Hoffmann, Thomas. 2018. ‘Too many Americans are trapped in fear, violence and poverty’: A psychology-informed sentiment analysis of campaign speeches from the 2016 US Presidential Election. Linguistics Vanguard 4/1: 1–9.
Holtgraves, Thomas. 2010. Text messaging, personality, and the social context. Journal of Research in Personality 45/1: 92–99.
Hunston, Susan. 2017. Talking Trump: Literally speaking. University of Birmingham. https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/research/perspective/talking-trump-literally-speaking.aspx (16 April, 2018.)
InternetArchive. 2017. Obama White House Twitter Archive. https://archive.org/details/ObamaWhiteHouseTwitterArchive (11 September, 2017.)
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall and Doron Taussig. 2017. Disruption, demonization, deliverance, and norm destruction: The rhetorical signature of Donald J. Trump. Political Science Quarterly 132/4: 619–650.
Jordan, Kayla N. and James W. Pennebaker. 2016. Accepting the nomination: A comparison of the speeches of Trump and Clinton. https://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2016/08/01/accepting-the-nomination-a-comparison-of-the-speeches-of-trump-and-clinton/ (10 April, 2018.)
Jordan, Kayla N. and James W. Pennebaker. 2017. Trump’s first State of the Union Address. https://wordwatchers.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/trumps-first-state-of-the-union-address/ (10 April, 2018.)
Koch, Peter and Wulf Oesterreicher. 2010. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz. Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36: 15–43.
Kowal, Sabine and Daniel C. O’Connell.1993. Television rhetoric in an age of secondary orality: Psycholinguistic analyses of the speaking performance of Ronald Reagan. Georgetown Journal of Languages and Linguistics 1: 174–185. Translated reprint of: Kowal, Sabine and Daniel C. O’Connell. 1993. Fernsehrhetorik im Zeitalter der zweiten Mündlichkeit: Psycholinguistische Analysen des Sprachverhaltens von Ronald Reagan. In Paul Goetsch and Gerd Hurm eds. Die Rhetorik amerikanischer Präsidenten seit F.D. Roosevelt. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 247–260.
Kreis, Ramona. 2017. The ‘tweet politics’ of President Trump. Journal of Language and Politics 16/4: 607–618.
Lakoff, George. 2016. Understanding Trump. https://georgelakoff.com/2016/07/23/ understanding-trump-2/ (2 March, 2018.)
Lakoff, Robin. 1982. Some of my favourite writers are literate: The mingling of oral and literate strategies in written communication. In Deborah Tannen ed. Spoken and Written Language. Exploring Orality and Literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 239–260.
Le, Sebastien, Julie Josse and François Husson. 2008. FactoMineR: An R Package for Multivariate Analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 25/1: 1–18.
Levshina, Natalia. 2015. How to Do Linguistics with R. Data Explorations and Statistical Analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Liberman, Marc. 2015. More Flesch-Kincaid grade-level nonsense. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=21847 (6 July, 2018.)
Montgomery, Martin. 2017. Post-truth politics? Journal of Language and Politics 16/4: 619–639.
Newman, Matthew L., Carla J. Groom, Lori D. Handelman and James W. Pennebaker. 2008. Gender differences in language use: An analysis of 14,000 text samples. Discourse Processes 45/3: 211–236.
Oborne, Peter and Tom Roberts. 2017. How Trump Thinks: His Tweets and the Birth of a New Political Language. London: Head of Zeus.
Ott, Brian L. 2017. The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication 34/1: 59–68.
Pajnik, Mojca and Birgit Sauer eds. 2018. Populism and the Web. Communicative Practices of Parties and Movements in Europe. London: Routledge.
Partington, Alan and Charlotte Taylor. 2018. The Language of Persuasion in Politics. An Introduction. London: Routledge.
Pennebaker, James W., Cindy K. Chung, Joey Frazee, Gary M. Lavergne and David I. Beaver. 2014. When small words foretell academic success: The case of college admissions essays. PLoS ONE 9/12: 1–10.
Pennebaker, James W., Roger J. Booth, Ryan L. Boyd and Martha E. Francis. 2015a. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2015. Austin, TX: Pennebaker Conglomerates (www.LIWC.net).
Pennebaker, James W., Ryan L. Boyd, Kayla Jordan and Kate Blackbun. 2015b. The Development and Psychometric Properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin.
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org.
Rice, Justin. 2017. Does Trump really have the best words? https://www.litcharts.com/blog/analitics/does-trump-really-have-the-best-words/ (27 June, 2018.)
Robinson, David. 2016. Text analysis of Trump’s tweets confirms he writes only the (angrier) Android half. http://varianceexplained.org/r/trump-tweets/ (10 October, 2017.)
Ronan, Patricia and Gerold Schneider. 2020. A man who was just an incredible man, an incredible man. Age factors and coherence in Donald Trump’s spontaneous speech. In Ulrike Schneider and Matthias Eitelmann eds., 62–86.
Scherl, Magdalena. 2018. TwitterCorpusQuery 2.0. Mainz.
Schler, Jonathan, Moshe Koppel, Shlomo Argamon and James W. Pennebaker. 2006. Effects of age and gender on blogging. Proceedings of AAAI 2006 Spring Symposium on Computational Approaches to Analysing Weblogs. Stanford, CA. https://www.aaai.org/Papers/Symposia/Spring/2006/SS-06-03/SS06-03-039.pdf
Schneider, Ulrike and Matthias Eitelmann eds. 2020. Linguistic Inquiries into Donald Trump’s Language. From ‘Fake News’ to ‘Tremendous Success’. London: Bloomsbury.
Schumacher, Elliot and Maxine Eskenazi. 2016. A Readability Analysis of Campaign Speeches from the 2016 US Presidential Campaign. Pittsburgh, PA Language Technologies Institute, School of Computer Science: Carnegie Mellon University.
Sclafani, Jennifer. 2018. Talking Donald Trump. London: Routledge.
Shafer, Jack. 2015. Donald Trump talks like a third-grader. Politico. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/donald-trump-talks-like-a-third-grader-121340 (12 April, 2018.)
Spice, Byron. 2016. Most presidential candidates speak at grade 6-8 level. Carnegie Mellon University News. https://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2016/march/speechifying.html (10 April, 2018.)
Stange, Ulrike. 2020. Very emotional, totally conservative, and somewhat all over the place. An analysis of intensifiers in Donald Trump’s speech. In Ulrike Schneider and Matthias Eitelmann eds., 87–108.
Tyrkkö, Jukka and Irina Frisk. 2020. Crooked Hillary, Lyin’ Ted, and Failing New York Times: Nicknames in Donald Trump’s Tweets. In Ulrike Schneider and Matthias Eitelmann eds., 109–129.
Vrana, Leo and Gerold Schneider. 2017. Saying whatever it takes: Creating and analyzing corpora from US presidential debate transcripts. Extended Abstracts of Corpus Linguistics Conference. 24–28 July 2017, Birmingham.
Wodak, Ruth. 2018. Preface. From ‘hate speech’ to ‘hate tweets’. In Mojca Pajnik and Birgit Sauer eds., xvii–xxiii.
Copyright (c) 2021 Research in Corpus Linguistics
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
