Consubstantiality in Political Discourse: A Critical Analysis of Trump’s Acceptance Speech

This research aims to investigate how consubstantiality is used in political discourse to arrive at a collective mind that convinces the audience that the speaker and the public are on the same boat, via adhering to a customized selective perception. To reach this aim, it analyzes Trump’s Acceptance Speech to find out how he uses selective perception denotations through discourse strategies for this purpose. It is hypothesized that Trump plays with his language in the said speech in order to obtain the fullest benefit from these strategies by creating a selective perception that results in rapport with his audience. To conduct the analysis, the research draws on van Dijk’s Ideological Discourse Analysis (1995), making use of the discursive strategies found therein. In conclusion, the research proves this to be the case in the selected speech and that Trump focuses on the denotations of Anger, Fear, Blame, Demagogue, Hope, and Change. Moreover, the results show that the use of lexical items with these denotations is not haphazard, but is polarized in a way that positively presents the self and negatively presents the others.