唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登的语言风格如何反映不同的权力形式

IF 2 3区文学 Q2 COMMUNICATION

Journal of Language and Social Psychology Pub Date : 2022-04-12 DOI:10.1177/0261927X221085309

R. Körner, Jennifer R. Overbeck, Erik Körner, A. Schütz

{"title":"唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登的语言风格如何反映不同的权力形式","authors":"R. Körner, Jennifer R. Overbeck, Erik Körner, A. Schütz","doi":"10.1177/0261927X221085309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Can theories of power be used to explain differences in the linguistic styles of Donald Trump and Joe Biden? We argue that the two candidates possess and use different forms of power—and that this is associated with typical language patterns. Based on their personal history, news reports, and empirical studies, we expect that Trump’s approach to power is characterized by coercive power forms and Biden’s by collaborative power forms. Using several LIWC categories and the moral foundations dictionary, we analyzed over 500 speeches and 15,000 tweets made during the 2020 election battle. Biden’s speeches can be described as analytical and frequently relating to moral values, whereas Trump’s speeches were characterized by a positive emotional tone. In tweets, Biden used more social words and words related to virtue, honesty, and achievement than Trump did. Trump’s coercive power and Biden’s collaborative power were more observable in tweets than speeches, which may reflect the fact that tweets are more spontaneous than speeches.","PeriodicalId":47861,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Social Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How the Linguistic Styles of Donald Trump and Joe Biden Reflect Different Forms of Power\",\"authors\":\"R. Körner, Jennifer R. Overbeck, Erik Körner, A. Schütz\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0261927X221085309\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Can theories of power be used to explain differences in the linguistic styles of Donald Trump and Joe Biden? We argue that the two candidates possess and use different forms of power—and that this is associated with typical language patterns. Based on their personal history, news reports, and empirical studies, we expect that Trump’s approach to power is characterized by coercive power forms and Biden’s by collaborative power forms. Using several LIWC categories and the moral foundations dictionary, we analyzed over 500 speeches and 15,000 tweets made during the 2020 election battle. Biden’s speeches can be described as analytical and frequently relating to moral values, whereas Trump’s speeches were characterized by a positive emotional tone. In tweets, Biden used more social words and words related to virtue, honesty, and achievement than Trump did. Trump’s coercive power and Biden’s collaborative power were more observable in tweets than speeches, which may reflect the fact that tweets are more spontaneous than speeches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47861,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Language and Social Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Language and Social Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221085309\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X221085309","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

权力理论可以用来解释唐纳德·特朗普和乔·拜登的语言风格差异吗?我们认为，这两个候选人拥有和使用不同形式的权力，这与典型的语言模式有关。根据他们的个人经历、新闻报道和实证研究，我们预计特朗普的权力方式以强制性权力形式为特征，而拜登的权力方式以合作性权力形式为特征。使用LIWC的几个类别和道德基础词典，我们分析了2020年大选期间的500多篇演讲和1.5万条推文。拜登的演讲可以被描述为分析性的，经常与道德价值观有关，而特朗普的演讲则以积极的情感基调为特征。在推特中，拜登使用了比特朗普更多的社交词汇，以及与美德、诚实、成就相关的词汇。特朗普的强制力和拜登的协作力在推特上比在演讲中更明显，这可能反映了推特比演讲更具自发性的事实。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

How the Linguistic Styles of Donald Trump and Joe Biden Reflect Different Forms of Power

Can theories of power be used to explain differences in the linguistic styles of Donald Trump and Joe Biden? We argue that the two candidates possess and use different forms of power—and that this is associated with typical language patterns. Based on their personal history, news reports, and empirical studies, we expect that Trump’s approach to power is characterized by coercive power forms and Biden’s by collaborative power forms. Using several LIWC categories and the moral foundations dictionary, we analyzed over 500 speeches and 15,000 tweets made during the 2020 election battle. Biden’s speeches can be described as analytical and frequently relating to moral values, whereas Trump’s speeches were characterized by a positive emotional tone. In tweets, Biden used more social words and words related to virtue, honesty, and achievement than Trump did. Trump’s coercive power and Biden’s collaborative power were more observable in tweets than speeches, which may reflect the fact that tweets are more spontaneous than speeches.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Language and Social Psychology Multiple-

CiteScore

5.20

自引率

14.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Language and Social Psychology explores the social dimensions of language and the linguistic implications of social life. Articles are drawn from a wide range of disciplines, including linguistics, cognitive science, sociology, communication, psychology, education, and anthropology. The journal provides complete and balanced coverage of the latest developments and advances through original, full-length articles, short research notes, and special features as Debates, Courses and Conferences, and Book Reviews.