Linguistic Means of Polarization Tactics in American Political Discourse: Analyzing Trump-Biden Electoral Debates

This article investigates the distinctive linguistic means employed to realize polarization tactics in American electoral discourse, a phenomenon intensified by its manipulative potential and the agonal nature of U.S. political communication. The primary aim is to identify the specific linguistic toolkit that political actors, exemplified by Donald Trump and Joseph Biden, use to differentiate their worldviews and rally support. The empirical material comprises transcripts from the 2020 and 2024 presidential debates between these candidates. A comprehensive linguistic analysis, incorporating discourse, contextual-semantic, functional-linguistic, linguapragmatic, and quantitative approaches, was employed to examine the data. The findings reveal that polarization tactics are primarily actualized through the “us vs. them” dichotomy and are integral to various communicative strategies, including discreditation, accusation, persuasion, self-defense, positive self-representation, and justification. Key linguistic markers include deictic constructions (personal, demonstrative, and possessive pronouns; pronominal adverbs), which speakers use to emphasize unity with their supporters while contrasting themselves with opponents. Furthermore, words with strong axiological and thymiological components are deployed to modify voter perception by correlating the actions of “ingroup” politicians with positive significance and “outgroup” figures with negative outcomes, thereby extolling their own achievements and disparaging those of adversaries. Lexemes denoting “togetherness” or “joint action” (including specific idioms, nominations of social/ethnic groups, generalizations, and figurative language) also play a crucial role in constructing ingroup cohesion. This study underscores the increasing reliance on manipulative polarization in contemporary political rhetoric. Its relevance lies in providing a detailed understanding of how specific linguistic choices construct electoral realities, offering valuable data for discourse analysts, political strategists, diplomats, and those examining persuasive communication in high-stakes political situations.

1. Abramyan, S.A. (2016). Angloyazychny politichesky diskurs v mezhkulturnom kontekste [English-language political discourse in the intercultural context]. Erevan: izdatel’stvo EGU [Yerevan State University] (in Russian).

2. Agadzhanyan, R.V. (2023). Yazykovoe manipulyativnoe vozdejstvie: teoreticheskij obzor [Linguistic Manipulative Influence: A Theoretical Review]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Philology. Theory & Practice], 16(3), 765-772 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20230151

3. Bystrov, N.A. (2024). Contemporary American Political Discourse: a Study of Content, Structure, and Formation Features. Professional Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 35-48. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2024-6-2-35-48

4. Ches, N.A. (2020). Manipulyativnyj potencial slozhnyh metaforicheskih konceptov v politicheskom mediadiskurse [Structural metaphors in mediatized political discourse: power of persuasion]. Kognitivnye issledovaniya yazyka [Cognitive Studies of Language], 3(42), 510-514 (in Russian).

5. Chudinov, A.P. (2009). Sovremennaya politicheskaya kommunikatsia [Modern political communication]. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University (in Russian).

6. Chudinov, A.P. (2012). Diskursivnye karakteristiki politicheskoj kommunikatsii [Discoursive characteristics of political communication]. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political linguistics], 2(40), 53-59 (in Russian).

7. Demyankov, V.Z. (2002). Politichesky diskurs kak predmet politicheskoy philologii [Political discourse as the subject of political philology]. Politiicheskaya nauka [Political science], 3, 31-44 (in Russian).

8. Evlasiev, A.P., & Bondarenko, E.V. (2021). Osobennosti sovremennogo politicheskogo novoyaza (na materiale anglijskogo yazyka) [Peculiarities of Modern Political Newspeak as Exemplified in the English Language]. Sovremennaya nauka: aktual’nye problemy teorii i praktiki. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki [Modern Science: Actual Problems of Theory and Practice. Series: Humanities], 1, 148–150 (in Russian). doi:10.37882/2223-2982.2021.01.08

9. Gornostaeva, A.A. (2024). The “Friend–Foe” Opposition in Modern Ironic Political Discourse. Professional Discourse & Communication, 6(2), 49-61. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2024-6-2-49-61

10. Issers, O.S. (2008). Kommunikativnye strategii i taktiki russkoj rechi [Communication Strategies and Tactics of Russian Speech]. Moscow, LKI (in Russian).

11. Kalinin, E.I. (2009). Kommunikaivnye strategii ubezhdeniya v angloyazychnom politicheskom diskurse [Communicative strategies of persuasion in the English-language political discourse] [Candidate’s thesis abstract, Nizhny Novgorod State Linguistic University] (in Russian).

12. Karasik, V.I. (2002). Yazykovoj krug: lichnost’, kontsepty, diskurs [Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse]. Volgograd: Peremena (in Russian).

13. Khramchenko, D.S. (2025). The mechanism of verbal warfare & polarization: Exploring communicative strategies in American political discourse. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 105-124. https://doi.org/10.22055/RALS.2024.47805.3363

14. Kuzmina, S.V. (2011). Politicheskiy diskurs kak neot’emlemaya chast politicheskoi kommunikatsii [Political discourse as an integral part of political communication]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Seriya: Sotsiologiya. Politologiya. [Izvestiya of Saratov University. Sociology. Politology. Scientific section. Sociology], 11(2), 54-56 (in Russian). doi:10.18500/1818-9601-2011-11-2-54-56

15. Levshina, N.G. (2005). Kosvennye rechevye taktiki v predvybornom diskurse: na materiale vyborov Glavy Administratsii Pskovskoj oblasti [Indirect speech tactics in the pre-election discourse: based on the material of the election of the Head of the Pskov Region Administration] [Candidate’s thesis abstract]. Saint Petersburg (in Russian).

16. Mikhalyova, O.L. (2013). Politicheskij diskurs: Spetsifika manipulyativnogo vozdejstviya [Political discourse: The specifics of manipulative influence]. Moscow: Knizhnyj dom «LIBROKOM» (in Russian).

17. Sheigal, E.I. (2000). Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of political discourse] [Doctoral dissertation]. Volgograd (in Russian).

18. Ulyanova, U.A. (2023). Reprezentaciya kommunikativnoj strategii «chuzhie» v angloyazy`chnom voenno-politicheskom diskurse [Representation of the communicative strategy «them» in English military political discourse]. In E.A. Prigodich (Ed.), Inostrannye yazyki: innovatsii, perspektivy issledovaniya i prepodavaniya [Foreign languages: innovation, prospects for research and teaching]: the VI International scientific conference, Minsk, Belarus, March 23-24, 2023: proceedings (pp. 90-96). Minsk: Belarusian State University (in Russian).

19. Van Dijk, T.A. (2013). Diskurs i vlast’ [Discourse and Power] (E.A. Kozhemyakina, E.V. Pereverzeva, A.M. Amatova, Trans.). Moscow: Knizhnyj dom «LIBROKOM» (in Russian).

20. Vasilenko, E.N. (2021). Sozdanie negativnogo obraza socialnoj gruppy v intolerantnom diskurse: lingvopragmaticheskij aspect [Creating a negative image of a social group in an intolerant discourse: linguopragmatic aspect]. West-East, 6(1), 86-92 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.33739/2587-5434-2021-6-1-86-92

21. Yasakova, Yu.S. (2022). Fenomen yazykovoj igry v amerikanskom predvybornom politicheskom diskurse [The phenomenon of language play in the American election discourse]. Kazanskaya nauka [Kazan Science], 3, 144-146 (in Russian).