ISSN: 1579-9794
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
Making Meaning in Spanish from Trump’s Meaningless
Discourse: Shortcomings in Translating the Dark Side of
Political Persuasion
Cómo dar sentido en español al discurso sin sentido de
Trump: dificultades de traducción del lado oscuro de la
persuasión política
MARÍA ÁNGELES ORTS LLOPIS
mageorts@um.es
Universidad de Murcia
Fecha de recepción: 01/07/2024
Fecha de aceptación: 24/03/2025
Abstract: Donald Trump’s speeches have often been criticised for lacking
substance, coherence, and meaningful content, with critics highlighting his
use of rhetorical strategies prioritising emotion, spectacle, and polarisation
over reasoned debate and thoughtful policymaking. This study addresses the
challenge of translating Trump’s heterodox political rhetoric into Spanish,
while also examining the limitations of neural and AI-based translation in
capturing the nuances and complexities of political persuasion. Trump’s
speech on January 6, 2021, delivered before the march on the Capitol, is
particularly significant due to its potential role in inciting the subsequent
events. In it, he repeated false claims of election fraud and urged his
supporters to “fight” in an attempt to overturn the election results. Our study
aims to identify the unique traits in hisdiscourse, particularly elements of
meaningless rhetoric, and how these present challenges for translation.
Making sense of his disjointed syntax and abrupt topic shifts is already difficult
in English, and these traits add complexity when translating into other
languages. We pursue to demonstrate that, despite significant advancements
in neural and AI translation systems, they still struggle to capture language
nuances, especially in the context of rhetorical quirks and dysphemism used
by Trump. His deployment of colloquialisms, tags, hyperbole, and other
linguistic oddities, deeply embedded in American culture and political context,
are challenging to convey accurately in Spanish without losing their original
meaning, subtlety, or impact. Our work seems to find a compromise,
enhancing the comprehensibility of the translated version while retaining some
of the original’s flavour.
Keywords: Political rhetoric, AI translation, Neural translation, Political text
translation, Trump’s language
2 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
Resumen: Los discursos de Donald Trump han sido a menudo criticados por
su falta de sustancia, coherencia y contenido significativo, con críticos
destacando su uso de estrategias retóricas que priorizan la emoción, el
espectáculo y la polarización sobre el debate razonado y la formulación de
políticas reflexivas. Este estudio aborda el desafío de traducir la heterodoxa
retórica política de Trump al español, al tiempo que examina las limitaciones
de la traducción neuronal y de la IA para capturar los matices y las
complejidades de la persuasión política. El enfoque se centra en el discurso
de Trump del 6 de enero de 2021, antes de la marcha al Capitolio, significativo
por su posible papel en incitar los eventos posteriores. En este discurso,
Trump reiteró afirmaciones falsas sobre fraude electoral y urgió a sus
seguidores a «luchar» para revertir los resultados electorales. Nuestro estudio
tiene como objetivo identificar los rasgos únicos en el discurso de Trump, en
particular elementos de retórica sin sentido, y cómo estos presentan desafíos
para la traducción. De hecho, entender la sintaxis discontinua y los cambios
abruptos de tema de Trump ya es difícil en inglés, y estos rasgos añaden
complejidad al traducirse a otros idiomas. Pretendemos demostrar que, a
pesar de los avances significativos en los sistemas de traducción neuronal y
de IA, aún tienen dificultades para capturar los matices del lenguaje,
especialmente en el contexto de las peculiaridades retóricas y los
disfemismos utilizados por Trump. Su uso de coloquialismos, etiquetas,
hipérboles y otras rarezas lingüísticas, profundamente arraigadas en la
cultura y el contexto político estadounidense, son difíciles de transmitir con
precisión en español sin perder su significado original, sutileza o impacto.
Nuestro trabajo busca encontrar un término medio, mejorando la
comprensibilidad de la versión traducida mientras se retiene algo del sabor
original.
Palabras clave: Discurso político, Traducción de IA, Traducción neuronal,
Traducción de textos políticos, Lenguaje de Trump
INTRODUCTION: ORTHODOX POLITICAL DISCOURSE AND THE RISE OF POPULISM
Political discourse is a form of communication that performs an
ideological function, exercises social control, and legitimises power within the
socio-political context (Partington and Taylor, 2018, p. 2). Nevertheless, today
political power emanates from the rapport established with the audience
conceived as a “mass” (comprising the people, the audience, the citizenry),
encompassing a diverse and heterogeneous array of individuals. This
suggests that to attain social influence, it is imperative to emphasise and, most
importantly, to ensure the comprehension of shared values by the majority
(Charaudeau, 2002 and 2003).
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 3
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
For centuries, and until very recent times, political rhetoric has been
built upon two Aristotelian pillars: persuasion and conviction (Charaudeau,
2009, p. 278). Conviction relies on logical and rational arguments, targeting
the cerebral cortex (referred to as logos by Aristotle). Conversely, persuasion
operates in the realm of emotion, invoking the affections (pathos) and the
control of ethos, which entails the speaker’s persona to be aligned with the
audience, who must possess the ability to enthuse and inspire (Charteris-
Black, 2011 and 2017). As we discuss below, of the two, persuasion has
emerged as the predominant tool for mobilising audiences within the socio-
political landscape.
The emergence of new characteristics in political discourse signals a
shift from the traditional forms of political communication. According to claims
from Critical Discourse Analysis (Fairclough and Fairclough, 2012; van Dijk,
2002; Wodak, 2015 and 2021, as examples) and from International Relations
(IRR), researchers as Koschut (2018 and 2020) underline several strategies
as prevalent, such as:
a) Dynamics of identification or alterisation: utilisation of polarising
language that dichotomises the audience into “us vs. them” categories.
b) Manipulation of textual structures: strategic avoidance or selective
emphasis on specific topics achieved through narrative scheming.
c) Employment of fallacious arguments: utilisation of deceptive claims
to manipulate factual data for persuasion.
d) Tacit adoption of ideas leading to cognitive prejudice: implicit
acceptance of concepts that contribute to cognitive bias.
These strategies have become more pronounced with the rise of
populism, which has permeated contemporary politics globally (Moffitt, 2016).
Broadly speaking, populist discourse is based on the moral distinction
between the “pure people” and the “corrupt elites” (Mudde, 2004), and upon a
staunch defence of popular sovereignty, while railing against any elements
that could limit it. Populism has become a powerful tool of social manipulation
that relies on a Manichaean lexicon and rhetoric. Given its broad political
spectrum across any ideology, today the phenomenon refers to any political
discourse or style where emotion prevails over reason and logic, deploying
manipulation strategies such as victimising the people, demonising the
adversary, and engaging in post-truth politics (Breeze and Llamas Saíz,
2020).
4 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
1. DONALD TRUMP’S ORATORY AS A FORM OF POPULISM
Donald Trump’s political discourse during–and after–his presidency in
the United States has been a notable example of the contemporary trends
depicted in our previous section. His rhetoric has been characterised by
polarisation, simplification of complex issues, and a constant appeal to
emotions over reason. His style is unlike traditional political language, bearing
a unique brand that has become synonymous with his political persona and
which reinforces his image as an “outsider”, an outcast hero challenging the
political establishment (Sclafani, 2018). His discourse has indeed been
effective in polarising American society, generating deep divisions and
exacerbating tensions between political, racial and social groups (Domínguez-
García et al., 2023). Trump’s rhetoric has cultivated a climate of confrontation
and distrust, hindering constructive dialogue and consensus on critical
national issues. His approach reflects populist traits, notably his frequent
appeals to the “pure people” against the “corrupt elites”, even as a plutocrat
who touts his business acumen and experience outside the political sphere
(Sclafani, 2018, p. 51). His message overall has been effective in mobilising
his electoral base but has also generated significant criticism and resistance
from other sectors of American society and internationally. In contrast with the
gravitas of traditional political oratory, with its use of tropes and schemas
(Partington and Taylor, 2018; Charteris-Black, 2017), Trump’s inflammatory
rhetoric often presents as simplicity what is rather a reduction in expressive
refinement, using black-and-white concepts to simplify the complex reality that
surrounds us (Hart, 2020). Some of his rhetorical traits are the following:
a) Low (vs. high talk) and unadorned style: according to the Flesh-
Kincaid test on readability (Viser, 2015), Trump’s language often reflects a
very low (grade-4) level of complexity with basic, short sentences, typically
containing around 17 words, some of them repeated (Wang and Liu, 2018).
His syntactical style lacks the density and nuance usually associated with the
political discourse of his American predecessors.
b) Low talk is also evident in Trump’s frequent grammatical errors, use
of unusual or colloquial words not typically found in formal speech or writing,
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 5
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
such as “bigly”
1
, “braggadocious” or “covfefe”
2
, and his lexical inaccuracies
and fragmented expressions. These elements contribute to a more relatable
and conversational tone, aligning with his populist appeal and distinguishing
him from traditional political figures (Moyer, 2016). Such informal language
style reinforces his image as an outsider and connects with audiences who
view formal political speech as elitist and disconnected from everyday
concerns.
c) Tags, discursive markers and rhetorical questions: as stated by
Sclafani (2018), Trump’s speech is replete with discursive markers like
“believe me”, “by the way”, and “you know?”, which often precede statements
that may lack factual basis. These tags serve to engage the listener and lend
an air of conversational informality to his speeches, distinguishing it from the
more formal rhetoric typically employed by non-populist politicians. This,
together with rhetorical questions in a monologic context, results in an
unceremonious style which helps to build rapport with his audience and
reinforces his image as a relatable, outsider figure who challenges the status
quo (Sclafani, 2018, p. 42).
d) Truncated sentences, slim content, strange aside comments and non
sequiturs: despite its verbosity, Trump’s speech frequently lacks substantial
content and coherence. His language is often characterised by broken
sentences, minimal use of complex sentence structures (hypotaxis), frequent
topic divergences, and bizarre asides. These traits suggest a strong influence
of oral culture and an improvised, off-the-cuff speaking style. Trump’s
approach can make his communication seem more relatable and
spontaneous to his audience, but it often results in a message that is
fragmented and lacking in depth. The combination of verbosity and a lack of
substantive content serves to obscure his points, making it challenging to
discern clear policy positions or logical arguments (Lakoff, 2016 and 2017;
Mercieca, 2020).
e) Directness and dysphemism: Trump is unapologetically blunt in his
cricitism of opponents, religious groups, developing countries, the disabled,
1
The term “bigly” became somewhat emblematic of Trump’s speaking style during his political
campaigns and presidency. It actually stems from a misinterpretation or mishearing his
pronunciation during speeches. In various instances, it is believed that when he has said phrases
like “big league”, they have been heard as “bigly” due to his pronunciation style and the context
of his speeches.
2
The term “covfefe” was originated from a tweet by Donald Trump on May 31, 2017. The tweet
read: “Despite the constant negative press covfefe.” The tweet went viral and became a subject
of widespread humour and speculation due to the apparent typographical error. It remained online
for several hours before being deleted, during which time it generated numerous memes and
discussions about its meaning.
6 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
and women (Schertzer and Woods, 2022). His disparaging nicknames for
political adversaries, while often cruel, have gained significant popularity.
Examples include “Crooked Hillary” for Hillary Clinton, “Lyin’ Ted” for Ted
Cruz, and “Sleepy Joe” for Joe Biden. This approach not only reinforces his
image as a straight-talker but also galvanises his base by framing his
opponents in a derogatory light.
f) Misuse of rhetorical schemas, such as hyperbole and repetition. The
former is evident in the abuse of intensifiers like “really”, “incredibly”, and
“enormously”, as well as unique phrases like “super-duper” (Inzaurralde,
2017), creating a sense of urgency or emphasis. As to the latter, Trump’s
campaign rhetoric often constructed external threats through repeated
references to “radical Islamic terrorism”, portraying Islam as a monolithic
danger to the West (Hall, 2021 p.53).
In summary, Donald Trump’s political discourse epitomises
contemporary needs, characterised by polarisation, emotional appeals, and
the simplification of complex issues. While effective in mobilising his base, his
rhetoric has deepened societal divisions and hindered dialogue. In contrast to
traditional political oratory, his style lacks refinement, relying on simplicity and
directness. His use of colloquialisms, grammar mistakes, and dysphemism
reflects an unorthodox approach that resonates with his populist image.
Moreover, his misuse of rhetorical techniques, such as repetition, serves to
reinforce negative associations and further polarise discourse.
2. TRANSLATING TRUMP INTO SPANISH: CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIES FOR
CONVEYING HIS UNIQUE RHETORIC
The present study highlights the challenge of translating Trump’s
disdain for traditional political rhetoric into Spanish. The corpus for this study
is the 11,000-word transcript of his 70-minute speech delivered by the former
president on January 6, 2021, prior to the march on the Capitol. This piece of
political oratory has been scrutinised closely for its potential role in inciting
violence and undermining democratic norms and said to exemplify the
potency and potential dangers of Trump’s direct and unconventional rhetoric
(König, 2023). Trump instigated his followers to march to the Capitol, creating
a tense and confrontational atmosphere that culminated in a violent assault
on the heart of American democracy (Giroux, 2023).
Contrary to expectations, Donald Trump’s unusual and unorthodox
rhetoric has sparked numerous research studies, some of which are cited in
this work. Its blatant success, despite initial criticism from many linguists,
sociologists, and discourse analysts, highlights the challenge of translating
such rhetoric. Artificial intelligence and machine translation are increasingly
integral to the translator’s tasks and should facilitate their work. However, this
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 7
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
study aims to discuss how these methods alone cannot produce a translated
version that, in adding coherence and lexical correctness, retains the singular
persuasive devices deployed by Trump; the triggers that make it successful in
its provocative and inflammatory content. The present study, thus, seeks to
explore, through examples, how the distinct features identified in Trump’s
speech pose significant challenges for translation via artificial intelligence (AI),
specifically ChatGPT–a variant of OpenAI’s Generative Pre-trained
Transformer (GPT) language model– and machine translation software (MT)
like DeepL–an online neural translation service known for accuracy and
natural-sounding translators. Our analysis highlights the indispensable role of
human translators in making sense of the words of someone who is currently
the President of the United States.
Translating Trump’s often disjointed syntax and abrupt topic shifts is
challenging in English alone. When extending such challenges to other
languages, his rhetorical traits add layers of complexity to the task. Confronted
with Trump’s speeches, translators and journalists wrestle with the decision to
render his words literally or to refine them, focusing more on the underlying
ideas than on the literal text. His use of colloquialisms, tags, hyperbole, and
other linguistic quirks, which are deeply embedded in American culture and
political context, make them challenging to be conveyed accurately in Spanish
without losing their original meaning, subtlety, or impact. In our work, we have
tried to reach a compromise, whereby the translated version gains in
comprehensibility but attempts to retain some of its bizarrely persuasive
nuances from the original through the aid of strategies such as functional
equivalence, modulation, and compensation. We will illustrate each of the
above-mentioned rhetorical traits with examples reflecting features from
Trump’s rhetorical style, as discussed in the preceding section of the study.
Subsequently, we will present our human-crafted improved English version of
the original sentence, followed by the Spanish versions generated by
ChatGPT (hereinafter referred to as AI) and DeepL (hereinafter referred to as
MT), and conclude with our human-crafted Spanish version (HT).
2.1. Low (vs. high talk) style; short, uninvolved sentences
As we pointed out above, Trump’s preference for short, simple
sentences reflects a direct and straightforward communication approach
(Kayam, 2018). He tends to combine this feature with a fair amount of
repetition, which he uses for emphasis. As Lakoff (2016) puts it, this effect is
persuasive, inasmuch the more frequently a word is heard, the more the
neural circuit is activated and strengthened.
Let’s see a first example of simplicity, which, as we saw, always seems
to involve repetition:
8 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
1) We created Space Force, We, we, we. Look at what we did.
The inconsistent capitalisation and punctuation disrupt the grammatical
structure and coherence of the sentence, in a pattern that Sclafani (2018,
p. 39) labels as “epistrophic punctuation”: the repetition of short sentences
conveying an affective or epistemic stance at the end of rhetorical units in
Trump’s speeches. A more orthodox rendering of the expression would be:
“We created the Space Force. We were the ones to do it. Look at what we
accomplished,” which, still, would probably result in a less powerful message
than the original. Let’s see the different versions rendered in translation:
AI: Creamos la Fuerza Espacial. Nosotros, nosotros, nosotros. Mira
lo que hicimos.
MT: Creamos la Fuerza Espacial, nosotros, nosotros, nosotros. Mira
lo que hicimos.
HT: Fuimos nosotros quienes creamos la Fuerza Espacial. Está
clarísimo que fuimos nosotros, y solo nosotros.
In both the AI and MT versions, the repetition in Spanish of the first
person plural nosotros might sound clumsy and unpolished, while the
emphasis is lost. As regards the last version, the original epistrophic structure
is compensated with an emphatic copulative relative clause, by repeating
fuimos nosotros quienes; a superlative assertive (está clarísimo), and adding
an exclusive noun phrase (y solo nosotros). This version underlines the role
and responsibility of Trump’s administration in creating the Space Force, while
it adds intelligibility and coherence to the statement for Spanish speakers.
Let’s see a second example of epistrophic punctuation:
2) And after this, we’re going to walk down, and I’ll be there with you,
we’re going to walk down, we’re going to walk down.
In the context of Trump’s speech at the Capitol, the epiphora is intended
to rally the crowd and emphasises his solidarity with them as they march
together. The repetition reinforces his commitment to join and support them in
their actions. Rephrased more elegantly it would be something like this:
“Following this, we will all proceed together−I will be with you every step of the
way−we will march down together.”
Let’s deal with the translations:
AI: Y después de esto, vamos a caminar hacia allá, y yo estaré allí
con ustedes, vamos a caminar hacia allá, vamos a caminar hacia allá.
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 9
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
MT: Y después de esto, vamos a caminar hacia abajo. Y yo estaré allí
contigo, vamos a caminar hacia abajo, vamos a caminar hacia abajo.
HT: Y cuando esto acabe, vamos a marchar juntos y yo estaré ahí
con vosotros; vamos a marchar juntos, vamos a marchar juntos.
In the second and third versions, familiar pronouns common in
Peninsular Spanish are used, which differ in other Spanish-speaking regions.
Still, of the three, only the human version captures the essence of “we’re going
to walk down” in the original sentence. It conveys the idea of moving forward
in unity or solidarity, which aligns well with the context of the original
statement. The first and second are more literal in the sense that they use
hacia abajo/allá to translate “down”, which is correct in terms of direction but
fails to get the sense of going forward all together.
2.2. Low (vs. high talk) style; colloquialisms and lexical errors
3) And to use a favourite term that all of you people really came up with:
We will stop the steal.
In the original, the phrase “all of you really came up with” is
grammatically incorrect, since the article “a” is unspecific and needs the
determinate article “the,” and the modifier “really” is displaced (it should read
“that you all really came up with”/that really all of you people came up with”).
As a result, it is vague and lacks specificity. A more correct version would be
“And to use a phrase that many of you have really embraced: We will stop the
steal”;
.
“Stop the Steal” is a massive disinformation campaign−attributed to a
criminal veteran named Roger Stone−which spread across social networks
like an out-of-control virus, disseminating misinformation and violent
rhetoric−and spilling into real life, like the protest at the Capitol (Fung, 2020).
The Merriam Webster Dictionary (n.d.) defines “steal” as a “fraudulent or
questionable political deal.”
Let’s see the translations made by AI and MT, and our own:
AI: Y para usar un término favorito que todos ustedes realmente
inventaron: Vamos a detener el robo.
MT: Y para usar un término favorito que todos ustedes realmente
inventaron: Detendremos el robo.
HT: Y voy a usar un buen lema que os habéis inventado vosotros:
vamos a acabar con este atraco.
Again, the use of vosotros instead of ustedes reflects the cultural norms
of the average Peninsular-Spanish speaker, where it is commonly employed
to address a familiar group. This choice enhances the translation’s relatability
10 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
and cultural suitability. A compensation is sought by using atraco with the
demonstrative pronoun este, which typically implies a more direct and perhaps
even dramatic form of theft or robbery than robo, which invokes a more
standard and neutral tone.
Let’s see a second example:
4) Always, you watch the VA, it was on television every night, people
living in a horrible, horrible manner. We got that done. We got
accountability done.
A clearer version of Trump’s assertion would be “Every night, you would
see reports about the VA on television, showing people living in horrible,
horrible conditions. We took action to address this issue with the passing of
the Act.”
The three versions of the translation follow:
AI: Siempre, ves el VA, estaba en televisión todas las noches,
personas viviendo de una manera horrible, horrible. Lo hicimos.
Conseguimos la responsabilidad.
MT: Siempre, ves la VA, estaba en la televisión todas las noches, la
gente viviendo de una manera horrible, horrible. Conseguimos eso.
Hemos conseguido que se rindan cuentas.
HT: Cada noche podíamos ver en la tele en qué horribles, horribles
condiciones viven los veteranos. Pero lo hemos conseguido. Hemos
conseguido que la ley se apruebe.
“VA”, which is an unfamiliar English term in Spanish, refers to the United
States Department of Veteran Affairs in English, literally translated as
Departamento de Asuntos de los Veteranos. In the third translation, “VA” is
not explicitly mentioned, but the context of the sentence suggests that it refers
to the conditions experienced by veterans, which is further clarified in the
following sentences. This maintains clarity, while avoiding the need for a
lengthy translation of “VA” that might disrupt the flow of the sentence. By the
same token, when Trump refers to “accountability” at the end of the
paragraph, he is referring to the 2017 Veteran Affairs Accountability Act, one
of the key legislative achievements during his presidency. Boasting about
passing this law aligns with Trump’s broader messaging of prioritising the
needs of veterans and reforming government institutions to better serve them.
Translating accountability as rendición de cuentas ignores that Trump is
referring to the name of the Act.
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 11
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
2.3. Tags, discursive markers and rhetorical questions
We have already touched on how Trump’s oratory often repeatedly
employs direct questions in a concise format. However, considering their
significance, let’s provide a couple of examples to illustrate how their literal or
machine translation might awkwardly disrupt the flow of the text.
5) You know, we don’t want to give $2,000 to people. We want to give
them $600. Oh, great. How does that play politically? Pretty good?
And this has nothing to do with politics, but how does it play
politically?
3
This series of brief phrases or inquiries, akin to the rhetorical questions
in the given example, effectively highlights key aspects, instilling a feeling of
urgency or significance. An improved, more comprehensible version of this
chain of short sentences would be: “You know, we don’t want to provide
$2,000 to people; we’d rather give them $600. Oh, fantastic. How does that
resonate politically? Favourably? And despite this being apolitical, what are
the political implications?”
The AI, MT and HT versions follow:
AI: Sabes, no queremos dar $2,000 a la gente. Queremos darles
$600. ¡Genial! ¿Cómo se percibe eso políticamente? ¿Bastante bien?
Y esto no tiene nada que ver con la política, pero ¿cómo se percibe
políticamente?
MT: No queremos dar 2.000 dólares a la gente. Queremos darles 600
dólares. Estupendo. ¿Cómo funciona eso políticamente? ¿Bastante
bien? Y esto no tiene nada que ver con la política, pero ¿cómo se
juega políticamente?
HT: Es que no queremos que se den 2000 dólares a la gente, sino
más bien 600. Guay. El caso es que no sé cómo se interpreta eso
desde el punto de vista político. ¿Queda bien? Y no es una cuestión
política, pero ¿cómo se interpreta políticamente eso?
3
In this cryptic sentence, Trump is referring to the debate surrounding the amount of
direct stimulus payments to be included in a COVID-19 relief package. Initially, there was
disagreement over whether the payments should be $600 or $2,000 per individual. Trump
appears to be sarcastically questioning the political implications of providing $600 instead of
2,000, suggesting that the decision may be perceived negatively by the public despite its potential
benefits. He emphasises the absurdity of the situation by asking how it plays politically while
asserting that it has nothing to do with politics.
12 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
We think the third version adeptly captures Trump’s informal tone and
the colloquialism inherent in the original English sentence, while ensuring
clarity and coherence for Spanish speakers. This rendition presents a more
structured approach, while transmitting the aggression or insistence that might
arise from the rapid succession of short phrases or questions in the original.
The colloquialism Guay replaces “Oh, great” and “Pretty good” (a hyperbole
frequently used by Trump). Additionally, according to Fundéu (n.d.), Es que
no, used to express contrariness, gives a pretext, or provides a justification in
Spanish, for “You know, we don’t”, maintains the derision and negative
emphasis of the original. Furthermore, el caso es que is incorporated as a
discourse connector that introduces an explanation, justification, or conclusion
as the central idea of the discourse, often providing an unexpected piece of
information. In our view, the expression ¿cómo se interpreta políticamente?
surpasses in idomaticity both the AI’s ¿cómo se percibe políticamente? and
the MT’s literal rendition, ¿cómo se juega políticamente? The former
significantly improves overall comprehensibility and impact.
Let’s see a second example:
6) Did you see the other day where Joe Biden said, I want to get rid
of the America First policy? What’s all that about? Get rid of. How do
you say I want to get rid to America First? Even if you’re going to do
it, don’t talk about it, right?
Though menacing, the sentence per se is not clumsy or grammatically
incorrect. Still, an improved version is possible: “Did you see the other day
when Joe Biden said he wants to eliminate the America First policy? What’s
all that about? ‘Get rid of’. How can you say ‘I want to get rid of America First’?
Even if you’re considering it, why discuss it openly, right?”
Let’s see the three versions of the translation:
AI: ¿Viste el otro día cuando Joe Biden dijo, “Quiero deshacerme de
la política de América Primero”? ¿Qué significa eso? ‘Deshacerse de’.
¿Cómo puede alguien decir ‘Quiero deshacerme de América
Primero’? Incluso si lo van a hacer, ¿por qué hablar de ello, verdad?
MT: ¿Viste el otro día que Joe Biden dijo: «Quiero deshacerme de la
política America First»? ¿De qué va todo eso? Deshacerse de.
¿Cómo se dice quiero deshacerme de America First? Aunque vayas
a hacerlo, no hables de ello, ¿verdad?
HT: ¿Os habéis dado cuenta de lo que Joe Biden dijo el otro día?
Dijo: «quiero terminar de una vez por todas con la idea de “Estados
Unidos, primero”». ¿Qué quiere decir con eso de «terminar de una
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 13
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
vez por todas»? Y si está pensando en hacerlo, ¿por qué
mencionarlo? ¿o qué?
The artificial versions can be improved for a more natural flow and
clarity, since they lack idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms commonly
used in Spanish, which makes them sound somewhat awkward or overly
literal. Additionally, there are punctuation errors and minor grammatical issues
that could be refined for better readability. In the first, the phrase ¿De qué va
todo eso? could be slightly improved for clarity by rephrasing it as ¿Qué
significa todo eso?, and in the second, the phrase Aunque vayas a hacerlo
could be slightly refined for smoother flow by saying Y si está pensando en
hacerlo. Contrarily, in the third version, the idiomatic expression terminar de
una vez por todas con la idea de “Estados Unidos, primero’ effectively
encapsulates Trump’s frustration with Biden’s statement about ending the
“America First” policy. Additionally, the use of terminar de una vez por todas
is more dynamic and conveys the intensity of “get rid of” better than
deshacerse de in the two first versions, while ¿o qué? conveys the
conversational and slightly confrontational tone in the English original, better
than the calque ¿verdad? in the artificial versions.
2.4. Truncated sentences, slim content, strange aside comments and non
sequiturs
We have already discussed how Trump embraces shallowness
disguised as simplicity. His speeches often feature short, incomplete
sentences with minimal substantive information. This style can create
confusion and disrupt the coherence of his message, making it challenging for
listeners to follow his train of thought or discern a clear argument. However,
these traits also emphasise his personality and brand due to their
memorability. Other characteristics that make his discourse paradoxically both
confusing and emotionally appealing are the abrupt shifts in topic and
tangential remarks that are unrelated to the previous discussion. These asides
can seem more relatable or human to his followers, enhancing his connection
with them.
The following is a good example of ruptured discourse:
7) Don’t forget when Romney got beat. Romney, hey. Did you see his
[sic]? I wonder if he enjoyed his flight in last night. But when Romney
got beaten, you know, he stands up like you’re more typical [sic].
“Well, I’d like to congratulate the victor.” The victor? Who’s the victor,
Mitt? “I’d like to congratulate.” They don’t go and look at the facts. No,
14 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
I don’t know. He got, he got slaughtered. Probably, maybe it was OK,
maybe it was. But that’s what happened.
4
It is obvious how the paragraph lacks clarity and structure. It includes
fragmented sentences, semantic voids, informal language, and abrupt shifts
in topic, making it difficult to follow the flow of his thoughts. Additionally,
Trump’s previously discussed deployment of rhetorical questions and
sarcasm adds to the confusion.
A revised version like this would maintain the essence of Trump’s
message while presenting it in a more organised and coherent manner: “Do
you remember when Romney lost? Romney, hey. Did you see his reaction? I
wonder if he enjoyed his flight last night. But when Romney lost, you know, he
stands up like your typical politician, saying, ‘Well, I’d like to congratulate the
winner.’ The winner? Who’s the winner, Mitt? ‘I’d like to congratulate...’ They
don’t bother to check the facts. No, I don’t know. He lost badly. Maybe it was
fine, maybe it wasn’t. But that’s what happened.” Such revision, to some
extent, uses complete sentences, clarifies ambiguous references, and
eliminates unnecessary repetition, resulting in a more comprehensible
reading of Trump’s words.
Let’s see the translations:
AI: No olvides cuando Romney fue derrotado. Romney, eh. ¿Viste
su…? Me pregunto si disfrutó su vuelo anoche. Pero cuando Romney
fue derrotado, ya sabes, se levanta como los más típicos, «Bueno,
me gustaría felicitar al ganador». ¿El ganador? ¿Quién es el ganador,
Mitt? «Me gustaría felicitar». No van y miran los hechos. No, no lo sé.
Él fue, fue masacrado. Probablemente, tal vez estuvo bien, tal vez no.
Pero eso es lo que pasó.
MT: No olvides cuando Romney fue derrotado. Romney, oye. ¿Has
visto el suyo? Me pregunto si disfrutó de su vuelo anoche. Pero
cuando Romney fue derrotado, ya sabes, se levanta como si fuera
más típico, «Bueno, me gustaría felicitar al vencedor». ¿El vencedor?
¿Quién es el vencedor, Mitt? «Me gustaría felicitar». No van y miran
los hechos. No, no lo sé. Lo masacraron. Probablemente, tal vez
estuvo bien, tal vez lo estuvo. Pero es lo que pasó.
4
In this paragraph, Trump is referring to the defeat of Mitt Romney, a Republican politician who
ran for president in 2012 and later became a U.S. Senator. The night previous to this speech
Romney was assaulted by Trump’s followers when he flew to Washington to certify the votes of
the 2016 election. Trump criticises Romney’s reaction to his loss, suggesting that Romney
congratulated the winner without thoroughly examining the facts or circumstances of the election.
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 15
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
HT: ¿Os acordáis cuando perdió Romney? El bueno de Romney.
¿Visteis su reacción? Me pregunto si disfrutó de su vuelo anoche.
Pero cuando perdió, ya lo visteis, salió como el típico político,
diciendo, «Bueno, me gustaría felicitar al ganador». ¿El ganador?
¿Quién es el ganador, Mitt? «Me gustaría felicitar…» No se molestan
en comprobar los hechos. No, no lo sé. Lo masacraron. Quizá estuvo
bien, quizá no. Pero eso es lo que pasó.
The first version exhibits a somewhat disjointed structure. For example,
¿Viste su…? disrupts the flow of the sentence. Something similar happens in
the DeepL translation, where there are slight interruptions in coherence, such
as the phrase ¿Has visto el suyo?, which may sound somewhat awkward in
this context. The sentence Tal vez estuvo bien, tal vez lo estuvo in this version
could be more concise for better readability. The human version of Trump’s
speech is more effective and engaging than the other two, as, for instance, in
the opening, ¿Os acordáis de cuando perdió Romney?, a subject-verb
inversion is deployed that creates an engaging rhetorical question, unlike the
abrupt calques from English No olvides/olvidéis cuando Romney fue
derrotado. El bueno de Romney inserted in the human version is a friendly,
colloquial creation that connects with the audience better than the disjointed
Romney, eh/oye. The tangential comment ¿Visteis su reacción? Me pregunto
si disfrutó de su vuelo anoche uses explicitation, to make up for the missing
information in the original and artificial versions. The structured main event in
Spanish also uses explicitation, as in: Pero cuando perdió, ya lo visteis, salió
como el típico político, diciendo, «Bueno, me gustaría felicitar al ganador»,
and maintains coherence and engagement avoiding the passive fue
derrotado. Maintaining the rhetorical questions like ¿El ganador? ¿Quién es
el ganador, Mitt? challenges and provokes thought effectively, compared to
the repetitive and ambiguous versions by AI and MT.
2.5. Directness and dysphemism
As we mentioned above, Trump tends to speak bluntly and without
much filtering, often expressing his opinions and thoughts in a straightforward
manner. This directness can be seen in his speeches, tweets, and interactions
with the media, where he doesn’t shy away from controversial or provocative
statements, using harsh or derogatory language to express ideas or opinions
(Muhammad, 2021). A typical trait of his seems to be insulting nicknames for
his political opponents, criticising individuals or groups using strong language,
and employing hyperbole to make his points (Johnson, 2021).
Let’s look at the following examples in the speech, where two of his
proverbial foes are mentioned:
16 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
8) The media is the biggest problem we have as far as I’m concerned,
single biggest problem. The fake news and the Big Tech.
Trump often attacks the media and Big Tech (the major technology
companies that dominate the industry) as a political strategy to rally his base
and deflect criticism. By framing these institutions as adversaries, he can
portray himself as an outsider fighting against entrenched elites and
institutions. He sees negative coverage as a threat to his image and agenda,
prompting him to discredit the media’s credibility and claim that platforms like
Meta, Google or Apple have a bias against conservative voices, censoring or
suppressing their content (Taylor, 2018). The sentences above lack grammar
refinement because of the incorrect presence of the article “the” before “fake
news”, the untimely sentence “as far as I’m concerned”, the inelegant
repetition of “single biggest” and the simplicity in its ending. A more correct
version could read like this: “In my view, the media represents our most
significant challenge, particularly the issues stemming from fake news and the
dominance of Big Tech.” However, this correction probably would not fit
Trump’s peculiar and unique style.
Let’s deal with the translations:
AI: La prensa es el mayor problema que tenemos, según mi opinión,
el mayor problema único. Las noticias falsas y las grandes
tecnológicas.
MT: En mi opinión, los medios de comunicación son el mayor
problema que tenemos. Las fake news y las Big tech.
HT: Por lo que a mí respecta, los medios de comunicación son
el mayor problema que tenemos. Las fake news y las big tech.
The first version, as usual, offers a word-by-word translation of the
original, while the second resorts to the incorporations from English las ‘fake
news’ y las ‘Big Tech’” (“the fake news and the Big Tech”) and aligns with
expressions commonly used in today’s Spanish political discourse according
to Fundéu, and so does the third, which adheres to Spanish grammar rules
more closely, particularly in the use of articles and quotation marks, and adds
the idiomaticity of the expression Por lo que a mí respecta (“As far as I’m
concerned”).
Let’s see another example:
9) For years, Democrats have gotten away with election fraud and
weak Republicans. And that’s what they are. There’s so many weak
Republicans. […] They’re weak Republicans, they’re pathetic
Republicans and that’s what happens.
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 17
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
The sentence makes sweeping generalisations about Democrats and
Republicans without providing specific evidence or examples to support these
claims. Phrases like “pathetic Republicans” and “that’s what happens” evoke
strong emotions and convey a sense of disdain towards the Republicans
being criticised. A more rhetorically and grammatically adept version would
be: “For years, Democrats have gotten away with electoral fraud and have
weakened Republicans. And the thing is, there are a lot of weak Republicans.
[…] These Republicans are weak, they are pathetic, and that’s how we’re
doing.” Still, perhaps at this point it would be fair to say that by insulting both
parties in his original way is a strong appeal to pathos that the improved, more
comprehensible version does not achieve.
Let’s see the three translations:
AI: Durante años, los Demócratas han salido impunes con el fraude
electoral y los Republicanos débiles. Y así es como son. Hay tantos
Republicanos débiles. Son Republicanos débiles, son Republicanos
patéticos y así es como sucede.
MT: Durante años, los demócratas se han salido con la suya con el
fraude electoral y los republicanos débiles. Y eso es lo que son. Hay
tantos republicanos débiles. […] Son republicanos débiles, son
republicanos patéticos y eso es lo que pasa.
HT: Durante años, los demócratas han salido impunes del fraude
electoral y han debilitado a los republicanos. Y es que hay una gran
cantidad de republicanos débiles. […] Son republicanos débiles, son
patéticos, y así nos va.
The first translation falls short due to its literal word-for-word approach,
resulting in awkward phrasing and reduced comprehensibility. Additionally,
punctuation errors, such as the unnecessary capitalization of Republicanos
and Demócratas, detract from its grammatical correctness in Spanish. The
second translation, while more concise, lacks the cultural nuance and
idiomatic expression present in the third version, like así nos va to capture
Trump’s tone and frustration.
2.6. Misuse of rhetorical schemas
Trump’s approach to rhetoric is marked by a departure from traditional
conventions, as he frequently employs and abuses rhetorical schemas in
unorthodox ways. One notable aspect is his direct address to the audience,
bypassing conventional channels of communication to establish a more
immediate connection. As we intimated in the first category, when discussing
the simplicity of his discourse, this directness is often accompanied by
18 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
emphasis through repetition, a technique that, while effective in reinforcing
key points, can also border on overuse, diminishing its impact. Hyperbole and
exaggeration are also hallmarks of Trump’s rhetoric, as he often employs
these devices to amplify the significance of his claims for dramatic effect.
While hyperbole can be a powerful tool, Trump’s tendency to exaggerate facts
has led to the distortion of truth and the erosion of credibility.
Let’s see a couple of examples, first of repetition:
10) They said, “Sir, in four years, you’re guaranteed [sic].” I said: “I’m
not interested right now. Do me a favour, go back eight weeks. I want
to go back eight weeks. Let’s go back eight weeks.”
5
An improved version of this, for comprehensibility would be: “They told
me, ‘Sir, in four years, you’re guaranteed to win the election’. I replied, ‘I’m not
interested in that at the moment. Please, do me a favour and rewind eight
weeks. I want to go back to eight weeks ago. Let’s go back eight weeks’.” Still,
by now it is clear how Trump is not interested in stylistic questions or good
rhetoric. The translations follow:
AI: Dijeron: “Señor, en cuatro años, estás garantizado”. Yo dije: “En
este momento no estoy interesado. Hazme un favor, retrocede ocho
semanas. Quiero retroceder ocho semanas. Volvamos ocho
semanas”.
MT: Me dijeron: «Señor, en cuatro años está garantizado». Yo dije:
«Ahora mismo no me interesa. Hazme un favor, retrocede ocho
semanas. Quiero retroceder ocho semanas. Retrocedamos ocho
semanas».
HT: Me comentaron: «Señor, dentro de cuatro años tiene asegurado
el puesto». Respondí: «En este momento no me interesa. Hacedme
un favor, retrocedamos ocho semanas. Necesito volver atrás ocho
semanas. Retrocedamos ocho semanas».
The third version stands out as the most correct due to its clarity,
idiomatic expression, appropriate verb choice, and consistency in tense and
person. It effectively conveys Trump’s message in Spanish without sacrificing
coherence or readability. The use of Me comentaron captures the informality
5
In this sentence from Trump’s speech, he recounts a conversation where someone tells him that
he is guaranteed to win the election in four years. Trump responds by saying he is not interested
in that now and instead asks the person to go back eight weeks. He emphasises this by repeating
“eight weeks”, indicating a desire to postpone the issue of his election and to imply that matters
in hand are more important.
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 19
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
of Trump’s speech, while asegurado el puesto accurately translates
“guaranteed” without ambiguity. Maintaining consistency in verb tense and
person enhances comprehension, ensuring that the translation effectively
conveys Trump’s statement while adhering to grammatical correctness and
idiomatic expression in Spanish. Additionally, the first version’s use of English
inverted commas adds a raw quality that may not align with standard
punctuation conventions in Spanish, further stressing the superiority of the
third version.
Now, and as the final example in our study, we are showing one way in
which Trump makes use of hyperbole and exaggeration:
11) We’ve created the greatest economy in history. We rebuilt our
military. We get you the biggest tax cuts in history. Right? We got you
the biggest regulation cuts. There’s no president, whether it’s four
years, eight years or in one case more, got anywhere near the
regulation cuts.
This sentence exemplifies Trump’s rhetorical style, characterised by a
strong appeal to ethos, confidence in leadership, and pathos to mobilise his
audience. By asserting accomplishments like “the greatest economy in
history” and “the biggest tax cuts in history”, Trump aims to establish credibility
and instil a sense of pride and achievement among his supporters. This
confident tone, coupled with claims of unprecedented successes, serves to
bolster his image as a capable leader and rally support for his agenda.
Furthermore, by emphasising that “no president” has achieved comparable
regulation cuts, Trump seeks to reinforce his position as a transformative
figure who delivers tangible results. Overall, the sentence effectively combines
appeals to ethos, confidence, and emotion to garner support and motivate
action, including potentially controversial actions such as marching over the
Capitol. A more elegant version could read: “We have forged the most
remarkable economy in history. We have revitalised our military, secured the
largest tax cuts ever seen, and slashed regulations on an unprecedented
scale. No president, whether serving four, eight, or even more years, has
come close to our accomplishments in regulatory reform.” The three different
Spanish versions follow:
AI: Hemos creado la mayor economía de la historia. Reconstruimos
nuestro ejército. Te conseguimos los mayores recortes de
impuestos de la historia. ¿Verdad? Te conseguimos los mayores
recortes de regulaciones. No hay presidente, ya sea durante cuatro
años, ocho años o en un caso más, que se haya acercado siquiera
a los recortes de regulaciones.
20 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
MT: Hemos creado la mayor economía de la historia.
Reconstruimos nuestro ejército. Conseguimos los mayores recortes
fiscales de la historia. ¿Verdad? Les conseguimos los mayores
recortes de regulación. Ningún presidente, ya sea de cuatro años,
ocho años o en un caso más, se acercó a los recortes de regulación.
HT: Hemos creado la mayor economía de la historia. Hemos
reconstruido nuestro ejército. Hemos conseguido los mayores
recortes fiscales de la historia. ¿No es así? Os hemos conseguido
los mayores recortes legales. Ningún presidente, ni en cuatro años,
ni en ocho años, ni en ninguno más, se ha atrevido a recortar tanta
legislación.
The third version emerges as the most natural and idiomatic due to its
adherence to standard grammatical structures and common expressions in
Spanish. Firstly, it maintains a consistent use of verb tenses (Hemos creado,
Hemos reconstruido, Hemos conseguido), ensuring coherence and fluidity.
This consistency enhances readability and makes the sentence easier to
follow. Moreover, the use of pronouns adds a personal touch, fostering a
sense of direct engagement with the audience. In contrast, the other two
versions exhibit flaws that detract from their naturalness and idiomatic quality.
The first version introduces inconsistency in verb tenses (Te conseguimos vs.
No hay presidente) and lacks clarity in its pronoun usage. Additionally, the
phrase ya sea durante cuatro años, ocho años o en un caso más feels
awkward and could be simplified for better readability. Similarly, the second
version suffers from similar issues, including inconsistency in verb tenses
(Conseguimos vs. se acercó) and a less natural choice of pronouns (Les
conseguimos vs. Ningún presidente). Furthermore, the phrase ya sea de
cuatro años, ocho años o en un caso más sounds convoluted and could be
simplified for better comprehension.
Additionally, there are nuances that make the third version much more
natural, as with the use of Os (you all), which is more personal and direct for
a Spanish audience, particularly in Spain. In contrast, AI uses Te (you
singular) and MT uses Les (formal/plural), which may not resonate as well.
Finally, the human translation deploys, to our view, a clearer and more
impactful concluding sentence: “Ningún presidente, ni en cuatro años, ni en
ocho años, ni en ninguno más, se ha atrevido a recortar tanta legislación.”
This structure emphasises the uniqueness and boldness of the actions
described.
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 21
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
CONCLUSIONS
Trump’s discourse is marked by extravagant simplicity, syntactic
fragmentation, and a recurrent appeal to emotion, which, despite often
undermining logical consistency, proves remarkably persuasive. His rhetoric,
though grammatically erratic and semantically unstable, resonates deeply
with certain audiences, making it particularly difficult to translate. Emotion, or
pathos, plays a crucial role in his communication style−he frequently invokes
fear, anger, and resentment to galvanise support, often at the expense of rigor
and rationality. His approach departs from traditional rhetorical norms,
stretching the limits of political communication and complicating the task of
translation. His frequent grammatical inconsistencies, limited vocabulary, and
disjointed discourse create a paradox: while his speech may appear
incoherent, it remains powerfully effective.
Consequently, the challenge of translating Trump’s discourse into
Spanish is not merely technical but conceptual and rhetorical. His language
operates on multiple levels−linguistic, emotional, cultural, and
ideological−posing challenges for different translation methods. Machine
Translation (MT) tools like DeepL prioritise grammatical fluency, often
producing translations that are formally correct but tonally inaccurate. Artificial
Intelligence (AI) models such as ChatGPT are more flexible in capturing
conversational patterns, but their outputs often introduce a degree of
refinement that smooths over the rawness and ambiguity of the original.
Human Translation (HT), though slower and inherently interpretive, remains
the most effective in preserving the rhetorical force of the original speech.
Translators must constantly decide whether to preserve Trump’s linguistic
idiosyncrasies or adapt them for clarity, a choice that is never politically
neutral.
Rather than determining the superiority of one approach over another,
this study suggests that each plays a distinct role. MT and AI provide structural
scaffolding, but HT is crucial when a speaker’s influence stems not from
clarity, but from rhetorical performance. In Trump’s case, the challenge is
especially pronounced: his discourse is designed less to inform than to
provoke, to polarise, and to reinforce a distinct political persona. Translating
such speech requires more than linguistic accuracy−it demands attention to
context, intention, and impact.
Ultimately, the act of translating Trump reveals broader tensions
between fidelity and intelligibility, between literal meaning and rhetorical effect.
The difficulties observed here are not anomalies but reflective of a larger shift
in contemporary political discourse−one in which language functions as much
to manipulate as to communicate. His rhetoric serves as an example of how
22 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
speech can both mobilise and divide, raising questions about the role of
translation in a political landscape where persuasion increasingly relies on
affect rather than argument. The challenges encountered in translating his
discourse into Spanish illustrate the complexities and nuances of political
communication in a globalised world.
REFERENCES
Breeze, R., & Llamas Saíz, C. (Coords.). (2020). Metaphor in political conflict:
Populism and discourse. Ediciones Universidad de Navarra.
Charaudeau, P. (2002). ¿Para qué sirve analizar el discurso politico?
DeSignis: Publicación de la Federación Latinoamericana de Semiótica
(FELS), (2), 109-124.
Charaudeau, P. (2003). El discurso de la información. La construcción del
espejo social. Gedisa.
Charaudeau, P. (2009). Reflexiones para el análisis del discurso populista (A.
M. Gentile, Trad.). Discurso & Sociedad, 3(2), 253-279.
Charteris-Black, J. (2011). The persuasive power of metaphor (2nd ed.).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, J. (2017). Analyzing political speeches. Rhetoric, discourse
and metaphor. Palgrave.
Domínguez-García, R., Méndez-Muros, S., Pérez-Curiel, C., & Hinojosa-
Becerra, M. (2023). Political polarization and emotion rhetoric in the US
presidential transition: A comparative study of Trump and Biden on
Twitter and the post-election impact on the public. Profesional de la
Información, 32(6). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2023.nov.06
Fairclough, I., & Fairclough, N. (2012). Political discourse analysis: A method
for advanced students. Routledge.
Fundéu-RAE. (n.d.). Y es que. In Fundéu.
https://www.fundeu.es/recomendacion/y-es-que/
Giroux, H. A. (2023). Trumpism and the challenge of critical education.
Educational Philosophy and Theory, 55(6), 658-673.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2021.1884066
Hall, J. (2021). Donald Trump’s populist foreign policy rhetoric: In search of
enemies. London School of Economics.
https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/105756/1/Hall_in_search_of_enemies_publish
ed.pdf
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 23
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
Hart, R. P. (2020). Trump and us: What he says and why people listen.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108854979
Inzaurralde, B. (2017, July 7). This linguist studied the way Trump speaks for
two years. Here’s what she found. The Washington Post.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/07/07/this-
linguist-studied-the-way-trump-speaks-for-two-years-heres-what-she-
found/
Johnson, T. (2021). Sleepy Joe? Recalling and considering Donald Trump’s
strategic use of nicknames. Journal of Political Marketing, 20(3-4), 302-
316. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2021.1939572
Kayam, O. (2018). The readability and simplicity of Donald Trump’s language.
Political Studies Review, 16(1), 73-88.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917706844
König, H. D. (2023). Performing as a firefighter: Reconstruction of Donald
Trump’s speech on the storming of the Capitol through depth
hermeneutics. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum: Qualitative
Social Research, 24(3). https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-24.3.4029
Koschut, S. (2018). The power of (emotion) words: on the importance of
emotions for social constructivist discourse analysis in IR. Journal of
International Relations and Development, 21, 495-
522. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0086-0
Koschut, S. (2020). The power of emotions in world politics. Routledge.
Lakoff, G. (2016). A minority president: Why the polls failed, and what the
majority can do. The Huffington Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-
minority-president_b_5834526be4b030997bc136f7
Lakoff, G. (2017). Understanding Trump’s use of language. The Huffington
Post. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/understanding-trumps-use-of-
language_b_11144938
Mercieca, J. (2020). Demagogue for president: The rhetorical genius of
Donald Trump. Texas A&M University Press.
Merriam-Webster. Steal. In Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
Moffitt, B. (2016). The global rise of populism: performance, political style, and
representation. Stanford University Press.
Moyer, J. M. (2016). Trump’s grammar in speeches ‘just below 6th grade
level,’ study finds. The Washington Post.
24 Making Meaning into Spanish of Trump’s Meaningless Discourse […]
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/03/18/trumps-grammar-in-speeches-just-below-6th-
grade-level-study-finds/?utm_term=.08f14770a1e8
Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition, 39(4),
541–563. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44483088
Muhammad, I. (2021). Donald Trump’s use of dysphemism for mass
persuasion. Cairo Studies in English, 2020(1), 95-109.
Partington, A., & Taylor, C. (2018). The language of persuasion in politics: An
introduction. Routledge.
Schertzer, R., & Woods, E. T. (2022). Donald Trump and the new nationalism
in America. In R. Schertzer & E. T. Woods (Eds.), The new nationalism
in America and beyond: The deep roots of ethnic nationalism in the
digital age (pp. 88-112). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197547823.003.0005
Sclafani, J. (2018). Talking Donald Trump: A sociolinguistic study of style,
metadiscourse, and political identity. Routledge.
Taylor, D. (2018). Big tech’s double trouble: Bipartisan criticism may signal a
reckoning ahead. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/02/big-techs-
double-trouble-bipartisan-criticism-may-signal-a-reckoning-ahead
Van Dijk, T. (2002). Political discourse and political cognition. In P. Hilton & C.
Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to
political discourse (pp. 203-237). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Viser, M. (2015). For presidential hopefuls, simpler language resonates. The
Boston Globe.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2015/10/20/donald-trump-
and-ben-carson-speak-grade-school-level-that-today-voters-can-
quickly-grasp/LUCBY6uwQAxiLvvXbVTSUN/story.html
Wang, Y., & Liu, H. (2018). Is Trump always rambling like a fourth-grade
student? An analysis of stylistic features of Donald Trump’s political
discourse during the 2016 election. Discourse & Society, 29(3), 299-
323.
Wodak, R. (2015). Political argumentation. In G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The
international encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 43-52).
Wiley-Blackwell.
María Ángeles Orts Llopis 25
Hikma 24(2) (2025), 1 - 25
Wodak, R. (2021). The politics of fear: The shameless normalization of far-
right discourse. SAGE Publications Ltd.
