The Sound of Populism: Distinct Linguistic Features Across Populist Variants

Jing He; Runxi Yu; Yu Wang; Zhongyuan Wang

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

The Sound of Populism: Distinct Linguistic Features Across Populist Variants

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that populist rhetoric in U.S. presidential addresses has a distinctive, measurable linguistic 'sound' that varies systematically across left-wing, right-wing, anti-elitist, and people-centric variants.

desk verdict A clearly written but methodologically fragile paper whose findings depend on an unvalidated cross-lingual transfer of a populism classifier to U.S. presidential rhetoric. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07874 v1 pith:QNB3GIMY submitted 2025-05-10 cs.CL

Yu Wang , Runxi Yu , Zhongyuan Wang , Jing He This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.CL

keywords PopulismLIWCRoBERTaPresidentialrhetoricPoliticaltextanalysisComputationalsocialscienceMulti-labelclassificationasdata

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that populism in U.S. presidential rhetoric has a characteristic linguistic 'sound' — direct, assertive, informal but controlled — and that this sound differs systematically across four populist variants. It claims that right-wing populism and people-centrism are emotionally hot, drawing on identity, grievance, and crisis, while left-wing populism and anti-elitism are comparatively cool, emphasizing structural critique without vulgarity or hesitation. The authors care because if true, populism can be detected and tracked quantitatively in historical political speech, and the tone of populism is not a single register but a family of calibrated styles tied to ideology. The payoff is a measurable linguistic fingerprint of populist subtypes in a major democratic institution's core texts.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a regression model in which four populism-dimension scores, generated by a fine-tuned RoBERTa-large model applied to each speech, are regressed on 94 LIWC linguistic-feature proportions plus the speech year. LIWC, a word-count lexicon that scores texts on psychological and stylistic categories, supplies the independent variables — informal, swear, nonflu, tentat, posemo, money, social, and others — that carry the interpretation of populism's 'sound.' The fine-tuned RoBERTa model, a context-aware transformer language model trained on English translations of German parliamentary sentences annotated for the four populism dimensions, supplies the dependent-variable scores for left-wing, right-wing, anti-elitism, and people-centrism. The regression's significant coefficients are the evidence for both the shared assertive tone and the ideological cleavages in emotional charge.

What would settle it

Re-score the 308 speeches with a populism model trained directly on English-language American political texts, or compare the RoBERTa scores against human annotation on a sample of these speeches; if the LIWC-regression coefficients vanish or reverse, the reported 'sound of populism' is an artifact of the translation-trained model rather than a property of presidential rhetoric.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery, as the paper states it, is that all four measured dimensions of populism share a core assertive 'sound': left-wing, right-wing, and anti-elitist discourse all show positive associations with informal language and negative associations with nonfluency, tentativeness, and assent, which the authors read as a deliberate projection of clarity, confidence, and closeness to 'the people.' At the same time, the variants diverge in emotional register: right-wing populism is marked by feeling and power vocabulary and low syntactic complexity, people-centrism by social and money references with low positive emotion and few questions, while left-wing populism and anti-elitism avoid swearing and netspeak and show negative associations with anger and anxiety. The paper concludes that populist rhetoric is strategically calibrated — informal and authentic, but not chaotic or vulgar — with the emotional charge concentrated in right-wing and people-centric variants.

Load-bearing premise

The whole analysis depends on the assumption that a model fine-tuned on English translations of German parliamentary sentences gives trustworthy populism scores when applied to U.S. presidential inaugural and State of the Union addresses from 1789 to 2025, even though the training and target texts differ in language, genre, period, and register.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Presidential addresses can be scored continuously for populist tone, making populism a traceable quantity across 236 years of U.S. political speech rather than a binary label.
The shared negative coefficients on nonfluency and tentativeness imply that populist discourse, whatever its ideology, avoids hedged or hesitant language; a speech high in hesitation markers should register as less populist.
The positive 'feel' and 'power' associations for right-wing populism imply that emotional and dominance-related vocabulary is a reliable stylistic marker of right-wing populist rhetoric.
The negative 'swear' and 'netspeak' coefficients for left-wing and anti-elitist populism imply that informality is calibrated: these variants sound informal but avoid vulgarity to preserve legitimacy.
The people-centrism results imply that social-reference and money vocabulary, together with avoidance of questions and positive emotion, are markers of people-centric populist speech.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Beyond the paper: the same LIWC-plus-transformer pipeline could be applied to campaign speeches, where the predicted emotional-charge gap between right-wing and left-wing populism should be larger, since campaign settings allow freer expression of grievance than formal addresses.
Beyond the paper: if the 'sound of populism' is a stable stylistic signature, speeches by presidents not usually labeled populist should show near-zero populism scores yet still show nonzero LIWC correlations, revealing the baseline tone of American presidential rhetoric against which populist variants stand out.
Beyond the paper: the finding that people-centrism correlates with money vocabulary while left-wing populism does not suggests a testable distinction between economic grievance framed as 'the people robbed' (people-centrism) and economic grievance framed as 'the system needs reform' (left-wing).

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The short version: this is a well-written but methodologically fragile paper whose headline findings ride on an unvalidated transfer of a German-trained populism classifier to U.S. presidential speeches. The specific regression results are new, and the paper earns some credit for transparency and robustness checks, but the central measurement assumption does not hold up.

What is actually new: the application of Erhard et al.'s four-dimension populism classifier to the full set of U.S. inaugural and SOTU addresses, and the resulting profile of LIWC associations (e.g., 'feel' and 'power' positively associated with right-wing populism, 'informal' positively with anti-elitism). I don't know of prior work reporting exactly these coefficients. The paper also does a clean job of describing the pipeline, and the appendix comparison of GPT-4o versus Google Translate translations is a nice touch.

The soft spot is large and central. The dependent variables are scores from a RoBERTa model fine-tuned on English translations of 8,795 short German parliamentary sentences, with annotations coded positive if at least one of five annotators agreed. Applied to U.S. presidential rhetoric spanning two centuries, there is no validation that the scores track human judgments of populism in that genre. The model could be detecting translationese, German party politics, or topic cues. The authors do not report any human-coded sample of U.S. speeches, no comparison with established populism measures, and no description of how sentence-level scores are aggregated to speech-level values. If the scores are mismeasured, every coefficient in Tables 3–6 is uninterpretable.

The regression analysis has a second, smaller problem. With 94 LIWC predictors and 308 observations, selecting only p<0.05 coefficients without multiple-comparison correction is a multiple-testing trap. No standard errors or model diagnostics are reported. This is fixable, but as is, the inferential claims are not reliable.

The good news is that the paper is clearly written, the methods are specified in enough detail to be reproduced, and the limitations section does acknowledge some gaps—though it misses the transfer-validity threat. The authors also compare German BERT and RoBERTa, which shows care about the modeling side.

I would not publish this in its current form. The empirical foundation needs validation before the descriptive findings can be trusted. But the question is a good one, and the flaws are fixable. I would send it to peer review with a clear request that the authors validate the classifier's transfer to U.S. presidential rhetoric, apply multiple-comparison correction, and release code and data. A competent referee could turn this into a modest but legitimate contribution.

For your reading group, it would be a useful case study in what can go wrong when a classifier is moved across language, genre, and time period without validation. I wouldn't cite it in my own work until that validation is done.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper aims to characterize the "sound" of populism by combining LIWC-based linguistic features with a fine-tuned RoBERTa model that scores U.S. presidential inaugural and State of the Union addresses on four populism dimensions: left-wing, right-wing, anti-elitism, and people-centrism. The authors fit multiple linear regressions of each populism score on 94 LIWC features plus the speech year, then interpret the statistically significant coefficients as evidence that populist rhetoric is direct, assertive, informal but controlled, and emotionally differentiated across the four variants. The RoBERTa model is fine-tuned on English translations of 8,795 German parliamentary sentences annotated for the same four dimensions, and the resulting scores are used without further validation as dependent variables for the U.S. corpus.

Significance. If the populism scores were validated for American presidential rhetoric and the regression results were shown to be robust, the paper would offer a useful descriptive contribution to computational studies of populist language by linking interpretable LIWC features to transformer-based measures. The authors do provide a reproducible benchmark comparison with Erhard et al. and report a model comparison between Google Translate and GPT-4o translations, which are useful transparency elements. However, the central inference is currently unsupported because the model-derived dependent variable is never validated on the target corpus, and the predictor set is large relative to the sample size with no correction for multiple testing. As presented, the findings are best interpreted as properties of the fine-tuned model's scores rather than as features of populism in U.S. presidential speeches.

major comments (3)

[§3.2.2 and §4, Eq. (1), Tables 3–6] The dependent variable is a RoBERTa score produced by a model fine-tuned on English translations of 8,795 German parliamentary sentences and then applied to U.S. presidential inaugural and State of the Union addresses spanning 1789–2025. The manuscript provides no evidence that these scores measure the intended populism constructs in this target domain: there is no human validation on the U.S. corpus, no comparison with existing populism measures for American presidential rhetoric (e.g., Bonikowski et al. 2022), and no analysis of how translationese, genre differences, or historical register shift affect the model outputs. Consequently, the significant coefficients in Tables 3–6 could reflect artifacts of domain shift rather than properties of populist discourse. This construct-validity threat is not addressed in the limitations section and is load-bearing for every conclusion in the paper.
[§4, Tables 3–6] The regression model includes 94 LIWC predictors with only 308 observations, yet the paper reports only the coefficients that reach p < 0.05 and provides no multiple-comparison correction, no standard errors, and no model diagnostics. Under the null hypothesis, roughly 4.7 false positives would be expected across 94 tests, so the 27 reported significant coefficients are not interpretable without correction or holdout validation. LIWC categories are also highly intercorrelated, so multicollinearity and variance inflation should be assessed; otherwise the sign and magnitude of individual coefficients are unreliable.
[§3.2.2 and §4] The aggregation procedure from sentence-level model predictions to speech-level populism scores is not described. The fine-tuned transformer produces a score per sentence according to Section 3.2.2, but Section 4 treats Y as a single value per speech. Without stating whether the scores are averaged, summed, or otherwise aggregated, the regression results are not reproducible. Table 8 labels the unit as "Segment" for a corpus of 308 speeches, which adds further ambiguity about the observational unit.

minor comments (6)

[Table 7] The row label "Right-Ring" appears to be a typo for "Right-Wing."
[§2.2] The text contains a placeholder citation as "authority [?]"; the reference is missing.
[Tables 2 and 7] The name "UniPop" appears in captions without being defined anywhere in the manuscript.
[Table 8 caption] The caption says the features are extracted from "U.S. presidential election speeches," but the corpus is described in Section 3.1 as inaugural addresses and State of the Union addresses, not election speeches.
[Footnote 2] The footnote states that the cross-validation step in Erhard et al. is not reproducible, but the authors do not explain how their own fine-tuning and checkpoint selection avoids the same issue; additional details on batch size and weight decay are said to be adopted without reporting exact values.
[References] Reference [1] and reference [19] are the same Mudde article and should be unified; several other references have inconsistent or incomplete bibliographic information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: RoBERTa scores and LIWC features are independent, with only minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that the dependent variable (RoBERTa populism scores for U.S. speeches) is not constructed from the independent variables (LIWC features). The model was fine-tuned on human-annotated German parliamentary sentences, and Equation 1 is an empirical regression of those scores on LIWC features plus year; no algebraic relation forces the coefficients. The only self-citations are minor and non-load-bearing: Wang [28] is cited for fine-tuning hyperparameters ('we adopt the same parameter values as reported in Erhard et al. [10] and Wang [28]'), and Wang et al. [34] is cited alongside [33] for choosing RoBERTa. The absence of external validation of the German-to-U.S. transfer is a genuine construct-validity threat, but it is not a circular step because the model is anchored to human labels in its training data and the paper does not claim to fit the U.S. scores from LIWC. No specific reduction of a claimed result to its inputs can be exhibited, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities. The main load-bearing postulates are the transferability of the German-trained model to U.S. presidential speeches and the interpretive validity of LIWC features; these are assumed rather than demonstrated.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption RoBERTa fine-tuned on English translations of German parliamentary sentences produces valid populism scores for U.S. presidential speeches.
The model is trained on a different language, genre, and era; Section 3.2.2 and the regressions in Section 4 assume transfer without validation.
domain assumption LIWC categories measure the 'sound' or rhetorical style of political speech.
The paper uses LIWC counts as independent variables and interprets them as stylistic and psychological markers (Section 3.2.1).
domain assumption The German dataset labels, aggregated by 'at least one annotator', provide reliable ground truth for four populism dimensions.
Section 3.1 describes the annotation aggregation; the threshold is a modeling choice that affects the trained model.
domain assumption GPT-4o translations preserve the populist features of the original German sentences.
Section 3.2.2 uses English translations for RoBERTa; the fidelity of translation for populist cues is asserted, not tested.
domain assumption A linear model with 94 LIWC predictors is appropriate and coefficient estimates are stable.
Equation 1 in Section 4 includes all LIWC features; the paper does not diagnose multicollinearity or outliers, which with n=308 could distort coefficients.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Sound of Populism: Distinct Linguistic Features Across Populist Variants." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QNB3GIMY

@misc{pith2026250507874,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Sound of Populism: Distinct Linguistic Features Across Populist Variants},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QNB3GIMY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07874}
}

read the original abstract

This study explores the sound of populism by integrating the classic Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) features, which capture the emotional and stylistic tones of language, with a fine-tuned RoBERTa model, a state-of-the-art context-aware language model trained to detect nuanced expressions of populism. This approach allows us to uncover the auditory dimensions of political rhetoric in U.S. presidential inaugural and State of the Union addresses. We examine how four key populist dimensions (i.e., left-wing, right-wing, anti-elitism, and people-centrism) manifest in the linguistic markers of speech, drawing attention to both commonalities and distinct tonal shifts across these variants. Our findings reveal that populist rhetoric consistently features a direct, assertive ``sound" that forges a connection with ``the people'' and constructs a charismatic leadership persona. However, this sound is not simply informal but strategically calibrated. Notably, right-wing populism and people-centrism exhibit a more emotionally charged discourse, resonating with themes of identity, grievance, and crisis, in contrast to the relatively restrained emotional tones of left-wing and anti-elitist expressions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

Mudde, C.: The Populist Zeitgeist39(4), 542–563 (2004)

work page 2004
[3]

Verso Books, London (2005)

Laclau, E.: On Populist Reason. Verso Books, London (2005)

work page 2005
[4]

The Background and the Consequences of American Security Policies

Shils, E.: The Torment of Secrecy. The Background and the Consequences of American Security Policies. Free Press, Glencoe (1956)

work page 1956
[5]

American Behavioral Scientist69(5), 507–525 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00027642241240343 https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240343

Ayta¸ c, S.E., C ¸ arko˘ glu, A., El¸ ci, E.: Populist appeals, emotions, and political mobi- lization. American Behavioral Scientist69(5), 507–525 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00027642241240343 https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240343

work page doi:10.1177/00027642241240343 2025
[6]

Accessed 2025-03-01

Jordan, K.N., Sterling, J., Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L.: Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions116(9), 3476–3481 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811987116 . Accessed 2025-03-01

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1811987116 2019
[7]

Accessed 2025-03-01

Tucker, E.C., Capps, C.J., Shamir, L.: A data science approach to 138 years of congressional speeches6(8) (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04417 32904137. Accessed 2025-03-01

work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04417 2020
[8]

https://doi.org/10.15781/T29G6Z

Pennebaker, J., Boyd, R., Jordan, K., Blackburn, K.: The Development and Psy- chometric Properties of LIWC2015, Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin (2015). https://doi.org/10.15781/T29G6Z

doi:10.15781/t29g6z 2015
[9]

arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Stoyanov, V.: RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

arXiv 2019

Show all 46 references

[10]

Detecting populism and its host ideologies in the german bundestag33(1), 1–17 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2024.12

Erhard, L., Hanke, S., Remer, U., Falenska, A., Heiberger, R.H.: PopBERT. Detecting populism and its host ideologies in the german bundestag33(1), 1–17 (2025) https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2024.12

2025 doi
[11]

Routledge, New York (2018)

Hawkins, K.A., Carlin, R.E., Littvay, L., Kaltwasser, C.R.: The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis. Routledge, New York (2018). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315196923 . https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315196923

2018 doi
[12]

The New Yorker (2017)

Widmer, T.: Draining the swamp. The New Yorker (2017). Accessed: 2025-05-08

2017
[13]

Journal of Common Market Studies (2017) https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12617 14

Haughton, T.: Editorial: Take back control: The european union in 2016. Journal of Common Market Studies (2017) https://doi.org/10.1111/jcms.12617 14

2017 doi
[14]

West European Politics37(2), 361–378 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.887879

Kriesi, H.: The populist challenge. West European Politics37(2), 361–378 (2014) https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.887879

2014
[15]

(eds.) Taking Politics to the People: Pop- ulism as the Ideology of Democracy, pp

Canovan, M.: In: M´ eny, Y., Surel, Y. (eds.) Taking Politics to the People: Pop- ulism as the Ideology of Democracy, pp. 25–44. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY (2002). https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403920072 2

2002 doi
[16]

Very Short Introductions

Mudde, C., Rovira Kaltwasser, C.: Populism: A Very Short Introduc- tion. Very Short Introductions. Oxford University Press, New York (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780190234874.001.0001 . Online edition, Oxford Academic, 23 Feb. 2017. Accessed 28 Mar. 2025. https://d...

2017
[17]

Journal of Latin American Studies55(4), 653–677 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X23000731

Simon, J., Parody, G.: The devil and democracy in the global south: Hugo ch´ avez’s transnational populism. Journal of Latin American Studies55(4), 653–677 (2023) https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022216X23000731

2023 doi
[18]

Basic Books, New York (2019).https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/bhaskar-sunkara/the-socialist- manifesto/9781541674004/

Sunkara, B.: The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Pol- itics in an Era of Extreme Inequality. Basic Books, New York (2019).https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/bhaskar-sunkara/the-socialist- manifesto/9781541674004/

2019
[19]

Government and Opposition39(4), 541–563 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x

Mudde, C.: The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39(4), 541–563 (2004) https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x

2004
[20]

The Guardian (2024)

Chrisafis, A.: On the brink of power: how france’s national rally reinvented itself. The Guardian (2024)

2024
[21]

Nai, A.: Fear and loathing in populist campaigns? Comparing the communication style of populists and non-populists in elections worldwide20(2), 219–250 (2021)

2021
[22]

Zanotto, S.E., Frassinelli, D., Butt, M.: Language Complexity in Populist Rhetoric, 61–80 (2020)

2020
[23]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/ 2025/01/the-inaugural-address/

Trump, D.J.: The Inaugural Address. https://www.whitehouse.gov/remarks/ 2025/01/the-inaugural-address/. Accessed: 2025-05-08 (2025)

2025
[24]

West European Politics34(6), 1272–1283 (2011)

Rooduijn, M., Pauwels, T.: Measuring populism: Comparing two methods of content analysis. West European Politics34(6), 1272–1283 (2011)

2011
[25]

New Media & Society (2022)

Gr¨ undl, J.: Populist ideas on social media: A dictionary-based measurement of populist communication. New Media & Society (2022)

2022
[26]

presidential cam- paigns (1952–2020) with neural language models

Bonikowski, B., Luo, Y., Stuhler, O.: Politics as usual? measuring populism, nationalism, and authoritarianism in u.s. presidential cam- paigns (1952–2020) with neural language models. Sociological Methods & Research51(4), 1721–1787 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124122112...

2022 doi
[27]

Political Analysis (2023)

Wang, Y.: Topic classification for political texts with pretrained language models. Political Analysis (2023)

2023
[28]

Political Analysis (2023)

Wang, Y.: On finetuning large language models. Political Analysis (2023)

2023
[29]

Journal of Politics (2025)

Widmann, T.: Do politicians appeal to discrete emotions? the effect of wind turbine construction on elite discourse. Journal of Politics (2025)

2025
[30]

Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (2020)

Chan, B., Schweter, S., , M¨ oller, T.: German’s next language model. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (2020)

2020
[31]

Political Research Exchange (2024)

Hunger, S.: Virtuous people and evil elites? the role of moralizing frames and nor- mative distinctions in identifying populist discourse. Political Research Exchange (2024)

2024
[32]

Proceedings of NAACL- HLT, 4171–4186 (2019)

Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., Toutanova, K.: Bert: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. Proceedings of NAACL- HLT, 4171–4186 (2019)

2019
[33]

arXiv:2302.10198 (2023)

Zhong, Q., Ding, L., Liu, J., Du, B., Tao, D.: Can ChatGPT Understand Too? A Comparative Study on ChatGPT and Fine-tuned BERT. arXiv:2302.10198 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[34]

arXiv:2411.05050 (2024)

Wang, Y., Qu, W., Ye, X.: Selecting Between BERT and GPT for Text Classification in Political Science Research. arXiv:2411.05050 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[35]

SAGE Publications, London (2015).https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the- politics-of-fear/book246482

Wodak, R.: The Politics of Fear: What Right-Wing Populist Discourses Mean. SAGE Publications, London (2015).https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/the- politics-of-fear/book246482

2015
[36]

Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (2016)

Moffitt, B.: The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style, and Representation. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA (2016). https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=24978

2016
[37]

Columbia Global Reports, New York, NY (2016)

Judis, J.B.: The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics. Columbia Global Reports, New York, NY (2016)

2016
[38]

1038/s41598-021-04536-6

Le Normand, M.-T., Thai-Van, H.: The role of Function Words to build syntac- tic knowledge in French-speaking children12(1), 544 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1038/s41598-021-04536-6 . Accessed 2025-05-02

2022
[39]

Basic Books, New York (1990).https://archive.org/details/talkingpowerpoli00lako 16

Lakoff, R.T.: Talking Power: The Politics of Language in Our Lives. Basic Books, New York (1990).https://archive.org/details/talkingpowerpoli00lako 16

1990
[40]

Annual Review of Psychology54, 547–577 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041

Pennebaker, J.W., Mehl, M.R., Niederhoffer, K.G.: Psychological aspects of natu- ral language use: Our words, our selves. Annual Review of Psychology54, 547–577 (2003) https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145041

2003
[41]

The British Journal of Politics and International Relations24(3), 437–457 (2022) https://doi.org/10

Lacatus, C., Meibauer, G.: ‘saying it like it is’: Right-wing populism, inter- national politics, and the performance of authenticity. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations24(3), 437–457 (2022) https://doi.org/10. 1177/13691481221089137

2022
[42]

ECPR Press, Colchester (2015)

Pappas, T., Kriesi, H.: European Populism in the Shadow of the Great Recession. ECPR Press, Colchester (2015)

2015
[43]

Hawkins, K.A.: Is ch´ avez populist? Comparative Political Studies42(8), 1040– 1067 (2009) https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009331721

2009 doi
[44]

Social Forces94(4), 1593–1621 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov120 https://academic.oup.com/sf/article- pdf/94/4/1593/7572409/sov120.pdf

Bonikowski, B., Gidron, N.: The populist style in american politics: Pres- idential campaign discourse, 1952–1996. Social Forces94(4), 1593–1621 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/sov120 https://academic.oup.com/sf/article- pdf/94/4/1593/7572409/sov120.pdf

2015 doi
[45]

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2019)

Norris, P., Inglehart, R.: Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit, and Authoritarian Populism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2019)

2019
[46]

Harvard Dataverse (2019)

Hawkins, K.A., Aguilar, R., Castanho Silva, B., Jenne, E.K., Kocijan, B., Rovira Kaltwasser, C.: Measuring populist discourse: The global populism database. Harvard Dataverse (2019)

2019
[47]

Presidential Campaigns (1952–2020) with Neural Language Models

Bonikowski, B., Luo, Y., Stuhler, O.: Politics as Usual? Measuring Populism, Nationalism, and Authoritarianism in U.S. Presidential Campaigns (1952–2020) with Neural Language Models. Sociological Methods & Research (2022) 17 Appendix Model Comparison between Google Translate a...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Mudde, C.: The Populist Zeitgeist39(4), 542–563 (2004)

work page 2004

[2] [3]

Verso Books, London (2005)

Laclau, E.: On Populist Reason. Verso Books, London (2005)

work page 2005

[3] [4]

The Background and the Consequences of American Security Policies

Shils, E.: The Torment of Secrecy. The Background and the Consequences of American Security Policies. Free Press, Glencoe (1956)

work page 1956

[4] [5]

American Behavioral Scientist69(5), 507–525 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00027642241240343 https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240343

Ayta¸ c, S.E., C ¸ arko˘ glu, A., El¸ ci, E.: Populist appeals, emotions, and political mobi- lization. American Behavioral Scientist69(5), 507–525 (2025) https://doi.org/ 10.1177/00027642241240343 https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642241240343

work page doi:10.1177/00027642241240343 2025

[5] [6]

Accessed 2025-03-01

Jordan, K.N., Sterling, J., Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L.: Examining long-term trends in politics and culture through language of political leaders and cultural institutions116(9), 3476–3481 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1811987116 . Accessed 2025-03-01

work page doi:10.1073/pnas.1811987116 2019

[6] [7]

Accessed 2025-03-01

Tucker, E.C., Capps, C.J., Shamir, L.: A data science approach to 138 years of congressional speeches6(8) (2020) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04417 32904137. Accessed 2025-03-01

work page doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04417 2020

[7] [8]

https://doi.org/10.15781/T29G6Z

Pennebaker, J., Boyd, R., Jordan, K., Blackburn, K.: The Development and Psy- chometric Properties of LIWC2015, Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin (2015). https://doi.org/10.15781/T29G6Z

doi:10.15781/t29g6z 2015

[8] [9]

arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

Liu, Y., Ott, M., Goyal, N., Du, J., Joshi, M., Chen, D., Levy, O., Lewis, M., Zettlemoyer, L., Stoyanov, V.: RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach. arXiv:1907.11692 (2019)

arXiv 2019