Donald Trump's Linguistic Strategies

 

1. Introduction

Successful communication asserts a common sense when it comes to social interaction. This is especially crucial in the face of the power relation between politicians and their followers. It is a common skill of politicians to be able to properly utilize communication strategies as to effectively convey a message or make use of tactics to influence followers. It can therefore be asserted that an aptness in effective use of politeness and impoliteness strategies1 is necessary in political discourse.

The proper use of politeness and impoliteness strategies is closely tied to the language tool of manipulation (Slavova 2012: 170). Political discourse resembles a constant power struggle as well as a cooperation between those who hold power and those who the ones in power rely on to maintain it. Therefore, it is of some significance for the one in power to properly communicate with his or her supporters. This double-sided power struggle, which entails on the one hand, to assert dominance and on the other hand, to maintain positive relations, asserts a high level of aptness when it comes to proper manipulation of social interaction (Slavova 2012: 170-171).

President Donald Trump’s use of language has been subject of investigation as well as criticism. Many think that his language style is uncalculated, with a large amount of people even calling it “word salad” (Lakoff 2016). His voters have praised him for always “tell[ing] it as it is” (BBC News 2016), thereby painting a picture of sincerity. But how sincere is the recently-elected president? George Lakoff writes in a blog post on his website that “[e]very time someone in the media claims his discourse is word salad it helps Trump by hiding what he is really doing.” (2016) This research paper aims to dispute the assumption that President Trump’s use of language is uncalculated by focussing on the utilization of politeness and impoliteness strategies in relation to political discourse, as outlined and categorized by Brown & Levinson, and Culpeper. Subject of analysis is a television interview held by ABC’s David Muir with President Trump. The analysis is an attempt to provide evidence to expose President

Trump’s strategic use of politeness and impoliteness strategies to assert his power over his critics and create a false sense of balance between him and his followers.

2. Previous Research

In order to engage in an analysis of the interview based on certain concepts and categorizations, a frame of reference has to be established. The research conducted in this analysis will be based on categorizations and definitions as well as concepts proposed, mainly, in these three different research areas: Politeness strategies as outlined by Brown & Levinson (1987), impoliteness strategies as discussed by Culpeper (1996) and a basic concept of politeness strategies as used in political discourse, with a specific focus on power as discussed by Culpeper (2005, 2008). The concept of face, as outlined by Goffman (1967), will also be explained as it lies at the foundation of further categorizations.

Other notable research conducted by academics should be mentioned as well: Especially in the field of politeness theory, research has been covered vastly since the beginning of the 1970s. This includes concepts created by Leech in 1983 (Politeness Maxims) and Lakoff in 1973 (Politeness Principles), as well as the commonly cited politeness strategies as conceptualized by Brown & Levinson in 1978. Impoliteness theory took longer to catch on. With Culpeper’s Impoliteness Strategies as a ground level, researchers such as Bousfield (Monography of Impoliteness) in 2008 and Watts’ work on concepts of aggression and rudeness in 2003 did much to extend existing concepts.

However, these concepts have also been criticized for lacking certain variables. One of them being the rather fluid definitions made in regards to power. In his essay, Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power (2008), Culpeper states that

“concerns have been raised about the way in which different studies tend to emphasize different aspects of the notion of power”. (22)

Politeness strategies in general, but with a focus on political discourse, based on concepts discussed by Brown & Levinson (1973), Goffman (1967), as well as Culpeper (1996, 2005, 2008) will be further detailed in this part of the research paper.

2.1. (Im-)Politeness Strategies

Politeness research has seen a vast number of concepts. The following summary serves to briefly list and describe those concepts which are significant for the analysis engaged in in this research paper, beginning with Goffman’s concept of face.

Goffman developed his concept in 1967, which defined face as

“[...] the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact.” (Goffman 1967:5)

This definition assumes that face is a socially constructed concept. Further extension, however, have distorted the extrinsic definition of face, as described by Goffman and turned it into a phenomenon which is basic to human consciousness.

Brown and Levinson defined face as an internal occurrence which is natural to people, by dividing it into two categories and thereby giving it a dualistic meaning: positive and negative face. Positive face is described as “the want of every member that his/her wants be desirable to at least some others”, while negative face is defined as “the want of every ‘competent adult member’ that his/her actions be unimpeded by others.” (Brown et al. 1987:62). In context to the definitions of face Brown and Levinson developed their definitions of positive and negative politeness.

Positive politeness presumes an approach where a speaker

“[...] ‘anoints’ the face of the addressee by indicating that in some respects, S wants H’s wants (e.g. by treating him as a member of an in-group, a friend, a person whose wants and personality traits are known and liked).”

The approach in negative politeness would be to avoid negatively affecting a hearer’s negative face, which would entail that

“the speaker recognizes and respects the addressee’s negative face wants and will not (or will only minimally) interfere with the addressee’s freedom of action.” (Brown et al. 1987:70)

Brown & Levinson came up with four super-strategies which were supposed to be ways of avoiding events which they coined Face-Threatening Acts, acts which challenge the face of an interlocuter in some way (Brown et al. 1987: 70): bald, on-record politeness; positive politeness, negative politeness, and off-record politeness and. (Brown et al. 1987: 69-131). These can then be further explained by giving examples. (1) Positive politeness could be achieved via compliments, attentiveness towards the hearer by the speaker, or showing sympathy or approval towards the hearer. (2) Negative politeness can be achieved via restraint, self-effacement or showing formality via apology or deference of speaker towards hearer. (3) Bald, on-record politeness could be achieved via order or commands that are commonly used in situations where the face threat to the hearer is very low. (4) Off-record politeness assumes a great risk to the hearer’s face and is only implied by means of indirectness (hinting, being vague). (Brown et. al 1987: 69 -131).

Impoliteness is a topic which has received less attention. Culpeper developed a model of impoliteness in 1996, which is largely based on the above-mentioned ideas and marks a kind of opposite to Brown & Levinson’s politeness model. Culpeper defined impoliteness as “the use of strategies that are designed to [cause] social disruption” (Culpeper 1996:350). Based on Brown & Levinson’s five politeness strategies, he developed six impoliteness strategies: Bald, on-record impoliteness; Positive Impoliteness, Negative Impoliteness, Off-Record Impoliteness2, Sarcasm or mock politeness, and Withholding Politeness.: (1) Bald, on-record impoliteness is achieved by means of direct and uninhibited attack to the hearer’s face, where the hearer’s face is already weakened. (2) Positive impoliteness is achieved via disassociation or disinterest in the hearer’s positive face wants (ignoring, snubbing, using inappropriate identity markers). (3) Negative impoliteness is achieved by frightening or ridiculing the hearer to where his or her negative face is threatened. (4) Withholding politeness is achieved via refraining from using politeness when it is expected. (5) Sarcasm (mock politeness) is achieved via implicature and expressing the opposite of what is actually said. (Culpeper 1996: 356-358, 2005: 44)

These theories and concepts are under constant investigation and extended upon frequently. However, those mentioned in this text, so far, will make up the categorization used in the analysis (see chart on pg. 17-18).

2.2. (Im-)Politeness Strategies in Political Discourse

Power is subject to several factors in language analysis: Relative power, social distance and imposition (Brown et al. 1992: 76-77).

Relative power is decided by level of authority and social status. This becomes clear in the following statement by Culpeper:

“The fact that impoliteness is more likely to occur in situations where there is an imbalance of power is reflected in its relatively frequent appearance in courtroom discourse. The witness has limited capacity to negotiate face wants, whereas the barrister has almost unlimited capacity to threaten and aggravate the face.” (Culpeper 1996: 354)

Social distance as a factor in power relation describes the familiarity between speaker and hearer. (Brown et al. 1987: 76-77) It is often decided by factors such as age, sex and sociocultural background.

Imposition is a factor that appears in power relations as part of requests or desires. The deciding factor here is the level of intensity of the face threat. (Brown et al. 1987: 78)

Political discourse, however, is subject to a unique power struggle, a type of co-operative power situation, which presupposes the acceptance and support of the speaker by the hearer, but at the same time, a hierarchical assertion of dominance by the speaker over the hearer. (Slavova: 170-171). Instead of the power relation being clear, it is distorted by the politician’s desire to influence his listener. Politicians often make use of politeness and impoliteness strategies, which both represent very different aims.

Politeness is a useful tool when the aim is to influence people. Many politicians will attempt to choose the path which least threatens their follower’s face to ensure their support. (Fairclough 1995: 1) Brown & Levinson describe also that power influences a speaker to be politer to the interlocuter with less power (Brown et al.: 1992: 76).

Strategies of politeness can both affect positive and negative face. The goal of using such a strategy is to achieve and maintain a balance of power.

The speaker wishes to both assert dominance and give a sense of unity and closeness between the speaker and the hearer at the same time. (Slavova 2012: 172)

Impoliteness achieves a different aim in political discourse in that it is less concerned with achieving balance. It is mostly about power assertion. It can be gathered from this that a powerful speaker would have an increased level of freedom to engage in impoliteness, because of a sense of entitlement as to not having to experience retaliation in the form of returned impoliteness. (Culpeper 1996: 354) Culpeper, drawing on Beebe (1995), describes further in his 2008 article, that impoliteness is effective in power relations in the following ways:

“(1) To appear superior. Includes “insults” and “putdowns”. (2) To get power over actions (to get someone else to do something or avoid doing something yourself). Includes “sarcasm” and “pushy politeness” used to get people to do something, as well as attempts to get people to “go away or leave us alone or finish their business more quickly”. (3) To get power in conversation (i.e. to do conversational management) (to make the interlocutor talk, stop talking, shape what they tell you, or to get the floor). Includes saying “shush!” and rude interruptions.” (27)

Impoliteness in political discourse tends to mostly affect the hearer’s negative face, as explained by Culpeper:

“[…] impoliteness can restrict an interactant’s action-environment insofar as the producer pressures the interactant into a reaction […].” (Culpeper 1996: 24)

However, this is different in an interview setting, in which it is common to affect both negative and positive face.

A further notable aspect of politeness and impoliteness in regards to political discourse is speech etiquette. Broadly speaking it can be said that following Grice’s conversational maxims (Grice 1973: 51) would lead to a proper use of speech etiquette. However, politicians tend to either strictly adhere to or break communication rules to achieve their aim in the power struggle. Speech etiquette includes:

“addressing, congratulations, saying good-bye, saying thanks, agreement or disagreement [and adheres to a set of rules based on] nationally, ethnically and socially conditioned rules of speech behaviour” (173)

The following analysis will take these categorizations into consideration.

3. Methodology

Against the backdrop of the theories discussed above and with the hypothesis in mind, this analysis seeks to manually investigate the politeness and impoliteness strategies used in the 2017 interview between ABC’s David Muir and President Trump. Table 1 in the appendix shows the categorizations utilized in this analysis. Table 2 shows a category list for the FTAs and the FTA strategies. Table 3 in the appendix shows the results of the analysis which are divided into relevant sections of the interview, and subdivided into data-set number, speaker name, utterances, and FTAs. The fourth and fifth tables show politeness strategies and impoliteness strategies and their function in political discourse by categorizing them and dividing, as follows: data-set number, strategy and function in relation to political discourse.

4. Results

The analysis shows the following results.: Table 3 shows that out of the 20 examples of data sets, including 49 separate utterances, 25 made by the interviewer and 24 made by the interviewed, 12 cannot be categorized in any way as Face Threatening Acts. 7 of those come from the interviewer, whose voice is not evaluated in the politeness and impoliteness strategy analysis. 7 out of the 24 utterances made by President Trump cannot be categorized as Face Threatening Acts. The most common Face Threatening Act chosen by President Trump is interruption (10 instances). Second are the following: Disapproval, expression of negative emotion towards hearer, disagreement and boasting (3 instances each). Third are complaints and criticism (2 instances each) and, happening only once, are advice, promise, challenge (although many of the responses can be categorized as such, they are more specific and were therefore not categorized as ‘challenge’), non-cooperative activity, assumption and insult.

Table 4 shows politeness strategies utilized by President Trump in the interview: Out of 10 strategies used, 9 can be categorized as positive politeness. Only once does he use negative politeness.

Table 5 summarizes the use of impoliteness strategies by President Trump: Out of 20 occurrences of impoliteness, 12 can be categorized as positive impoliteness, 7 can be categorized as negative impoliteness and 1 can be categorized as on-record, bald impoliteness.

An interpretation of the results will be based on the quantity of the Face Threatening Acts, and (im-)politeness strategies.

5. Discussion of Results

When attempting to discuss the results of the analysis, it is important to mention that any interview situation involves them. Questioning, challenging and disapproving are quite normal occurrences in an interview setting. As described by Brown & Levinson (1987: 74), the social distance between the interviewer and the interviewed causes a type of antagonistic tension (Lauerbach 2007: 1331), especially in this case, because the interviewer and the interviewed have opposing political views. It should be clear that President Trump’s reactions would possibly have been much different, were the questions coming from a politically like-minded party.

In regards to general speech etiquette, the interview starts out with both parties greeting each other appropriately. (Data Set 1). However, President Trump loses his interest in making use of proper speech etiquette abruptly after the first serious question.

The rate of FTAs shows the antagonistic views of the participants. Both engage in Face Threatening Acts. However, this is not a comparative study. Therefore, the focus will be on utterances made by President Trump only. The most commonly used FTA is that of interruption. Trump uses interruption often in an attempt to show disregard of the interviewer’s question, thereby disputing or even condescending its value. The following example (data set 13) exemplifies this well: 

DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ... 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID MUIR: ... false. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports. 

DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found no evidence of voter ...

By over-talking, Trump tries to circumvent the assumption of the speaker. Not only does the interviewer get interrupted, a general atmosphere of domination is established. He does not let the speaker finish his thoughts and thereby disregards it before it is even uttered. By means of interruption, President Trump challenges the speaker’s face, portraying that his assertion of facts does not matter to him. In one instance (data set 19), he even ignores the speaker’s question altogether: 

DAVID MUIR: You're now the president. Do you want waterboarding? 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: I don't want people to chop off the citizens or anybody's heads in the Middle East. Okay? Because they're Christian or Muslim or anything else. I don't want -- look, you are old enough to have seen a time that was much different. You never saw heads chopped off until a few years ago. Trump threatens the hearer’s positive as well as negative face by interrupting and disregarding the speaker, because he is implying that the hearer has less of a right to speak, thereby challenging the hearer’s freedom to choose when to speak, and giving the hearer the feeling that his opinion is of less value. This is done by asserting power. Many of Trumps responses can be categorized as challenges, such as the example in data set 13 (see above). By disputing the hearer’s statement, he threatens his positive face. Because of this being an adversarial interview setting, however, it is common for challenges to occur. Other FTAs used are disapproval and disagreement: 

DAVID MUIR: I just wanna say I didn't demean anyone who was in that crowd. We did coverage for hours ...

(OVERTALK) 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, I think you’re demeaning by talking the way you're talking. I think you're demeaning. And that's why I think a lot of people turned on you and turned on a lot of other people. And that's why you have a 17 percent approval rating, which is pretty bad. 

In data set 18, the interviewer is attempting to reassure listeners that he did not do what Trump implied in his previous statement. Trump does not let him finish, however, and reasserts his dominance in conversation by not only interrupting but by attacking the interviewer’s positive face further by stating that his “demeaning” behavior is causing his own occupational failure. Trump shows disapproval towards the interviewer and others who he subtly categorizes and generalizes as those with a low approval, which asserts his own power as the one allowed, in this conversation, to categorize and generalize. He also disagrees with the interviewer by introducing his statement with the negator ‘No’, which is another attack on the interviewer’s positive face, by implying that the interviewer is wrong or misguided. This statement by President Trump also includes a fairly direct expression of negative feeling toward the interviewer as a person and a devaluation of his professionality. This is usually a threat to the interviewer’s negative face, because it could possibly challenge his ability to engage in his profession if a high-status person disapproves. 

However, in the case of an interview setting, if still unconventional to engage in this sort of personal attack, it is not dangerous to the interviewer to be disapproved of by the person in a higher-status position. A further, interesting example of face threatening can be found in the following, and two other, data sets (14, 16, 17): 

DAVID MUIR: Mr. President, I just have one more question on this. And it's -- it's bigger picture. You took some heat after your visit to the CIA in front of that hallowed wall, 117 stars -- of those lost at the CIA. You talked about other things. But you also talked about crowd size at the inauguration, about the size of your rallies, about covers on Time magazine. And I just wanna ask you when does all of that matter just a little less? When do you let it roll off your back now that you're the president? […] 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: People loved it. They loved it. They gave me a standing ovation for a long period of time. They never even sat down, most of them, during the speech. There was love in the room. You and other networks covered it very inaccurately. I hate to say this to you and you probably won't put it on but turn on Fox and see how it was covered. And see how people respond to that speech. 

President Trump engages in the FTA of boasting 3 times, thereby disregarding the hearer’s positive face. He disputes the interviewer’s statement with a response of self-elevation. This creates an adversarial atmosphere of status hierarchy. Towards the end, President Trump even engages in an indirect FTA. 

This can be seen in data set 20: 

DAVID MUIR: You've heard the critics who say that would break all international law, taking the oil. But I wanna get to the words ... 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID MUIR: ... that you ... 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Wait, wait, can you believe that? Who are the critics who say that? Fools. 

Here, President Trump does not only question the sincerity of the statement made by the interviewer but very directly insults the third party mentioned via context, which indirectly insults the interviewer himself, as he is the one citing them, therefore very likely convinced of their credibility. This threatens the interviewer’s positive face by association. Further Face Threatening Acts, such as criticism and complaint all serve the purpose of establishing a power situation between President Trump and the interviewer David Muir. By attacking the Muir’s positive face, Trump achieves a sense of authority, sometimes even challenging Muir’s credibility as a journalist. By attacking his negative face, which occurs less frequently, he asserts that it is he who decides which questions will be answered, thereby challenging Muir’s position as a journalist. As stated briefly before, successful communication depends partly on the proper use of politeness strategies. President Trump also makes use of them, most likely with a desire for power in the back of his mind. This becomes clear when analyzing the politeness strategies used: Mostly using positive politeness, Trump, knowing that it is of political advantage to react politely, manages to establish a sense of balance between him and the interviewer, even though he makes frequent use of FTAs do achieve the opposite. This where the above-mentioned power struggle becomes clear. While establishing his dominance as the one of higher status, he still needs to maintain a balance between him and his interviewer, because of the fact that the audience would, most likely, not approve of a president who blatantly disregards the interviewer’s value as a person. In this analysis 3 out of 9 politeness strategies were categorized as fulfilling the aim of achieving a balance of power. 

This is exemplified in the following sentence (data set 5): 

DAVID MUIR: So, they'll pay us back? 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Yeah, absolutely, 100 percent. 

By agreeing to Muir’s implicitly stated terms and offering a promise, Trump is establishing a balance of power. What Muir is hinting at is the hopes that the American people were not deceived. President Trump making an effort to discredit that idea by being respectful to Muir is a statement that reaches beyond the conversation. The goal is achieved every time he offers a promise. Further politeness strategies are approval, avoiding disagreement, agreement, and asserting common ground. Those are classified in Table 4 as achieving an aim of creating a sense of unity. Trump engages in these strategies to create an atmosphere in which the interviewer perceives him as workable. By putting himself on the same level as Muir, Trump is making up for the times he caused Muir to feel discredited or disrespected and achieves a level of professionality for the audience to see. 

The following example (data set 10) shows this clearly. 

DAVID MUIR: ... what I'm asking that -- when you say in your opinion millions of illegal votes, that is something that is extremely fundamental to our functioning democracy, a fair and free election. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. Sure. Sure. 

By agreeing with Muir repeatedly, Trump is showing approval of his opinion and standpoint. Claiming common ground seems to be essential when making a hearer feel comfortable enough to state his beliefs. In this way, Trump is creating a space in which both parties are on the same level about a specific issue. The single time Trump engages in negative politeness, he is doing so by using the pronoun “we”, also achieving the same aim as was just mentioned. 

Data set 12 shows this clearly: 

DAVID MUIR: But 3 to 5 million illegal votes? 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Well, we're gonna find out. But it could very well be that much. Absolutely.

Examining this utterance makes it clear that by using the pronoun “we”, Trump is both agreeing to the issue being a valid one and claiming that both him and his opposition have the same goal in mind. The analysis shows that President Trump tends to impoliteness as a sign of power rather than politeness: Out of 30 instances, 19 are categorized as impoliteness strategies. 12 out of those 19 can be identified as positive impoliteness and 7 as negative impoliteness. Positive impoliteness is used here mostly as a way to personally attack Muir’s supporters and followers and to discredit opposing ideas. When Trump chooses to discredit Muir, he is, by association, discrediting the people who oppose him, which he considers Muir to be part of. Trump uses positive politeness here to assert his dominance on several different levels. 

The one impoliteness strategy he makes use of the most (data set 6, 8 , 13, 14, 15 and 20) is ignoring Muir’s questions by means of deflecting. 

DAVID MUIR: But you have tweeted ... 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID MUIR: ... about the millions of illegals ... 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Sure. And I do -- and I'm very ... 

This example (data set 8) shows that by ignoring Muir’s attempt to ask a question and simply speaking as he pleases, Trump manages to get control of the conversation. He does this quite frequently throughout the interview. 

The following example (data set 13) adds one further impoliteness strategy: 

DAVID MUIR: What you have presented so far has been debunked. It's been called ... 

(OVERTALK) 

DAVID MUIR: ... false. 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: No, it hasn't. Take a look at the Pew reports. 

DAVID MUIR: I called the author of the Pew report last night. And he told me that they found no evidence of voter ...

Not only is Trump ignoring Muir, he is also actively seeking disagreement. Therefore, he is not only getting control of the conversation but also attempting to assert a higher status as that of someone who decides what is true and what is false. 

In data set 4, Trump actively snubs Muir by using his name is a way that conveys a sense of implying Muir should be smarter than to ask that kind of a question: 

DAVID MUIR: But you talked -- often about Mexico paying for the wall. And you, again, say they'll pay us back. Mexico's president said in recent days that Mexico absolutely will not pay, adding that, "It goes against our dignity as a country and our dignity as Mexicans." He says ... 

(OVERTALK) 

PRESIDENT TRUMP: David, he has to say that. He has to say that. But I'm just telling you there will be a payment. It will be in a form, perhaps a complicated form. And you have to understand what I'm doing is good for the United States. It's also going to be good for Mexico. 

By engaging in this type of down-talking, Trump is asserting a higher status than that of Muir. At the same time, this statement is condescending. Trump is attacking both his positive as well as his negative face. He is snubbing Muir and affecting him on a personal level and also condescending, which not only affects Muir but also conveys an image of perceived superiority coming from the president. Negative Impoliteness strategies utilized are ridiculing, with the same aim as condescending and putting Muir’s indebtedness on record. 

In data set 7 Trump does just that: 

DAVID MUIR: I wanna ask you about something you said this week right here at the White House. You brought in congressional leaders to the White House. You spoke at length about the presidential election with them -- telling them that you lost the popular vote because of millions of illegal votes, 3 to 5 million illegal votes. That would be the biggest electoral fraud in American history. Where is the evidence of that?

PRESIDENT TRUMP: So, let me tell you first of all, it was so misrepresented. That was supposed to be a confidential meeting. And you weren't supposed to go out and talk to the press as soon as you -- but the Democrats viewed it not as a confidential meeting. 

Trump responds in a way that demands of Muir to change his behavior. It is a rather emotional reaction. By telling Muir he was not supposed to do what he did, he is making it clear that such actions will possibly not be tolerated in the future and should not have happened in the past. Trump gains a level of control of a situation by asserting his status as someone who is capable of making decisions for others. If it were stronger, it could even be considered a threat. What becomes clear in this examination of the results is that Trump tends to use power assertions and domination tactics more frequently than engaging in politeness strategies to achieve a level of balance or unity between himself and the one he is speaking to. 

But the question is: Is this just emotional behavior or is he actively engaging in tactics to express his level of his power?

6. Conclusion

Many media sources claim that President Trump is not very apt in using language properly and efficiently. This analysis goes to show, however, that we might be deceived. On his blog, George Lakoff states that we “have to be on [our] toes, listening carefully and ready to disbelieve Trump” (2016). This analysis shows that Trump is in a constant power battle to establish authority and then re-establish his humanity. Most likely in an attempt to refrain from being seen as a tyrant. However, the frequent use of impoliteness strategies and face threatening acts and the infrequent use of politeness strategies to balance it out create an imbalanced atmosphere in this adversarial situation. Trump seems to be more interested in displaying authority than diplomacy. But what he says and how he says it can definitely not be considered “word salad”. And just as George Lakoff points out, if we think of him in this way, we might not be aware of what is actually going on.

References

Primary Sources

ABC News. TRANSCRIPT: ABC News Anchor David Muir Interviews President Trump. ABC News. 25 Jan. 2017. Web. 7 Feb. 2017. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-abc-news-anchor-david-muir-interviews-president/story?id=45047602>

Secondary Sources

Bousfield, Derek. 2008. Impoliteness in Interaction. John Benjamins: Philadelphia and Amsterdam,

Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, Taylor Kate, Teniola Ayoola & Max Matza. Election 2016. Trump voters on why they backed him. BBC News, 9 Nov. 2016. Web. 7 Feb. 2017 <http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-36253275>

Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing political discourse: theory and practice. London, New York: Routledge:

Culpeper, Jonathan. 1996. Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. In: Journal of Pragmatics 25 349-367.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2005. ‘Impoliteness and entertainment in the television quiz show: The Weakest Link’. Journal of Politeness Research 1: 35-72.

Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. Reflections on impoliteness, relational work and power. In: Bousfield and M. Locher (eds.) Impoliteness in Language. Berlin: de Gruyter: 22-53.

Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Language and Power. New York: Longman.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. “The nature of deference and demeanor.” In: Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behaviour. Ed: E. Goffman. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. 47-95. Print.

Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In: Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts . Eds.: Cole, P and Morgan J.L.: New York: Academic. 43-58. Lakoff, Robin. 1973. The logic of Politeness; or minding your p's and q's. In: Papers from the 9th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistics Society. Chicago: Chicago Linguistics Society.

Lakoff, George. Understanding Trump’s Use of Language. George Lakoff Website. 19 Aug. 2016. Web. 09.02.2017 <https://georgelakoff.com/2016/08/19/understanding-trumps-use-of-language/>

Lauerbach, Gerda. 2007. “Argumentation in dialogic media genres - Talk shows and interviews”. In: Journal of Pragmatics, 39. Frankfurt, Elsevier: 1333–1341.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics, London, New York: Longman.

Slavova, Liudmila. 2012. “Pragmatic Aspects of Successful Communication (On the Material of Ukrainian and American Political Discourse)”. In: Language, Literature and Culture in a Changing Transatlantic World II. Eds. Ferenčík, Milan & Klaudia Bednárová-Gibová. Kyiv National University. Kyiv.169-176

Watts, Richard. 2006. Politeness. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.