Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 22:6 (2023) ► pp.918–937

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

“You are fake news”

The resistant response practices used by Donald Trump during the press briefings of 2020

 | South China Business College Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
 | Xi’an Shiyou University
Published online: 19 September 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.22107.qua
Abstract
Using the methodology of conversation analysis and a modified analytical framework, this article attempts to characterize and investigate Trump’s practices to resist the agendas of the interviewers’ questions during the press briefings held by the Trump Administration in 2020. Statistical data show that Trump mainly used four types of overt resistant response practices in order of decreasing frequency: (1) Justifying the resistance; (2) Providing a partial answer; (3) Flatly refusing to answer without any explanation; and (4) Resorting to a personal attack, which is a new type of overt resistant practices. However, only one type of covert resistant response practice is identified, i.e. Repeating words subversively. The potential reasons for Trump’s use of such practices are discussed. In essence, Trump’s deliberate use of resistant response practices is a typical reflection of the right-wing populist politicians’ claim of “authenticity” rather than “truth” in the Post-Truth era.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
    • 2.1Prior research on Trump’s political discourse
    • 2.2Prior research on resistant responses
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Data coding
  • 4.Data analysis
    • 4.1Overt category
      • 4.1.1Justifying the resistance
        • A substantial shift of the topic
        • A response containing additional turns that shifts away from that agenda
        • “I-don’t-know” followed by some explanation
        • Attacking the question directly as improper and unworthy of an answer
        • Refusing to answer on the ground that to do so would be somehow inappropriate
      • 4.1.2Providing a partial answer
      • 4.1.3Flatly refusing to answer without any explanation
      • 4.1.4Resorting to a personal attack
    • 4.2Covert category
      • Repeating words subversively
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (40)
References
Albert, Saul and Chase Raymand. 2019. Conversation analysis at the ‘middle region’ of public life: Greetings and the interactional construction of Donald Trump’ political persona. Language and Communication 691: 67–83. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bull, Peter. 1994. On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(2): 115–153. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, J. 2020, February 26. San Francisco Chinatown Affected by Coronavirus Fears, Despite No Conffrmed Cases: NPR. NPR. Retrieved from [URL]
Chovanec, Jan. 2020. “Those are not my words”: Evasion and metalingual accountability in political scandal talk Journal of Pragmatics 1581: 66–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven. 2001. Answers and evasions Language in Society 30 (3): 403–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Disagreements and third parties: dilemma of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 341:1385–1401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Conversation analysis in the news interview In: The Handbook of Conversation Analysis ed. by Sidnell Jack. and Stivers Tanya. 630–656. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven and John Heritage. 2002a. The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002b. Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52(4): 749–775. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. Conversation analysis and the study of sociohistorical change. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 54(2): 225–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven, John Heritage, Marc Elliot and McDonald Laurie. 2007. When does the watchdog bark? Conditions of aggressive questions in presidential news conferences. American Sociological Review 72(1): 23–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degani, Marta. 2016. “Endangered intellect: A case study of Clinton vs. Trump campaign discourse.” Iperstoria – Testi Letterature Linguaggi 81.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dhanani, Y. Lindsay and Franz, Berkeley. 2020. Why public health framing matters: An experimental study of the effects of Covid-19 framing on prejudice and xenophobia in the United States. Social Science and Medicine 2691: 1–8.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats. 2009a. Announced refusal to answer: a study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews. Discourse Studies 11(6): 681–702. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ekström, Mats. and Goran Eriksson. 2018. Press conferences In: The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics ed. by Wodak, Ruth and Bernhard Forchtner, 342–354. Taylor &Francis Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gitlin, Todd. 2018. From ‘Liberal Media’ to ‘Fake News’. The American Prospect 121.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greatbatch, David. 1986a. Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: the use of agenda-shifting procedures by interviews. Media, Culture and Society 8(4): 441–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews Language in Society 17(3), 401–430. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 1991. Evasion action: how politicians respond to questions in political interviews In: Broadcast Talk ed. by Paddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John. 1984b. Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1985. Amazing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: Handbook of Discourse Analysis ed. by Teun A. Dijk, 95–119. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002b. The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics 34 (10–11): 1427–1446. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Steven, Clayman. 2010. Talk in Interaction Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John and Greatbatch, David. 1986. Greeting applause: a study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology 92(1): 110–157. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1991. On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In: Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis ed. by Boden Deirdre and Donald Zimmerman, 93–137. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Ronald Rosendal. 2019. Interruption and co-construction in the First 2016 Trump-Clinton US presidential debate. Journal of Pragmatics 1481: 71–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, H. Rodney. 2021. The wounded leader: The illness narratives of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. Discourse, Context and Media 411:1–11. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kumar, Joynt Martha. 2020. Contemporary presidency–Presidents meet reporters: Is Donard Trump an outlier among recent presidents? Presidential Studies Quarterly 501: 193–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Romaniuk, Tanya. 2013. Pursuing answers to questions in broadcast journalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46 (2): 144–164. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ross, S. Andrew and Caldwell, David. 2020. ‘Going negative’: An ALLRAISAL analysis of the rhetoric of Donald Trump on twitter. Language and Communication 701: 13–27. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schalash, D. (2020). The disaffiliative use of ‘did you know’ questions in Arabic news interviews: the case of Aljazeera’s ‘The opposite direction’. Discourse Studies 22(5): 590–609. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schubert, Christoph. 2019. ‘Ok, well, first of all, let me say…’: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies 21(4): 438–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sclafani, Jennifer. 2018. Talking about Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse, and Political Identity. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stopfner, Maria. 2021. Just thank God for Donald Trump – Dialogue practices of populists and their supporters before and after taking office. Journal of Pragmatics 1861: 308–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ten Have, Paul. 1999. Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, Jonathan Culpeper and Elena Semino. 2020. Shameless normalization of impoliteness: Berlusconi’s and Trump’s press conferences. Discourse & Society 32(3): 369–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue