Volume 22, Issue 6
  • ISSN 1569-2159
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9862
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. 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 Communication691: 67–83. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bull, Peter
    1994 On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interviews. Journal of Language and Social Psychology13(2): 115–153. 10.1177/0261927X94132002
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X94132002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chang, J.
    2020, February26. San Francisco Chinatown Affected by Coronavirus Fears, Despite No Conffrmed Cases: NPR. NPR. Retrieved fromhttps://www.npr.org/2020/02/26/809741251/san-francisco-chinatown-affected-by-coronavirus-fears-despite-no-confirmed-cases
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Chovanec, Jan
    2020 “Those are not my words”: Evasion and metalingual accountability in political scandal talkJournal of Pragmatics1581: 66–79. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  5. Clayman, Steven
    2001 Answers and evasionsLanguage in Society30 (3): 403–442. 10.1017/S0047404501003037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501003037 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2002 Disagreements and third parties: dilemma of neutralism in panel news interviews. Journal of Pragmatics341:1385–1401. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00070‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00070-X [Google Scholar]
  7. 2013 Conversation analysis in the news interviewIn: The Handbook of Conversation Analysised. bySidnell Jack. and Stivers Tanya. 630–656. Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Clayman, Steven and John Heritage
    2002aThe News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511613623
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613623 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2002b Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of U.S presidents Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication52(4): 749–775. 10.1111/j.1460‑2466.2002.tb02572.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x [Google Scholar]
  10. 2021 Conversation analysis and the study of sociohistorical change. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 54(2): 225–240. 10.1080/08351813.2021.1899717
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899717 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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 Review72(1): 23–41. 10.1177/000312240707200102
    https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240707200102 [Google Scholar]
  12. Degani, Marta
    2016 “Endangered intellect: A case study of Clinton vs. Trump campaign discourse.” Iperstoria – Testi Letterature Linguaggi81.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 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 Medicine2691: 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ekström, Mats
    2009a Announced refusal to answer: a study of norms and accountability in broadcast political interviews. Discourse Studies11(6): 681–702. 10.1177/1461445609347232
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609347232 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2009b Power and affiliation in presidential press conferences-A study on interruptions, jokes and laughter. Journal of Language and Politics8(3): 386–415. 10.1075/jlp.8.3.03eks
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.8.3.03eks [Google Scholar]
  16. Ekström, Mats. and Goran Eriksson
    2018 Press conferencesIn: The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politicsed. byWodak, Ruth and Bernhard Forchtner, 342–354. Taylor &Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gitlin, Todd
    2018 From ‘Liberal Media’ to ‘Fake News’. The American Prospect121.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Greatbatch, David
    1986a Aspects of topical organization in news interviews: the use of agenda-shifting procedures by interviews. Media, Culture and Society8(4): 441–455. 10.1177/0163443786008004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443786008004005 [Google Scholar]
  19. 1988 A turn-taking system for British news interviewsLanguage in Society17(3), 401–430. 10.1017/S0047404500012963
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012963 [Google Scholar]
  20. Harris, Sandra
    1991 Evasion action: how politicians respond to questions in political interviewsIn: Broadcast Talked. byPaddy Scannell, 76–99. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Heritage, John
    1984bGarfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 1985 Amazing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: Handbook of Discourse Analysised. byTeun A. Dijk, 95–119. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 2002b The limits of questioning: negative interrogatives and hostile question content. Journal of Pragmatics34 (10–11): 1427–1446. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00072‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heritage, John and Steven, Clayman
    2010Talk in InteractionWiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Heritage, John and Greatbatch, David
    1986 Greeting applause: a study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology92(1): 110–157. 10.1086/228465
    https://doi.org/10.1086/228465 [Google Scholar]
  26. 1991 On the institutional character of institutional talk: The case of news interviews. In: Talk and social structure: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysised. byBoden Deirdre and Donald Zimmerman, 93–137. Berkeley: University of California Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacobsen, Ronald Rosendal
    2019 Interruption and co-construction in the First 2016 Trump-Clinton US presidential debate. Journal of Pragmatics1481: 71–87. 10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.05.019 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jones, H. Rodney
    2021 The wounded leader: The illness narratives of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump. Discourse, Context and Media411:1–11. 10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100499
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2021.100499 [Google Scholar]
  29. Kumar, Joynt Martha
    2020 Contemporary presidency–Presidents meet reporters: Is Donard Trump an outlier among recent presidents?Presidential Studies Quarterly501: 193–215. 10.1111/psq.12638
    https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12638 [Google Scholar]
  30. Montgomery, Martin
    2017 Post-truth politics? -Authentity, populism and the electoral discourses of Donald Trump. Journal of Language and Politics16(4): 619–639. 10.1075/jlp.17023.mon
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17023.mon [Google Scholar]
  31. Reyes, Antonio
    2020 I, Trump-The cult of personality, anti-intellectualism and the Post-Truth era. Journal of Language and Politics19(6): 869–893. 10.1075/jlp.20002.rey
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.20002.rey [Google Scholar]
  32. Romaniuk, Tanya
    2013 Pursuing answers to questions in broadcast journalism. Research on Language and Social Interaction46 (2): 144–164. 10.1080/08351813.2013.780339
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.780339 [Google Scholar]
  33. Ross, S. Andrew and Caldwell, David
    2020 ‘Going negative’: An ALLRAISAL analysis of the rhetoric of Donald Trump on twitter. Language and Communication701: 13–27. 10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2019.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schalash, D.
    (2020) The disaffiliative use of ‘did you know’ questions in Arabic news interviews: the case of Aljazeera’s ‘The opposite direction’. Discourse Studies22(5): 590–609. 10.1177/1461445620916367
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620916367 [Google Scholar]
  35. Schubert, Christoph
    2019 ‘Ok, well, first of all, let me say…’: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies21(4): 438–457. 10.1177/1461445619842734
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619842734 [Google Scholar]
  36. Sclafani, Jennifer
    2018Talking about Donald Trump: A Sociolinguistic Study of Style, Metadiscourse, and Political Identity. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Stopfner, Maria
    2021 Just thank God for Donald Trump – Dialogue practices of populists and their supporters before and after taking office. Journal of Pragmatics1861: 308–320. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.002 [Google Scholar]
  38. ten Have, Paul
    1999Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide. London: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wodak, Ruth and Michal Krzyzanowski
    2017 Right-wing populism in Europe & USA-Contesting politics & discourse beyond ‘Orbanism’ and ‘Trumpism’, Journal of Language and Politics16(4): 471–484. 10.1075/jlp.17042.krz
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17042.krz [Google Scholar]
  40. Wodak, Ruth, Jonathan Culpeper and Elena Semino
    2020 Shameless normalization of impoliteness: Berlusconi’s and Trump’s press conferences. Discourse & Society32(3): 369–393. 10.1177/0957926520977217
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520977217 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error