Anti-accusation Strategies in Donald Trump's Trial: A Pragma-Cognitive Approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31185/eduj.Vol64.Iss1.4272Keywords:
Anti-accusation, Political discourse, Speech acts, , Cognitive devices, Pragma-cognitive approachAbstract
This paper aims to examine Donald Trump's trial from a pragma-cognitive perspective. Drawing on Searle's (1969) speech acts, Grice's (1975) implicature, Yule's (1996) presupposition, and Lakoff and Johnson's (1980) conceptual metaphor theory, the paper analyzes two excerpts from two different trials of Donald Trump (Trump) depending on the pragmatic and cognitive devices stated above. As Trump was brought before the court for some charges, he resorted to defying these accusations, using anti-accusation. Anti-accusation (AC) is a technique used by a presumed defendant to defy certain charges or accusations. Based mainly on linguistic forms, AC is better manipulated by people who are known for their top-profile status, including politicians, celebrities, and other social figures. As this paper endeavors to pinpoint the pragmatic and cognitive structures of AC, it is therefore important that these structures are analyzed, decoded, and made plain. Following the analysis of the two excerpts, the study finds that Trump employs strategic speech acts, violates conversational maxims, and uses conceptual metaphors to construct alternative narratives and challenge the legitimacy of accusations while maintaining his credibility through carefully structured linguistic patterns. The study finds that AC has been a conceptual component that is mixed with linguistic and pragmatic devices to convey meanings, to mitigate defense strategies, and to construct legal grounds.
Downloads
References
Abdulsada, M.N. & Kareem, M. (2018). An analytical reconsideration of Donald Trump’s tweets. Lark Journal for Philosophy, Linguistics, & Social Sciences, 3(28), 44-58.
Al-Hilu, M.Z. & Al-Badri, W.S.Y. (2024). A pragma-stylistic analysis of two poems by Wi’aam Mulla Salmaan. The Creative Launcher, 9(6), 47-59.
Al-Hindawi, F.H. & Al-Juwaid, W.R. (2017). The pragmatics of political accusations in Obama & Romney's first presidential debate in 2012. In F.H. Al-Hindawi & W. R. Al-Juwaid (eds.), Pragmatic analysis of political data (pp.230-258). Anchor Academic Publishing.
Altohami, W.M. (2024). Self-framing & other-(re)framing in institutional political discourse: The case of Donald Trump’s final speech before the UN. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 14(1) 202-211.
Badarneh, M.A. (2020). Discourses of defense: Self & other positioning in public responses to accusations of corruption in Jordan. Discourse Studies, 1(19) 1-19.
Bae, J. & Lim, S. (2025). Democratic ties that bind? US-China conflict & foreign policy opinion in Japan & Korea. International Studies Perspectives, 26(1)65-87.
Benjamin, A. (2018). The pragmatics of political discourse: A cognitive approach. Cambridge University Press.
Benoit, W.L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, & apologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. State University of New York Press.
Benoit, W.L. (2015). Accounts, excuses, & apologies: Image repair theory & research. SUNY Press.
Bousfield, D. (2008).Impoliteness in interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, P. & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E.N. Goody (Ed.), Questions & politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
Chernobrov, D. (2019). Who is the modern ‘traitor’? Fifth column accusations in US & UK politics & media. Politics, 39(3), 347-362.
Croft, W. & Cruse, D.A. (2004). Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Ella, A.B. (2021). The communicative tactic of accusation in Cameroonian political discourse. The Crimean Federal University Bulletin of Philological Sciences, 7(2)175-184.
Fiske, S.T. & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social cognition. McGraw-Hill.
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1995). The structure building framework: What it is, what it might also be, & why. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gibbs, R.W. (2006). Embodiment & cognitive science. Cambridge University Press.
Giora, R. (1985). Notes towards a theory of text coherence. Poetics Today, 6(4), 699-715.
Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic & conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax & semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
Hussein, N.A. & Alghezzy, K.H.A. (2022). A cognitive linguistic study of metaphor in some selected slogans chanted during 25th Tishreen protest in Iraq 2019. Journal of College of Education-Wasit University, 1(47), 405-414.
Kövecses, Z. (2010). Metaphor: A practical introduction. Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Levinson, S.C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
New York v. Trump, Indictment, No. 71543-23 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Mar. 30, 2023). [Hush Money] https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter//pdfs/2024/2024_31375.pdf
People v. Trump Organizations, LLC, Indictment, No. 452564/2022 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. filed Sep.21, 2022). [Civil Fraud] https://www.nycourts.gov/Reporter/pdfs/2022/2022_ 33771.pdf
Pinker, S. (2007). The stuff of thought: Language as a window into human nature. Viking Press.
Searle, J.R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication & cognition. Harvard University Press.
Tannen, D. (2020). Political discourse in the age of social media. Oxford University Press.
Thomas, J. (1995). Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. Longman.
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Arnold.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 إقبال جواد كاظم، أ.م. محمد ناصر عبد السادة
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
