Politeness, Impoliteness, Power Relations, and Ideological Hegemony in Political Discourse: Evidence from the Trump–Acosta Press Conference

Abstract

Language in political discourse is never neutral; it functions as a medium for the reproduction of power and ideological hegemony, as illustrated by the confrontation between President Donald Trump and journalist Jim Acosta at the White House press conference on November 7, 2018. This study integrates Brown and Levinson's politeness theory, Leech's politeness principle, Culpeper's impoliteness theory, and theories of power and hegemony by Foucault, Bourdieu, and Gramsci within Fairclough's Critical Discourse Analysis framework. Unlike prior studies that separate linguistic politeness analysis from ideological hegemony, this layered framework reveals how (im)politeness strategies do not merely reflect but actively construct and perpetuate ideological dominance between state officials and media. This qualitative descriptive study employs a single case study design, with primary data drawn from C-SPAN's YouTube recordings, triangulated with CNN, Fox News, and BBC coverage. The findings show that Trump employed bald on-record and mock politeness strategies, while Acosta maintained negative politeness. Trump's impoliteness shifted from procedural control of the forum to attacks on personal identity, functioning to construct institutional, discursive, and symbolic power relations. The hegemonic anti-media narrative is reproduced through "enemy of the people" and "fake news" discourses, building collective consensus among Trump's supporters that the press is a threat to the "people's" interests. These findings contribute to political discourse studies and enrich the integrative methodology in pragmatics and critical discourse analysis.