A Study On Donald Trump's Strategic Maneuvering Of Counter-accusation Discourse In 2016 American Presidential Television Debate

Based on the theoretical framework of van Eemeren's strategic maneuvering,the thesis collects the transcript of 2016 American presidential television debate and tries to analyze the strategic maneuvering of Trump's counter-accusation discourse.The paper specifically borrows the theory of institutional precondition and the strategic maneuvering triangle from van Eemeren's pragma-dialectics and it aims to address the following three questions:(1)What are the institutional preconditions of American presidential debate?How do they impose constraints on or create possibility for the application of the strategic maneuvering in counter-accusation discourse?(2)Constrained by the institutional preconditions of American presidential debate,what is Trump's trategic maneuvering of counter-accusation discourse in order to protect his image and win the ballot of the voters?(3)What is the implication of Trump's strategic maneuvering of counter-accusation discourse?The major findings are summarized as below:1.The institutional preconditions of American presidential debate include:(1)instantaneity of addressed topics;(2)complexity of addressed audience;(3)intervention of moderators.Specifically,instantaneity of addressed topics limits candidates'responding time of counter-accusation discourse.Complexity of addressed audience affects the starting point and the aim of candidates' counter-accusation discourse.Finally,intervention of moderators restrains candidates' ways of applying strategic maneuvering in counter-accusation discourse.2.To protect his image and win the ballot of the voters,Trump's strategic maneuvering in the counter-accusation discourse includes:(1)direct counter-accusation:appealing to authority and bolstering;(2)indirect counter-accusation:re-definition of disagreement,attacking the accuser,provocation,diversion of topics and constructing psychological reference frame.Besides,the strategic maneuvering of re-definition of disagreement can be further divided into obscuring,replacing,expanding and narrowing the disagreement.The strategic maneuvering of attacking the accuser can be further classified into attacking the accuser's personality,ability and wrongful behavior;(3)abandoning counter-accusation:admitting accusation with apology and neglecting accusation.3.Trump's strategic maneuvering of counter-accusation discourse provides the following implication in political counter-accusation discourse:(1)With some positive proof on the topic,one may employ strategic maneuvering of appealing to authority or bolstering;(2)If the accuser has some relevant weaknesses on the topic,one may utilize the strategic maneuvering of attacking the accuser;(3)Taking advantage of the flexibility of the "disagreement space",one may use the strategic maneuvering of re-definition of the disagreement or diversion of topics;(4)According to the audience's tolerance to the issue,one may make use of the strategic maneuvering of constructing psychological reference frame or admitting with apology;(5)Due to the specificity of the issue,one may use the strategic maneuvering of provocation.In addition,in certain cases,the strategic maneuvering of counter-accusation can be combined to generate a more positive result,such as(1)provocation and attacking the accuser;(2)attacking the accuser and bolstering;(3)admitting with apology and constructing psychological reference frame.The research studies American presidential debate from the perspective of pragma-dialectics and constructs the argumentative scheme of Trump's strategic maneuvering in his counter-accusation discourse.Besides,the study not only provides some suggestions for the application of strategic maneuvering in counter-accusation discourse in political argumentation,but also offers some insight into further analysis on American presidential debate and counter-accusation discourse.