Arrogance In Political Discourse: A Contrastive Pragma-Rhetorical Study Of Trump And Putin’s Public Addresses

Abstract

This study conducts a contrastive pragma-rhetorical analysis of arrogance in the political discourse of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, examining how their public addresses employ linguistic and rhetorical strategies to project dominance, superiority, and dismissiveness· Arrogance, as a discursive phenomenon, serves not only as a tool for self-aggrandizement but also as a means of undermining opponents and reinforcing political authority· By analyzing select speeches and interviews, this research identifies key pragma-rhetorical features, such as hyperbole, sarcasm, lexical choices, and illocutionary force that construct arrogant discourse· The study situates these findings within broader theories of political communication, power dynamics, and face-threatening acts to explore how arrogance functions as a persuasive and coercive strategy in contemporary politics·

The comparative framework reveals significant differences in how Trump and Putin deploy arrogance, shaped by their respective political cultures and personal rhetorical styles· Trump’s discourse is characterized by overt self-praise, ad hominem attacks, and repetitive hyperbolic claims, reflecting a transactional and media-savvy approach to political communication· In contrast, Putin’s arrogance is often conveyed through subtle sarcasm, measured condescension, and strategic silence, aligning with a more calculated, authoritarian rhetorical tradition· These distinctions highlight how cultural and institutional contexts influence the manifestation of arrogance in political speech, with implications for audience perception and diplomatic relations·

Methodologically, the study employs a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative discourse analysis with quantitative assessments of rhetorical frequency and intensity· Critical discourse analysis (CDA) and pragma-dialectics are utilized to dissect the interplay of power, ideology, and linguistic choice in constructing arrogant utterances· The findings demonstrate that while both leaders use arrogance to assert control, Trump’s style fosters polarization through confrontational tone, whereas Putin’s approach reinforces an image of unassailable authority· The study also examines audience reception, showing how arrogance can both galvanize supporters and alienate critics, depending on socio-political context·

Ultimately, this research contributes to the growing body of scholarship on political rhetoric by elucidating the role of arrogance as a deliberate communicative strategy· It argues that arrogance in political discourse is not merely a personality trait but a performative device leveraged to shape public opinion, consolidate power, and delegitimize dissent· The contrastive analysis of Trump and Putin underscores the adaptability of arrogant rhetoric across democratic and authoritarian systems, offering insights into the evolving nature of political persuasion in the 21st century· The study calls for further cross-cultural examinations of arrogance in leadership discourse to better understand its global implications for democracy and international relations·