Cognitive mechanisms of persuasion in the political rhetoric of D. Trump and K. Harris (based on the U.S. presidential debates)

Context and relevance. In political discourse, language functions not only as a means of conveying information but also as a tool of cognitive influence and persuasion. The relevance of this work is driven by the growing interest in cognitive strategies within political discourse and the need to understand the linguocognitive features of rhetoric used by representatives of different parties. This article presents an analysis of the cognitive mechanisms of persuasion used by the candidates for the 47th presidency of the United States, Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Objective. To identify and compare the cognitive persuasion strategies of American politicians K. Harris and D. Trump, and to point out the most common mechanisms of persuasion and concepts that enable politicians to gain voter support. Hypothesis. Despite the external differences in rhetorical strategies of the candidates, in essence we can reveal common mechanisms of persuasion as well as identical concepts used by the politicians to influence the electorate. Methods and materials. The research material consisted of the original script of the 2024 political debates and a recording of the live broadcast with simultaneous translation into Russian. The methods employed included component analysis, associative analysis, conceptual analysis, frame analysis, contextual analysis, and comparative analysis. Results. Key frame structures shaping the politicians' images were identified. The active use of oppositions ("us – them", "hero – public enemy"), as well as appeals to cultural codes and ideologemes aimed at gaining electoral support, was noted. It has been shown that rhetoric, realized from a cognitive perspective through framing, oppositions, and ideologemes, serves as a powerful tool of persuasion. Conclusions. The research indicates that, despite the external differences in the rhetorical strategies of the candidates, their foundations rest on common cognitive mechanisms of persuasion. The rhetoric of D. Trump and K. Harris, realized through framing, oppositions, and ideologemes, serves as a powerful tool for persuading the electorate. For further verification of these findings, it is necessary to expand the analytical material to include other campaign speeches by politicians representing different parties.

1. Бессонова, Л.Е., Сегал, Н.А. (2011). Политический текст: метафорические модели построения концептуального пространства. Ученые записки Крымского федерального университета имени В.И. Вернадского. Филологические науки, 3—8.
   Bessonova, L.E., Segal, N.A. (2011). Political text: metaphorical models of conceptual space construction. Uchenye zapiski Krymskogo federal'nogo universiteta imeni V.I. Vernadskogo. Filologicheskie nauki, 3—8. (In Russ.).
2. Демьянков, В.З. (2017). Трансфер знаний и когнитивная манипуляция. Вопросы когнитивной лингвистики, 4(53), 5—13.
   Dem'yankov, V.Z. (2017). Knowledge transfer and cognitive manipulation. Voprosy kognitivnoy lingvistiki, 4(53), 5—13. (In Russ.).
3. Макаров, М.Л. (2003). Основы теории дискурса. М.: ИТДГК «Гнозис».
   Makarov, M.L. (2003). Bases of discourse theory. Moscow: ITDGK "Gnozis". (In Russ.).
4. Нелюбин, Л.Л. (2003). Толковый переводоведческий словарь (3-е изд.). М.: Флинта.
   Nelyubin, L.L. (2003). Dictionary for translators (3rd ed.). Moscow: Flinta. (In Russ.).
5. Уфимцева, Н.В. (2003). Языковое сознание: этнопсихолингвистическая парадигма исследования. Методология современной психолингвистики, 1, 282—283.
   Ufimtseva, N.V. (2003). Language consciousness: ethnopsycholinguistic research paradigm. Metodologiya sovremennoy psikholingvistiki, 1, 282—283. (In Russ.).
6. Хилханова, Э.В., Санжеева, Л.Ц. (2019). Языковые контакты и языковое сознание: некоторые теоретические рассуждения. Мир науки. Социология, филология, культурология, 4, 1—9.
   Khilkhanova, E.V., Sanzheeva, L.Ts. (2019). Language contacts and language consciousness: some theoretical reflections. Mir nauki. Sotsiologiya, filologiya, kul'turologiya, 4, 1—9. (In Russ.).
7. Чудинов, А.П. (2006). Политическая лингвистика: учеб. пособие. М.: Флинта.
   Chudinov, A.P. (2006). Political linguistics: textbook. Moscow: Flinta. (In Russ.).
8. Шиллер, Г. (1980). Манипуляторы сознанием (Я. Засурский, предисл.; пер. с англ.). М.: Мысль.
   Shiller, G. (1980). Mind manipulators (Ya. Zasurskiy, transl. from Engl.). Moscow: Mysl'. (In Russ.).
9. Шостром, Э. (1992). Анти-Карнеги, или Человек-манипулятор (пер. с англ.). М.: ТПЦ "Полифакт".
   Shostrom, E. (1992). Anti-Carnegie, or Man-the-manipulator (transl. from Engl.). Moscow: TPTs "Polifakt". (In Russ.).
10. Hoffman, R. (2024). READ: Harris-Trump presidential debate transcript. ABC News. URL: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/harris-trump-presidential-debate-transcript/story?id=113560542 (viewed: 08.02.2025).
11. Lakoff, G. (2004). Don't think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate: The essential guide for progressives. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Pub. Co.
12. Minsky, M. (1975).A framework for representing knowledge. New York: McGraw-Hill.