Clinton stated, Trump exclaimed!

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 71-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea McDonnell
Keyword(s):  
Gender Stereotypes ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Self Presentation ◽  
Linguistic Style

Abstract This study examines tweets posted by candidates Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the weeks preceding the 2016 presidential debates in an effort to assess the ways in which the candidates’ language use either conformed to or refuted gender stereotypes. Analysis of 490 tweets (724 sentences) suggests that both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton used language in ways that were gender counterstereotypic. Clinton’s tweets contained a significantly greater number of statements and directives, suggesting that the candidate adopted a more masculine linguistic style, but also a greater number of cooperative words, which are stereotypically associated with feminine speech. Trump’s tweets contained a significantly greater number of exclamations, but fewer statements and directives than Clinton, thus defying masculine linguistic stereotypes. The implications of these findings on candidates’ political self-presentation are discussed.

scholarly journals ARGUMENTATIVE STATEMENTS IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES OF THE U.S: A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

2018 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-174
Author(s):  
Rohmani Nur Indah ◽  
Andini Khoirunnisa
Keyword(s):  
Discourse Analysis ◽  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Claim Data ◽  
Critical Discourse ◽  
Discourse Structure ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Self Presentation ◽  
Mind Control ◽  
Toulmin’S Model

This study investigates the argumentative statements of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the debates. By employing two theories, Van Dijk's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Toulmin's model of argument, it aims to expose how various ideologies are expressed in the structure of arguments. It uses Toulmin (2003) model of argument to analyze the structures of argumentation during the debates constituting six elements (i.e. claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal). While Van Dijk’s framework covering three levels of discourse structure (the meaning, the argumentation and the rhetoric) is used to analyze the reproduction of racism, manipulation, and Islamophobia. The result indicates the discourse of the candidates contributes the reproduction of manipulation by focusing on the positive self-presentation of “us” (civilized) and negative other-presentationof “them” (terrorists) as a mind control of the audience.

scholarly journals DONALD TRUMP'S AND HILLARY CLINTON'S INTERRUPTIONS IN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-118
Author(s):  
Zuliati Rohmah ◽  
Alda Fitriani Suwandi
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Conversational Analysis ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Male And Female ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
The Us ◽  
Different Types

The current study explores types and functions of interruptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during the US presidential debates in 2016. Data collected from Donald Trump’s and Hillary Clinton’s speech in the debates were transcribed and analyzed to find types and functions of interruptions by both of the candidates. The results of the conversational analysis display that Donald Trump dominates the interruptions by applying a substantially greater number of interruptions consisting of three different types of interruptions. Butting-in Interruptions were applied by both as the biggest number of interruptions. Data analysis also demonstrates that intrusive functions appear much more frequently compared to the collaborative functions of interruptions applied by the male and female presidential candidates. Discussion as to why such phenomena are noticeable in the data concludes the paper. 

“I’m (Not) with Her”

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-240
Author(s):  
Melissa Ames
Keyword(s):  
Homeland Security ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Final Study ◽  
Live Broadcast ◽  
Ongoing Dialogue

The final study presented in this book focuses on one of the most impactful events of the 21st century: the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, which likely ended as it did in part due to a combination of the cultural fears discussed throughout the previous chapters. For example, the presidential campaign run by Donald Trump played on post-9/11 insecurities about homeland security and employed fear-based, divisive rhetoric about race, gender, class, and sexuality. The acceptance of this rhetoric -- and his ultimate victory -- may be explained by the process of phobic construction highlighted in this text. Chapter 10 analyzes the final months of the election cycle, in particular the televised presidential debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton and the ways in which they stimulated conversation among viewers during the live broadcast and ongoing dialogue and activism beyond it.

scholarly journals A Corpus-Based Study of Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s Linguistic Styles

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xueliang Chen ◽  
Yuanle Yan ◽  
Jie Hu
Keyword(s):  
American People ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Analysis Software ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Campaign Strategy ◽  
Linguistic Style ◽  
Political Beliefs ◽  
Exponential Increase ◽  
Campaign Messages ◽  
Campaign Speeches

Since the 2016 U.S. presidential election, research on Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s linguistic styles has witnessed an exponential increase, with a lopsided focus on Trump in particular. This study compared Clinton’s and Trumps’ campaign speeches during the general election using a corpus-based approach. Discourse analysis of the corpora was conducted using the textual analysis software AntConc 3.2.4. The results showed that Clinton used a more diverse vocabulary compared with Trump, and that both candidates stuck to their core campaign messages in their speeches. Three major differences between Clinton’s and Trump’s linguistic styles were identified: 1) Clinton was inclined towards rational discussions of public policy, while Trump was adept at appealing to voters’ emotions; 2) Clinton was more positive and focused on her vision of the future, while Trump was more negative and fixated at depicting a dystopian reality; 3) Clinton aimed to find commonalities with the American people, while Trump aimed to highlight differences between himself and his opponents. By putting Clinton’s rhetoric on a par with Trump’s, this study highlighted their linguistic style differences as part of their grand campaign strategy, which could contribute to current understanding of the two candidates’ rhetorical preferences, political beliefs and strategies in their 2016 campaigns.

scholarly journals Smiles of Affiliation and Dominance when competing for Leadership: The effect of gender in the 2016 US Presidential Debates

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Senior ◽  
Nathan Ridout ◽  
Patrick A. Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Political Campaign ◽  
Social Signals ◽  
Case Study Approach ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Study Approach ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Video Case Study

For human observers’ slight differences in the muscular configurations of the smile can communicate dominance or affiliation. Despite the significant role played by smiles, our gender modulates their valance. Females tend to smile more than men and are judged more negatively if they smile less than their male counterparts. Given that the smile is associated with effective leadership it remains to be seen whether or not gender moderates such displays during leadership campaigns. To examine this question the non-verbal displays occurring in the 2016 US presidential debate were analysed in a unique video case-study approach. Specifically, it was hypothesised that the female politician (Hillary Clinton) would engender more smiles in general and displays of affiliation specifically. Given the rehearsed, yet unpredictable, nature of such debates it was further hypothesized that the displays would be more intense when each candidate watched the other respond not when they responded directly. Differences in smiles of affiliation and dominance were analysed and results did indeed support the hypothesis that the more intense displays were engendered by candidates when watching their counterpart respond to the moderator. The female politician made more intense smile displays in general and more affiliative smile gestures specifically than the male politician (Donald Trump). These results are discussed in terms of the sociobiological significance that such honest social signals may have in a contemporary political campaign. As is common practice limitations and proposals for future work are discussed.

scholarly journals Trump's Strategies in the First Presidential Debate: A Critical Discourse Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (5) ◽  
pp. 68-77
Author(s):  
Quang Nhat Nguyen ◽  
Murad Hassan Mohammed Sawalmeh
Keyword(s):  
Critical Discourse Analysis ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Linguistic Style ◽  
Presidential Speech ◽  
Verbal Attack ◽  
Universal Values ◽  
Presidential Discourse ◽  
The U.S

The young and vibrant 243-year-old U.S. has long claimed its status as a world power. As stated by the U.S.'s Congressional Research Service (2019), the U.S. shoulders the responsibility of defending and promoting freedom, democracy, and universal values, which means that America, being an active internationalist global leader, a superpower, and a world policeman, has been maintaining the power of manipulating partially, if not most, the whole world. This attention gains more significance as Donald Trump aims to take center stage once more in the presidential campaign in 2020. The way Americans choose their presidents will affect the world situation in many respects. While it is noticeable that there is an anti-intellectual trend in presidential discourse (Lim, 2008), Trump's presidential linguistic style is highly distinctive in terms of its simplicity, anti-elitism, and collectivism (Oliver & Rahn, 2016). Realizing the importance of Donald Trump's linguistic presidential style, the attention that it drew, and the likelihood that Trump may reuse his approach in the 2020 presidential campaign, this study focuses on the first presidential debate's strategies of Donald Trump in 2016. The analysis of the debate's strategies is influenced by the works of Fairclough (1993), Halliday (1971) and Goffman (1967). The results of the study revealed that Trump combined four strategies of presidential debates, including (1) self-acclamation, (2) describing opposing candidates through the verbal attack, (3) self-rectification or image-enhancement through the defense against opposing candidates' blaming argument, and (4) extra-vocalization. Trump's presidential speech is a source of valuable knowledge that makes use of both typical candidates' traditional strategies with a more business-oriented approach. It is hoped that this study might be a valuable foundation on which researchers can rely to consider Trump's changes in linguistic style when he comes to the upcoming presidential campaigns in 2020.

Motivational underpinnings of support for radical political leaders

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Political Candidate ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Willingness To Engage

In three studies conducted over the course of 2016 US presidential campaign we examined the relationship between radicalism of a political candidate and willingness to engage in actions for that candidate. Drawing on significance quest theory (Kruglanski et al., 2018), we predicted that people would be more willing to make large sacrifices for radical (vs. moderate) candidates because the cause of radical candidates would be more personally important and engagement on behalf it would be more psychologically rewarding. We tested these predictions among supporters of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. Our findings were in line with these predictions, as the more followers perceived their candidates as radical, the more they viewed leaders’ ideas as personally important, gained more personal significance from those ideas, and intended to sacrifice more for the leader.

Making Americans Feel Great Again? Personal Significance Predicts Political Intentions of Losers and Winners of the 2016 US Election

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Political System ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The Political ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Electoral Success ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Times

Reactions of losers and winners of political elections have important consequences for the political system during the times of power transition. In four studies conducted immediately before and after the 2016 US presidential elections we investigated how personal significance induced by success or failure of one’s candidate is related to hostile vs. benevolent intentions toward political adversaries. We found that the less significant supporters of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump felt after an imagined (Study 1A) or actual (Study 2) electoral failure the more they were willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president and the less they were willing to accept the results of the elections. However, while significance gain due to an imagined or actual electoral success was related to more benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters (Study 1B), it was related to more hostile intentions among Trump supporters (Studies 1B, 2, and 3).

The Propaganda Feedback Loop

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yochai Benkler ◽  
Robert Faris ◽  
Hal Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Feedback Loop ◽  
The Other ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
The Public ◽  
False Reporting ◽  
Media Ecosystem ◽  
Crowd Out ◽  
Selection Of

This chapter presents a model of the interaction of media outlets, politicians, and the public with an emphasis on the tension between truth-seeking and narratives that confirm partisan identities. This model is used to describe the emergence and mechanics of an insular media ecosystem and how two fundamentally different media ecosystems can coexist. In one, false narratives that reinforce partisan identity not only flourish, but crowd-out true narratives even when these are presented by leading insiders. In the other, false narratives are tested, confronted, and contained by diverse outlets and actors operating in a truth-oriented norms dynamic. Two case studies are analyzed: the first focuses on false reporting on a selection of television networks; the second looks at parallel but politically divergent false rumors—an allegation that Donald Trump raped a 13-yearold and allegations tying Hillary Clinton to pedophilia—and tracks the amplification and resistance these stories faced.

scholarly journals Europe Abhors Donald Trump: The Opinion on the 2020 U.S. Presidential Elections and Their Candidates in the European Newspapers

2021 ◽  
pp. 000276422110055
Author(s):  
Marçal Sintes-Olivella ◽  
Pere Franch ◽  
Elena Yeste-Piquer ◽  
Klaus Zilles
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Methodology ◽  
Election Campaign ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
White House ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Public ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Common ◽  
The U.S

What is the opinion held by the European press on the U.S. election campaign and the candidates running for president? What are the predominant issues that attract the attention of European print media? Does Europe detest Donald Trump? The objective of the present study is to analyze the perception European commentators had of the 2020 race for the White House. The media, the audience, and European governments were captivated more than ever before by how the U.S. election campaign unfolded, fixing their gaze on the contest between Donald Trump and Joe Biden. Through a combined quantitative and qualitative methodology, a combination of content analysis and the application of framing theory (hitherto scarcely applied to opinion pieces), our research centers on exploring the views, opinions, and analyses published in eight leading newspapers from four European countries (France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom) as expressed in their editorials and opinion articles. This study observes how the televised presidential debates were commented on, interpreted, and assessed by commentators from the eight newspapers we selected. The goal was to identify the common issues and frames that affected European public opinion on the U.S. presidential campaign and the aspirants to the White House.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document