This study presents a functional analysis of the persuasive strategies utilized by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates (henceforth PDs). These PDs, which take place every four years, are the furthermost critical political rhetoric that gives rise to the voting of the following President. Such PDs cover an argument of various subjects between the candidates. Many scholars have studied the U.S. PDs, but there has not been a study that focuses primarily on the persuasive strategies (i.e. acclaim, attack, and defense) as a functional analysis in these debates. The persuasive strategies used by Trump and Clinton were excerpted from the U.S. 2016 PDs and analyzed using Benoit’s (2007) functional theory. The findings of analyzing the two presidential candidates' speeches in the U.S. 2016 PDs state that 53.1% of the persuasive strategies were utilized by Trump in opposite to 46.9% were utilized by Clinton.
This paper describes an analysis of the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates published in The New York Times using Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory. The three presidential debates in the U.S., which occur every four years, remain as the most sensitive political rhetoric that lead to the election of the next U.S. President. These debates include discussion of different issues between the two presidential candidates. One of these issues is immigration. The U.S. presidential debates have been researched by many on various aspects but there has not been a study that focus primarily on the issue of immigration in the three 2016 U.S. presidential debates. All statements regarding this issue between the two presidential candidates, Trump and Clinton, were extracted from these debates and analyzed using Benoit's (2007a) functional theory. Findings revealed that attack statements occurred more than acclaims, and defences were less used than acclaims. The statements included in these debates pertained to policy (30%) and character (70%). As expected, general goals were employed more often using acclaim function rather than attack and defend. However, ideals were employed more often using defence than to acclaim and attack. Due to different contexts, situations, and participants, Benoit's (2007a) functional theory may not be generalized for all debates. This study reveals certain inconsistencies regarding some of the hypotheses of Benoit's (2007a) functional theory in relation to our knowledge of the presidential debates, specifically the issue of immigration.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.