Acclaiming, Attacking and Defending in the 2012 Third American Presidential Debate Debates are essential in presidential debates since they can help voters choose between competing candidates. This study employs the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse to examine acclaims, attacks and defenses in the 2012 third American presidential debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The three functions of political campaign discourse, namely acclaiming, attacking, and defending address policy and character. The strategies used to elaborate acclaims, attacks, and defenses are also investigated. The study reveals that acclaims occur more frequently followed by attacks. Defenses are rarely used. Obama also uses the three functions of political campaign discourse more than Romney. Both candidates address policy more than character. Policy and character occur more in Obama's utterances than in to convince voters that they are preferable to opponents. The second assumption is "candidates must distinguish themselves from opponents" which means that candidates seek to distinguish themselves from their opponents so that voters will have a reason for preferring one candidate over another. The third assumption is "political campaign messages are important vehicles for distinguishing between candidates." Political campaign messages, including presidential debates, provide voters with information about the candidates' characters and policy stances. This information helps voters make their vote choice. The fourth assumption is "candidates establish preferability through acclaiming, attacking, and defending." For a candidate to secure enough votes, he/she must seem different from opponents in ways that will attract voters. Three functions of discourse help candidates appear preferable to opponents and thus appeal to voters. These are: acclaiming, attacking, and defending. The fifth assumption is "campaign discourse occurs on two topics: policy and character." In other words, candidates try to persuade voters that they are preferable to opponents in terms of policy and character. The final assumption is "a candidate must Extract (7) Obama: But what the American people understand is that I look at what we need to get done to keep the American people safe and to move our interests forward, and I make those decisions. In this extract, Obama talks about his decision to go after Osama bin Laden and bring all those who have done harm to American people to justice. He says that
The present study examines the (de) legitimization strategies used in the statements made by diplomats from Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt, the four Arab states that severed ties with Qatar on June 5, 2017 for supporting and funding terrorism, in interviews, press conferences, and UN Security Council meetings. It also examines these strategies in the statements made by the U.S. State Department spokesperson in Department press briefings. Employing van Leeuwen's (2007) and Reyes' (2011) (de) legitimization strategies, the study also investigates the linguistic devices used to realize the (de)legitimization strategies as well as the functions that these strategies and their linguistic realizations fulfill. The study shows that diplomats from the Arab quartet use a number of (de)legitimization strategies, such as authorization, moral evaluation, a hypothetical future, and altruism, to directly and explicitly legitimize the decision to boycott Qatar and delegitimize its policies. It also reveals that the U.S. indirectly and implicitly delegitimizes boycotting Qatar, and explicitly legitimizes Qatar's efforts to fight terrorism and extremism as well as Kuwait's mediation efforts. The study develops the strategy of posing unanswered questions which is used to legitimize some actions and delegitimize others.
The present study examines Hillary Clinton's evaluative responses regarding her thorny email problem in press conferences, presidential debates, testimony before Congress and some of the interviews conducted with her. Using Martin and White's ( 2005) Appraisal Theory, the study investigates the evaluation techniques used in Clinton's responses as well as their functions to highlight her ideological position on this sensitive issue that has aroused much controversy since its revelation in March 2015. Results reveal that Clinton employs various evaluation techniques that perform a number of functions. For example, in Affect, a subsystem of Attitude, unhappiness is used to express regret for using a personal server for official communications. In judgments of social esteem, tenacity is used to stress dependability whereas in judgments of social sanction, veracity expresses honesty. In the appraisal system of Engagement, the evaluation techniques used in dialogic contraction of heteroglossic utterances indicate a tendency to challenge alternative views. The evaluation techniques found in the appraisal system of Graduation are generally used to add force to the feelings expressed and evaluations made, and quantify email-related matters.
Why Do Politicians Shift? A Gender-Based Study of I and We in Joint Political Press Conferences In joint political press conferences, politicians use language to realize different functions and political goals. One important language aspect that is used functionally in joint political press conferences is personal pronouns. Using Goffman's (1981) concepts of participation framework and footing, the present study investigates the similarities and/or differences between male and female politicians in changing footing by shifting from I to we and vice versa in joint political press conferences. It also examines the reasons for making these shifts. Results indicate that male and female politicians shift between I and we the same number of times in the speech sessions. However, in the question-answer sessions, male politicians shift between these two pronouns more than their female counterparts. Results also show that male and female politicians shift from I to we and vice versa for various reasons such as talking about achievements and stating opinions in the speech sessions, and expressing a stance and shedding light on future acts or hopes in the question-answer sessions. Some of the reasons for making the pronominal shifts in question are common between male and female politicians while others are not. By alternating between I and we, male and female politicians alternate between their individual and institutional identities.
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.
hi@scite.ai
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.