Acclaiming, attacking, and defending in presidential nominating acceptance addresses, 1960–1996

Benoit, William L.

doi:10.1080/00335639909384260

Cited by 46 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others in the field have examined presidential address across all presidents and patterns and differences between presidential address and address makers. Studies by Beasley (2001Beasley ( a, 2001 and Benoit (1999) examine presidential inaugural addresses, local addresses to specific audiences, and nomination acceptance addresses. Jeffrey Cohen's (1995) study does well to examine a sample of state of the union addresses, but it looks at policy implications of the speech as opposed to its reflection on the traditional or modern presidency debate or the development of the presidential rhetoric and address.…”

Section: Studying Presidential Rhetoricmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: Presidential Presentation and Development of the State of the Union Address

Teten

2003

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

n i s study look at the structuraland rhetorical changes in the state of the union addressji-om George Washington to Bill Clinton. The authorfinds that beginning with early-twentieth-centuv presidents, the length of address drops sipificantly and the president increasingly attempts to i d n t h himseras one of the public in the speech. Among other things, thefindings suggest three distinctperiods in the evolution of the state of the union address: afoundingperiod, a traditionalperiod, and a modern period, H m e v q although early-twentieth-century presidencies may exhibit change in delivery and style of the state of the union address, it is unclear whether this can be credited to a specific modern rhetorical innovation or whether the traditionaVmodern paradip may necessitate rearahation. Keywort&: modern presidency; traditionalpresideng; stde of the union address; J e B q Elis; rhetorical presideng He [the president] shaU3om time to timegive to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shaUjudge necess a y and expedient. -US. Constitution, Article 11, Section I11More than the founders ever envisioned, the presidency is at the center of policy debates. From "going public"' to acheve his plans and goals as described by Samuel Kernell 1. Goingpublicis a term referring to the president's appeal to the public as an alternative to bargaining with the legislature or attempting to use conventional rules of government to accomplish goals.Ryan L. Teen is a Ph. D. candidate inpolitical science at Vanderbilt Uniuersi&. His research interests include presidential rhetoric and politid behavior. AUTHOR 'SNOTE: 7Ke authorwouldliketo thank Enya Eten forhersupportandencour~ement. Ihe author would also like to thank John Gen; Bruce Oppenheimn; Richard Pride, Lany Gnzn and Amy Car&, as well as the Presidential Studies Quarter& editor and anonymous miewer5 for a.ll of their thoughfil comments and suggestions. Residential StudiesQaartmb 33, no. 2 vane)

show abstract

Section: Studying Presidential Rhetoricmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: Presidential Presentation and Development of the State of the Union Address

Teten

2003

Pres Stud Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This theory was developed by Benoit and his associates through a series of studies centered primarily on Presidential campaign discourse (see Benoit, 1999Benoit, , 2001Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 1998;Benoit & Harthcock, 1999;Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, & McGuire, 2003;Benoit, Wells, Pier, & Blaney, 1999). This theory argues that citizens vote for the candidate who appears preferable on whatever criteria are most important to each voter, that voters employ an individualized, pragmatic set of criteria when making voting decisions.…”

Section: Functional Theory Of Political Discoursementioning

confidence: 97%

Political Television Advertising in Campaign 2000

Airne

Benoit

2005

Communication Quarterly

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…William Benoit (1999) has reported on a study of nomination acceptance speeches by presidential candidates in the United States in the latter part of the twentieth century. In his study three basic functions in the speeches were recognized, which were distinguished as acclaiming, attacking and defending.…”

Section: Dialectical Rolesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argument kinds and argument roles in the Ontario provincial election, 2011

Hansen

Walton²

2013

JAIC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a report of a pilot study of how candidates argue when they are running for political office. The election studied was the provincial election in Ontario, Canada, in the fall of 2011. Having collected about 250 arguments given during the election from newspaper media, we sought answers to the following questions, among others: (i) which argumentation schemes have the greatest currency in political elections? (ii) Is a list of the best known argumentation schemes sufficient to classify the arguments given in elections? (iii) What schemes should be added to the familiar list to make it more adequate for studying elections? (iv) Is it useful to classify arguments as being used for positive, policy-critical, person-critical and defensive purposes? (v) Can political parties be usefully characterized by noting their preferred kinds of arguments and their most frequent uses of arguments? (vi) What lessons can be learned from this study to better design future studies of the same kind?

show abstract

Acclaiming, attacking, and defending in presidential nominating acceptance addresses, 1960–1996

Cited by 46 publications

References 19 publications

Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: Presidential Presentation and Development of the State of the Union Address

Evolution of the Modern Rhetorical Presidency: Presidential Presentation and Development of the State of the Union Address

Political Television Advertising in Campaign 2000

Argument kinds and argument roles in the Ontario provincial election, 2011

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About