Jamie A. Thomas
  • About
  • Video
  • Teaching
    • AfroLatinx Podcast
    • [ZOMBIES REIMAGINED]
  • Presentations
  • Blog
  • Connect With Me

#languagestory blog

Video & perspectives on communication, intercultural learning & the impact of anthropological research.

Campaign Combat: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s Communicative Style in the 2016 Presidential Debate

11/2/2016

2 Comments

 
by Amanda Izes
Picture
In moments of the Final Presidential Debate of 2016, Donald Trump and moderator Christopher Wallace continuously interrupt one another (CBS News, 2016).  Attempting to gain control over the discussion, Wallace employs a formal, defensive interruptive style. Differently, Trump invokes an informal, staccato-ed style using basic sentence structure repetitively, which is representative of his communicative behavior throughout the election.  Ultimately, the section ends with Trump turning attention to the faults of Hillary Clinton through a nonverbal pointing gesture.  This moment from the debate illustrates the manner in which Trump uses an offensive, truncated speaking style combined with pugilistic body language to gain control over the flow and topic of discussion.   

Trump's success brings up questions about the role of the quality of persuasive language particularly in a debate setting.  How necessary is traditional logic and argumentative skill in this debate? Here, verbal persuasion relies more on quantity than quality.  Repetition and salience capture our attention.  Perhaps, in a rapidly paced interactional context, quantity and tone drive communication more than quality.  Momentary success, in this debate, is defined as the ability to speak uninterrupted (Thomas, 2016).  Quantity, rather than quality, defines linguistic power and effectiveness in combative speech interactions.  ​

1   Wallace: Let’s- turn to Aleppo. ((cough/laugh)) ((camera turns to Wallace))Mr. Trump in
2                     the last debate. You were both asked about the situation in the Syrian city of
3                     Aleppo, and I want to follow up on that ((Camera split screen on Trump and
4                     Clinton)) because you said several things in that debate which were not true, sir. 
5                     You said that Aleppo has basically fallen, in fact there are…
6   Trump: ((Trump Shrugs)) It’s a catastrophe.
7   W: It is a catastrophe, but there-
8   T: It’s a mess
9   W: There are a quarter-
10 T: Have you seen it? Have you seen it?
11 W: Sir-
12 T: Have you seen what’s happened to Aleppo?
13 W: Sir, if I may finish my questions,
14 T: ((Uses mocking tone)) Okay, so it hasn’t fallen. Take a look at it.
15 W: Well there are a quarter of a million people still living there and being
16       slaughtered ((raises voice volume slightly)). 
17 T: That’s right.
18 W: You also said-
19 T: And they are being slaughtered.
20 W: Yes.
21 T: Because of bad decisions. ((Points at Clinton))
22 ((Clinton widens eyes; raises eyebrows)
Trump’s use of rapidly fired, simplistic sentence structure efficiently communicates his argument to the audience. Indicated through the hyphens included in the transcript, we see that the majority of this moment is spent in a stream of unfinished thoughts and questions.  While Wallace spends the majority of the interaction attempting to get through a single thought while being continuously interrupted, Trump’s use of basic sentences allows him to communicate more to the audience throughout the interaction.  Arguing concrete statements such as “It’s a catastrophe” (Line 6) and repeating questions such as “Have you seen it? Have you seen it?” (Line 10) multiple times, Trump’s argumentative style attempts to fuse together many semantically thin statements to build one communicatively rich argument.

This cumulative effect is salient each time Wallace attempts to halt Trump’s statements.  For example, Wallace interjects terms such as “but” (Line 7) and “Sir” (Lines 11 and 13), to attempt to silence Trump.  While these direct challenges briefly hinder Trump, the staccato-ed nature of his statements keep them from disrupting argumentative meaning. Quick comments keep semantic material intact, reducing the effect of interruptive verbal challenge.  Therefore, in this almost-combative debate environment, basic language conveys communicative information more efficiently than substantive, logical prose.      

​Furthermore, utilizing constant questioning, Trump is able to control the debate discourse. In a debate, it is accepted that a moderator will be the only one to ask questions and the candidates will respond accordingly.  However, Trump often appears to use pointed questions to direct attention from his own ignorance. Asking repetitively “Have you seen it” (Line 10) and “Have you seen what’s happened to Aleppo?” (Line 12) to Wallace, Trump alters the expected nature of moderator-candidate interaction by not only interrupting Wallace, but doing so in a way that literally steals his words as moderator (Fairclough, 1989). 
  
Ultimately, Trump’s questioning style causes Wallace to cede his own power.   In a statement made before the debate, Wallace states, “If [a moderator] succeeds, when it’s over, people will say ‘You did a great job.  I don’t ever remember you ever even being on the stage’” (Luibrand, 2016).  To Wallace, a moderator’s power comes from their ability to discretely guide conversation.  Trump’s rapid firing of questions directly at Wallace derails this very definition of power. 

Wallace responds to Trump’s questions: “Well there are a quarter of a million people still living there and being slaughtered” (Line 15).  Although his voice is raised and his statement is true, indicating an awareness and offensiveness, in responding to the posed question, Wallace deviates from his self-defined role by inserting himself directly into the debate, indicating an accidental cessation of power.  Here, Trump combines the expected form of powerful language with his own style of intense repetition. This combination characterizes the capacity of a Trump’s combative speaking style to overwhelm or distort set power structure even in the face of oppositional hard fact.  

Utilizing the effects of rapid, repetitive interjections combined with aggressive vocal tone and pugilistic gestures, Trump routinely successfully derails his opponents’ ability to rally the American public in a debate setting. While this combative style of speaking is prevalent in many confrontational interactions, the magnitude of its success in a widespread political context is unsurpassed.  At this point in the election, we wonder just how far this behavioral style may carry Trump.  While his repertoire consistently results in transient success, the patterns have yet to result in a sustained control over the direction and tone of the election for the masses.  Ultimately, while this communicative style has fueled much of his success to date, the overt lack of substance is unlikely to sustain his ultimate election to the Presidency. 
 
 
Works Cited
  •  [CBS News]. (2016, October 19). Watch Live: The Final Presidential Debate. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye0Xblp_Nb0
  • Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
  • Luibrand, S. (2016, October 19). Chris Wallace: Five facts about the final presidential debate moderator. Retrieved October 24, 2016, from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-chris-wallace-5-things-to-know-about-fox-news-presidential-debate-moderator/
  • Thomas, J. (2016, October 18). Lecture.
 
 Amanda is a student in the introductory sociolinguistics course at Swarthmore College. 
2 Comments
Michael
11/6/2016 02:33:30 pm

I really like how you took an element we usually consider nothing but rude and offensive -- interrupting -- and looked at it in a deeper, more nuanced fashion. It never occurred to me that interruptions could be used to, as you put it, "keep semantic material intact." This is a very interesting insight into a deeper linguistic characteristic of interruptions that Trump (and likely most of us) implements often for what appear to be surface-level reasons.

Reply
Hard Drive Repairs San Bernardino link
9/1/2022 11:06:23 am

Grateful foor sharing this

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Main Author

    Jamie A. Thomas is a linguistic anthropologist and digital media producer. Her forthcoming book Zombies Speak Swahili is all about the undead, videogames, and viral Black language. She teaches at Santa Monica College and CSU Dominguez Hills.

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014

    Categories

    All
    Afterlife
    Art
    Beginnings
    Bilingualism
    Body
    Borderlands
    Cinema
    Collaboration
    Colloquial Speech
    Colonialism
    Communication
    Communicative Competence
    Context
    Creation
    Cuba
    Cultural Exchange
    Digital Humanities
    Diversity
    Election 2016
    Emoji
    Engaged Research
    Gender
    Gentrification
    Hashtag
    Ideology
    Idioms
    Inclusion
    In-N-Out
    Intercultural Learning
    Interpersonal Communication
    Intersectionality
    Linguistic Inequality
    Local
    Mexico
    Modality
    Museums
    Participation
    Philadelphia
    Project Goals
    Public Ethnography
    Public Health
    Public Memory
    Race
    Saturday Night Live
    Semiotics
    Sexuality
    Sign Language
    Spanish
    Speech Community
    Stereotypes
    Storytelling
    Study Abroad
    Video
    Women
    Zombies

    RSS Feed

​Thank you for visiting! More project photos and video: https://linktr.ee/jamieisjames​