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

#languagestory blog

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

The Final Showdown: Interactional Sociolinguistics in the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

11/2/2016

2 Comments

 
by Michael Broughton
Picture
Every four years for the past half century, Americans have watched presidential candidates spar for political glory in televised presidential debates. Because of this history, viewers expect each debate to operate within a set of established conventions. The actors involved in presenting the debates -- the candidates, the moderator, the audience -- are expected to behave linguistically in ways consistent with Fairclough’s (1989) socially constructed “orders of discourse.” These are composed of conventions regarding verbal behaviors like turn-taking and word choice, as well as nonverbal elements like eye contact and gestures.

I’ve attempted to capture these in the section of the final 2016 presidential debate transcribed above. In it, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton answer the moderator’s concluding question: “Why should the American people elect you to be the next president?” In addition to speech condensed for relevance with ellipses, the transcript contains gestures (doubled parentheses), pauses (enclosed periods), and syllabic emphasis (bolded text). For analysis, however, I’d like to focus on one verbal aspect: the candidates’ use of pronouns. Both Trump and Clinton use pronouns during speech to create social distance between themselves and those they speak about, but they do so in different ways. This difference reflects the power structures formed by the candidates’ ideological priorities, and demonstrates that examining underlying elements of spoken language can reveal deeper insights about the true purposes of speech acts.

Clinton, when she speaks, frequently uses collective you as she addresses “the American people.” In (line 5), she emphasizes America’s need for “your” positive traits, and in (line 7) mentions life getting better for “all of you.” She likely speaks this way in order to appear inclusive, addressing the strengths of Americans as a whole rather than singling out the characteristics of any particular group. In lines 6 and 7 in particular she emphasizes her claim that she desires to act in leadership for the good of all of her addressees. Notably, however, she focuses nearly all of her speech on what “you” can contribute, and talks less about what she herself will do. The use of you this way allows Clinton to speak to the American people without explicitly including herself among them, distancing herself from their experiences and affirming her presence in a position of political power.

Trump also creates distance between himself and others, but his use of we and they separates him from the people he talks about rather than the audience he directly addresses. He begins and ends in (9)-(12) and in (17) by describing what “we” have and what “we” will do, but diverts to referencing inner city residents, African-Americans, and Latinos as “they” in (13)-(16). Presumably, “we” are the agents that will “make America great again,” despite being responsible for structural issues in society, while “they” are minority victims of Democrats’ failed policies, and recipients of Trump’s future assistance. This shift implies that Trump seeks to identify himself with the group he’s directly addressing, while simultaneously separating himself from other groups -- minorities and those living in inner cities. Although done with different pronouns, Trump, like Clinton, uses his speech to place himself in a position of power relative to those he talks about. This is especially true given his claims that he will provide widespread assistance if elected; it would be difficult for people without comparable influence to substantially challenge these claims.

Of course, this debate is situated in the context of the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, which has been riddled with unprecedented levels of controversy and division. It is clear that the orders of discourse mentioned above have often been disobeyed or ignored entirely. As such, those in one political camp freely disseminate rhetoric deemed hateful by many, while distrust and blatant dishonesty persist in the other. This debate is no different, with its many outbursts and chaotic episodes at moments other than those in the transcript. However, as explicitly undesirable as 2016’s campaign talk has been, analysis of the transcript shows that an element of language we may not first consider -- pronoun usage -- reveals the candidates’ underlying ideologies.

We often try to change people’s ideologies by changing their explicit language habits. One might hope to increase cultural sensitivity, for example, by encouraging the use of appropriate ethnic terminology. However, Trump’s and Clinton’s oft-considered detrimental ideological stances are not only perpetuated explicitly, but are also enforced by such seemingly implicit elements of language as pronouns. It appears that perhaps one cannot truly hope to change a person’s outlook until issues with these underlying elements are confronted and addressed.

References

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Harlow, England, UK: Longman Group. Print.
[NBC News]. (2016, Oct. 19). The Third Presidential Debate: Hillary Clinton And Donald Trump (Full Debate) | NBC News. [Video File]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/smkyorC5qwc.


Michael is a student in the introductory sociolinguistics course at Swarthmore College.
2 Comments
Melanie
11/4/2016 09:51:15 pm

I really enjoyed reading this piece! Since your topic is so focused, I find it very easy to follow and think about without getting lost in too many abstract topics at the same time.
I think some of your major strengths here are your ability to be concise but still communicate effectively, and the balance between your discussions of the more positive and more negative sides of each candidate's speech patterns. Even though subjectivity is very important and inevitable in any analysis of anything, I think it is also crucial that analyses of political interactions fully acknowledge and treat as important/relevant the effects--positive or negative--of each candidate's behaviors, regardless of which the author supports more. To me, you present a very comprehensive and well-rounded argument for what both candidates' language choices mean without placing harsh value judgments on either one, which I think strengthens your linguistic analysis and allows you to draw much more focused connections to the expression of ideologies through language in the grand scheme of things.
Overall, I really appreciate the topic you chose since, you're right, it is one we might not immediately consider, but it says so much about who these people are/what they prioritize, and it very clearly shows that even the smallest instances of linguistic choice are deeply meaningful and driven by much broader ideologies!

Reply
Amanda Izes
11/6/2016 09:04:34 pm

I also really enjoyed your piece! I think your points about their pronoun usage revealing their true underlying social beliefs are really salient because, not only do linguists fail to pay attention to these small words, but I would guess they may often be overlooked by debate coaches and campaign advisors as well. I found your discussion of who Trump is really referring to when he says "we" very interesting. On a surface level, one may anticipate that "we" as a pronoun is highly inclusive and refers, on a surface level, to the entire US population. However, as you pointed out, his parallel use of "they" derails ‘we’s apparent connotation of national unity by suggesting the presence of an 'other' within the country.
On a related note to your piece, some newscasters have also commented on Trump’s use of definite articles such as ‘the’ in his debate performances. Related to the distance he creates between himself and minorities groups through the use of "we" and "they", Trump, when speaking about Black Americans, often refers to the community as "the African Americans”. So, this highlighting of social ideology through language may extend even beyond pronouns! It’s so interesting how these small, concrete building blocks of grammar can have such large semantic implications. Great topic!

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.

    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​