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.
Campaign Combat: An Analysis of Donald Trump’s Communicative Style in the 2016 Presidential Debate11/2/2016 by Amanda Izes 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.
2 Comments
by Hayden Kesterson According to figures from the Center for American Women in Politics, women make up only 19.4% of the current US Congress and only four women ever have been Supreme Court justices, including the three currently presiding (“Current Numbers,” 2016). Considering that an estimated 50.8% of the United States’ population is women (“Quick Facts,” (n.d.)), these are startling statistics. The exclusion of women from public office does not only play out on grand, statistically measurable scales, however. It can be traced to specific instances of sexism enacted along different levels of interaction in public settings.
The current US presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is an important milestone for women in politics, and, as such, is a visible arena for how such specific instances play out and contribute to the historical exclusion of women. An examination of an excerpt of their final debate informed by Fairclough (2014) shows how Trump’s use of language toward Clinton works to establish precedents that further marginalize women from the political sphere. by Anonymous Student The Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has used anti-immigrant rhetoric throughout his campaign, and at the third presidential debate, he was asked to defend his stance on immigration. He sparked controversy by concluding his response (transcribed above) with the phrase “bad hombres.” By using this phrase, Trump mocked the value the Democratic party places on diversity and manipulated the interactional regime of the debate to play to his own strengths.
by Natalie LaScala The third presidential debate between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, moderated by Christopher Wallace, demonstrates a great struggle and competition for power. Power, in this case, refers to the ability to make one’s voice heard and have control over the direction of the conversation. The debates are meant to serve as a platform for discussion and giving the candidates an opportunity to persuade voters to agree with their position on issues (Friedman, 2012). A speech community is created in the setting of a presidential debate, in which there are certain expectations. One of these expectations, is that moderator will moderate the debate and have jurisdiction over who speaks and what they will speak about. The candidates are expected to listen to the moderator and their ideas and policies. However, throughout this debate, and particularly in this instance, the momentary power over the conversation frequently shifts between Wallace, Trump, and Clinton. Clinton is being accused of having a faulty policy on border security and uses both verbal and non-verbal communication as a means of restoring power in her favor. While she is making attempts to redirect the conversation, Trump and Wallace are also trying to keep hold of their power.
Why Taboo Words Are Important in the FieldToday, I'm writing to you from somewhere in Mexico, where I'm spending the summer doing field research and writing. Over the course of my extended visits to this country since 2010, my Spanish has enormously improved. This means my interviewing has gotten more effective because I'm better able to listen in detail. But there are many ways of speaking Spanish--any language, really--and among these, is the stylish use of slang, and colorful incorporation of taboo terms like swear words, profanity, and dirty words. Believe it or not, words such as these pop up in interview situations, and other contexts of field observation and participation. Sometimes it becomes my task to swear right along with my participants, or at least empathize with their animated excitement or frustration. Speech communities are constantly innovating new turns of phrase, and American English is no exception. Can you imagine if you didn't know the loaded meanings of the now ubiquitous "balls" or "surfboard"? (Haha, you'll have to go urban dictionary for more information, I'm afraid that would be too much of a digression to explain here.) In this blog post, I describe a recent episode in which I appropriately used some dirty slang here in Mexico, and how this led to a unique opportunity for intercultural learning. I also share a new list of dirty words I learned just last week in Oaxaca City, with a discussion of why I think these colorful words should be more purposefully included on your own list of survival vocabulary. |
Main AuthorJamie 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
Categories
All
|