scholarly journals A Fallacy Analysis of the Arguments on the First U.S. Presidential Debate Between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

K ta Kita ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-71
Author(s):  
Jennifer Marella Santoso
Keyword(s):  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Ad Populum ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Hasty Generalization ◽  
Presidential Debate ◽  
Research Studies

This research studies the fallacy in the arguments on the first 2016 U.S. presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This research is aimed to find out the fallacies occurred in the debate, the dominant fallacy made by each candidate, and the similarities and differences in each candidate’s fallacy. The topic on fallacy is chosen because fallacies are persuasive, yet misleading arguments which might contribute on influencing the people’s vote. In analyzing the data, the writer used the theory of arguments by Bierman and Assali (1996) and the theory of fallacy by Inch and Warnick (2011). From the total of 22 arguments, four of which are sound arguments. There is a total of 25 fallacies falling into six types which occurred. The most frequently occurred fallacy type is the “straw person” while the “audience-based” category becomes the dominant fallacy category. Furthermore, the writer found that Clinton made all of the sound arguments while Trump made all of the “hasty generalization” and the “ad populum” fallacy.

Visual Presentation Style 2: Influences on Perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Based on Visual Presentation Style During the Third 2016 Presidential Debate

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (5) ◽  
pp. 545-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick A. Stewart ◽  
Austin D. Eubanks ◽  
Reagan G. Dye ◽  
Scott Eidelman ◽  
Robert H. Wicks
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Visual Presentation ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presentation Style ◽  
The Third ◽  
Presidential Debate ◽  
Trait Ratings

A field experiment was conducted to analyze the third and final 2016 presidential debate. Randomly assigned participants watched the debate in the format of mainly solo camera shots that alternate between the candidates (i.e., switched feed), or with both candidates framed side-by-side on screen (i.e., split screen feed). Though viewer feelings of positivity toward the candidates did not differ, visual presentation style had a significant effect on trait judgments for Donald Trump overall. Participants watching Trump on the switched camera feed perceived him as significantly more Sophisticated, Honest, Attractive, Sincere, Strong, Active, Intelligent, Trustworthy, and Generous. There was not an effect for Hillary Clinton’s trait ratings overall, though she was perceived as significantly more Strong, Competent, and Intelligent by those watching the switched feed. This suggests that visual presentation style significantly influenced viewer perceptions. Political ideology was a significant predictor of all but one of the traits for each candidate.

scholarly journals GRICE’S COOPERATIVE PRINCIPLE VIOLATION IN THE SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON AND DONALD TRUMP

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-39
Author(s):  
Yoan Lodari ◽  
Kasmaini . ◽  
Syafrizal Sabarudin
Keyword(s):  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Cooperative Principle ◽  
Qualitative Descriptive ◽  
Presidential Debate

The aims of this research were to investigate kinds of maxims violated by the speakers and to investigate possible purposes of violations applied by the speakers. This research was conducted as qualitative descriptive study. The corpus of this research was Second Presidential transcript debate. The transcript was put into a checklist table and analyzed by Grice’s theory of Cooperative Principle. The results of this study showed that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump violated all maxims, with 75 violations by Hillary Clinton and 174 violations by Donald Trump. The most violated maxim by both speakers was maxim of quantity and the less violated maxim was maxim of manner. Moreover, the result showed the least possible purposes of violation by the speakers was to build positive political image towards hearer

Performing populism: Trump’s transgressive debate style and the dynamics of Twitter response

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 634-658 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erik P Bucy ◽  
Jordan M Foley ◽  
Josephine Lukito ◽  
Larissa Doroshenko ◽  
Dhavan V Shah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Statistical Modeling ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Performance ◽  
Second Screen ◽  
The People ◽  
Political Events ◽  
Verbal Message ◽  
Presidential Debate

Populism, as many have observed, is a communication phenomenon as much as a coherent ideology whose mass appeal stems from the fiery articulation of core positions, notably hostility toward “others,” bias against elites in favor of “the people,” and the transgressive delivery of those messages. Yet much of what we know about populist communication is based on analysis of candidate pronouncements, the verbal message conveyed at political events and over social media, rather than transgressive performances—the visual and tonal markers of outrage—that give populism its distinctive flair. The present study addresses this gap in the literature by using detailed verbal, tonal, and nonverbal coding of the first US presidential debate of 2016 between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton to show how Trump’s transgressive style—his violation of normative boundaries, particularly those related to protocol and politeness, and open displays of frustration and anger—can be operationalized from a communication standpoint and used in statistical modeling to predict the volume of Twitter response to both candidates during the debate. Our findings support the view that Trump’s norm-violating transgressive style, a type of political performance, resonated with viewers significantly more than Clinton’s more controlled approach and garnered Trump substantial second-screen attention.

scholarly journals Women and Men Linguistic Features in the First Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 1
Author(s):  
Ashari Jamangantar Siregar ◽  
I Made Suastra
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Method ◽  
Washington Post ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Linguistic Features ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Documentary Method ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Dominant Feature ◽  
Undergraduate Thesis ◽  
Presidential Debate

This undergraduate thesis entitled Women and Men Linguistic Features in The First Presidential Debate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in 2016 was aimed at analyzing the women linguistic features represented by Clinton utterances based on Lakoff (1975) theory and men linguistic features represented by Trump based on Coates (2003) theory and at investigating the implication of the dominant women and men linguistic features. The data were taken from the debate video of NBC YouTube channel and its transcript is taken from the Washington Post website. The method used in collecting data was the documentary method applying the note-taking technique. The qualitative and quantitative method was applied in analyzing the data. In presenting the analysis, formal and informal methods were used. The analysis results showed that there seven features of ten women linguistic features discovered in this study; they were lexical hedges, rising intonation on declarative, empty adjectives, intensive adverbs, hypercorrect grammar, super polite forms, and emphatic stress whereas features such as tag questions, avoidance of strong swear words and precise color terms were not found in this study. In this study, there are only three of four men linguistic features such as stereotypically masculine topics, great attention to details, elaborate use of taboo words whereas men only features were not used in Trump utterances. And the dominant features found in Clinton utterances were emphatic stress while in Trump, the dominant feature was great attention to details.

scholarly journals A Pragmatics Implicature Function Of Hillary Clinton And Donald Trump Presidential Debate

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 167-173
Author(s):  
Ulfani Rizki Nasir
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Expressive Function ◽  
Library Research ◽  
Textual Data ◽  
Presidential Debate

The problem in this thesis is the utterances by the candidate of presidential debate Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to get the support from the audience and can be a President of America. The candidates give suggestion and negative comment  for the audience that he or she was the best to be a president of America. In this writing, The writer use qualitative method of collecting data because of the element that used come from textual material, which data collected with utilize all of the information and the relevant thought. The writer use library research that kinds of qualitative method for analyze the data. Sarwono (2006:226) mention that library research use for analyze from textual data with systematically. In the writer point of view, this method is correctly use for analyzing this proposal. The writer will collect the data and categorized the primary data to secondary data with used pragmatics implicature function that is assertive function, directive function and expressive function and choose only some of the data for sampling. The results of research in this thesis are the function of pragmatics implcature that was used the most is expressive function. From three presidential debate if Hillary Clinton and Donald trump.      

scholarly journals Transitivity Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s First Television Debate

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yichao Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Quantitative Analysis ◽  
Political Discourse ◽  
Systemic Functional Linguistics ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Mental Processes ◽  
Functional Linguistics ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Relational Process

Halliday holds that all cultures reflect some universal meta-functions in the languages and proposes three such meta-functions: ideational, interpersonal, and textual. This paper employs the transitivity theory in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics to analyze the first television debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Specifically, through a quantitative analysis, this paper tries to find the answers for the next two questions: First, what are the distributions of six processes used by the two candidates; are there any similarities and differences or some rules in the distribution? Second, what are the reasons of such distributions, and what are the functions of the distributions of different processes and main participants in helping the speakers to convey their intentions? The main findings show that material processes, relational process and mental processes are relatively dominate in both candidates’ speeches; while compared with Hillary, Trump tends to use more existential processes. In political discourse, the speakers measure their words with special caution to interact with people, to expresses their attitudes and judgments, and to influence the viewpoints and behavior of the audience, which is mainly the realization of the interpersonal function.

Motivational underpinnings of support for radical political leaders

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Political Candidate ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Willingness To Engage

In three studies conducted over the course of 2016 US presidential campaign we examined the relationship between radicalism of a political candidate and willingness to engage in actions for that candidate. Drawing on significance quest theory (Kruglanski et al., 2018), we predicted that people would be more willing to make large sacrifices for radical (vs. moderate) candidates because the cause of radical candidates would be more personally important and engagement on behalf it would be more psychologically rewarding. We tested these predictions among supporters of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. Our findings were in line with these predictions, as the more followers perceived their candidates as radical, the more they viewed leaders’ ideas as personally important, gained more personal significance from those ideas, and intended to sacrifice more for the leader.

Making Americans Feel Great Again? Personal Significance Predicts Political Intentions of Losers and Winners of the 2016 US Election

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Political System ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The Political ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Electoral Success ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Times

Reactions of losers and winners of political elections have important consequences for the political system during the times of power transition. In four studies conducted immediately before and after the 2016 US presidential elections we investigated how personal significance induced by success or failure of one’s candidate is related to hostile vs. benevolent intentions toward political adversaries. We found that the less significant supporters of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump felt after an imagined (Study 1A) or actual (Study 2) electoral failure the more they were willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president and the less they were willing to accept the results of the elections. However, while significance gain due to an imagined or actual electoral success was related to more benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters (Study 1B), it was related to more hostile intentions among Trump supporters (Studies 1B, 2, and 3).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document