川普與柯林頓2016年最後總統大選辯論的批判性言談分析研究

全文

(1)國立屏東大學英語學系碩士班碩士論文指導教授: Dr. Schams, Wayne. 川普與柯林頓 2016 年最後總統大選辯論的批判性言. 談分析研究 Critical Discourse Analysis: A Qualitative Study of the Final Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate in 2016. 研究生 : 許倢瑜撰中華民國 109 年 8 月.

(2)

(3)

(4) 摘要本研究旨在探究以 Fairclough 批判性言談分析方法當中的三維分析模型用於川普與希拉蕊 2016 最後總統大選辯論的語言特徵，還有他們倆者分歧且隱晦的思想進行探討，為了辨別川普與希拉蕊言談的差異。此研究分析方法主要採用 Norman Fairclough 的分析方法，又稱為三維分析模型，此方法於他的著作言談與社會變遷 (1992) 之中提及。此方法認為思想是宿寄於言談之中的，也就是說不可能把思想與言談分開談論，而且言談是得以透過批判的觀點進行多方面的解讀。在此研究當中，最後總統大選辯論會透過三維分析模型當中的原文分析、推論分析、釋義分析，三種分析方法著手，並得以透露出川普和希拉蕊於政治言談當中的政治語言的語言特徵之差異。研究結果如下。第一，於原文分析之後，結果顯示川普與希拉蕊兩者因性別的不同在辯論進行的時候，他們倆者代名詞的使用上也有所不同。川普在辯論當中的政治語言是藉由『我們』這個代名詞來拉攏觀眾，而希拉蕊則是運用更多的主格代名詞『你們』來讓觀眾們相信川普就是她們將要一起面對的敵人。第二，推論分析後得到川普與希拉蕊兩者於使用言談標記的頻率有所不同。於希拉蕊的言談當中出現了 30 次的“Well”，遠比川普的次數，13 次，還要來的多。這也顯示了希拉蕊在這場辯論當中對自己的言論是更顯得有所疑慮的。此外，“Believe me”該片語也出現在此辯論當中，但只有川普有使用 “Believe me”這個片語，當他感到自己無法提出有力的證據或是說出能讓人信服的話的時候，他便運用這個言談策略來讓自己聽起來更可信。此外，推論分析也發現他們倆者於 “By the way”當中的使用差異，與川普相反的是，希拉蕊並沒有使用“By the way”。只有川普有使用 By the way”該片語，來使討論的話題移轉到他所想要的方向。最後，透過釋義分析之後，於川普和希拉蕊的思想上顯示了川普與希拉蕊言談當中存在著代名詞頻率的. i.

(5) 差異與言談標記的使用差異，得出了於這場最後辯論當中，川普傾向於採取激進的言談模式來進行辯論;而希拉蕊則是採取了保守的言談模式進行辯論。本研究以結尾提出了研究結論、研究限制與針對未來的研究者與研究提出建議作結。關鍵字: 政治言談、批判性言談分析、Fairclough 三維分析模型. ii.

(6) ABSTRACT The aim of this study was to investigate linguistic features in political discourse based on Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis approach, specifically those enshrined in the final TrumpClinton presidential debate in 2016 to distinguish Trump’s discourse from Clinton’s discourse. The analysis was mainly grounded in Norman Fairclough's (1992) well-known 3D model approach from his work Discourse and Social Change. This approach claims that ideologies reside in discourse, as it is not possible to separate ideologies from discourse, and that discourse is subject to diverse interpretations through critical analysis. The linguistic features of political discourse in the final presidential debate were analyzed through textual analysis, discursive analysis, and explanatory analysis, with the aim of revealing the different ways in which Trump and Clinton used different linguistic features in their political speeches. The research findings were as follows. First, textual analysis revealed gender differences between Trump's and Clinton's frequency of usage of pronouns. Trump’s political tactic in the debate was to unite the audience by frequently using “we,” while Clinton employed more frequently the pronoun “you,” in an effort to make the audience believe that Trump was a common enemy they were facing. Second, there were significant differences between Trump and Clinton in their usage of discourse markers. The more frequent usage of “well” by Clinton (30 times) as compared to Trump (13 times) made her sound more dubious in the debate. The discourse marker “believe me” was only used by Trump, which he employed to sound truthful when he was not able to give evidence about his claims and promises. In contrast to Trump, Clinton did not use “by the way.” Only Trump used the turn-medial “by the way” as he worked to steer the topic under discussion in his desired direction. Third, explanatory analysis revealed. iii.

(7) that there were ideological differences between Trump’s and Clinton’s discourse derived from their frequency of usage of pronouns and discourse markers. The findings indicated that Trump tended to take a more offensive stance in the debate, while Clinton tended to take a more defensive stance. This study concluded with a summary, limitations, and suggestions for future researchers and future studies. Keywords: political discourse, critical discourse analysis, Fairclough 3D model. iv.

(8) TABLE OF CONTENTS CHINESE ABSTRACT……………………………………………….………………..…....i ENGLISH ABSTRACT……………………………………………….………………....…iii TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………….…………………………………...…v LIST OF TABLES……………………………….………………………………………...vii LIST OF FIGURES……………………………….………………...………….…......…..viii LIST OF ACRONYMS…………………..………………….……………………………...ix CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION…………………………………………...…….…..1 Background of the Study…..…………………………………………………………...1 Research Questions………………………...………………………………..…..……..6 Scope of the Study……………………………………………………...……...…..…..7 Purpose of the Study….….….….….….….….....….….….….…..….….….…..…..…..7 Significance of the Study….….….….….….…….….….....….….….….…..…..….......8 Definition of Terms….….….….….…...…….….....................….….….….….……….9 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………..……….....14 Definitions and Types of Discourse……………………..……………..……...…..….14 Discourse and Discourse Analysis…………………..…..……………..……...…..….17 Critical Discourse Analysis……………………………..……………………..……...18 Political Speech and Political Ideology……………………………...…..…..………..25 Presidential Debate…………………………………………………………..…..…....26 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY………………………………………………...29 Research Design……………………………………….…………………………..…..29. v.

(9) Instruments and Materials………………………………….…………………..…..….30 Data Analysis……………………………………….…………..………………...…...32 Pilot Study.……………………………………………………………...……..…...….33 Key Findings and Conclusions of Pilot Study …………...……..…………...…..33 Textual Analysis Stage.…………...……..…………………………………....….34 Discursive Analysis Stage.…………...……..…………………………………....36 Explanatory Analysis Stage………....……..…………………………………….37 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION…………………………..………....39 Textual Analysis.……………………………………………………………...……….39 Discursive Analysis.……………………………………………...……………….…...47 Explanatory Analysis.………………………………………...…………………….…55 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS……………………..……….…60 Summary of the Main Findings ……………………………………..………………..60 Pedagogical Implication ……………………………………………………………...63 Limitations of the Study..……………………………………………………………..64 Suggestions for Future Research………………………………………………….…..66 REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………68 APPENDIX ……………………………………………………………………………….72. vi.

(10) LIST OF TABLES. Table 1. Trump’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the first presidential debate………….34. Table 2. Clinton’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the first presidential debate…………35. Table 3. Trump’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the final presidential debate…………41. Table 4. Clinton’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the final presidential debate………...43. Table 5. Trump and Clinton’s frequency of usage discourse markers………...………...…..49. vii.

(11) LIST OF FIGURES. Figure 1 Fairclough, 1992, Discourse and Social Change………………..……………...21. Figure 2 Van Dijk, 1993, Principles of critical discourse analysis.……………………...24. viii.

(12) LIST OF ACRONYMS. CDA. -. Critical Discourse Analysis. DA. -. Discourse Analysis. DHA. -. Discourse Historical Analysis. PD. -. Political Discourse. PDA. -. Political Discourse Analysis. ix.

(13) CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Background of the Study The development and application of discourse can be observed as the provenance of language. Charles Darwin (1996) thought that it was possible that the earliest humans possessed the ability to communicate with each other by musical notes and rhythm. As Darwin (1996) mentioned concerning the notion of the origin of language from musical notes and rhythm in his book, On Evolution: The Development of the Theory of Natural Selection, he pinpointed the possibility that our ancestors developed a complex way to express themselves in well-constructed utterances, that is, language. Darwin perceived language as musical notes and rhythm, and this ability had already been developed as a tool for communication in the primary era before the development of advanced language. Although the precise ways in which language originated are still shrouded in mystery since there is no direct evidence of the earliest speech among human beings, it cannot be denied that the phenomenon of human speech was developing. That is to say, the absence of direct physical evidence did not cause a lack of speculation concerning the origins of human speech and human discourse.. 1.

(14) Gradually over time, people began communicating by using specific terms with the purpose of transmitting information or the intention of informing someone about something that can be mutually achieved. Human beings are notable for the above-mentioned traits that distinguish us from other creatures. As human beings, we can share information through spoken or written language and even sign language to communicate and unveil the tapestry of discourse. Redeker (1984) argued that when transferring information or initiating conversations with others, we are in the process of communicating, and that we usually use language as the medium to express the information that we would like to share with others. According to Redeker (1984), the medium of language can be divided into two types of usage. The first is direct usage, which implies that there is no mediator between the speakers or writers when conveying information. Spoken language is generally the first medium used in communicating with others. In spoken language, communication with others is achieved by sharing information through verbal language produced with one’s vocal organs. Messages are conveyed through the mouth via a sequence of organized words. For instance, daily faceto-face conversation is an example of the direct usage of spoken language. The second usage of the medium of language is indirect usage, which implies that the transmitting of information is accomplished by a mediator between language users. Written language is an example of indirect language usage involving bilateral communication 2.

(15) established on an information-carrying device. Well-known forms of written language include text messages, emails, letters, and so on. With this background concerning the medium and usages of language, it is necessary to emphasize the importance of discourse and politics, which are essential elements in our everyday lives. The actions taken by politicians and their declarations have tremendous influence in society. In Aristotle’s view, every person is a political animal. By indicating that human beings are political in nature, he revealed the concept that people cannot completely isolate themselves from politics. According to Aristotle’s point of view, language is a tool used to deliver one’s thoughts to another person or persons in a way that is both comprehensible and meaningful. In the process of addressing others through language, speakers then make appeals to the listener(s) either with logic or emotion, characterizing the form of political discourse political discourse referred to as political debate. Political debate is a form of political discourse that contains features of public speaking and versatile styles of talking by politicians. They offer their opinions to the public, present ideas that promote discussion, and provoke analytical thinking. Political debates can also be seen as representations of either direct or indirect forms of political discourse that can have an impact on people. In political debate, speakers shed light on their political ideologies, and their personas are enshrined through political discourse. These factors of political discourse in 3.

(16) the context of debate influence audiences. The reason for choosing political debates as the subject of this study stems from my interest in analyzing the usage of language, specifically the pronouns politicians use, the unequal power relations they imply, and the ideologies they represent. To analyze the usage of language and the implications that can be derived from presidential debates, an analytical qualitative research method was adopted. More specifically, in this study, the critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach was adopted to investigate the political discourse. In analyzing political discourse, language is viewed also as a form of social practice, with the aim of identifying social and political domination. This study also probed differences in the usage of pronouns and discourse markers as well as differences in ideology between Trump and Clinton. Both candidates employed political discourse as weapons in their political debate. This study, then, focuses on their divergent usage of pronouns and discourse markers, and their ideologies in their final presidential debate. Before being elected as the 45th president of the United States, Mr. Donald J. Trump (henceforward Trump) and Mrs. Hillary Clinton (henceforward Clinton) had already engaged in a series of debates. Of all the debates, the final one was the most intense as both candidates went all out in their push to present their political ideologies so as to be seen as the strongest 4.

(17) contender. Trump adopted his usual fiery tone of a sophisticated businessman when addressing the issues and answered questions with powerful discourse that echoed the tenor of his rallies. Orwell (1946) once stated that “in our age there is no such thing as keeping out of politics and politics itself is a mass of lies” (p. 18). He indicated that there is no truth in political discourse and political language. If there is no truth in political language, in what ways did Trump win the votes of the American people? Perhaps he did it partly through his political discourse and by his remarks about current corrupt politicians. Perhaps he made it to the White House partly by persuading people with a bit of sarcasm which caused many voters to believe that he really would make America great again. If there is no truthfulness in political language, in what ways did Clinton win the hearts of American women? She won the votes of women and highly educated people with her emphasis on promoting gender equality, a fair tax system, and national security. As one of the most successful millionaires, Trump not only was accustomed to the discourse uttered in the business world since he was young but also was well-acquainted with political language and political discourse. His motives for running for president can be traced back to the time when he was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey in 1988. As he talked to Oprah about foreign policy and his perspectives concerning running a presidential campaign, Trump 5.

(18) implicitly revealed his initial motives for running for president was due to what he saw as corruption in the government and the political correctness of fake politicians and fake news reflected in their political language. One of my aims in investigating Trump’s and Clinton’s political discourse is to offer an analysis of both presidential candidates’ political discourse during their final debate. The analysis was based on the CDA theories proposed by Fairclough (1992) and demonstrates functions of political discourse in presidential debate. This study investigated specifically both candidates’ usage of pronouns, discourse markers, and political ideologies in their final debate before the 2016 election. Research Questions With the above as a background, the research questions in this study specifically focus on how the political discourse was used to signify, produce, and contest unequal power relations between Trump and Clinton. In other words, through the following research questions, I not only sought to reveal the ways in which the political discourse features of the final presidential debate applied to the candidates’ political ideologies but also how they enabled a better understanding of different political purposes in the debate. As such, the specific research questions in this study are as follows: 1. Based on textual analysis following Fairclough's CDA model, what differences are there between Trump's and Clinton's frequency of usage of pronouns?. 6.

(19) 2. Based on discursive analysis following Fairclough's CDA model, what differences are there between Trump's and Clinton's discourse marker usage? 3. Based on social analysis following Fairclough's CDA model, what ideological differences between Trump and Clinton can be determined from their pronoun frequency and discourse marker usage? Scope of the Study The scope of this study, although dealing with the genre of political debate in general, is focused on the third and final Trump-Clinton debate that took place on October 19, 2016 in Las Vegas, Nevada, USA. The primary content comprises the complete transcript of the debate (see Appendix). The debate was delivered in English and broadcast live on radio, television, and the Internet. In order to obtain the actual data, I acquired the transcription of the full debate from the Washington Post website (Blake, 2016). The total word count of the full transcription of the debate was 16,415 words. The study incorporates Fairclough’s (1992) 3D model which was adopted from his book entitled Discourse and Social Change. These main theories and analytical approaches were also reiterated by Chilton (2004). Purpose of the Study As noted above, the purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative analysis of the differences in the frequency usage of pronouns and discourse markers as well as ideological. 7.

(20) differences in the final presidential debate between Trump and Clinton using Fairclough’s (1992) 3D model of CDA. In other words, both presidential candidates’ forms of political discourse were investigated using Fairclough’s 3D model to identify differences in Trump and Clinton’s frequency usage of pronouns, discourse marker usage, and their ideological differences. Significance of the Study This CDA study of Trump and Clinton’s final presidential debate is significant for researchers conducting future studies as well as educators. First of all, the results of this study have both theoretical and pedagogical significance. This study dissected Trump and Clinton’s political ideologies and presented an interpretation of how both candidates’ political discourse corroborated their ideologies. The political discourse they uttered during the debate, besides influencing the audience and the public in general, provides a rich source of data for CDA scholars and researchers. As for theoretical benefits to lay readers, the results have been presented in terms such that those who are not well versed in CDA or discourse studies more generally can glean the key features of Trump’s and Clinton’s political discourse stances and their political ideologies. The findings of this study also contribute to the diverse body of CDA studies. 8.

(21) dealing with presidential debate and serve as a reference for researchers, who conceived the same interest in exploring these issues and topics in greater depth. From the pedagogical standpoint, this study can serve as a resource for linguistic instructors looking to introduce their students to CDA theories and frameworks as well as basic but essential concepts of political discourse and ideologies as reflected in the genre of presidential debate. Thus, this study can benefit students across a wide range of interdisciplinary fields, such as English, linguistics, rhetoric, discourse analysis, political science, and even social psychology and other affiliated fields. Definition of Terms Fairclough (2001) stated that discourse is “a term applied in various ways within the broad field of discourse analysis” (p. 13). He further pointed out that in his view there are two related aspects of discourse. First, he treats discourse as an abstract concept with linguistic elements ingrained in social life and an essential element in daily conversation. Second, Fairclough sees discourse as a countable noun. That is, it comprises many different forms in which one’s opinions can be expressed and shared in society. The term “discourse” originated from the Latin “discursus” (Lexico.com, 2019) meaning “to run back and forth,” and applied specifically to written and spoken communication. Foucault (1971), one of the best known social linguists and social scientists, argued that the concept of discourse is like a huge corpus. 9.

(22) of spoken signs, or written symbols by which communication takes place. Mühleisen (2002), another author inspired by Foucault’s (1971) definition of discourse, in her book, Creole Discourse Exploring prestige formation and change across Caribbean English-lexicon Creoles, defines discourse as “ways of constituting knowledge, together with the social practices, forms of subjectivity and power relations which inhere in such knowledge and relations between them” (p. 22) and suggests that “discourses are more than ways of thinking and producing meaning . . . they constitute the nature of the body, unconscious and conscious mind and emotional life of the subjects they seek to govern” (p. 29). Besides the above definitions, discourse can also have more elastic meanings, as it is interpreted differently in various theoretical works of linguists and discourse analysts who apply it to different theoretical frameworks. Van Dijk (1995) has given various explanations of what political discourse entails. Van Dijk (1995) argued that “political discourse was the type of discourse focusing on discourse in the field of political actions such as hearings, speeches, and debates” (p. 11). On the other hand, Johnson and Johnson (2010) suggest that political discourse is “the formal exchange of reasoned views as to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem” (p. 294). In other words, political discourse typically involves politicians. 10.

(23) expressing and exchanging their thoughts and ideas with the ultimate goal of making decisions about the best actions to take in order to solve problems. Van Dijk (1997) specified that “political discourse is identified by its actors or authors, that is politicians” (p. 19). Hence, in political discourse analysis, it is important to identify the political actors before analyzing their utterances. Van Dijk (1997) also pointed out that “the vast studies of political discourse is about the text and talk of professional politicians or political institutions, such as presidents and prime ministers and other members of government, parliament or political parties, both at the local, national and international levels” (p. 37). In this statement, Van Dijk sees the study of political discourse as focusing on “professional” politicians. Since Trump is a businessman by trade rather than a “professional” politician, he is an exception to this categorization of those who typically engage in political discourse. However, analysis of the discourse in the Trump-Clinton debate in the present study is still relevant since they were both aspiring to become president. Since Van Dijk (1995) regards presidential debate as one of the major forms of political discourse, it is necessary to briefly address it here. It has been a long-standing custom for presidential candidates in U.S. elections to engage in debates which are broadcast live on TV, radio, and even the Internet. The topics discussed in the debates are often the most controversial issues that require debaters to quickly present credible and practicable solutions. 11.

(24) According to Isotalus (2011), “American presidential debates are the most well-known political debates. They are also the most followed, viewed, controlled, and the most researched political television programs” (p. 31). Presidential debates are often held after political parties nominate their respective candidates. Some debate formats differ. For instance, some involve the candidates being asked questions by a moderator, while in other formats (e.g., town hall debates) the audience members are permitted to ask debaters questions. Regardless of the format, debaters are expected to be well prepared and to clearly express and explain their positions on issues and ideas to the audience. The term discourse analysis (DA) was coined by Harris (1952), who described it as “a method for the analysis of the connected speech, or writing for continuing descriptive linguistics beyond the limit of a single sentence at a time and for correlating culture and language” (p. 54). From this definition, Harris emphasized the connection between culture and language as an integral component of discourse analysis. Besides Harris’ (1952) definition of DA, Staplers (1988) viewed DA as not only investigating the language per se (e.g., grammar and sentence structure) but also the semantics and implied meanings in words and sentences. This deeper investigation of a language could involve multiple meanings of certain words as well as phonological and even. 12.

(25) syntactical differences in word ordering. So, DA studies is not only focused on large units but also small units of language structure. Fairclough (1992) argued that critical discourse analysis (CDA) is not only concerned with analyzing texts, but also the relationships between texts, processes, and their social conditions. As an analytical approach, CDA takes various linguistic factors into consideration. From Fairclough’s point of view, CDA is an interdisciplinary approach that treats discourse as one form of social practice in a given language. According to Van Dijk’s (1995) definition of CDA, he argued that “it had become the general label for a special approach to the study of text and talk, emerging from critical linguistics, critical semiotics and in general from a social-politically conscious and oppositional way of investigating language, discourse and communication” (p. 71).. 13.

(26) CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW Definitions and Types of Discourse Before probing into political discourse, discourse analysis, and critical discourse analysis at any depth, it is first necessary to understand what discourse consists of. Sindoni (2013) mentioned that discourse is simply communication in written and spoken form. Some discourse analysts have provided more detailed definitions of discourse regarding linguistic aspects. For example, Fairclough (2001) argued that “besides commonly used in communication between people, discourse involves larger linguistic units and issues of linguistic performance in the scope of socialinguistics” (p. 53). Fairclough’s definition of discourse implies that the field of discourse not only concerns the structure of words written by writers or spoken sentences produced by speakers, but it also incorporates a much more complex genre touching on the social aspects o linguistics in different cultures. Fairclough (1992) explained extensively that “by communicating in linguistically competent speech, the speaker places himself in a particular society with its cultural norms, values and symbols” (p. 54). Undoubtedly, the more cultural knowledge and experiences a speaker possesses, the more likely he or she will be able to engage in discourse that is comprehensible and rich in content. 14.

(27) After defining what discourse consists of, it is also necessary identify different types of discourse. According to Chatman (1980), discourse can be categorized into four general types: argument, narration, description, and exposition. The purpose of argumentative is to convince a listener or an audience of the credibility of the speaker’s words based on supporting evidence and solid reasoning. Narration discourse was another form of discourse in which a speaker, usually while delivering a speech, relates a story, often emotional and touching, to an audience. Description discourse involves detailed and vivid descriptions (e.g., of people, places, event, etc.) and often appeals to the listener’ five senses to help them better imagine, or visualize a concept the speaker is trying to communicate. Finally, exposition discourse is more informative in nature with the audience with aim of clearly explaining information to an audience in smooth and neutral language. Unlike description discourse, exposition discourse does not involve persuasion and does not aim to arouse emotion in the audience. Most political discourse, primarily contains narration and description discourse, especially in political debates and political speeches. Political discourse, in terms of discourse analysis, is generally considered speech uttered by politicians, as opposed to political talk among laypersons. As such, it is assumed to be the category of discourse that politicians are skilled and buy which they are able to gain support to achieve their political goal via public 15.

(28) speaking. When politicians are under stress and display a lack of confidence in what they are saying, the drop of support from the audience could be significant. It is through their rhetoric and discourse styles that audiences are able to observe the wisdom in politicians, as they work to enhance their credibility in the eyes of listeners through improved discourse. In this way, politicians can gradually regain the confidence and support from audience. After briefly defining discourse and political discourse, this chapter will review research studies that are pertinent to the present study in the scope of discourse analysis, critical discourse analysis, and related CDA theories proposed by well-known critical discourse scholars. The major focus is on studies related to Fairclough’s (1992) CDA theory and 3D model as well as references to the multidisciplinary approach proposed by Van Dijk (1993), and Wodak’s (1995) historical approach. Critical discourse analysis is arguably one of the most widely adopted approaches by political students, language learners, and anyone investigating the linguistic features of political discourse. These research studies reviewed here involved political discourse related theories within the paradigms of discourse analysis, as well as critical discourse analysis. The construction of CDA approaches use specifically in analyzing political discourse are also addressed in terms of how they assist in identifying the most salient factors in political language, power and ideologies. A discussion regarding critical discourse analysis via 16.

(29) Fairclough’s three-dimensional is provided along with a summary of the features of Trump and Clinton’s political discourse can be interpreted in light of it. In doing so, my aim in this chapter is to shed light on what politicians actually try to convey in political speeches and summarize the factors that distinguish political discourse from other discourse genres. Discourse and Discourse Analysis The meaning of discourse in linguistics varies depending on interpretations how different linguists interpret it. One of the most widely recognized was proposed by Fairclough (2001), who stated that “discourse was like a key element that cannot be torn off from social practice” (p. 23). That is to say, Fairclough views discourse as the usage of language in social practice, and that regardless of the social contents, discourse can not be separated from social factors. In accordance with this notion, Fairclough (2001) goes on to describe discourse as “a difficult concept, largely because there are so many conflicting and overlapping definitions formulated from various theoretical and disciplinary standpoints” (p. 3). He views discourse, then, extended samples of spoken dialogue. Furthermore he does not see discourse analysis as being limited by traditional linguistic elements, such as complete sentences or smaller grammatical units. According to his point of view, discourse analysis focuses on higher-level organizational properties of dialogue (e.g. turn-taking, the structures of conversation openings and closings, etc.), or of a written text (e.g. the structure of a crime report in a 17.

(30) newspaper, etc.). Thus, Fairclough (2001) regards discourse as extended samples of both spoken and written language. In addition to an emphasis on higher-level organizational features, Fairclough (2001) also pointed out that discourse highlights the interaction between speaker and listener or between writer and reader. Discourse is, therefore, regarded as a bilateral process that involves producing speech or text on one hand, and interpreting it on the other. Fairclough (1992) considers texts as one dimension of discourse, that is the written or spoken product resulting from the process of text production, which, in application, takes on forms of language in different social situations. For example, classroom discourse in school focuses on interaction between teachers and students, while medical discourse in hospitals focuses on interaction between doctors, nurses, patients, and so on. Political discourse uttered by politicians in the contexts of political speeches and debate is aimed at persuading audiences, announcing or promoting policies, and so on. Critical Discourse Analysis According to Fairclough (2001) in his book. Language and Power, the author views discourse as the developing of a relationship of text to make the text as an outcome, and as a necessity in the process of interpreting the discourse. The origin of CDA shares some features of functional grammar proposed by Halliday (1994), who views the relationship between. 18.

(31) language and power as a conflict stemming from all types of the discourses in genres such as media, public speaking, and politics. Especially within the sphere of political discourse, linguists have long argued about what it constitutes exactly and have proposed various theories to make progress in this field in terms of clarifying the relationship among domination, power and inequality within language, both by explicitly and implicitly identifying these features in discourse. Nonetheless, CDA is indispensable in dealing with social issues, especially when inequality and the abuse of power is evident in the discourse. In studies focusing on DA and CDA, the history of discourse often plays an essential role in the process of textual analysis. By discovering the history of discourse, analysts reveal its discursive analysis that was intertextuality. Only through examining intertextuality in discourse are analysts able to investigate the source of the words in discourse and formulate their perceptions of various forms of discourse based on their own or others’ theoretical frameworks. Hence it was important for researchers interested in analyzing discourse to understand the relationship between words in sentences, and the reasons why speakers used those specific word to reveal their thoughts, and stances toward certain events. Fairclough (1992) further emphasized the importance of the text of CDA. That is, in conducting critical discourse analysis, the researchers are required to break down the meaning of essential texts in a selected discourse, so as to make the analytical process much 19.

(32) easier without the distraction of extraneous words potentially leading to inaccurate interpretations or analysis. Only through this way, can researchers conduct textual analysis in away that the interconnectedness of a text can be identified and the thinking processes of the speakers as they relay their messages in subsequent sentences. Van Dijk (1998a) reiterated the influence of textual analysis in CDA by arguing that CDA is incomplete without conducting textual analysis and only by first doing analysis can more in-depth analysis be done, including discursive analysis or social practice analysis from. Van Dijk also pointed out the relevance of conducting explanatory analysis. He observed that by analyzing such social factors as the time and background in which a discourse takes place, researchers can detect the hidden components in the text, and through processes of the speaker. This also enables researchers to explain the discourse factors from the aspect of social structures and reveal the roles that the text plays in social discourse. Van Dijk went a step further in explaining the general framework of CDA which as it relates to Fairclough’s (1992) emphasis on the relevance of text, intertextuality, and social structure in discourse analysis. Especially in aspect of the social structure, a cultural-related factor of CDA, Fairclough (1992), stresses the point that interaction enables the discourse of the speaker to resonate with the audience. Fairclough took this perspective as the foundation of his CDA theory, indicating that CDA is primarily about determining the origin and 20.

(33) analyzing the relationships in the texts of certain discourse events based on textual, discursive, and explanatory analysis. In short, by breaking down texts in this way the power of the ideology residing within can be seen through a detailed explanation of the reasons (why), the ways (how), and the foundation (source) of the discourse. The reason Fairclough took this three-prong approach in analyzing political discourse is that he views language as an information carrying device in the context of social practice. As he stated in his book Language and Power (2001), when applying any type of discourse, the process must take into account not only the textual aspect, but also the production and social aspects embodied in the discourse. Fairclough (1992, 2001, 2003) developed his 3D theoretical framework theory starting from 1990s. Fairclough (1992) has depicted the interconnected relationships among these three different dimensions in his model (see Figure 1). Figure 1 3D Model of CDA. (Fairclough, 1992). 21.

(34) The first dimension of his 3D model is textual analysis, as noted above, the textual structure of discourse. More specifically, this involves a detailed analysis of vocabulary item, grammar, cohesion, and text structures. The primary purpose of conducting textual analysis is to gain a basic understanding of the fundamental structures of the textual aspects of the discourse to lay the groundwork for the next analysis, discursive analysis.. Discursive analysis, goes. deeper than textual analysis as it involves examining distribution and consumption of discourse. This level deals more with boarder organization of the discourse, as whether the text is well constructed or not, and whether readers or audience can make inferences based on the background of the discourse. It also deals with the inter-textuality, that is whether the concepts the speaker expresses resonate within the text of the discourse. The last one is social analysis, the final stage in Fairclough's (1992) 3D model, it follows descriptive and discursive analysis of the discourse, and is intended to determine the power relations in different people based upon their social and cultural backgrounds. The notion of power relations can be symbolized in the expression “We”. In other words our current way of thinking (i.e., ideologies) developed from our past experience, and what we learn from those past experiences shape and represented who we are today. Thus a speaker’s ideologies are reflected in his or her discourse reproduced, and it is in this phase of analysis that different 22.

(35) ideologies can be identified such as ideologies of feminism, and socialism, and so on. These ideologies are then reflected in political discourse. Van Dijk’s (1998b) multidisciplinary approach, also called the social cognitive approach, takes social factors into consideration when analyzing the ideologies that resides within a text. This is another theoretical framework that can be applied in CDA. One reason why Van Dijk (1993) argues that CDA is as an approach to study abusing of power and inequality were that through CDA we could offer ways of shedding light on problems between various social circumstances. He stressed that the audience or reader must be informed about the ways in which the texts are formed and only in that way can readers understand the underlying reasons behind them. Fox example, if discourse contains statements that imply gender inequality are stated no matter explicitly or implicitly, Van Dijk (1993) suggests that by conducting discourse analysis, we can dive deeper into the reasons as to why the speaker or writer chose in that particular discourse to utter such statements and from what perspective. A depiction of this model can be seen in Figure 2.. 23.

(36) Figure 2 Principles of critical discourse analysis. (Van Dijk, 1993). Besides Fairclough’s (1992) and Van Dijk’s (1993) CDA approaches, another approach to analyzing discourse is called discourse historical approach (DHA) proposed by Wodak (1995). Similar to Van Dijk’s (1993) social cognitive approach, Wodak’s DHA is also an inter-disciplinary approach but differs in some respects. Unlike Van Dijk’s approach, DHA aims to discover the problems revealed in discourse, as it not only focuses on the linguistic features of the discourse, but includes social factors such as the fieldwork necessary to detect social factors residing in discourse under various cultures with different perspectives. DHA requires researchers to check whether or not the data meet the requirements of the theoretical 24.

(37) framework. Last but not least, historical factors should be analyzed as well in DHA, as certain types of discourse might contain various genres. Investigating these genres and the inter-textual relationships among texts is necessary to reconstruct the historical background of the discourse and analyzing it in regard to its historical context. Wodak’s (1995) DHA could be taken as the main CDA approach in analyzing discourse when it is intertwined with elements of other approaches to analyzing discourse. Doing so can yield findings that incorporate historical, cultural, and social factors in discourse. Political Speech and Political Ideology The initial purpose of political speech was to persuade the public to believe that such an ideal society could potentially exist. Political speeches are the instruments that leaders, politicians in ancient Greece used to persuade their citizen to follow them in working to construct their vision of an ideal society. Finlayson and Martin (2008) pointed out that political speeches are argumentative in nature and that can empower the speaker to persuade listeners through arguments, emotional appeals, or logic. Ideology is another factor strongly embedded in political speech that makes this type of discourse worth investigating, since ideology involves a wide range of ideas, especially complex ideas related to social and political thought. McLellan (1995), a British scholar specializing in analyzing Marxism, argued that ideology is a puzzling and ambiguous social. 25.

(38) and psychological concept to grasp because its meaning in different branches of social science is apt to alternate in different situations. That is the same basic ideology concept tends to be interpreted differently beyond its fundamental meaning based upon a speaker’s own experience and educational background. In light of this explanation of the variable natures of ideology, it is an integrated component in political speeches. Ideology of policy, or political ideology since it is a key factor in political speech, it is necessary to analyze to see the essence of thoughts it represents, whereby a summary of reflection on the relationship between specific political ideology and a certain politicians. That is to say, after analyzing the political discourse that is based on a certain political ideology such as socialism or feminism, it is much easier to understand why certain politicians adhere to certain political ideologies based on their political perspectives, backgrounds, political experiences, and so on. Analyzing a politician’s political ideology can therefore be beneficial in a better understanding his/her thoughts and policies regarding different issues. Presidential Debate Presidential debates in the political history of the United States have long played a crucial role in arousing the passion for the election process and motivating the public to vote for future leaders. Back in 1960, the very first televised presidential debate in the United States. 26.

(39) took place between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon on September 26, 1960. Presidential debates can be categorized as one type of political discourse which has more prominent discourse with contextual features that invariably connect politicians intimately with their discourse. Chilton (2004) argues that presidential debates are not only the manifestations of political speech embedded with contextual features, but also the assimilation of political experiences and historical references which must be able to resonate with the audience in a way that arouse the feeling and passions. The ultimate purpose of holding presidential debates is to provide a platform where candidates can make clear their position on political issues in such a way as to convince the public that they are the best person to lead. Like every other type of debate, there are rules and regulations that the debater must follow in a presidential debate such as following the prescribed speaking order and staying within one’s allotted speaking time. Breaking debate rules or not speaking or answering questions well could have a negative impact on the audiences impression of the candidates. In that case, candidates must try to quickly adjust their discourse so as to express their thoughts more clearly and succinctly. The hallmark of presidential debate is active engagement in the (usually) bilateral conversation between the debaters with the questions asked by the moderators. The 27.

(40) moderators, who are usually well-known news anchors, would alternate asking questions, (if there are two moderators co-hosting the debate) individually to each candidate, creating a tense atmosphere and stirring the audiences’ interest. The candidates then take turns answering the questions within their allotted times. Some presidential debate formats include an open debate time during which the candidates can question each other, criticize, make counter arguments, question each other’s logic, and so on. This gives the audience the best opportunity to see which candidate has the strongest arguments and best reasoning. Following this period of open debate, a brief concluding statements is made by each candidate before the moderators end the debate. In a town hall debate format, members of the audience are allowed to ask the candidates some questions.. 28.

(41) CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter discusses the methodology involved in the present study, including the research design, data, and data analysis methods to help readers more easily grasp how this research study was conducted. Research Design In this study, I adopted the qualitative design in conducting the research. The other reason I chose the qualitative approach is that the data in this study can be categorized, analyzed, depicted and explained in a way that provides a more detailed picture what would be possible with a quantitative design. Utilizing the qualitative approach can also reveal the reasons for the differences in the discourse uttered by both presidential candidates' speeches in their debate, and the debaters’ preferred utterances in the debate could also be seen through the qualitative analysis. In her book, Qualitative Researching, Mason (2002) stated that “Qualitative research often does use some form of quantification, but statistical forms of analysis are not seen as essential” (p. 15). Thus, in qualitative studies, data are comprised much more of words than statistics. She also argued that “Through qualitative research we can explore a wide array of dimensions of the social world, including the ways that social processes, institutions, discourses or relationships work, and the significance of the meanings. 29.

(42) that they generate” (Mason, 2002, p. 17). This suggests that in discourse related studies, qualitative methods are often adopted because they enable researchers to conduct more indepth analysis of human experiences and perspectives. Hence, qualitative methods of research are commonly used in the social sciences, including social linguistics. As such qualitative methodology was deemed appropriate for this study in analyzing the final TrumpClinton presidential debate. As noted, this study adopted Fairclough’s (1992) 3D model incorporating textual, discursive, and explanatory analysis of the data. The findings are presented in chapter Four. Instruments and Materials The primary analytical instrument in this study is Fairclough’s (1992) 3D model based on his CDA theoretical framework. As noted in Chapter Two, Fairclough’s CDA framework differed from Van Dijk’s social-cognitive approach which analyzes discourse through social linguistic and historical background point of view. Group relations, semantic level meanings, and shrouded messages in the discourse. It also differed from Wodak’s (1995) discoursehistorical approach which focuses on analyzing interdisciplinary interests that combines linguistic features to determine the historical, sociological, and theoretical backgrounds of discourse. Fairclough’s (2003) CDA framework and 3D model were deemed more relevant than the. 30.

(43) other two for analyzing the textual structure of the debate discourse contents (e.g. grammar, cohesion, etc.), discursive analysis and explanatory analysis. The reason for selecting this debate to analyze as opposed to Trump’s inaugural speech for example, was mainly due to the fact that in the final presidential debate, Trump encountered a strong competitor, Clinton, in a setting where animated bilateral interaction rather than one-directional political speeches makes for more engaging, neutral and spontaneous discourse. The data analyzed in this study were glean from script of the final presidential debate between Trump and Clinton that took place on October 20, 2016. The entire text of the debate has been fully transcribed and is provided in the appendix in its complete written format. The other reason for choosing the Trump-Clinton final presidential debate as the data for this study was that the final presidential debate was considered crucial in that has significant potential in determining the result of 2016 presidential election. It can be observed from their speeches that to Trump and Clinton, this presidential debate represented the candidates’ last oppotunity to display their political discourse skills in front of the public in order to appeal to voters and gain their support. For all of these reasons, the final Trump-Clinton was deemed most suitable material for analysis. The reasons for adopting Fairclough’s 3D model in this pilot study are follows. First, the model is easier to apply to political discourse compared to Van Dijk (1993) and Wodak’s 31.

(44) (1995) approaches which require a certain level of prior knowledge based on others’ theoretical frameworks. Second, unlike other approaches, it can be done within a relatively short time. Third, it can offer multi-dimensional explanations. Sarting from textual analysis, it can then extend more readily to analyzing social factors and the speakers ideologies stemming from different social-cultural backgrounds. Data Analysis Fairclough’s 3D model is generally suitable for conducting research that analyzes political discourse, and more specifically ideal for investigating political debate with the CDA framework. As Wodak (2002) concedes, Fairclough’s method of data analysis involves selecting specific passages in discourse for investigation and analysis. Through Faircough's (1992) 3D model approach, deeper insight can be glean from the political discourse between Trump and Clinton through textual, discursive, and explanatory analysis. At the textual analysis stage, the usage of pronouns uttered by Trump and Clinton during the debate are listed, and an explanation of these pronouns is provided to answer research question one (i.e. based on textual analysis following Fairclough's CDA model, what differences are there between Trump's and Clinton's frequency usage of pronouns in their final debate?). At the discursive analysis stage, a comparison was made of the different discourse markers used by Trump and Clinton and their frequency. The most iconic discourse. 32.

(45) markers were identified and explained to answer research question two (i.e. based on discursive analysis following Fairclough's CDA model, what differences are there between Trump's and Clinton's discourse marker usage in their final debate?). At the explanatory analysis stage, an explanation and discussion based on the findings of research questions one and two to identify Trump and Clinton’s ideological differences in order to answer research question three (i.e. based on social analysis following Fairclough's CDA model, what ideological differences between Trump and Clinton can be determined from their pronoun frequency and discourse marker usage in their final debate?). Pilot Study A small-scale pilot study was first conducted based on Trump and Clinton’s first presidential debate and the data were analyzed according to Fairclough’s 3D model. The main purpose of the pilot study was to become more familiar with the model and see how it functions in actual practice and provide a more solid foundation for using it to analyze the data later in the formal study. The pilot study was limited in the numbers of items selected to be analyzed. The study also was intended to give an idea of trends and what findings could be predicted in the formal study. Key Findings and Conclusions of Pilot Study This section contains key findings of the pilot study and a discussion of their significant in. 33.

(46) regard to the formal study. Table 1 Trump’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the first presidential debate Subjective. Frequency. pronouns. Objective. Frequency. pronouns. Possessive. Frequency. pronouns. ________________________________________________________________________ I. 88. Me. 10. My. 30. Youa. 20. Youa. 0. Your a. 13. He. 10. Him. 0. His. 5. Shec. 12. Herc. 0. Herc. 10. It. 0. It. 0. Its. 0. We. 82. Us. 5. Our. 104. Youb. 0. Youb. 0. Yourb. 13. They. 26. Them. 19. Their. 33. ________________________________________________________________________ a. Singular you. B Plural you. C References to Clinton.. Textual Analysis Stage The pilot study revealed that Trump’s discourse in the first debate contained linguistic features that worth investigated. Table 1 shows a breakdown of the frequency of pronouns usage in the first debate that made a categorization between “We” and “You”. The most significant findings is that Trump used “I” 88 times and “We” 82 times, indicating his strong preference for using first person subjective pronouns. Trump utilized “I” or “we” in lines 34.

(47) such as “Under my plan, I’ll be reducing taxes tremendously,” and “But we have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us,” to express a sense of unity and with the audience. When he used “she” or “they”, he wanted to show a kind of negative evaluation of Clinton and her party supporters. For example, as he uttered, “She’s going to raise taxes $1.3 trillion,” and “They lost plenty of money on that one.” The use of “she” or “they” in Trump’s speeches could suggest that he was truthfully to take the attacking stances to negative his opponent. Table 2 Clinton’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the first presidential debate Subjective. Frequency. pronouns. Objective. Frequency. pronouns. Possessive. Frequency. pronouns. ________________________________________________________________________ I. 46. Me. 5. My. 19. Youa. 77. Youa. 48. Your a. 6. Hec. 19. Himc. 11. Hisc. 9. She. 2. Her. 11. Her. 4. It. 9. It. 2. Its. 7. We. 54. Us. 2. Our. 97. Youb. 18. Youb. 9. Yourb. 6. They. 32. Them. 15. Their. 8. ________________________________________________________________________ a. Singular you. B Plural you. C References to Trump.. 35.

(48) By using “I” as the agent of the action in his discourse, Trump seems to enphasize that he was the best choice to be the next leader of the nation. In another sentence he said, “Now, look, I’m a great believer in all forms of energy, but we’re putting a lot of people out of work.” Saying “I” and “we” together in the same sentence and context helps him to shorten the distance between himself and the audience. This strategy, can be seen as an attempt by Trump to create the feeling among the audience that they were on the same side. Discursive Analysis Stage The discourse marker “well” in discourse was analyzed in the discursive analysis stage. In the first presidential debate “well” Trump uttered “well” 15 times, while Clinton used it 28 times. Although the discourse marker “well” is common in everyday conversation, it is not used as frequently in political discourse (Sclafani, 2018). Especially in political debates, when the moderator asks questions, the debaters are generally to avoid using “well” in their responses. In another analysis, Fairclough (1992) pointed out “it was predicted that turn initial 'well' would not be frequent in a debate format” (p. 64). That is to say, debaters would frequently utter “well” maybe more likely to be viewed by an audience as having difficulty expressing their thoughts, being unsure of their stance on an issue, buying time before coming up with a reasonable or logical reply and so on. The more frequent usage of “well” by Clinton seems indicate a more dubious tone and. 36.

(49) more doubt in her responses. The reason was that Clinton did not utter her speech in a straight forward way, such as “Well, actually, I have thought about this quite a bit”, would be seen as an uncertain factor in her discourse from the audience’s point of view. In contrast with Clinton, the relative infrequent usage of “well” in Trump’s discourse “may contribute to views of his discursive style as straightforward and unabashedly face-threatening" (Sclafani, 2018, p. 38). His less frequent usage of “well” thus seems to help him come across to the audience as a more decisive debater with more confidence in his responses and therefore more credible. Explanatory Analysis Stage The explanatory analysis stage in this pilot study was based upon Van Dijk’s (1998b) notion that ideology in political discourse often features strategies that collectively he refers to as “ideological square”. Trump’s discourse in the debate showed that he frequently incorporated the ideological square, as can be seen by the textual analysis. Strategic use of the Ideological Square incorporates the following four principles: Emphasize Our Good Things Emphasize Their Bad Things De-emphasize Our Bad Things De-emphasize Their Good Things. 37.

(50) Trump’s utilized these principles of the Ideological Square to his advantage in the debate can seen as a useful supplementary way to achieve a the purpose in persuading audiences. Unlike Clinton’s discourse, we can consider the exclusiveness or non-exclusiveness of the pronoun ‘we’ in Trump’s discourse. There were also other forms of this pronoun like, ‘I’, ‘my’, ‘me’, ‘us’, ‘ourselves’, etc. He employed “we will” 26 times, often as an inspiring anaphoric literary device (e.g. “We will make America strong again. We will make America proud again. We will make America safe again. And we will make America great again!”). Trump’s frequent usage of “we” could also be interpreted as his preferred word choice for uniting Americans together to overcome shared difficulties and could have been a factor that played a role in his ultimate victory.. 38.

(51) CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In this chapter, the results of the qualitative analysis of Trump and Clinton’s final debate based on Fairclough’s 3D model are given with a discussion of the findings in light of this study’s research questions. As noted in chapter 2, Fairclough’s 3D model treated discourse more as a consequent of social interaction than merely consisting of different units language. As such, a political debate can be seen as an incarnation of social interaction because of its linguistic structures but where candidates present their ideas through language. To answer three research questions, textual analysis, discursive analysis, and explanatory analysis would were conducted. As for textual analysis, I focused on the frequency of usage of pronounces by Trump and Clinton in the description stage of Fairclough’s 3D model. Discursive analysis was used to analyze Trump and Clinton’s different usage of discourse markers in the interpretation stage of the 3D model. Explanatory analysis was employed to analyze differences in Trump and Clinton’s ideologies based on their pronoun and discourse marker usage in the model’s explanation stage. Textual Analysis In this section, the frequency of Trump and Clinton’s pronoun usage is given from the standpoint of textual analysis. The candidates’ choice of pronouns did not only relate to their. 39.

(52) preferred grammatical structures but was also related to their ideological differences as reflected in their discourse. Pronouns can be viewed as linguistic devices that can be used to indirectly transmuting power in discourse. Simpson (1993) argued that “language is not used in a contextless vacuum; rather, it is used in a host of discourse contexts which are impregnated with the ideology of social systems and institutions” (p. 6). According to Chilton (2004), the choice of which linguistic devices to use is more convenient in political discourse, as he says that politics is about “socialization of humans involving the formation of coalitions, the signaling of group boundaries and all that these developments imply, including the emergence of what is called reciprocal altruism” (p. 23). The construction of political identity is very crucial in order for politicians to be successful. Their political identity could determine how they deliver their speeches, and how they distinguish themselves from their opponents with, for example, the use of us and them. Besides, politicians’ usage of pronouns helps them evoke multiple political identities with different viewpoints. As Allen (2007) has pointed out that “it was in the politicians interest to present themselves as multi-faceted in order to appeal to a diverse audience, and a careful pronoun choice was one way of achieving this aim” (p. 4). The importance of pronouns in CDA of political discourse is paramount because how politicians use pronouns in their discourse is instrumental in shaping politicians’ roles and ideologies. 40.

(53) Table 3 Trump’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the final presidential debate Subjective. Frequency. pronouns. Objective. Frequency. pronouns. Possessive. Frequency. pronouns. ________________________________________________________________________ I. 96. Me. 18. My. 39. Youa. 26. Youa. 0. Your a. 18. He. 8. Him. 0. His. 9. Shec. 16. Herc. 0. Herc. 15. It. 2. It. 0. Its. 0. We. 92. Us. 8. Our. 113. Youb. 0. Youb. 2. Yourb. 19. They. 20. Them. 13. Their. 38. ________________________________________________________________________ a. Singular you. B Plural you. C References to Clinton.. Table 3 shows that Trump is frequently of usage of various pronouns. As it can be seen, he mentioned “I” 96 times and “we” 92 times. He strove to utilize “I” and “we” to give the impression of unity and togetherness with the audience during the debate. By using “I” sp heavily, a quite unusual way to directly address an audience, he kept the focus primarily on himself, especially in his statements such as his abilities and accomplishments. For example,. 41.

(54) he stated “I have 200 generals and admirals, 21 endorsing me. 21 congressional medal of honor recipients,” and “Because when I said Japan and Germany and I'm not just singling them out.” Trump portrayed his businessman persona but in the political sphere, sounding as if he were trying to make a deal with the audience. Trump’s discourse also served to promote him as the agent of the action, which can be seen in statements such as, “But when I started this campaign, I started it very strongly.” By using “we” so frequently in the debate, Trump intended to shorten the distance between the audience and himself. This can be seen in such example as, “We have the greatest people on Earth in our military,” “We need law and order, but we need justice too,” and We're going to make America great.” Along with heavy reliance on first person pronouns, Trump punctuated his discourse with emotion and would support them no matter what difficulties they might face in the future. Although used much less frequently, Trump used the third pronouns, “she” and “they” in the debate, he primarily tried to highlight the negative side of his opponent, Clinton, as in statements such as “She's raising the money from the people she wants to control,” “All she's done is talk to the African-Americans and to the Latinos, but they get the vote and then they come back,” and “Now, she never gets anything done, so naturally the wall wasn't built.” He also used “they” to refer to Clinton to Russia in an attempt to give the impression that 42.

(55) Clinton had questionable or improper connections with Russia. Some examples include, “Where they expanded and we didn't. 1,800 nuclear warheads. And she is playing chicken,” “They create warheads and we can't”, and “They've taken over the Middle East. She has been outsmarted and outplayed worse than anybody I've ever seen in any government whatsoever.” Trump used third person singular and plural pronouns to directly connected Clinton with Russia. Table 4 Clinton’s frequency of usage of pronouns of the final presidential debate Subjective. Frequency. pronouns. Objective. Frequency. pronouns. Possessive. Frequency. pronouns. ________________________________________________________________________ I. 65. Me. 9. My. 28. Youa. 74. Youa. 51. Your a. 11. Hec. 6. Himc. 13. Hisc. 13. She. 5. Her. 8. Her. 11. It. 11. It. 7. Its. 6. We. 46. Us. 3. Our. 92. Youb. 23. Youb. 11. Yourb. 9. They. 27. Them. 19. Their. 12. ________________________________________________________________________ a. Singular you. B Plural you. C References to Trump.. 43.