Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 7:2 (2008) ► pp.247–270

On the language of the Clinton-Dole presidential campaign debates

General tendencies and successful strategies

| Sam Houston State University

This article investigates the rhetorical strategies deployed by President Clinton and Senator Dole during the 1996 presidential debates. Clinton resorted to implicit persuasion and audience-oriented rhetorical strategies, while Doles persuasion was more explicit, and he did not avoid the use of dispreferred strategies such as opening his answers with the discourse particle well. There were differences in the candidates use of personal pronouns: Dole used I, you, and they more, whereas Clinton employed the audience-inclusive we heavily. Clintons syntax and the content of his turns were coherently organized; Doles syntax showed occasional incoherence. The article does not claim that the use of successful rhetorical strategies is a necessary requirement for electoral success; it does, however, claim that a good orator is more likely to succeed.

Published online: 3 November 2008
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.2.04hal
References
Agha, Asif
1997 Tropic aggression in the Clinton-Dole presidential debate. Pragmatics 7(4): 461—497. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Atkinson, [J.] Max[well]
1984a Our Masters’ Voices. The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell
1984b Public speaking and audience responses: Some techniques for inviting applause. In: J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 370—409.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Drew, Paul
1979 Order in Court. The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, William L
2001 Framing through temporal metaphor: The “bridges” of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in their 1996 acceptance addresses. Communication Studies 52(1): 70—84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K
2005 Generic patterns in promotional discourse. In Helena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds). Persuasion across Genres. A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 213—225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilmes, Jack
1999 Questions, answers, and the organization of talk in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Fundamental considerations. Research on Language and Social Interaction 32(3): 213—242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2001 Tactics and styles in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Question placement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(2): 151—181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bishop, George F., Robert G. Meadow, & Marilyn Jackson-Beeck
(eds) 1978 The Presidential Debates. Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs & Kathleen Hall Jamieson
1990 Deeds Done in Words. Presidential Rhetoric and the Genres of Governance. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
CBS. Campaign ’96: Presidential debate
October 6, 1996.
October 16, 1996.
Chilcoat, Charles Mark
1985 Televised Presidential Debates: Paralinguistic Factors of Source Credibility and Status in the 1980 Carter-Reagan Debate. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio University.
Clayman, Steven E
1995 Defining moments, presidential debates, and the dynamics of quot-ability. Journal of Communication 45(3): 118—146. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denton, Robert E., Jr. & Dan F. Hahn
1986 Presidential Communication. Description and Analysis. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Denton, Robert E., Jr. & Rachel L. Holloway
(eds) 1996 The Clinton Presidency. Images, Issues, and Communication Strategies. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.Google Scholar
Erickson, Paul D
1985 Reagan Speaks. The Making of an American Myth. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
1995 Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman & Ruth Wodak
1997 Critical discourse analysis. In: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.). Discourse in Social Interaction. London: Sage, 258—284.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John
2002 Rhetorical strategies and identity politics in the discourse of colonial withdrawal. Journal of Language and Politics 1(1): 149—180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fukushima, Tatsuya
2005 True colors of Japanese prime ministers: A linguistic approach to political profiling. Journal of Language and Politics 4(3): 421-442.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gelderman, Carol
1997 All the Presidents’ Words. The Bully Pulpit and the Creation of the Virtual Presidency. New York: Walker and Company.Google Scholar
Hahn, Dan
1970 The effect of television on presidential campaigns. Today’s Speech 18(2): 4—17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halmari, Helena
2005 In search of ‘successful’ political persuasion: A comparison of the styles of Bill Clinton & Ronald Reagan. In Helena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds). Persuasion across genres: A linguistic approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 105—134. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halmari, Helena & Tuija Virtanen
2005 Towards understanding modern persuasion. In Helena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds). Persuasion across Genres. A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 229—244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart, Roderick P
1984a The language of the modern presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly XIV(2): 249—264.Google Scholar
1984b Verbal Style and the Presidency. A Computer-based Analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1987 The Sound of Leadership. Presidential Communication in the Modern Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hellweg, Susan A., Michael Pfau, & Steven R. Brydon
1992 Televised Presidential Debates. Advocacy in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/10.03-13.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/10.13-23.htmlhttp://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-09-30-debate-poll.htm. Kerry holds edge over Bush following first debate.
�ñigo-Mora, Isabel
2004 On the use of the personal pronoun we in communities. Journal of Language and Politics 3(1): 27—52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Katz, Elihu & Jacob J. Feldman
1962 The debates in the light of research: A survey of surveys. In: Sidney Kraus (ed.). The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 173—223.Google Scholar
Kraus, Sidney
1988 Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin
1973 Questionable answers and answerable questions. In: Braj B. Kachru et al.. Papers in Honor of Henry & Renee Kahane. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 453—467.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lim, Elvin T
2002 Five trends in presidential rhetoric: An analysis of rhetoric from George Washington to Bill Clinton. Presidential Studies Quarterly 32(2): 328—366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C. & Sabine Kowal
2005 Laughter in Bill Clinton’s My Life (2004) interviews. Pragmatics 15(2—3): 275—299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola
1986 Pragmatics as Implicitness. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, no. 8624885.Google Scholar
1987a Pragmatic aspects of persuasion: Coherence. CDEF 86: Papers from the Conference of Departments of English in Finland. Oulu: University of Oulu, Department of English, 93—109.Google Scholar
1987b Pragmatic markers of persuasion. In: Jeremy Hawthorn (ed.). Propaganda, Persuasion and Polemic. London: Edward Arnold, 90—105.Google Scholar
1995 Explicating implicitness. Pragmatics, Ideology, and Contacts 21: 4—7.Google Scholar
2005 Persuasion as implicit anchoring: The case of collocations. In: Helena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds). Persuasion Across Genres. A Linguistic Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 183—212. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Owen, Marion
1983 Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. The Hague: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perry, Roland
1984 Hidden power. The Programming of the President. New York: Beaufort. Plato. The Republic .Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita
1975 Second Assessments: A Study of Some Features of Agreements/Disagreements. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Irvine.
1984a Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/ dispreferred turn shapes. In: J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57—101.Google Scholar
1984b Pursuing a response. In: J. Maxwell Atkinson & John Heritage (eds). Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152—163.Google Scholar
Presidential debate in Hartford
1996 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 32(41): 1975—1998.Google Scholar
Presidential debate in San Diego
1996 Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 32(42): 2071—2093.Google Scholar
Rank, Hugh
1984 The Pep Talk. How to Analyze Political Language. Park Forest, Ill.: Counter-propaganda.Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah
1985 Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language 61(3): 640—667. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1987 Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, Stephen A
(ed 1994 Bill Clinton on Stump, State, and Stage. The Rhetorical Road to the White House. Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press.Google Scholar
Smith, William Raymond
1969 The Rhetoric of American Politics. A Study of Documents. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Stuckey, Mary E
1989 Getting into the Game. The Pre-presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
1990 Playing the Game. The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Tulis, Jeffrey K
1987 The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, John
1990 Politically Speaking. The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Windt, Theodore & Beth Ingold
(eds) 1992 Essays in Presidential Rhetoric. 3rd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J
1981 The management of grantings and rejections by parents in request sequences. Semiotica 371: 59—89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 10 other publications

Albalat-Mascarell, Ana
2023. Approaches to the Analysis of Metadiscourse Features in Political Discourse. Complutense Journal of English Studies 31 ► pp. e81534 ff. DOI logo
Halmari, Helena
2024. Chapter 6. Apology as hypocrisy. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
Hayes, Nicholas & Robert Poole
2022. A diachronic corpus-assisted semantic domain analysis of US presidential debates. Corpora 17:3 ► pp. 449 ff. DOI logo
Miller, Jerry L.
2018. The Oratory of Robert Dole. In Republican Orators from Eisenhower to Trump, ► pp. 105 ff. DOI logo
Ponton, Douglas Mark, Vladimir I. Ozyumenko & Tatiana V. Larina
2024. Revisiting the rhetorical construction of political consent. Journal of Language and Politics DOI logo
Power, Kate & Peter Crosthwaite
2022. Constructing COVID-19: A corpus-informed analysis of prime ministerial crisis response communication by gender. Discourse & Society 33:3 ► pp. 411 ff. DOI logo
Rome, Sunny Harris
2022. Voting Processes and Procedures. In Promote the Vote, ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
Santulli, Francesca & Chiara Degano
2022. A Presidential Debate: Exploiting Agreement in an Adversarial Context. In Agreement in Argumentation [Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, 31], ► pp. 145 ff. DOI logo
Vuković, Milica
2012. Positioning in pre-prepared and spontaneous parliamentary discourse: Choice of person in the Parliament of Montenegro. Discourse & Society 23:2 ► pp. 184 ff. DOI logo
Whissell, Cynthia
2010. Leading with words? Emotion and style in the language of U.S. President Clinton's public communications. Psychology of Language and Communication 14:2 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 2 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.