In:Doing Politics: Discursivity, performativity and mediation in political discourse
Edited by Michael Kranert and Geraldine Horan
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 80] 2018
► pp. 281–300
Chapter 12Mediated campaign debate subgenre and their importance for analytic considerations
Editor
Published online: 12 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.80.12ada
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.80.12ada
Abstract
Mediated political debates are among the most widely followed campaign events in the United States, with the bulk of research focusing on presidential and vice-presidential races. A comparison of these debates to those for gubernatorial executive offices proves useful. Non-presidential debates assist in finding greater diversity in party ideology, gender and ethnic identity, and a larger number of candidates in a single debate. Moreover, non-presidential debates exhibit more diverse debate structures given the greater frequency of their occurrence and their design by a wider group of organisations and individuals. Variation in the debate structure and in the number of candidates leads to a differing picture of speaking opportunities and strategies for expressing stance and types of alignment with others.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Campaign debate genre
- Wider event contexts and considerations
- Discourse about campaign debates
- Debate design
- Production: What is said and what is responded to
- Office-related expectations
- Importance of equity
- Strategies for conveying stance
- Presidential and vice-presidential debate subgenre
- Gubernatorial debate subgenre
- Other strategies for negative appraisals
- Reconsidering Dailey, Hinck and Hinck’s levels 4 and 5
- Supporting one face and threatening another
- Formality or not: Honorific and non-honorific strategies
- Conclusion
Notes References
References (37)
Adams, Karen L. 1999. “Deliberate Dispute and the Construction of Oppositional Stance.” Pragmatics 9 (2): 231–248.
2009. “Conceptual Metaphors of Family in Political Debates in the USA.” In Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, ed. by Kathleen Ahrens, 184–206. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
2015. “Governors Debating: The Role of Situational, Discourse and Transportable Identities.” In Discourse, Politics and Women as Global Leaders, ed. by John Wilson, and Diana Boxer, 217–249. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ädel, Annelie. 2012. “How to Use Corpus Linguistics in the Study of Political Discourse.” In Routledge Handbooks in Applied Linguistics: The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, ed. by Anne O’Keeffe, and Michael McCarthy, 591–604. London: Routledge.
Agha, Asif. 1997. “Tropic Aggression in the Clinton-Dole Presidential Debate.” Pragmatics 7 (4): 461–497.
Barone, Michael, and Chuck McCutcheon. 2011. The Almanac of American Politics: 2012. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press and National Journal Group, Inc.
Beck, Christina S. 1996. “‘I’ve Got Some Points I’d Like to Make Here’: The Achievement of Social Face through Turn Management During the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate.” Political Communications 13 (2): 165–180.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1978/1987. “Universals in Language Use: Politeness Phenomenon.” In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 56–289. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. (Reissued as Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge UP.)
Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). 2015. “Our Mission” ([URL]); “Overview” ([URL]); “National Debate Sponsors” ([URL]); “CPD Invites Hillary Clinton and Donald J. Trump to Third Presidential Debate” ([URL]); and “CPD Announces Format for 2016.” ([URL]). [URL]
Culpeper, Jonathan. 2008. “Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Mariam A. Locher, 17–44. Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
. 2011. Impoliteness: Using Language to Cause Offence. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Dailey, William O., Edward A. Hinck, and Shelly S. Hinck. 2005. “Audience Perceptions of Politeness and Advocacy Skills in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Debates.” Argumentation and Advocacy 41: 196–210.
. 2008. Politeness in Presidential Debates: Shaping Political Face in Campaign Debates from 1960–2004. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth, UK: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
“Debate.” n.d. Merriam Webster Online. [URL].
Edelsky, Carole, and Karen L. Adams. 1990. “Creating Inequality: Breaking the Rules in Debates.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 9 (3): 171–190.
Garcia-Pastor, Maria Delores. 2008. “Political Campaign Debates as Zero-Sum Games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidate’s Exchanges.” In Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice, ed. by Derek Bousfield, and Mariam Locher, 101–123. Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Harris, Sandra. 2001. “Being Politically Impolite: Extending Politeness Theory to Adversarial Political Discourse.” Discourse and Society 12: 451–472.
Heritage, John, and Geoffrey Raymond. 2005. “The Terms of Agreement: Indexing Epistemic Authority and Subordination in Talk-in-Interaction.” Social Psychology Quarterly 68 (1): 15–38.
Hinck, Edward A., and Shelly S. Hinck. 2002. “Politeness Strategies in the 1992 Vice-Presidential and Presidential Debates.” Argumentation and Advocacy 38: 234–250.
Hinck, Shelly S., Robert S. Hinck, William O. Dailey, and Edward A. Hinck. 2013. “Thou Shall Not Speak Ill of Any Fellow Republicans? Politeness Theory in the 2012 Republican Primary Debates.” Argumentation and Advocacy 49: 259–27.
Hunston, Susan. 2007. “Using a Corpus to Investigate Stance Quantitatively and Qualitatively.” In Stancetaking in Discourse, ed. by Robert Englebretson, 27–48. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. 1988. Eloquence in an Electronic Age. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.
Jones, Jeffrey M. 2014. “Americans Continue to Say a Third Political Party Is Needed.” Gallup: Politics, 24 September. [URL].
2015. “In U.S., New Record 43% Are Political Independents.” Gallup: Politics, 7 January. [URL].
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. 2001. Multimodal Discourse: The Modes and Media of Contemporary Communication. London: Arnold.
Koblin, John, and Jeremy W. Peters. 2016. “Presidential Debate Moderators Are Set with Lester Holt for the First.” New York Times, 2 September. [URL].
League of Women Voters (LWV). 2016. “The League and Presidential Debates.” [URL].
Lepore, Jill. 2016. “The State of the Presidential Debate: How Should Candidates, and Voters, Argue about Politics?” New Yorker Magazine, 19 September. [URL].
Louden, Allan. 2009. “Non-Presidential Political Debates: Selected Bibliography.” Wake Forest University. Last updated 3 May, 10:55:51 EDT. [URL]
. 2015. “Presidential Political Debates: Selected Bibliography.” Wake Forest University. Last updated 2 November, 16:27:27 EST. [URL]
McKinney, Mitchell, and Diana B. Carlin. 2004. “Political Campaign Debates.” In Handbook of Political Communication, ed. by Lynda Lee Kaid, 203–234. Mahwah NJ, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Morris, Wesley. 2016. “Is Trump ‘Presidential’? Is Anyone?” New York Times Magazine, 17 May. [URL].
Rice, Laura. 2016. “How Ann Richards Trumped Her Rival Clayton Williams.” Texas Standard, 10 October. Austin: Moody School of Communication, University of Texas, Austin. [URL]
Shibamoto-Smith, Janet. 2011. “Honorifics, ‘Politeness’, and Power in Japanese Political Debate.” Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3707–3719.
Walsh, Steve, Tom Morton, and Anne O’Keeffe. 2011. “Analysing University Spoken Interaction: A CA/CL Approach.” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 16 (3): 325–345.