Cover not available

Article published In: Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 7:2 (2008) ► pp.247–270

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

On the language of the Clinton-Dole presidential campaign debates

General tendencies and successful strategies

 | Sam Houston State University
Published online: 3 November 2008
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.7.2.04hal
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.
References (61)
References
Aristotle. Rhetoric. Atkinson, [J.] Max[well]. 1984a. Our Masters’ Voices. The Language and Body Language of Politics. London: Methuen.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Tactics and styles in the 1992 vice presidential debate: Question placement. Research on Language and Social Interaction 34(2): 151—181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denton, Robert E., Jr. & Dan F. Hahn. 1986. Presidential Communication. Description and Analysis. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Denton, Robert E., Jr. & Rachel L. Holloway (eds). 1996. The Clinton Presidency. Images, Issues, and Communication Strategies. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Erickson, Paul D. 1985. Reagan Speaks. The Making of an American Myth. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Hahn, Dan. 1970. The effect of television on presidential campaigns. Today’s Speech 18(2): 4—17. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Roderick P. 1984a. The language of the modern presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly XIV(2): 249—264.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1984b. Verbal Style and the Presidency. A Computer-based Analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. The Sound of Leadership. Presidential Communication in the Modern Age. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hellweg, Susan A., Michael Pfau, & Steven R. Brydon. 1992. Televised Presidential Debates. Advocacy in Contemporary America. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/polls/cnn.usa.gallup/tracking/10.03-13.htmlhttp://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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kraus, Sidney. 1988. Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Connell, Daniel C. & Sabine Kowal. 2005. Laughter in Bill Clinton’s My Life (2004) interviews. Pragmatics 15(2—3): 275—299. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola. 1986. Pragmatics as Implicitness. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI, no. 8624885.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987b. Pragmatic markers of persuasion. In: Jeremy Hawthorn (ed.). Propaganda, Persuasion and Polemic. London: Edward Arnold, 90—105.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Explicating implicitness. Pragmatics, Ideology, and Contacts 21: 4—7.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Owen, Marion. 1983. Apologies and Remedial Interchanges. A Study of Language Use in Social Interaction. The Hague: Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Perry, Roland. 1984. Hidden power. The Programming of the President. New York: Beaufort. Plato. The Republic .Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Presidential debate in Hartford. 1996. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 32(41): 1975—1998.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Presidential debate in San Diego. 1996. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents 32(42): 2071—2093.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rank, Hugh. 1984. The Pep Talk. How to Analyze Political Language. Park Forest, Ill.: Counter-propaganda.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1985. Conversational coherence: The role of well. Language 61(3): 640—667. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, William Raymond. 1969. The Rhetoric of American Politics. A Study of Documents. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stuckey, Mary E. 1989. Getting into the Game. The Pre-presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1990. Playing the Game. The Presidential Rhetoric of Ronald Reagan. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tulis, Jeffrey K. 1987. The Rhetorical Presidency. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilson, John. 1990. Politically Speaking. The Pragmatic Analysis of Political Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Windt, Theodore & Beth Ingold (eds). 1992. Essays in Presidential Rhetoric. 3rd ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wootton, Anthony J. 1981. The management of grantings and rejections by parents in request sequences. Semiotica 371: 59—89. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Ponton, Douglas Mark, Vladimir I. Ozyumenko & Tatiana V. Larina
2025. Revisiting the rhetorical construction of political consent. Journal of Language and Politics 24:3 ► pp. 437 ff. DOI logo
Halmari, Helena
2024. Apology as hypocrisy. In The Pragmatics of Hypocrisy [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 343], ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
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
Hayes, Nicholas & Robert Poole
2022. A diachronic corpus-assisted semantic domain analysis of US presidential debates. Corpora 17:3 ► pp. 449 ff. 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
Miller, Jerry L.
2018. The Oratory of Robert Dole. In Republican Orators from Eisenhower to Trump, ► pp. 105 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
[no author supplied]
2025. The Person in Politics [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 107], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue