languages across cultures
  • Blog
  • About Us
    • Senior Staff
    • Undergraduate and Graduate Staff
    • Associated Researchers
  • Project
    • Linguistic Tools
    • Areas of Study
  • Research
    • Presentations
    • Publications
    • Annual Report
    • Conference Proceedings
  • Media Links
  • Blog
  • About Us
    • Senior Staff
    • Undergraduate and Graduate Staff
    • Associated Researchers
  • Project
    • Linguistic Tools
    • Areas of Study
  • Research
    • Presentations
    • Publications
    • Annual Report
    • Conference Proceedings
  • Media Links

Languages Across Cultures

First Presidential Debate

10/3/2016

2 Comments

 
The two presidential candidates have very different campaigns, policy prescriptions, and rhetorical styles. In our analysis of the first presidential debate, we treat each speaking turn as a separate document and report the statistically significant differences between Trump and Clinton. The first graph shows that Clinton used more tentative language than did Trump. In her diplomatic role as Secretary of State as well as during her time as a Senator, Clinton was responsible for negotiating across the aisle and across the world. Negotiation requires nuance and compromise, and this is reflected in her more cautious and tentative language. On the other hand, as a career businessperson, Trump has sought to project power, confidence, and certainty, which is also reflected in his language.
Picture
This next graph shows that Trump used more negatively valenced language than did Clinton during the debate.
Picture
The following graph shows the difference in nonfluencies used by Trump and Clinton. Nonfluencies are filler words like um, err, ah, and mmm. We see here that Clinton uses many more nonfluences than Trump does. This is curious given that men usually use more nonfluencies than women do. One reason for this is that they try to "hold the floor" while formulating their next thought, so as to not leave "dead air" where someone else might start speaking. Given that Trump interrupted Clinton around 51 times, Clinton may have been using this typically masculine strategy in order to "hold the floor" to ensure she could finish her statements.
Picture
The next graph (femininity) confirms that Clinton's language was indeed more masculine than Trump's.
Picture
Finally, we evaluated Clinton's and Trump's language on the presidentiality dimension generated by Slatcher et al. (2007). There is a statistically significant difference in the level of presidential language; this graph shows that Clinton uses more presidential language than does Trump.
Picture
2 Comments
Cary Covington
10/5/2016 11:13:24 am

very interesting. a couple of questions:
1) would you please explain the composition of the feminine/masculine dimension? thanks.
2) since this is not my area of research, could you direct me to some of the finding behind your analysis of the use of fillers in general - as a way to hold the floor?
thank you.

Reply
Leah
10/5/2016 12:34:37 pm

Hi Cary, The femininity measure comes from Slatcher et al. (link in text) and the nonfluencies comes from several sources: Bortfeld et al. (2001); Good & Butterworth (1980); Goodwin (1981); Schegloff (1987); and Shriberg (1994).

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    LAC Memphis

    Languages Across Cultures at the
    University of Memphis examines how leaders and other actors in international relations use
    language. 

    Upcoming Conferences:

    Text as Data

    Peace Science Society

    Midwest-ISA

    Southern Political Science Association

    International Studies Association

    Midwest Political Science Association

    RSS Feed



    ​To purchase artwork featured on this blog, contact Hollywood Indian.
Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.