A critical discourse analysis of 2016 american presidential election debates phân tích diễn ngôn phê phán các cuộc tranh luận bầu cử tổng thống mỹ năm 2016

This PhD thesis presents a comprehensive critical discourse analysis of the 2016American Presidential Election debates, aiming to uncover the underlying discursivestrategies, linguistic

INTRODUCTION

Rationale of the study

The 2016 American Presidential Election was a highly contested and controversial event that drew significant attention from both domestic and international audiences One of the most critical aspects of the election was the series of presidential debates between the two major candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump The debates were marked by numerous instances of heated rhetoric, personal attacks, and controversial statements that garnered significant media coverage and public scrutiny This thesis will undertake a critical discourse analysis of the 2016 American Presidential Election debates to explore the language, power dynamics, and ideologies that underpinned the discourse of the candidates Specifically, it will examine how the candidates used language to construct their political identities, mobilize support, and discredit their opponents By analyzing the debates through the lens of critical discourse analysis, this study aims to provide insights into the complex political and social dynamics that shaped the 2016 American Presidential Election. American presidential election debates have not only drawn attention and controversy in the United States – they have been the most followed and closely watched across the globe From the first general presidential debate between John F Kennedy and Richard Nixon held in 1960, the whole world watches with excitement to see who becomes the new president of the superpower that is America The 2016 U.S. presidential election debates were a series of discussions organized for the general election that year These debates, arranged by the Commission on Presidential Debates

—a bipartisan organization established in 1987—included three major events featuring the leading presidential candidates The first debate took place on September 26, 2016,setting a record as the most-watched debate in American history The second debate occurred on October 9, followed by the final one on October 19 Only the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and the Republican nominee, Donald Trump, qualified to participate in these debates In scientific opinion polls of likely voters, Hillary Clinton was generally viewed as the winner of all three debates Nevertheless, Donald Trump won the presidential election on November 8th (Wikipedia, 2017) Critical DiscourseAnalysis (CDA) is a powerful tool for analyzing language because it takes into account the social, cultural, and political contexts in which language is used (Van Dijk,1985; Fairclough, 1989; and Wodak and Meyer, 2001) Unlike other approaches to language analysis that focus solely on the formal features of language, CDA is concerned with how language is used to construct power relations, social identities,and speakers' ideologies One of the main strengths of CDA is its focus on the relationship between language and power CDA is particularly useful for analyzing language in contexts where power is unequally distributed, such as in politics, media,and academia Another strength of CDA is its ability to reveal the ideological dimensions of language CDA recognizes that language is not neutral but rather reflects the values, beliefs, and interests of those who use it By examining how language is used to construct power relations, CDA can reveal the hidden assumptions and biases that underlie discourse (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 1992;van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1995; Gee, 2014) For these reasons, the author has chosenCDA as a tool for language analysis in this thesis.

This research examines the 2016 US presidential debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to analyze their ideologies, attitudes, and communication styles It investigates how their ideologies are reflected in their speeches, explores their stances on social issues and their opponents, and analyzes their distinct rhetorical strategies and linguistic choices By examining these elements, the study aims to understand how Clinton and Trump's communication influenced public perceptions and reactions during the election.

To achieve these goals, the following research questions should be answered:

 What ideologies do Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represent and how are they linguistically manifested in their speeches?

 What attitudes (towards social issues, their opponent and themselves) they represent and how are they linguistically manifested in their speeches?

This research examines the linguistic differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, focusing on how their rhetorical styles and word choices reveal their distinct ideologies and attitudes The study explores the underlying principles, beliefs, and values embedded in their speeches to understand the core ideologies shaping their political narratives Additionally, the research investigates the attitudes expressed by both candidates, encompassing their stances on social issues, perceptions of their opponents, and self-representation, revealing the nuances in their language and shedding light on the emotional and evaluative aspects embedded in their political discourse.

The third research question aims to discern the differences in the rhetorical styles and linguistic choices employed by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton This comparison seeks to identify distinct patterns in how each candidate articulates their ideologies and attitudes Analyzing their rhetorical strategies provides a comprehensive understanding of how linguistic elements contribute to the overall communication styles of these political figures, thereby influencing their public image and reception.

The scope of the thesis is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the discourse within the 2016 American presidential election debates The study focuses on examining the ideologies and attitudes of the two main candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the primary research framework. Specifically, the analysis will employ Fairclough's 3D model and the Appraisal theory by Martin & White to uncover the underlying linguistic, ideological, and attitudinal dimensions of the candidates' discourse The study will meticulously examine the language used by Trump and Clinton, exploring their linguistic choices, and rhetorical devices It aims to identify the ideologies embedded in their discourse, reflecting their political beliefs, values, and stances on key issues such as immigration, healthcare, and the economy Using the Appraisal theory, the research will investigate their attitudes and evaluative language on various topics, providing insights into how they express opinions, viewpoints, and emotional stances A comparative analysis will highlight contrasts and commonalities in their discourse strategies, ideologies, and attitudes,shedding light on how they presented their political identities and influenced public opinion Additionally, the research will explore the historical and political context of the debates to understand why certain discourse strategies and rhetoric were employed. Throughout the study, ethical principles of fairness, accuracy, and impartiality will be upheld The scope extends beyond textual analysis to reveal broader implications of the discourse, including its influence on voter decisions and the construction of political identities, aiming to contribute to a better understanding of the complexities of election campaigns and their impact on public opinion Data will be collected based on theoretical frameworks, with each debate analyzed to identify relevant data, and all fitting data will be filtered and analyzed.

The methodology of this study integrates several research frameworks, combining both qualitative and quantitative elements to provide a comprehensive analysis of the 2016 American presidential election debates Specifically, it incorporates content analysis, Fairclough’s 3D Model in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and Appraisal Theory.

First, Content Analysis is employed by thoroughly reading the debate transcripts to identify and categorize the specific language strategies used by the candidates This foundational step ensures that the subsequent analyses are based on accurately identified linguistic features.

Next, Fairclough’s 3D Model is used to group and analyze these identified language strategies This model involves three levels of analysis:

Textual Analysis examines the specific words, phrases, and linguistic features in the debate transcripts.

Discursive Practice considers how the language is produced and consumed, taking into account the context of the debates and the reactions from the audience and media.Social Practice analyzes the broader socio-cultural and political context to understand the underlying ideologies reflected in the language used.

The findings from Fairclough’s 3D Model analysis are then utilized in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to explore how these language strategies reflect and reinforce certain ideologies This step provides a deeper understanding of the power dynamics and ideological constructs embedded in the discourse.

Furthermore, Appraisal Theory is applied to select and analyze specific words and phrases according to the Appraisal system, which helps determine the attitudes expressed by the candidates This includes examining affect (emotions), judgment (ethics), and appreciation (aesthetics), offering insights into the evaluative language used during the debates.

By combining these methodologies, this approach not only identifies and categorizes language strategies but also interprets their ideological significance and the attitudes they convey This multifaceted analysis facilitates a thorough understanding of the rhetorical techniques employed by the candidates and their broader implications in the context of the election debates.

This study delves into the discourse of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election, analyzing their ideologies, attitudes, and linguistic features Using Fairclough's 3D model and Appraisal theory, the research contributes to understanding political communication and offers a framework for future studies Furthermore, it sheds light on how political ideologies and attitudes shape the political landscape, informing the public about the influence of these factors on candidates' platforms and campaigns.

Research questions

To achieve these goals, the following research questions should be answered:

 What ideologies do Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton represent and how are they linguistically manifested in their speeches?

 What attitudes (towards social issues, their opponent and themselves) they represent and how are they linguistically manifested in their speeches?

This research explores the linguistic differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's speeches, examining how their rhetorical styles and word choices reflect their distinct ideologies and attitudes The study aims to uncover the underlying principles and values driving their political narratives, as well as their stances on social issues, perceptions of opponents, and self-representation By analyzing the linguistic nuances in their speeches, researchers hope to gain insights into the emotional and evaluative aspects of their political discourse.

The third research question aims to discern the differences in the rhetorical styles and linguistic choices employed by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton This comparison seeks to identify distinct patterns in how each candidate articulates their ideologies and attitudes Analyzing their rhetorical strategies provides a comprehensive understanding of how linguistic elements contribute to the overall communication styles of these political figures, thereby influencing their public image and reception.

Scope of the study

The scope of the thesis is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the discourse within the 2016 American presidential election debates The study focuses on examining the ideologies and attitudes of the two main candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as the primary research framework. Specifically, the analysis will employ Fairclough's 3D model and the Appraisal theory by Martin & White to uncover the underlying linguistic, ideological, and attitudinal dimensions of the candidates' discourse The study will meticulously examine the language used by Trump and Clinton, exploring their linguistic choices, and rhetorical devices It aims to identify the ideologies embedded in their discourse, reflecting their political beliefs, values, and stances on key issues such as immigration, healthcare, and the economy Using the Appraisal theory, the research will investigate their attitudes and evaluative language on various topics, providing insights into how they express opinions, viewpoints, and emotional stances A comparative analysis will highlight contrasts and commonalities in their discourse strategies, ideologies, and attitudes,shedding light on how they presented their political identities and influenced public opinion Additionally, the research will explore the historical and political context of the debates to understand why certain discourse strategies and rhetoric were employed. Throughout the study, ethical principles of fairness, accuracy, and impartiality will be upheld The scope extends beyond textual analysis to reveal broader implications of the discourse, including its influence on voter decisions and the construction of political identities, aiming to contribute to a better understanding of the complexities of election campaigns and their impact on public opinion Data will be collected based on theoretical frameworks, with each debate analyzed to identify relevant data, and all fitting data will be filtered and analyzed.

Methods of the study

This study employed a multifaceted methodology, blending qualitative and quantitative approaches to thoroughly examine the 2016 American presidential election debates It integrates content analysis, Fairclough's 3D Model in Critical Discourse Analysis, and Appraisal Theory to offer a comprehensive understanding of the debates.

First, Content Analysis is employed by thoroughly reading the debate transcripts to identify and categorize the specific language strategies used by the candidates This foundational step ensures that the subsequent analyses are based on accurately identified linguistic features.

Next, Fairclough’s 3D Model is used to group and analyze these identified language strategies This model involves three levels of analysis:

Textual Analysis examines the specific words, phrases, and linguistic features in the debate transcripts.

Discursive Practice considers how the language is produced and consumed, taking into account the context of the debates and the reactions from the audience and media.Social Practice analyzes the broader socio-cultural and political context to understand the underlying ideologies reflected in the language used.

The findings from Fairclough’s 3D Model analysis are then utilized in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) to explore how these language strategies reflect and reinforce certain ideologies This step provides a deeper understanding of the power dynamics and ideological constructs embedded in the discourse.

Furthermore, Appraisal Theory is applied to select and analyze specific words and phrases according to the Appraisal system, which helps determine the attitudes expressed by the candidates This includes examining affect (emotions), judgment (ethics), and appreciation (aesthetics), offering insights into the evaluative language used during the debates.

By combining these methodologies, this approach not only identifies and categorizes language strategies but also interprets their ideological significance and the attitudes they convey This multifaceted analysis facilitates a thorough understanding of the rhetorical techniques employed by the candidates and their broader implications in the context of the election debates.

Significance of the study

This research holds significant theoretical and practical value by analyzing the discourse of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election Theoretically, it contributes to critical discourse analysis by applying Fairclough's 3D model and Appraisal Theory to understand the linguistic manifestations of their ideologies and attitudes Practically, it sheds light on how these ideologies shaped their platforms and campaigns, informing public understanding of political communication's impact on decision-making By examining Trump's rhetoric and its potential contribution to his victory, the research investigates the role of language in shaping social and political realities Furthermore, the study offers a practical demonstration of how discourse analysis can be used to understand political communication across diverse contexts, contributing to the field of political science and advancing the application of Appraisal Theory in Vietnam.

Structure of the study

This thesis is divided into six chapters as follows:

LITERATURE REVIEW

Basic notions in the thesis

The term "critical" in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) refers to the approach's emphasis on analyzing discourse from a critical perspective, with the goal of uncovering and challenging power relations and social inequalities (Fairclough, 2001).

CDA recognizes that language is not neutral but rather shaped by power relations and social contexts The language we use reflects and reproduces power relations in society, and can be used to legitimize and perpetuate dominant ideologies, while marginalizing and silencing alternative perspectives (Fairclough, 2001).

Thus, the "critical" in CDA emphasizes the need to analyze discourse from a critical and social justice perspective This involves questioning and challenging the power relations and social inequalities that are reflected in language and discourse, and promoting alternative, more inclusive and equitable ways of thinking and communicating (Fairclough, 2001).

In CDA, critical analysis also involves identifying and challenging the ways in which language can be used to construct and reproduce social hierarchies and power relations For example, CDA might examine the ways in which political leaders use language to justify policies that benefit certain groups while marginalizing others or persuade listeners (van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1995; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2001)

In summary, the "critical" in Critical Discourse Analysis refers to the approach's emphasis on analyzing discourse from a critical and social justice perspective, with the goal of uncovering and challenging power relations and social inequalities.

Discourse refers to a form of communication or a way of talking about and discussing a particular topic, idea, or subject matter Discourse can take various forms, including spoken or written language, visual representations, and even non-verbal communication (Fairclough, 1992, 1995; Trung H.N., 2 ) It is a fundamental concept in linguistics, communication studies, and social sciences, and it plays a crucial role in understanding how language and communication work in different contexts.

Discourse analysis, on the other hand, is a research method and approach used to study and understand the structure, patterns, and functions of discourse in different contexts (Paltridge, 2012; Gee, 2014) It involves examining the way language and communication are used to convey meaning, shape social interactions, and reflect power dynamics Discourse analysis can be applied to various types of texts or communicative acts, such as conversations, interviews, written documents, speeches, advertisements, and more.

Discourse encompasses all forms of communication, including spoken and written language, as well as elements that contribute to meaning-making Discourse analysis delves into the process of uncovering the multiple layers of meaning within these communications.

Power is a common thread running through the different approaches to CDA. Power can be defined as the ability to influence or control the behavior of others, often through the use of force, coercion, or manipulation Power can manifest in various forms, including political, economic, social, and cultural power, and it can be exercised by individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions (Van Dijk, 1993).

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) recognizes that power relations are inherently embedded within language and discourse Language is not just a means of communication, but is also a tool for the exercise of power, as it can be used to shape perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals and groups Therefore, CDA aims to reveal and analyze the ways in which language and discourse are used to reinforce or challenge power relations.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) examines how language shapes perceptions and uncovers the power dynamics embedded within discourse, revealing how power relations are established, maintained, and reproduced within society.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) proves invaluable for dissecting the ways power dynamics manifest through language, especially in realms like politics, media, and advertising By scrutinizing discourse, CDA uncovers how dominant ideologies and power structures are perpetuated and unveils potential avenues for their subversion and transformation.

In conclusion, the relationship between power and CDA is that CDA recognizes the inherent power relations within language and discourse, and aims to reveal and challenge them By doing so, CDA can help to promote more equitable and just societies by exposing the ways in which language is used to maintain and reproduce power relations.

An Overview of Critical Discourse Analysis

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a multidisciplinary approach (Fairclough and Wodak, 1997; van Dijk, 1997; Wodak, 2001b) that examines the ways in which language and discourse are used to reproduce power relations and social inequalities. CDA is concerned with analyzing the social and political implications of discourse, and it seeks to uncover the underlying ideologies and power relations that shape and are shaped by language use (Fairclough, 1989, 1992; Wodak, 1995; Van Dijk, 1993; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999).

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) draws on linguistics and sociology to analyze various discursive practices, including political speeches, media texts, and everyday conversations, offering insights into how language constructs and reflects social power relations (Fairclough, 1989, 1992).

CDA emphasizes the need to analyze discourse from a critical and social justice perspective, with the goal of uncovering and challenging power relations and social inequalities CDA recognizes that language is not neutral but rather shaped by power relations and social contexts The language we use reflects and reproduces power relations in society, and can be used to legitimize and perpetuate dominant ideologies, while marginalizing and silencing alternative perspectives (Fairclough, 1989, 1992; Wodak, 1995; Van Dijk, 1993)

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) involves a systematic process of analyzing discourse, encompassing stages like identifying relevant discursive practices, gathering and analyzing data, identifying patterns and themes, and ultimately interpreting the findings through a critical lens that prioritizes social justice.

CDA is a versatile tool with applications across various fields, including political discourse, media representation, gender and identity studies, and education Its insights are valuable for informing social and political interventions and driving positive social change.

CDA offers a powerful tool for analyzing language and discourse, revealing how it reinforces and challenges power structures and social inequalities By understanding these dynamics, we gain insights into the ways language shapes our world and can contribute to a more equitable society.

CDA has been defined by a variety of CDA theorists since it appeared in 1985 (Fairclough, 1985) According to Van Dijk (1985), CDA is “a type of discourse analytical research that primarily studies the way social power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in the social and political context” Pennycook (1995) declares CDA is not quiet to political issues as are common applied linguistic approaches to discourse analysis Burns (2001) argues that language within CDA is not neutral and all texts are critical sites for the negotiation of power and ideology McCarthy (2006) and Coffin (2001) share the same opinion that CDA is involved in issues of power, ideology and language By identifying the linguistic mechanisms or semantic categories through which ideology is constructed, CDA is the medium to make transparent the hidden methodology a speaker may consciously or unconsciously employ within discourse In other words, the primary goal of CDA is to make transparent the hidden power relations and ideological beliefs embedded in language, enabling a critical examination of social and political dimensions of discourse By analyzing and challenging dominant ideologies and power structures, CDA aims to contribute to social change, equity, and justice.

In general, in this thesis, the author considers CDA as a valuable framework for understanding and unpacking the complexities of language use, power relations, and ideological influences within various discursive contexts It provides researchers with tools to critically examine and question the underlying assumptions and implications of discourse, ultimately promoting a more nuanced understanding of societal issues and fostering opportunities for transformative action.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach that aims to analyze the ways in which language, power, and social relations are interconnected (Van Dijk, 1995) The purposes of critical discourse analysis include:

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) delves into the power dynamics embedded within language and discourse, aiming to uncover how language perpetuates or disrupts power structures related to class, gender, race, and ideology (Fairclough, 1989).

Examining social inequality: CDA is concerned with the ways in which social inequality is perpetuated and reproduced through language and discourse It seeks to expose the ways in which language reinforces and perpetuates social inequality, and to provide a critical perspective on dominant discourses (Wodak, 1989).

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) delves into the hidden meanings within language, uncovering how it shapes ideologies and exposes the underlying assumptions and beliefs embedded in discourse.

Providing a critical perspective: CDA aims to provide a critical perspective on dominant discourses and to challenge the assumptions and beliefs that underlie them.

It seeks to create a space for alternative voices and to promote social justice and equality.

Promoting social change: CDA aims to promote social change by challenging dominant discourses and exposing the ways in which they perpetuate social inequality.

It seeks to empower marginalized groups by giving them a voice and by providing a critical perspective on the dominant discourse.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) is a powerful approach to discourse analysis that examines the relationship between language, power, and social inequality It critiques how power dynamics are manifested, reproduced, and resisted through language, focusing on social and political contexts CDA's central principle is to analyze how language reflects and reinforces ideologies, social relations, and power structures within society.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) adopts a multidisciplinary approach, incorporating insights from linguistics, sociology, psychology, and anthropology By integrating these diverse perspectives, CDA aims to offer a holistic understanding of how language functions to shape and maintain social interactions.

Contextualization: CDA emphasizes the importance of analyzing language in its social and historical context It recognizes that language is shaped by the social, political, and economic context in which it is used.

The Previous Studies

This thesis is divided into six chapters as follows:

Chapter 4: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s ideologies and linguistic manifestations in the 2016 American presidential debates through Fairclough’’s 3-dimensional framework

Chapter 5: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s attitudes and linguistic manifestations through the appraisal theory

This thesis is structured into six chapters to provide a comprehensive analysis of the discourse within the 2016 American presidential election debates Chapter 1 introduces the study, outlining its aims, significance, and scope Chapter 2 offers a literature review, surveying relevant research and theoretical frameworks in critical discourse analysis and political communication Chapter

3 details the research methodology, explaining the data collection and analysis methods used Chapter 4 focuses on analyzing Donald Trump and HillaryClinton’s ideologies and their linguistic manifestations using Fairclough’s 3- dimensional framework Chapter 5 examines their attitudes and linguistic expressions through the Appraisal theory Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the thesis, summarizing the findings and discussing their implications for political discourse analysis.

The literature review chapter provides an overview of existing research in Vietnam and globally that employs the Appraisal theory and Fairclough's 3D framework for discourse analysis, as well as the theoretical background and framework for this study In Vietnam, studies such as Nguyễn Văn Đoàn's

(2017) exploration of political speeches and Trần Thị Thu Hà's (2018) analysis of media discourse have utilized the Appraisal theory to examine evaluative language and attitudes Globally, Martin and White's foundational work (2005) on the Appraisal framework has been extensively applied, including in studies like Bednarek's (2008) investigation of media texts and Hommerberg's (2011) analysis of literary reviews Fairclough's 3D framework has also been widely adopted, with research in Vietnam such as Phạm Thị Hạnh's (2016) study on educational policies and Trương Minh Hằng's (2019) work on environmental discourse Internationally, Fairclough's framework has been applied in a multitude of contexts, including Wodak's (2001) critical analysis of political discourse and Chouliaraki's (2006) examination of media narratives.

While numerous studies have utilized the Appraisal theory to analyze evaluative language and the 3D framework to explore discourse strategies, there is a notable gap in the literature regarding the combined use of these two frameworks This research aims to address this gap by integrating the Appraisal theory, which focuses on lexical choices, with Fairclough’s 3D framework, which emphasizes discourse strategies The combination of these analytical approaches promises a more comprehensive understanding of the language used in the 2016 American presidential election debates By leveraging both the lexical insights provided by the Appraisal theory and the strategic analysis afforded by the 3D framework, this study seeks to offer a nuanced exploration of the ideologies, attitudes, and rhetorical techniques of the candidates, thereby contributing a novel perspective to the field of political discourse analysis.

2.1 Basic notions in the thesis

The term "critical" in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) refers to the approach's emphasis on analyzing discourse from a critical perspective, with the goal of uncovering and challenging power relations and social inequalities (Fairclough, 2001).

CDA recognizes that language is not neutral but rather shaped by power relations and social contexts The language we use reflects and reproduces power relations in society, and can be used to legitimize and perpetuate dominant ideologies, while marginalizing and silencing alternative perspectives (Fairclough, 2001).

Thus, the "critical" in CDA emphasizes the need to analyze discourse from a critical and social justice perspective This involves questioning and challenging the power relations and social inequalities that are reflected in language and discourse, and promoting alternative, more inclusive and equitable ways of thinking and communicating (Fairclough, 2001).

In CDA, critical analysis also involves identifying and challenging the ways in which language can be used to construct and reproduce social hierarchies and power relations For example, CDA might examine the ways in which political leaders use language to justify policies that benefit certain groups while marginalizing others or persuade listeners (van Dijk, 1993; Wodak, 1995; Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 1999; Fairclough, 2001)

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) focuses on analyzing discourse from a critical and social justice perspective This approach aims to uncover and challenge power relations and social inequalities embedded within language.

Discourse refers to a form of communication or a way of talking about and discussing a particular topic, idea, or subject matter Discourse can take various forms, including spoken or written language, visual representations, and even non-verbal communication (Fairclough, 1992, 1995; Trung H.N., 2 ) It is a fundamental concept in linguistics, communication studies, and social sciences, and it plays a crucial role in understanding how language and communication work in different contexts.

Discourse analysis is a research method that examines the structure, patterns, and functions of language in different contexts It explores how language shapes social interactions, reflects power dynamics, and conveys meaning This method can be applied to various forms of communication, including conversations, interviews, written documents, and even advertisements.

Discourse encompasses all forms of communication, including spoken and written language, and the elements that shape its meaning Discourse analysis delves into uncovering the multifaceted meanings embedded within these communicative exchanges.

Power is a common thread running through the different approaches to CDA. Power can be defined as the ability to influence or control the behavior of others, often through the use of force, coercion, or manipulation Power can manifest in various forms, including political, economic, social, and cultural power, and it can be exercised by individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions (Van Dijk, 1993).

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) recognizes that power relations are inherently embedded within language and discourse Language is not just a means of communication, but is also a tool for the exercise of power, as it can be used to shape perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors of individuals and groups Therefore, CDA aims to reveal and analyze the ways in which language and discourse are used to reinforce or challenge power relations.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Political Discourses

Political discourse refers to any form of communication related to political issues or events This includes speeches, debates, political advertising, news coverage, and social media content related to politics Political discourse plays a crucial role in shaping public opinion and influencing political outcomes (Dahl, 1989; van Dijk, 1997; Chilton & Schọffner, 2002; Coleman & Blumler, 2009).

Analyzing political discourse reveals the ideologies, values, and strategies of political actors, shedding light on how they attempt to shape public opinion This analysis helps identify the underlying assumptions and beliefs driving political agendas, uncovering the power dynamics and social inequalities embedded in political communication By examining the language used, we can understand how social identities are constructed, power relations legitimized, and certain groups marginalized Linguistic devices like rhetorical strategies and metaphors are employed to persuade and influence audiences, revealing the tactics used to convey specific messages and shape public opinion.

In summary, the analysis of political discourse can help us to understand the complex interplay between language, power, and politics It can reveal the ways in which language is used to shape political outcomes, influence public opinion, and perpetuate social inequalities Through political discourse analysis, we can gain a deeper understanding of the ideologies and attitudes of political actors and the ways in which they attempt to shape political agendas and strategies.

Debates

Debates are formal discussions between two or more individuals or groups who present and defend their differing viewpoints on a particular topic or issue They are a common form of political discourse and can take place in a variety of settings, including political campaigns, academic forums, and public events.

Debates typically involve a moderator who introduces the topic, sets the rules, and asks questions of the participants The participants then take turns presenting their arguments, rebutting their opponent's arguments, and making closing statements. The goal of a debate is often to persuade the audience to support one's point of view (Goshgarian, et al., 2000).

Debates can be structured in a variety of ways, but in this search, we focus on the Lincoln-Douglas format The Lincoln-Douglas format features a one-on-one debate between two individuals, with each participant given a set amount of time to speak. (The Lincoln-Douglas format, also known as the LD format, is named after the famous debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas during the 1858 U.S Senate campaign in Illinois In this format, two participants engage in a one- on-one debate, with one participant arguing in favor of a resolution or proposition, and the other participant arguing against it The debate typically lasts for several rounds, with each participant given a set amount of time to present their arguments and rebut their opponent's arguments) (Austin & David, 2008).

Debates are a valuable tool for exploring and evaluating different viewpoints, fostering consensus, and stimulating public discourse They engage audiences, shape public opinion, and can influence policy decisions.

However, debates can also be subject to various pitfalls, such as the use of misleading or inaccurate information, the use of rhetorical tricks to manipulate the audience, and the tendency of participants to become overly aggressive or hostile.

As such, it is important for participants and audiences alike to approach debates with a critical eye and a willingness to engage in thoughtful and respectful dialogue.

American Presidential Election Debates

The American presidential election is a quadrennial election held in the United States to select the President of the country The election is held on the first Tuesday of November, and the winner is inaugurated on January 20th of the following year.

The American presidential election process is a complex and multi-stage process that begins with the primary elections and caucuses held by the major political parties to select their nominees for President The primaries and caucuses are held in each state, and the winner of each primary or caucus is awarded delegates, who are responsible for selecting the party's nominee at the national convention.

Once the party nominees are selected, the general election campaign begins, during which the candidates travel the country, hold rallies and town hall meetings, and participate in debates The general election is conducted using the Electoral College system, in which each state is assigned a certain number of electors based on its population, and the candidate who wins the majority of electoral votes is declared the winner.

In addition to the presidential election, many other elections take place on the same day, including elections for the U.S Senate and House of Representatives, as well as various state and local offices The outcome of these elections can have a significant impact on the political landscape of the country, as well as on national policy decisions.

The American presidential election is one of the most closely watched and heavily scrutinized elections in the world, with billions of dollars spent on campaigning and media coverage It plays a critical role in shaping the direction of the country and the world, and is a key component of the American democratic process.

Donald Trump was primarily known as a real estate mogul, businessman, and television personality He was the chairman and president of The TrumpOrganization, a real estate development firm that he inherited from his father.

Trump was also known for his appearances on the reality television show "The Apprentice," where he was the host and executive producer He became a household name for his catchphrase, "You're fired!" which he would use to eliminate contestants on the show.

Trump had never held political office He had, however, been involved in politics in other ways He had made donations to various political campaigns and had considered running for president in previous election cycles, but had ultimately decided against it.

In the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election, Trump announced his candidacy for the Republican Party nomination His campaign was marked by controversial statements and proposals, including his call to build a wall along the US-Mexico border and his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

Despite initially being considered a short-shot candidate, Trump quickly gained support among many Republican voters, and he ultimately secured the Republican nomination to enter the presidential election debate in the 2016 American presidential election.

Hillary Clinton was a well-known and experienced politician She had served as First Lady during her husband Bill Clinton's presidency from 1993 to 2001, as a U.S Senator from New York from 2001 to 2009, and as Secretary of State under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013.

Clinton had also run for president in 2008 but was defeated by Barack Obama in the Democratic Party's primaries.

Hillary Clinton declared her candidacy for the Democratic nomination in the 2016 presidential election, focusing on issues like healthcare, education, and economic policy Her campaign highlighted her extensive experience and qualifications, presenting her as a stable and capable leader in contrast to the more polarizing Republican candidate, Donald Trump.

Clinton's campaign was not without controversy, however She faced criticism for her use of a private email server during her time as Secretary of State, which raised questions about the handling of classified information Her campaign was also criticized for its close ties to Wall Street and large corporations.

Despite these challenges, Clinton secured the Democratic Party nomination and faced off against Trump in the 2016 American presidential election.

Methodology for the research

Chapter 5: Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s attitudes and linguistic manifestations through the appraisal theory

This thesis is structured into six chapters to provide a comprehensive analysis of the discourse within the 2016 American presidential election debates Chapter 1 introduces the study, outlining its aims, significance, and scope Chapter 2 offers a literature review, surveying relevant research and theoretical frameworks in critical discourse analysis and political communication Chapter

3 details the research methodology, explaining the data collection and analysis methods used Chapter 4 focuses on analyzing Donald Trump and HillaryClinton’s ideologies and their linguistic manifestations using Fairclough’s 3- dimensional framework Chapter 5 examines their attitudes and linguistic expressions through the Appraisal theory Finally, Chapter 6 concludes the thesis, summarizing the findings and discussing their implications for political discourse analysis.

DONALD TRUMP AND HILLARY CLINTON’S IDEOLOGIES

Donald Trump’s language strategies

Donald Trump's use of plain language during the 2016 presidential election debates was a defining feature of his communication style Throughout the campaign, Trump consistently employed straightforward and easily understandable language to convey his positions on a wide range of issues This approach, characterized by its simplicity and directness, was a key element of his appeal to many American voters.

Here are examples that support the idea that one of the hallmarks of Trump's plain language was his ability to simplify complex topics into digestible soundbites:

"Make America Great Again" (MAGA): Trump's signature slogan, "Make America

"Make America Great Again" encapsulated President Trump's vision for economic revival and international prominence, resonating with voters who felt the nation was in decline This slogan became his campaign's central theme, symbolizing his commitment to addressing a range of issues.

Economic Revival: By using the word "great," Trump conveyed his promise to restore economic prosperity, create jobs, and boost American industries.

National Pride: The phrase "Make America Great Again" tapped into a sense of national pride, suggesting that the country had faltered and needed to regain its former greatness.

Simple Message: The slogan was easy to understand and remember, making it an effective communication tool.

Trade Deals Simplification: Trump often criticized complex trade agreements, such as NAFTA and the TPP, in simple terms He would say things like:

"Our jobs are fleeing the country They're going to Mexico They're going to many other countries You look at what China is doing to our country in terms of making our product They're devaluing their currency, and there's nobody in our government to fight them."

"We're getting ripped off by these trade deals."

"We need to bring jobs back to America."

These statements simplified the intricate world of international trade and made it relatable to voters concerned about job loss and the outsourcing of American manufacturing.

When discussing healthcare, Trump used straightforward language to critique the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and offer his vision for reform:

"Obamacare is a disaster It's going up at numbers that nobody's ever seen worldwide."

"Obamacare is a disaster You know it We all know it It's going up at numbers that nobody's ever seen worldwide Nobody's ever seen numbers like this for healthcare."

"We're going to repeal and replace it with something much better and much less expensive."

These statements distilled the complexities of healthcare policy into a clear message of opposition and the promise of a better alternative.

On Taxes: "We're going to cut taxes massively We'll cut business taxes massively."

Trump's plain language approach was evident in his discussions on immigration:

"We have some bad hombres here, and we're going to get them out."

"We're going to build a wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it."

These statements simplified the immigration issue by focusing on the need for stricter border security and enforcement.

On Russia and Syria: "Russia is new in terms of nuclear We are old We're tired.

We're exhausted in terms of nuclear A very bad thing."

National Security: Trump's approach to national security was often presented in straightforward terms:

"We have to rebuild our military."

"America needs to be strong again."

On Foreign Policy: "We've been disrespected, laughed at, hated by the world [ ]

We have to rebuild our country."

These statements conveyed his commitment to a strong national defense without delving into the intricacies of defense policy.

These examples illustrate how Trump had a talent for taking complex issues and summarizing them in ways that were accessible and memorable to voters His plain language approach helped him connect with those who sought simple and direct solutions to the challenges facing the country.

"Plain language" goes beyond grammar and vocabulary; it focuses on clear and understandable communication Donald Trump's use of everyday language, like "Fake News" and "Jobs, Jobs, Jobs," made his message accessible to a wide audience He avoided jargon and political language, opting for simple, direct statements like "I'm really rich" and "I love the poorly educated." His use of independent sentences that stand alone, presented ideas clearly and minimized reliance on context.

Together with that, he avoided complex language, contradictory sentences, compound sentences, or complex sentences Most of sentences used by him are simple and direct sentences Another strategy is that he avoided ambiguity He did not use metaphors or unclear language but clear and straightforward language He rarely used conditional statements and phrases like "if not" or "might" One of his smart ways is summarizing important information or key points before delving into details He based on audiences' experience by using language that listeners can relate to based on their real-life experiences He frequently checked for listeners' understanding to verify whether his message was understood correctly by asking questions or listening to feedback For example, "So you've been doing this for 30 years, why are you just thinking about solutions now?"

Donald Trump's use of repetition was a prominent and distinctive feature of his communication style during the 2016 presidential election debates Through the strategic repetition of key phrases and slogans, Trump effectively conveyed his core messages and reinforced his positions on various issues This approach not only made his statements memorable but also contributed to his appeal as a straightforward and resolute candidate.

One of the most notable instances of repetition was Trump's campaign slogan throughout the 2016 election: "Make America Great Again." This concise and evocative phrase became synonymous with his candidacy and encapsulated his overarching message Trump would often use this slogan as a refrain, repeating it in speeches and debates to drive home his promise to revitalize the country's economy, strengthen its global position, and prioritize the interests of the American people.

"We're going to make America great again We're going to make it great again."

Another phrase that received significant repetition was "America First." Trump used this term to underscore his commitment to prioritizing American interests in trade negotiations, foreign policy decisions, and international agreements By repeating

"America First," he conveyed a sense of unwavering dedication to putting the nation's concerns ahead of global considerations.

"It's going to be America first America first."

Trump's criticism of trade deals often included repetitive phrases like "bad deals" or "bad trade deals," emphasizing his belief that the United States had been unfairly treated This repetition simplified complex trade issues and resonated with voters concerned about job losses and economic struggles.

"We've made some bad deals NAFTA is a bad deal TPP is a bad deal We've got to make better deals."

"We don't win anymore": Trump used this phrase to highlight his view that the United States had been losing in various aspects, such as trade and foreign policy:

"We don't win on trade We don't win on the military We don't win on healthcare.

We don't win on anything."

"China, China, China": Trump repeatedly mentioned China in discussions about trade and economic issues:

"China is beating us China is beating us in everything We need to be tough on China We need to negotiate better deals with China."

Trump's use of repetition extended to his criticism of political opponents He famously used nicknames like "Crooked Hillary" for Hillary Clinton and "Lyin' Ted" for Senator Ted Cruz - his primary rival during the Republican primaries These nicknames not only served as memorable labels but also reinforced his negative portrayals of his rivals.

"Crooked Hillary": Trump used this nickname to refer to his opponent, Hillary Clinton, as a way to criticize her:

"When I said, 'Crooked Hillary,' I mean crooked Hillary Big league."

"Lyin' Ted He can't tell the truth Lyin' Ted."

Furthermore, repetition played a role in Trump's discussions on immigration He repeatedly stressed his commitment to "build the wall" along the U.S.-Mexico border, emphasizing border security as a central aspect of his immigration policy This repetition helped solidify his stance on this contentious issue.

"We're going to build the wall, and Mexico is going to pay for it We have to build the wall."

During the 2016 American presidential election debates, one prominent lexical strategy that emerged was the consistent use of Emotive Language Emotive Language, also known as emotional language, played a crucial role in shaping the impact and effectiveness of Trump's communication throughout the debates Emotive language is a rhetorical technique that appeals to the emotions and feelings of the audience, and Trump's adept use of it played a pivotal role in his campaign

Trump often used emotive language to connect with his audience on a personal level He would employ phrases and anecdotes that resonated with the fears, hopes, and frustrations of many Americans, particularly those who felt left behind by economic and political changes.

Example: "I've been all over the country and met so many wonderful people But our country is in serious trouble We don't have victories anymore."

In this statement, he expresses empathy for those who feel that the United States is no longer winning and conveys a sense of urgency about the nation's problems.

"We have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us We have to stop our companies from leaving the United States and with it, firing all of their people All you have to do is take a look at Carrier air conditioning in Indianapolis They left—fired 1,400 people They're going to Mexico So many hundreds and hundreds of companies are doing this We cannot let it happen Under my plan, I'll be reducing taxes tremendously, from thirty-five percent to fifteen percent for companies, small and big businesses."

Hillary Clinton’s language strategies

Hillary Clinton's language in the 2016 presidential debates strategically championed progressive social values, reflecting her commitment to issues central to her campaign This analysis examines how her communication style advanced these values during the debates.

Clinton consistently emphasized her policy proposals, positioning herself as knowledgeable and experienced in matters of governance This strategy aimed to showcase her competence and policy-oriented approach to problem-solving.

Clinton's discourse began with a focus on economic inclusivity, emphasizing the need to construct an economy that caters to all, not just the privileged few at the pinnacle By declaring,…

“First, we have to build an economy that works for everyone, not just those at the top That means we need new jobs, good jobs, with rising incomes."

…she laid the groundwork for a narrative centered on equitable economic growth.

"I want us to invest in you I want us to invest in your future That means jobs in infrastructure, in advanced manufacturing, innovation and technology, clean, renewable energy, and small business, because most of the new jobs will come from small business."

Clinton's language on job creation reflected her commitment to progressive values, emphasizing investment in individuals and prioritizing industries like infrastructure, advanced manufacturing, innovation, clean energy, and small businesses This focus signaled her dedication to creating employment opportunities in sustainable and future-oriented sectors.

"We also have to make the economy fairer That starts with raising the national minimum wage and also guarantee, finally, equal pay for women’s work."

Hillary Clinton's platform went beyond job creation, focusing on economic fairness She advocated for a higher minimum wage and equal pay for women, positioning herself as a champion of wage justice and gender equality.

"I also want to see more companies do profit-sharing If you help create the profits, you should be able to share in them, not just the executives at the top."

Furthermore, Clinton delved into the intricacies of corporate responsibility by advocating for profit-sharing Her above statement underscored her commitment to a more equitable distribution of wealth within organizations.

“And I want us to do more to support people who are struggling to balance family and work I’ve heard from so many of you about the difficult choices you face and the stresses that you’re under So let’s have paid family leave, earned sick days Let’s be sure we have affordable child care and debt-free college."

The progressive social values championed by Clinton extended into her discourse on work-life balance and family support By expressing empathy for individuals grappling with the challenges of balancing family and work, she proposed concrete solutions like "paid family leave, earned sick days, affordable child care, and debt- free college." These proposals not only addressed immediate concerns but also aligned with a broader progressive vision of social support systems.

Clinton proposed funding for her policies through a progressive tax system, emphasizing fairness by requiring wealthier individuals and corporations to contribute more She stated, "We’re going to do it by having the wealthy pay their fair share and close the corporate loopholes," highlighting her commitment to closing income gaps.

The sentences provided underscore Clinton's emphasis on policy matters and her extensive background in public service By stating, "Well, I’ve been a senator,

By explicitly referencing her roles as "Donald…" and "secretary of state," she highlights her experience in both legislative and diplomatic fields, establishing her credibility as a knowledgeable leader in governance.

Clinton further reinforces her policy emphasis by asserting, "And I have done a lot…" This phrase serves to highlight her accomplishments and contributions during her tenure as a senator and secretary of state The inclusion of tangible achievements bolsters her image as a results-driven leader with a track record of meaningful contributions.

Addressing opposing opinions, Clinton employs a direct and assertive style with phrases like, "Well, that’s your opinion That is your opinion." This not only deflects criticism but also redirects the focus back to substantive policy discussions, reinforcing her commitment to a policy-centered campaign.

The statement, "Well, Donald, I know you live in your own reality, but that is not the facts," reflects Clinton's effort to ground discussions in objective reality, presenting herself as a candidate grounded in facts and rational decision-making This tactic serves to contrast her approach with what she portrays as an alternative reality presented by her opponent.

Clinton consistently ties her policy emphasis to her extensive experience and decision-making rationale For example, when discussing trade deals, she states, "The facts are—I did say I hoped it would be a good deal, but when it was negotiated…" This highlights her methodical evaluation of policies and serves as a reminder of her involvement in significant diplomatic initiatives.

Clinton's commitment to transparency is evident in her reference to her book, where she details her decision-making process, showcasing a policy-focused perspective.

DONALD TRUMP AND HILLARY CLINTON’S ATTITUDES

Positive Affect Dominance

In the realm of Affect, Donald Trump consistently demonstrated a prevalence of Positive Affect over Negative Affect throughout the debates For instance, his use of optimistic language, expressions of enthusiasm, and positive framing were noteworthy An example of this can be seen when he discussed economic growth, stating, "We're going to make America great again, bring jobs back – it's going to be fantastic!"

The abundance of Positive Appreciation aligns with Trump's attempt to establish a personal connection with the audience and express gratitude This rhetorical strategy aimed to humanize the candidate and portray him as relatable, potentially influencing voters who valued a personable and appreciative political figure. Donald Trump expresses a positive attitude toward the idea of creating jobs and stopping the outsourcing of jobs He uses terms like "good fight," "winning fight," and "a job creator like we haven't seen since Ronald Reagan" to convey a positive evaluation of his proposed policies.

Donald Trump touts his business success, claiming he transformed a "very small loan" into a multi-billion dollar company He positions this accomplishment as evidence of the business acumen needed to lead the country.

He also expresses a negative attitude toward the current situation, using phrases like "Our jobs are fleeing," "losing our good jobs," and "we can't allow it to happen anymore" to convey dissatisfaction with the current state of job loss and outsourcing Trump conveys a negative attitude toward the current state of the country's economy and trade deals He mentions that "our country's in deep trouble" and criticizes the handling of trade issues, especially with countries like China and Mexico He describes these issues as "a very, very sad thing" and characterizes the trade agreements as "defective."

In the debates, Donald Trump showed a range of affective responses, including anger, frustration, and confidence For example, when he was challenged by his opponents or the moderators, he often responded with anger and defensiveness He also expressed frustration with the political establishment and the media, which he believed were biased against him On the other hand, Trump also displayed confidence and pride in his accomplishments, often emphasizing his business acumen and success Let us take a closer look at the affect markers that Donald Trump use in the first debate:

"I have a great temperament" - The word "great" here is an affect marker conveying positive emotion.

"We have to stop our jobs from being stolen from us" - The phrase "being stolen from us" conveys a negative affect of anger and frustration.

"I will bring back jobs You can't bring back jobs" - The use of "I will" and "you can't" conveys a sense of determination and confidence.

"The African-American community is absolutely in the worst shape that it's ever been in before, ever, ever, ever" - The repetition of "ever" emphasizes the negative affect and urgency of the situation.

Donald Trump's use of phrases like "we cannot" in his campaign rhetoric conveyed a sense of urgency and negativity, particularly when contrasting "her" (Hillary Clinton) with Barack Obama, creating a negative association This tactic, along with other affect markers, aimed to stir emotions and mobilize voters.

2 "I will" - conveying determination and confidence

3 "Tremendous" - conveying positive emotion and enthusiasm

4 "Huge" - conveying positive emotion and emphasis.

5 "Spectacular" - conveying positive emotion and emphasis

6 "I agree with that 100%" - conveying positive emotion and agreement

7 "I have a winning temperament" - conveying positive emotion and confidence

1 "Being stolen from us" - conveying negative affect of anger and frustration

2 "You can't" - conveying determination and confidence

3 "Ever, ever, ever, ever" - emphasizing negative affect and urgency.

4 "Disaster" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disappointment

5 "It's a catastrophe" - conveying negative affect of disappointment and frustration

6 "It's a mess" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disappointment

7 "Our country is stagnant" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disappointment

8 "It's an embarrassment" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disappointment

9 "Our inner cities are a disaster" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disappointment

10 "Our airports are like from a third-world country" - conveying negative affect of disappointment and frustration

11 "Our jobs are fleeing the country" - conveying negative affect of frustration and urgency

12 "We cannot take four more years of Barack Obama, and that's what you get when you get her" - conveying negative affect and urgency.

Table 10 Affect markers by Donald Trump in the first debate – Some examples

Donald Trump's communication style during the first presidential debate was marked by a greater use of negative affect markers compared to positive ones Analysis revealed he employed 12 negative markers, significantly outnumbering the 7 positive markers used.

This indicates that Trump's language in the debate was characterized by a predominantly negative affect, conveying emotions such as frustration, disappointment, and anger This suggests that Trump was attempting to convey a sense of urgency and a need for change in his campaign message.

Although he used more negative affect markers, he also used some positive ones, such as "great" and "tremendous," which conveyed a sense of enthusiasm and confidence.

Therefore, the use of affect markers in Trump's language use in the first debate reflects his attempt to create a strong impression and appeal to voters by using a mix of positive and negative emotions, rather than a strictly positive or negative approach.

During the 2016 second presidential debate, Donald Trump employed affective language markers, revealing his attitudes and emotions on various topics This article analyzes Trump's language use through the lens of Appraisal theory, providing examples of his communication style.

"It's just words, folks" - Here, Trump used a minimization strategy to downplay the significance of the controversial comments he had made in the past, conveying a dismissive attitude towards the issue.

"I don't think you understand what he said" - By using "I don't think," Trump conveyed a negative attitude towards the moderator's understanding of the issue, suggesting that he knew better.

"Nobody has more respect for women than I do" - The use of "nobody" and "more" conveys a positive attitude of respect towards women, although this claim has been challenged by many.

"I will knock the hell out of ISIS" - The use of "knock the hell out of" conveys a sense of determination and confidence towards the issue of national security.

"She's got tremendous hatred" - By using "tremendous" and "hatred," Trump conveyed a negative attitude towards Clinton, suggesting that she was full of hate.

"She has tremendous hate in her heart" - Again, Trump used "tremendous" to convey a negative attitude towards Clinton, suggesting that she had a lot of hatred inside her.

"The Muslim ban is something that in some form has morphed into an extreme vetting" - Trump used the positive affect marker, "vetting," to convey a positive attitude towards the idea of vetting immigrants.

"I don't know Putin" - Trump used a negative affect marker, "don't know," to convey a negative attitude towards accusations of his alleged relationship with the Russian president.

"Because you'd be in jail" - Trump used a negative affect marker, "jail," to convey a negative attitude towards Clinton, and to suggest that she should be held accountable for her alleged wrongdoings.

Trump's language in the second debate conveyed a mixture of positive and negative attitudes towards different topics and individuals He used affective stances to convey his opinions, beliefs, and emotions, and to influence the audience's perception of him and his opponent Through Appraisal Attitude, we can evaluate how these affective stances contribute to the overall evaluation of the situation and the actors involved Let us find out more affect markers that Trump used in the second debate:

2 "Tremendous" - conveying positive emotion and emphasis

3 "Believe me" - conveying emphasis and trust

4 "Extreme vetting" - conveying positive affect and emphasis

5 "Absolutely" - conveying agreement and emphasis.

6 "No, I'm a gentleman, Hillary, go ahead" - conveying positive affect of politeness and respect

1 "Disaster" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disappointment

2 "Hatred" - conveying negative affect of anger and dislike

3 "Wrong" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disagreement

4 "I don't know" - conveying uncertainty and negative affect of suspicion

5 "It's just words, folks" - conveying dismissal and negative affect of annoyance

6 "Because you'd be in jail" - conveying negative affect of anger and threat

7 "Said very strongly" - conveying emphasis and conviction

8 "Horrible" - conveying negative affect of disgust and disappointment

9 "Nasty woman" - conveying negative affect of insult and disrespect

10 "She's got bad judgment" - conveying negative affect of criticism and disbelief

11 "Believe me, she has tremendous hate in her heart" - conveying negative affect of criticism and accusation

12 "A disaster" - conveying negative affect of frustration and disappointment

13 "Unbelievable" - conveying negative affect of shock and disbelief

14 "What you've done is a disgrace" - conveying negative affect of criticism and blame

Table 11 Some examples in the debates

Based on the number of negative and positive affect markers in the above table used by Donald Trump in the second debate, we can discuss a few points:

Trump used more negative affect markers than positive ones, indicating that his language was dominated by negative emotions and attitudes towards the topics and some individuals, especially Hillary Clinton - his opponent This could suggest that he was trying to persuade the audience by highlighting negative aspects of his opponent or other issues, or that he was feeling defensive or combative.

In the third debate, Donald Trump used fewer positive affect markers than in the previous debates However, he still used some positive affect markers, such as

Judgemental Lean Towards Negativity

Contrastingly, the analysis of Judgement within Appraisal Theory reveals a tendency for Donald Trump to express Negative Judgement more frequently than Positive Judgement This is exemplified in his critiques of opponent policies, such as when he remarked, "These plans are disastrous for our economy, they're going to hurt our workers." This negative judgemental stance served to underscore his points forcefully, appealing to the concerns of certain voter demographics In the debates, Trump frequently evaluated his opponents and their policies negatively, using language such as "disaster," "terrible," and "incompetent." He also criticized the Obama administration for its foreign policy and economic performance, using evaluative language such as "weak," "failed," and "disastrous." At the same time, Trump presented his own policies and solutions in a positive light, using evaluative language such as

1 I have great respect for women.

2 I will say this about Hillary she doesn't quit, she doesn't give up.

3 I also have a much better temperament than she has.

1 You've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life.

2 You were totally in favor of it [the Iraq War].

3 The kind of money that our country is losing is beyond anything that anyone's ever seen before.

4 You don't have the look, the stamina.

5 You've been doing this for 30 years. Why are you just thinking about these solutions right now?

6 She's got experience, but it's bad experience.

7 You're telling the enemy everything you want to do No wonder you've been fighting ISIS your entire adult life. Table 13 Some examples in the debates

Based on the judgement markers used by Donald Trump in the first debate, it's clear that he was attempting to portray himself as a stronger, more capable leader than his opponent, Hillary Clinton He used appreciation markers to compliment himself and highlight his own strengths, such as his respect for women and his temperament.

On the other hand, Trump used a significant number of disapproval markers to criticize Clinton's experience, stamina, and judgement This suggests that he was attempting to undermine her credibility and position himself as a superior alternative.

Generally, the use of judgement markers in the first debate reflects Trump's strategy of contrasting his own perceived strengths with Clinton's perceived weaknesses.

Appreciation Language Emphasis

Trump's communication style leaned heavily on positive appreciation, often expressing gratitude to audiences and moderators, as exemplified by his frequent thank-yous.

"I appreciate everyone here tonight, and I want to thank the American people for their support." This positive appreciation not only aimed at fostering a connection with the audience but also served as a rhetorical strategy to convey humility and relatability In the second presidential debate of the 2016 American election, Donald Trump used a number of judgement markers to express his opinions and beliefs about various issues Here are some examples:

1 I will say this about Hillary, she doesn't quit, she doesn't give up I respect that.

1 Well, you owe the President an apology because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal, he's another real winner that you have, and he's the one that got this started along with your campaign manager and they were on television just two weeks ago, she was saying exactly that.

2 She talks about wages we're going to bring jobs back we're going to renegotiate our terrible trade deals we're going to bring back jobs.

3 Hillary Clinton has been a disaster she has been all talk and no action.

4 The African-American community has been let down by our politicians. They talk good around election time, like right now, and after the election, they say see you later.

5 I will say this about Hillary, she doesn't quit, she doesn't give up I respect that.

6 I think it's disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself if you want to know the truth.

7 She's been doing this for 30 years. Why the hell didn't you do it over the last 15, 20 years?

8 You called it the gold standard of trade deals You said it's the finest deal you've ever seen and then you heard what I said about it and all of a sudden you were against it.

9 I have great respect for women Nobody has more respect for women than I do.

10 She's been a disaster She's got experience, but it's bad experience We have made so many bad deals during the last - so she's got experience that's bad.

11 Well, you owe the President an apology because as you know very well, your campaign, Sidney Blumenthal, he's another real winner that you have, and he's the one that got this started along with your campaign manager and they were on television just two weeks ago, she was saying exactly that.

Table 14 Some examples in the debates

As clearly be seen in the table, Trump's use of judgement markers in the second debate largely followed the same pattern as in the first debate In the second debate, Trump used more disapproval markers than approval markers, which reflects his critical and combative approach He used disapproval markers to criticize Clinton's record, experience, and judgement, while also expressing approval of some of her qualities, such as her resilience.

Appreciation involves recognizing and valuing something, whether it's an object, a situation, or a person In his speeches, Donald Trump frequently demonstrated appreciation for his supporters and their loyalty, often referring to them as "great people."

The speaker lauded the American people, praising their values of freedom, democracy, and individualism He contrasted these positive aspects with his perceived negative influences of globalism and political correctness.

Donald Trump's approach in the 2016 presidential debates was marked by strong emotions, negative views of opponents and the political establishment, and enthusiastic promotion of his own policies Appraisal theory provides a framework to understand the complex emotions, attitudes, and beliefs driving his campaign, ultimately contributing to his victory.

Based on three basic dimensions—affect, judgement, and appreciation—appraisal Martin's theory is a framework for analyzing feelings, attitudes, and ideologies We may utilize appraisal theory to comprehend Hillary Clinton's emotional responses, assessments, and expressions in the context of her attitude and ideology during the

Affect refers to the emotional response or feeling that someone experiences towards an object or situation In the debates, Hillary Clinton showed a range of affective responses, including confidence, frustration, and concern For example, she displayed confidence in her policy proposals and her experience as a public servant, often emphasizing her qualifications and her ability to work across the aisle However, she also expressed frustration with her opponent, Donald Trump, and his divisive rhetoric, often pointing out his controversial statements and behavior Clinton also showed concern for the future of the country, often emphasizing the importance of unity and cooperation.

Judgement refers to the evaluation or appraisal of an object or situation based on its perceived value or relevance In the debates, Clinton frequently evaluated Trump and his policies negatively, using language such as "dangerous," "reckless," and

Clinton criticized her opponent's qualifications, business record, and treatment of women, employing harsh terms like "disgraceful" and "offensive." Conversely, she presented her own policies in a positive light, using words like "practical," "effective," and "progressive." These examples demonstrate the use of judgment markers in political discourse.

Appreciation refers to the expression or recognition of values, beliefs, or attitudes towards an object or situation In the debates, Clinton often expressed appreciation for the diversity and resilience of the American people, using language such as "strong," "compassionate," and "optimistic." She also expressed appreciation for American values such as equality, justice, and freedom, often contrasting them with what she perceived as the negative influence of Trump's divisive and exclusionary rhetoric.

In conclusion, Hillary Clinton's attitude and ideology in the 2016 American presidential election debates can be analyzed through the lens of Martin's Appraisal Theory by examining her affective responses, her judgement of the situation and her opponent, and her appreciation of important values and qualities This analysis suggests that Clinton was a passionate and determined candidate, who placed a high value on competence, experience, social justice, and diversity.

The variances and similarities in the political discourse of Trump and

The 2016 US presidential election debates saw Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton clashing over their differing political ideologies, party affiliations, and policy positions Trump's conservative views contrasted sharply with Clinton's liberal stance, shaping their attitudes and approaches throughout the debates.

Donald Trump: Trump's ideology is generally associated with conservatism, especially on issues like taxes, deregulation, and strong national defense During the debates, he often expressed conservative attitudes, such as advocating for lower taxes, reduced government regulation, and a strong military He used negative judgments to criticize the liberal policies of his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton's political ideology is firmly rooted in liberalism and progressive policies, advocating for healthcare reform, climate action, and gun control Throughout debates, she championed liberal viewpoints, emphasizing the positive impacts of her proposed policies Clinton's speeches consistently demonstrated her commitment to social progress and diversity.

Donald Trump: As the Republican nominee, Trump's attitudes reflected core Republican values and positions He emphasized conservative economic policies, law and order, and a strict stance on immigration His criticisms of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) aligned with the Republican Party's opposition to the healthcare law.

Hillary Clinton: As the Democratic nominee, Clinton's attitudes were in line with the Democratic Party's platform She advocated for expanding healthcare access, gun control, and addressing climate change Her positions were rooted in progressive ideals and Democratic principles.

Donald Trump: Trump's populist ideology was evident in his critiques of the "political establishment" and the "Washington elite." He often portrayed himself as an outsider who would disrupt the status quo, which resonated with many disaffected voters.

Hillary Clinton: Clinton's attitudes represented a more establishment-oriented approach She emphasized her experience as a former secretary of state and senator and positioned herself as a steady and knowledgeable leader who could build on existing policies.

Donald Trump: Trump's "America First" ideology, which emphasizes U.S sovereignty and interests, was reflected in his attitudes during the debates He expressed skepticism about international trade agreements and commitments, advocating for a more nationalist approach.

Hillary Clinton championed internationalism, advocating for diplomacy, global cooperation, and strong alliances She fiercely defended international agreements like the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris Agreement on climate change.

In summary, the relationship between ideologies and the attitudes of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 American presidential election debates was evident in their policy positions, party affiliations, and rhetorical styles Trump's conservatism,populism, and nationalism were reflected in his attitudes, while Clinton's liberalism,establishment politics, and internationalism shaped her positions during the debates.These ideological differences played a significant role in framing the policy debates and influencing voter perceptions.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Donald Trump had both positive and negative attitude in the debates Trump often expressed positive emotions, such as optimism and enthusiasm.

He used words like "tremendous," "amazing," and "fantastic" when discussing his plans for the country For example, "We're going to make America great again!" He also displayed negative emotions, particularly when criticizing opponents or addressing issues he disagreed with He used phrases like "disaster," "disgraceful," and

"horrible" to convey his dissatisfaction with the status quo Trump frequently made positive judgments about his own proposals and ideas He expressed confidence in his ability to solve various issues, often using phrases like "I will" and "I can" to indicate his competence On the other hand, he was critical of his opponent, Hillary Clinton, and the Obama administration He used negative judgments like "crooked," "corrupt," and "failed" to describe their actions and policies Trump showed appreciation for his supporters and his base He frequently acknowledged their loyalty and the enthusiasm of his rallies He used phrases like "I love my supporters" to convey this sentiment. However, he often showed a lack of appreciation for his political opponents, referring to them with derogatory terms like "Lyin' Ted" or "Little Marco." This lack of appreciation contributed to his confrontational style in debates These appraisal analyses highlight the range of affect, judgment, and appreciation expressed by DonaldTrump during the 2016 American presidential election debates His language was characterized by strong emotions, self-confidence, and a clear distinction between those he appreciated and those he did not This communication style resonated with his supporters and contributed to the polarizing nature of the campaign.

Hillary Clinton often expressed positive emotions, such as hope, optimism, and determination She used phrases like "I'm excited about" and "I'm looking forward to" when discussing her plans for the country She also displayed negative emotions, especially when criticizing her opponent, Donald Trump She used words like

"dangerous," "reckless," and "unfit" to convey her concerns about his proposed policies and temperament Clinton frequently made positive judgments about her own qualifications and experience She expressed confidence in her ability to handle various issues and often used phrases like "I have a plan" and "I know how to do this." She was critical of Donald Trump's preparedness for the presidency She used negative judgments like "unfit to be president" and "unqualified" to describe him Clinton showed appreciation for her supporters and the diversity of the American population. She acknowledged the importance of unity and inclusivity She used phrases like "I appreciate your support" to convey gratitude Lack of Appreciation for Opponents: While she criticized her opponent, Donald Trump, she often refrained from using derogatory terms but still expressed a lack of appreciation for his positions and behavior Her focus was on contrasting her qualifications rather than attacking his character In summary, Hillary Clinton's appraisal analysis shows that she used a more measured and positive tone in her language during the 2016 election debates She conveyed positive emotions and emphasized her own qualifications, while also expressing concerns about her opponent Her communication style aimed to appeal to a broad and diverse audience while maintaining a critical stance on her opponent's suitability for the presidency.

Analyzing the attitudes of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 American presidential election debates through the appraisal analysis tool reveals distinct differences in their communication styles:

She often expressed positive emotions, such as hope and determination She used phrases like "I'm excited about" when discussing her plans She also displayed negative emotions when criticizing Trump, using words like "dangerous" and

He occasionally expressed optimism and confidence, especially when discussing the potential for change and making America great again However, he frequently used negative affect, criticizing Clinton's policies and character with words like "disaster," "failure," and "corrupt."

She made positive judgments about her own qualifications and experience, expressing confidence in her ability to handle various issues She was critical of Trump's preparedness for the presidency, using terms like "unfit" and "unqualified."

He often made positive judgments about his ability to fix problems, create jobs, and protect the nation He frequently made negative judgments about Clinton, labeling her as a "liar," "crooked," and "the establishment."

The candidate expressed gratitude for her supporters and celebrated the diversity of the American people, emphasizing unity and inclusivity While criticizing Trump's stances, she avoided personal attacks, focusing instead on policy differences.

Trump expressed appreciation for his supporters' enthusiasm and their role in his campaign's success He frequently criticized Clinton, questioning her integrity and the effectiveness of her policies.

Hillary Clinton's campaign strategy during the debates focused on highlighting her qualifications and expressing concerns about her opponent's fitness for office Her communication style was marked by a measured, positive tone In contrast, Donald Trump's approach was more aggressive, utilizing negative affect and judgment when addressing his opponent and the nation's state While both candidates appreciated their supporters, Trump's criticism of Clinton was less restrained Their distinct communication styles were a defining characteristic of the debates.

The American presidential election debates in 2016 were highly significant in shaping public opinion and influencing the outcome of the election Through the lens of critical discourse analysis, it is evident that language played a crucial role in the debates, with candidates employing various strategies to construct and convey their messages to voters.

Using the appraisal theory framework developed by Martin and White, it is possible to gain insights into the candidates' attitudes and ideologies The analysis of Hillary Clinton's language use in the three debates revealed that she employed various affect, judgement, and appreciation elements to portray herself as competent, knowledgeable, and empathetic Conversely, Donald Trump often used derogatory and belittling language, employing appraisal elements that sought to discredit his opponents and bolster his own image as a strong and decisive leader.

The analysis found that political discourse employed repetition, intertextuality, and framing to deliver specific messages, aiming to evoke emotions, garner support, and appeal to voter values and beliefs.

In conclusion, critical discourse analysis offers a valuable tool for understanding the role of language in political discourse and its impact on public opinion The analysis of the American presidential election debates in 2016 has highlighted the importance of language use in political communication and the need for a critical examination of political discourse in shaping public opinion and political outcomes.

To sum up, we can see the attitude and ideology conveyed through language use by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election debates:

Confidence and assertiveness: Donald Trump often used language that conveyed a strong sense of confidence and assertiveness He frequently used declarative sentences and made bold claims, such as "I alone can fix it" when discussing problems in the country This language conveyed a sense of strength and leadership On the other hand, Hillary Clinton tended to use more measured language and often relied on statistics and evidence to support her claims Her language conveyed a sense of preparedness and thoughtfulness.