This project examines the 2. debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton regarding the United States presidential election of 2016. Their use of linguistic and rhetorical means in the debate will be in focus and how big influence the truth has.
We will discuss how big influence the truth has on the debate, by using the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, to find out if the debate meets the demands of the ‘speech conversation’ that is if the conversation is based on true. Furthermore we analyse the candidates’ use of arguments, by using Stephen Toulmins model of argumentation.
To examine Trump and Clinton’s use of rhetoric, we use the Danish professor in rhetoric, Christian Kock, who claims that political debates often are characterized by ‘bad habits’ by the candidates. He uses different terms to analyse their use of language. The modes of persuasion will help us to know how the presidential candidates try to apply to the electors and thereby win votes. In the light of this theoretical foundation we perform a text-oriented analyse of the use of linguistic and rhetorical means in the debate.
Finally we draw the conclusion, that Trump and Clinton make use of linguistic and rhetoric means in the debate. Their ways of using them are implicit and therefore it’s difficult for the recipient to see through. They twist the truth and they use ‘bad habits’ to persuade the recipient. Due to that the truth in the debate is challenged. The ‘speech conversation’ is not achieved and they don’t use arguments in particular, which makes it hard for the voter to vote in the light of political foundation since their personalities are more dominant than their political persuasion.
|Uddannelser||Basis - Humanistisk Bacheloruddannelse, (Bachelor uddannelse) Basis|
|Udgivelsesdato||29 maj 2017|