Previous President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris both have activities that task various feelings and emotions. During their discussion on September 10, 2024, the distinction between them was especially strong.
One member used more offensive language, referred to the past, and compared concern to the past. The other addressed citizens ‘ sense of hope more, used more good language, and spoke more of the future.
As a speaker, poet, and professor who primarily teaches sociolinguistics, or how vocabulary operates in society, I have always been fascinated by the ways people use vocabulary in patterns. I had the chance to look at how these candidates were using language to appeal to voters during the Harris-Trump conversation.
A candidate’s choice of method may reveal more about them when it is looked at. Typically, according to the study of language and language, politicians you appeal to reason, feelings or authority – or some combination of them – to urge their audiences. In terms of feelings, both fear and desire can be successful at motivating electors. There’s never a right or wrong way to do it.
Scientists have developed the concept of the idiolect, an adult dialect that is like a thumbprint, distinct for each adult, and made out of our exclusive linguistic and social activities.
People frequently practice and prepare for public speaking situations. However, once they are really in front of an audience, they frequently return to their native tongue, which is already familiar to them. For instance, a speaker does n’t consider how long their sentences are.
They are considering the suggestions they wish to communicate. They might not be aware that their talk and distribution have patterns, or that they frequently return to the same terms.
Negativity
In the discussion, I used an artificial intelligence application to respond to questions about the use of words, the length of phrases, and the types of words. I checked all of the outcome of the AI instrument mechanically, so I may make certain there were no anomalies.
Here’s what I was looking for: I anticipated that the candidates ‘ employ of language in the debate may indicate their varied approaches to campaigning, particularly in terms of past or present orientation, appeals to dread or desire, and negative or positive statements.
I found that it did.
First, I chose six segments of the conversation transcript that were identical in length and that both candidates had to answer the same question or at least one other way.
Then I looked at anger in their language. I anticipated that more negative comments would be more in line with calls for the politics of dread, while more good people would be more in line with hopeful calls for the political will.
If a prospect is making an appeal to fear, they will likely concentrate on issues that may or may not have gone bad. By comparison, if they focus on hope, they are likely to rely on what might go straight in the future.
Trump constantly made more offensive claims than Harris, in my opinion. That was true of each of the six divisions separately, with prices varying from 33 % more to 166 % more.
For instance, in a 30-second segment, Trump used bad remarks and comments such as” completely eliminate” and “disaster” 12 days. In her 30-second comment, Harris used negative comments or words just seven days.
The tone of the conditions was likewise different: Trump’s bad words tended to be stronger, like as “violently”, “very dreadfully” and “ridiculous”. Nevertheless, for all the sections I analyzed, Trump made, on regular, about 61 % more negative remarks than Harris.
Smaller phrases
Therefore I looked at word length. I believed that shorter sentences would typically convey a sense of urgency, which would be more in line with fear, and that longer ones could be liquid and at ease, and thus be more correlated with hope. Three of the six-part unique series were missing.
People may assume that brief claims reflect directness and address issues head-on, but that is not always the case.
For example, one of Trump’s relatively short statements,” The agreement said you have to do this, this, this, this, this, and they did n’t do it”, can be considered evasive because it does not contain the level of specificity that would allow a listener to make their own assessment of whether something has been accomplished or not. And yet, it is easy and quick, made a bit longer only by the repeat of” this”.
For the first category I analyzed, the typical size of words for Trump was 13 thoughts, while for Harris it was 17 terms. The space widened for the next category, in which the average length of words for Trump was 14 thoughts, while for Harris it was 25 terms. That pattern continued throughout the third segment as well.
Talk of the future
Finally, I examined their attitudes toward the future and the past, and whether they had any more interest in one or the other as potential indicators of a greater reliance on fear and hope.
The recent past is typically used as a time to escape from when there is fear, while the more distant past is typically used as a time to turn around. By contrast, people who focus on hope look to the future.
When I compared their closing statements, I discovered that both candidates made the same number of past references, but in very different ways. The majority of Harris ‘ references to the past were attributed to the fact that Trump frequently deals with it. For example, she said there is” an attempt to take us backward” and continued,” We’re not going back”.
Trump, on the other hand, spoke more about the perceived failures of his opponents in the past, such as,” They’ve had 3½ to fix the border”. He also talked about what he perceives to be his past achievements, such as,” I rebuilt our entire military”.
In terms of future statements, all four of Trump’s were about what he says will happen if his opponent wins – for example,” If she won the election, fracking in Pennsylvania will end on Day 1″.
Harris had nine “future” statements, all of which were about what she intends to do. She cited,” And when I am president, we will do that for all people, understanding that the value I bring to this is that access to health care should be a right and not just a privilège for those who can afford it,” as an example.
Also in her closing statement, Harris summed up both the debate and the findings of my research:
” You’ve heard tonight two very different visions for our country. one that is focused on the past and the other that is on the future. And an attempt to take us backward. But we’re not going back”.
The outcome of the election will determine whether the American voter is more receptive to hope or fear at this time. For linguistic analyses, large amounts of data will be available in the upcoming weeks.
Patricia Friedrich is vice provost and professor of sociolinguistics, Arizona State University
The Conversation has republished this article under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.