Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis
This paper describes an analysis of the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates published in The New York Times using Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory. The three presidential debates in the U.S., which occur every four years, remain as the most sensitive political rhetoric that lead to the electio...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Australian International Academic Centre
2018
|
| Online Access: | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/74551/1/Immigration%20in%20the%20United%20States%202016%20presidential%20debates%20a%20functional%20analysis.pdf |
| _version_ | 1825950353326080000 |
|---|---|
| author | Yaseen, Ahmed Hasani Mohamad Ali, Afida Mohd Kasim, Zalina |
| author_facet | Yaseen, Ahmed Hasani Mohamad Ali, Afida Mohd Kasim, Zalina |
| author_sort | Yaseen, Ahmed Hasani |
| collection | UPM |
| description | This paper describes an analysis of the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates published in The New York Times using Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory. The three presidential debates in the U.S., which occur every four years, remain as the most sensitive political rhetoric that lead to the election of the next U.S. President. These debates include discussion of different issues between the two presidential candidates. One of these issues is immigration. The U.S. presidential debates have been researched by many on various aspects but there has not been a study that focus primarily on the issue of immigration in the three 2016 U.S. presidential debates. All statements regarding this issue between the two presidential candidates, Trump and Clinton, were extracted from these debates and analyzed using Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory. Findings revealed that attack statements occurred more than acclaims, and defences were less used than acclaims. The statements included in these debates pertained to policy (30%) and character (70%). As expected, general goals were employed more often using acclaim function rather than attack and defend. However, ideals were employed more often using defence than to acclaim and attack. Due to different contexts, situations, and participants, Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory may not be generalized for all debates. This study reveals certain inconsistencies regarding some of the hypotheses of Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory in relation to our knowledge of the presidential debates, specifically the issue of immigration. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-06T10:13:18Z |
| format | Article |
| id | upm.eprints-74551 |
| institution | Universiti Putra Malaysia |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-06T10:13:18Z |
| publishDate | 2018 |
| publisher | Australian International Academic Centre |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | upm.eprints-745512020-12-10T21:05:22Z http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/74551/ Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis Yaseen, Ahmed Hasani Mohamad Ali, Afida Mohd Kasim, Zalina This paper describes an analysis of the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates published in The New York Times using Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory. The three presidential debates in the U.S., which occur every four years, remain as the most sensitive political rhetoric that lead to the election of the next U.S. President. These debates include discussion of different issues between the two presidential candidates. One of these issues is immigration. The U.S. presidential debates have been researched by many on various aspects but there has not been a study that focus primarily on the issue of immigration in the three 2016 U.S. presidential debates. All statements regarding this issue between the two presidential candidates, Trump and Clinton, were extracted from these debates and analyzed using Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory. Findings revealed that attack statements occurred more than acclaims, and defences were less used than acclaims. The statements included in these debates pertained to policy (30%) and character (70%). As expected, general goals were employed more often using acclaim function rather than attack and defend. However, ideals were employed more often using defence than to acclaim and attack. Due to different contexts, situations, and participants, Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory may not be generalized for all debates. This study reveals certain inconsistencies regarding some of the hypotheses of Benoit’s (2007a) functional theory in relation to our knowledge of the presidential debates, specifically the issue of immigration. Australian International Academic Centre 2018 Article PeerReviewed text en http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/74551/1/Immigration%20in%20the%20United%20States%202016%20presidential%20debates%20a%20functional%20analysis.pdf Yaseen, Ahmed Hasani and Mohamad Ali, Afida and Mohd Kasim, Zalina (2018) Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis. International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, 7 (3). 41 - 48. ISSN 2200-3452; ESSN: 2200-3592 http://journals.aiac.org.au/index.php/IJALEL/article/view/4247 |
| spellingShingle | Yaseen, Ahmed Hasani Mohamad Ali, Afida Mohd Kasim, Zalina Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis |
| title | Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis |
| title_full | Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis |
| title_fullStr | Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis |
| title_short | Immigration in the United States 2016 presidential debates: a functional analysis |
| title_sort | immigration in the united states 2016 presidential debates a functional analysis |
| url | http://psasir.upm.edu.my/id/eprint/74551/1/Immigration%20in%20the%20United%20States%202016%20presidential%20debates%20a%20functional%20analysis.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yaseenahmedhasani immigrationintheunitedstates2016presidentialdebatesafunctionalanalysis AT mohamadaliafida immigrationintheunitedstates2016presidentialdebatesafunctionalanalysis AT mohdkasimzalina immigrationintheunitedstates2016presidentialdebatesafunctionalanalysis |