THE LANGUAGE OF POLITICAL CONFRONTATION: INTERTEXTUAL AND DISCURSIVE STRATEGIES OF THE TRUMP-CLINTON 2016 SECOND PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE - A CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

Abstract

This research paper examines the discursive strategies employed by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the second 2016 U.S. presidential debate, focusing on nomination, predication, argumentation, perspectivization, and mitigation/intensification. Through a detailed analysis of their debate performances, the study reveals how both candidates strategically framed their messages to appeal to voters and undermine their opponent's credibility. Nomination was used to highlight specific individuals, groups, and policies, leveraging intertextuality to evoke pre-existing public knowledge. Predication allowed both candidates to construct positive self-images and negative portrayals of their opponents, aligning with broader societal values and concerns. Argumentation was grounded in practical policy solutions, historical examples, and intertextual references to reinforce credibility and address voter anxieties. Perspectivization enabled the candidates to present their visions for America, emphasizing unity, strength, and restoration of national greatness. Finally, mitigation and intensification were employed to soften criticisms, amplify key messages, and manage public perceptions. The findings underscore the centrality of discursive strategies and intertextuality in political communication, offering insights into how candidates navigate complex debates to influence voter attitudes and electoral outcomes. This study contributes to the broader understanding of political discourse and its role in shaping democratic processes.