Red and blue language: Word choices in the Trump & Harris 2024 presidential debate (2410.13654v1)

Abstract: Political debates are a peculiar type of political discourse, in which candidates directly confront one another, addressing not only the the moderator's questions, but also their opponent's statements, as well as the concerns of voters from both parties and undecided voters. Therefore, language is adjusted to meet specific expectations and achieve persuasion. We analyse how the language of Trump and Harris during the debate (September 10th 2024) differs in relation to the following semantic and pragmatic features, for which we formulated targeted hypotheses: framing values and ideology, appealing to emotion, using words with different degrees of concreteness and specificity, addressing others through singular or plural pronouns. Our findings include: differences in the use of figurative frames (Harris often framing issues around recovery and empowerment, Trump often focused on crisis and decline); similar use of emotional language, with Trump showing a slight higher tendency toward negativity and toward less subjective language compared to Harris; no significant difference in the specificity of candidates' responses; similar use of abstract language, with Trump showing more variability than Harris, depending on the subject discussed; differences in addressing the opponent, with Trump not mentioning Harris by name, while Harris referring to Trump frequently; different uses of pronouns, with Harris using both singular and plural pronouns equally, while Trump using more singular pronouns. The results are discussed in relation to previous literature on Red and Blue language, which refers to distinct linguistic patterns associated with conservative (Red) and liberal (Blue) political ideologies.

• The paper employs advanced computational techniques and AI models to analyze figurative framing and linguistic strategies in the debate.
• The paper reveals that Harris uses more subjective, inclusive language while Trump favors individualistic pronoun use to reinforce an authoritative image.
• The study’s findings offer groundwork for future AI-driven discourse analysis, enhancing understanding of political rhetoric and voter perception.

Analysis of Linguistic Strategies in the Trump-Harris 2024 Presidential Debate

This essay provides a detailed examination of the research paper titled "Red and Blue Language: Word Choices in the Trump-Harris 2024 Presidential Debate." The paper explores the linguistic strategies employed by Donald J. Trump and Kamala D. Harris during their debate, offering insights into their rhetorical alignment with the typical ideologies of their respective political parties.

Overview of Research Methodology

The authors adopt a comprehensive approach by employing both qualitative and quantitative analyses to explore the candidates' use of language. The paper hinges on several linguistic parameters: figurative framing, emotional appeals, specificity, complexity, pronoun use, and political alignment. To achieve this, state-of-the-art computational tools and linguistic models such as SiEBERT and DeBERTa are utilized, providing a robust framework for assessing semantic and pragmatic aspects of the candidates' speeches.

Key Findings

Figurative Framing

The analysis reveals distinct differences in figurative framing between the candidates. Harris's rhetoric predominantly revolves around themes of recovery, empowerment, and unity, echoing Democratic ideologies of inclusivity and social justice. Trump, on the other hand, often frames his discourse around crisis and decline, resonating with traditional Republican emphasis on strength and individual responsibility. This framing aligns with established political narratives, albeit without significant numerical divergence.

Emotional and Subjective Language

Contrary to initial hypotheses, both candidates utilize a predominantly negative emotional tone. However, Harris's language exhibits higher subjectivity, deviating towards personal opinion and empathetic language, which is less evident in Trump’s rhetoric. This disparity underscores Harris's focus on moral and human impact, whereas Trump maintains a semblance of objectivity.

Lexical Specificity and Complexity

Interestingly, the paper finds no significant differences in lexical specificity between the candidates. Both employ language of similar specificity, contrary to the expectation that Democratic discourse would be more detailed. In terms of complexity, Harris surprisingly shows more concrete language use, indicating an adaptation in rhetorical strategy to appeal broadly.

Pronoun Use and Identity Appeal

Pronoun analysis reveals marked contrasts: Trump favors individualistic pronouns, reinforcing a self-centric authoritative image, whereas Harris balances individualistic and inclusive pronouns, fostering a collective identity. This aligns well with the Democrat's focus on collective agency.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The findings offer substantial insights into the strategic use of language in political contexts. The nuanced approach reveals that while candidates may align with party ideologies, they tactically adapt styles to the debate format. The implications extend beyond mere political discourse, impacting voter perception and potentially influencing electoral outcomes.

Speculations on Future AI Developments

The application of advanced linguistic models in this research highlights the potential of AI in political discourse analysis. Future research could refine these models to capture deeper nuances in political rhetoric, aiding in unbiased and sophisticated content analysis.

Conclusion

This paper presents a meticulous examination of linguistic strategies in political debates, elucidating the intricate interplay between language and ideology. By employing cutting-edge models, it lays groundwork for future exploration in political discourse, providing valuable insights for researchers interested in the linguistic machinery of politics.