Suchergebnisse

Here, we track the language patterns of Mitt Romney and other Republican candidates during 2008 and 2012 and contrast them with their Democratic counterparts to better understand the language of partisanship in the U.S. We employ DICTION ( www.dictionsoftware.com ), an automated text-analysis tool, to process some 8,000 campaign documents. We find (a) that Mitt Romney was an unconventional Republican in 2012 (but not in 2008); (b) that Romney employed both "Republican" and "Democratic" language and did so to good effect (both in the primaries and in the general election); (c) that Barack Obama matched Romney in these ways, departing sharply from his own 2008 campaign style; and (d) that the candidates increasingly resembled one another as election day approached. We conclude that, no matter what their party of origin, all national politicians must be versed in the Democratic/Republican lexicon, a requirement that distinguishes the American political ethos.

This article explores how contemporary historians can avail themselves of quantitative approaches to examine how elusive concepts like 'time' and 'space' have been used in the public domain. By making use of specifically designed programs, historians can use digital tools to harness an unprecedented mass of information. This is a particularly important methodological innovation at a time of rapidly expanding data: news, speeches, and commentary are available first electronically, and they are available on countless sites in an unprecedented array of formats. Mastering these sources digitally is not only imperative for the contemporary historian; it also provides essential source material for understanding how language and meanings change over time, between contexts, and across different media.

This study reports certain lexical patterns produced during the general election of campaign 2008 by Senators John McCain and Barack Obama. As such, it continues a series of tracings begun a dozen years ago under the rubric of the Campaign Mapping Project. This is largely a descriptive project employing computerized language analysis, making specific use of the DICTION 5.0 program. The authors examine some 700 speech passages delivered during the primaries of 2007 and the general election of 2008 and compare them to around 4,000 passages from the 1948 through 2004 presidential campaigns. Overall, they find that popular understanding of the Obama style—that he is fiery, poetic, optimistic, and grandiloquent—to be wrong. Instead, they find Obama to be cautious, grounded, and highly focused. McCain, in contrast, was personal in style, quite partisan (as are most losing presidential candidates), and highly embellished. Obama's "cool" style differed dramatically from McCain's "emotional" style, thereby providing both a political and rhetorical contrast for voters during the 2008 campaign.

This article examines George W. Bush's campaign rhetoric in both 2000 and 2004 and compares his style to that of his predecessors. Using DICTION, a computerized language analysis program, the study finds that Bush was quite tentative during the 2000 campaign and eschewed use of a narrative style. By the time his reelection campaign began, however, Bush had dramatically increased his hortatory and narrative scores, meaning he had found both an important story to tell and a forceful way of telling it. Because these qualities increased steadily with time, and because they seem to have been initiated by the terrorist attacks of September 11, they signal important epistemological, sociological, psychological, and political aspects of the Bush presidency and perhaps, of the national electorate itself.

This article reexamines the first author's work over the last three decades in the area of presidential rhetoric, focusing particularly on verbal certainty—the extent to which a speaker depends on resolute and totalistic language. The study then explores the first three years of the George W. Bush presidency along this dimension. Although verbal certainty has declined across presidential administrations during the past 50 years, the Bush presidency has resurrected it, perhaps because of personal or philosophical reasons and perhaps because of the unique circumstances created by the war on terrorism.

This study examines how the American electorate has been described by political campaigners between 1948 and 1996. Using a database of some five hundred speeches given on the stump or during national political broadcasts, the authors isolated 898 uses of the phrase "the American people." By examining these phrases for descriptions of the roles, actions, qualities, and circumstances of the people, and by noting their time orientation and the forces aligned against the electorate, the authors present a picture of the people as described. Generally speaking, the people live in the moment, focus on cognitive and axiological matters, serve as agents of the state, and have an equal number of moral, intellectual, and psychological strengths. The texts also show that the people are bedeviled by government itself, but a number of factors—party, era, incumbency, campaign cycle, and so forth—affect the tenor of those characterizations.