Open, Two-Way, Mutually Respectful Communication Is Crucial
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS, SOCIOLOGY, AND EDUCATION THE ROLE OF RHETORIC AND FRAMING IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: THE LANGUAGE OF VOTING RIGHTS AND THE ENVIRONMENT TESSA ELIZABETH SONTHEIMER SPRING 2018 A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for baccalaureate degrees in Community, Environment, and Development and Global and International Studies with honors in Community, Environment and Development Reviewed and approved* by the following: Theodore R. Alter Professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Regional Economics Thesis Supervisor and Honors Advisor Robert M. Chiles Assistant Professor of Rural Sociology Thesis Reader * Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College. ABSTRACT Communication is an essential part of a healthy democracy. But communication and the usage of language is not without the potential for manipulation, both intentional and accidental. The field of cognitive linguistics studies the impact of language on the mind by considering semantic configurations and categorizations that occur in one’s mind as a result of mental linguistic structures, attempting to understand the connection between language and an individual’s conscious and unconscious perception of the world. George Lakoff, a pioneer in the field of cognitive linguistics, considers the role of metaphors in the formation of political preferences. Metaphors are a linguistic device that builds the understanding of one thing or idea by borrowing meaning and applying it to a less understood thing or idea. Lakoff’s theories assert that political division can be explained by the differences in the way conservatives and liberals conceptualize the family, views that are expressed through a patchwork of metaphors. This conceptualization of the family extends into the way Americans believe political choices should be made and what values their political decisions should promote. Lakoff’s approach to politics is unique because he attempts to explain political division from the perspective of the human mind and human experience. Instead of using social phenomena to explain political difference, he instead considers mental models that structure reality. My research seeks to identify the usage of Lakoff’s metaphors about Moral Strength, Morality as Nurturance, the environment, and voting rights in campaign speeches from President Donald J. Trump and Secretary Hillary R. Clinton in the 2016 presidental campaign. By using rhetorical analysis software and conducting a qualitative analysis of the metaphors, my research seeks to invite the reader into a discussion of the instances of metaphors and their implications for presidential campaign discourse and more broadly the role political discourse in the ii functioning of our democracy. By applying Lakoff’s theories and models to the speeches, major trends surrounding usage of metaphorical language can be identified and the language choices by the candidates can be interpreted. I identified that both candidates frequently utilize metaphors to promote a positive-future outlook, although Secretary Clinton’s language suggests that hers is constructed of an inclusive future, whereas President Trump sees potential for a positive future if voters rally behind him and his values and disregard views that contrast with his. President Trump’s use of metaphors is more visceral, emotional, and specific, at times specifically naming Secretary Clinton or other targets of a negative metaphor by name. Secretary Clinton’s metaphors relied much more heavily upon nurturance and attempted to span difference, with more frequent usage of factual, empirical information. Both candidates often used metaphors associated with strength, although Secretary Clinton’s was grounded in the strength to overcome difference and President Trump’s in the strength to defeat or protect against an entity considered “other.” The implications of these divergent views demonstrate a clear difference in the use of language and the values the candidates are projecting via their campaign speeches. These findings provide useful insights into patterns associated with use of metaphors by presidential candidates, a finding that can help make greater sense of the power of presidential candidate rhetoric and its role in shaping voter choices and policymaking in a democracy. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................... v Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Research Purpose ............................................................................................................. 3 Justification for Research ................................................................................................. 5 Chapter 2 Literature Review ........................................................................................ 6 Political Discourse, Rhetoric, and Politics in US Presidential Elections ......................... 6 Introduction to Metaphors ................................................................................................ 9 The Role of Metaphors in Reasoning ............................................................................... 12 Framing: Lewicki & Others ............................................................................................. 15 Critics and Parallels of Lakoff ......................................................................................... 18 Metaphors and Cognitive Modeling ................................................................................. 20 The Strict Father Model ................................................................................................... 24 Moral Strength ................................................................................................................. 30 Nurturant Parent Model.................................................................................................... 33 Morality as Nurturance .................................................................................................... 39 Chapter 3 Research Questions and Methods ............................................................... 41 Research Questions and Hypotheses ................................................................................ 43 Analysis Methodology & Tools ....................................................................................... 45 Limitations of the methodology ....................................................................................... 55 Chapter 4 Findings ....................................................................................................... 58 Quantitative Findings ....................................................................................................... 58 Metaphorical Findings: Moral Strength and Morality as Nurturance .............................. 65 Issue Area Findings: The Environment and Voting Rights ............................................. 69 Chapter 5 Discussion ................................................................................................... 75 Moral Strength Discussion ............................................................................................... 76 Morality as Nurturance Discussion .................................................................................. 86 Environment Discussion .................................................................................................. 93 Voting Rights Discussion ................................................................................................. 99 Concluding observations .................................................................................................. 104 iv Chapter 6 Conclusions ................................................................................................. 108 Appendix A Analysis terms and phrases .................................................................... 112 Appendix B List of campaign speeches used in rhetorical analysis ........................... 115 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................ 124 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Analysis process overview ....................................................................................... 52 Figure 2: Relative frequency of top ten "Moral Strength" words used by Secretary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election ................................................................................................ 59 Figure 3: Relative frequency of top ten "Moral Strength" words used by President Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election ................................................................................................ 60 Figure 4: Relative frequency of top ten "Morality as Nurturance" words used by Secretary Clinton in the 2016 Presidential Election ...................................................................................... 61 Figure 5: Relative frequency of top ten "Morality as Nurturance" words used by President Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election .....................................................................................