U.S. presidential debates 1948–2020: an issue of formality and respect

IF 0.5 Q4 COMMUNICATION Argumentation and Advocacy Pub Date : 2021-07-20 DOI:10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542
D. K. Scott, Mike Chanslor, Jenny Dixon
{"title":"U.S. presidential debates 1948–2020: an issue of formality and respect","authors":"D. K. Scott, Mike Chanslor, Jenny Dixon","doi":"10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article investigates the level of formality in presidential debates. Using content analytic techniques, this study documents trends in address terms (ranging from the use of honorific titles to interpersonal insults) in presidential debates from 1948 to 2020. An availability sample of 241 debates (94% of all presidential primary and general election debates), including 21,857 coding units, reveal an overall decline in formal communication via the use of appropriate honorific titles and subsequent growth in informal and disrespectful references. Incivility spiral theory offers an interpretative framework that links the increase in informal patterns of communication to the growing level of incivility in debate discourse. Within this framework, it is speculated that a shift toward informality could be linked to a larger incivility spiral that will continue into the future. Beyond the link to incivility, it is also argued the shift toward informality may have a range of unique negative consequences.","PeriodicalId":29934,"journal":{"name":"Argumentation and Advocacy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Argumentation and Advocacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1949542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This article investigates the level of formality in presidential debates. Using content analytic techniques, this study documents trends in address terms (ranging from the use of honorific titles to interpersonal insults) in presidential debates from 1948 to 2020. An availability sample of 241 debates (94% of all presidential primary and general election debates), including 21,857 coding units, reveal an overall decline in formal communication via the use of appropriate honorific titles and subsequent growth in informal and disrespectful references. Incivility spiral theory offers an interpretative framework that links the increase in informal patterns of communication to the growing level of incivility in debate discourse. Within this framework, it is speculated that a shift toward informality could be linked to a larger incivility spiral that will continue into the future. Beyond the link to incivility, it is also argued the shift toward informality may have a range of unique negative consequences.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
1948年至2020年的美国总统辩论:一个礼节和尊重的问题
本文调查了总统辩论的正式程度。使用内容分析技术,本研究记录了1948年至2020年总统辩论中称呼术语的趋势(从使用敬语到人际侮辱)。对241场辩论(占所有总统初选和大选辩论的94%)的可用性样本(包括21,857个编码单元)显示,通过使用适当的敬语称呼来进行正式交流的总体减少,随后非正式和不尊重的引用增加。不文明螺旋理论提供了一个解释框架,将非正式交流模式的增加与辩论话语中不文明程度的增长联系起来。在这个框架内,据推测,向非正式的转变可能与更大的不文明螺旋有关,这种螺旋将持续到未来。除了与不文明的联系之外,人们还认为,向非正式的转变可能会产生一系列独特的负面后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Cicero’s maledicta : the darker side of Cicero’s arguments The impact of normative argument quality variations on claim acceptance: empirical evidence from the US and the UK Can high school competitive debating facilitate political participation? The role of political knowledge and identification with a politically active group Nonverbal communication as argumentation: the case of political television debates The unnerved and unhoused: a rhetorical analysis of save Austin now’s campaign to disband unhoused individuals from Austin, Texas
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1