The present study aims to provide a critical discourse analysis of the persuasion tactics, power distribution, and the ideological stands in the American presidential debates of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The methodology adopted in this study was based on Fairclough's model of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (1995). The thorough analysis of the debates revealed strong dichotomy and contested ideological stands, dissimilar power distribution, and the use of varying persuasive tools of both candidates on all the issues of concern such as immigration, economy, human rights, etc. The author recommends further investigation of the presidential debates across varying cultures based on Fairclough's model of CDA.
Al-Tarawneh, Majid and Rabab’ah, Ghaleb
"Persuasion in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump's Presidential Debates: A Critical Discourse Analysis,"
Jordanian Educational Journal: Vol. 4:
1, Article 15.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.aaru.edu.jo/jaes/vol4/iss1/15