Intertextuality and Discursive Strategies in the 2016 U.S. First Presidential Debate: A Critical Discourse Analysis

This research analyzes the first debate of the 2016 US using Wodak's Discourse-Historical Approach, between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, through a qualitative lens. Considering the versatile nature of DHA, which considers the social, cultural, and political aspects of discourse, it is useful for understanding how the candidates developed the reasoning for their arguments, issue framing, and societal engagements. This research looks into the strategies that both the candidates employed, including intertextuality in the discourse. The analysis demonstrates that both Trump and Clinton possessed complex political visions that they sought to impose on the electorate, and linguistically advanced techniques of nomination, predication, argumentation, and mitigation/intensification to critique their opponents. Clinton’s discourse was more sympathetic and educated than her competitors, focusing on fairness, leading to policies that seek to abolish discriminatory systems, and did not shun drawing from her experience as leader of American diplomacy. She repeatedly referenced the Great Recession, American small businessmen whose dreams of becoming prosperous were crushed, like her father, to explain the policies she would introduce if elected. In contrast, Trump was more efficient and brisker, emphasizing hurry victim rhetoric as well as declinist. His discourse was full of emotional appeals, anecdotal evidence, and historical references, such as the Reagan era which he used to give credence to his tax plan. Intertextuality, or the referencing of other texts, was central to both candidates’ discourse as Clinton and Trump utilized culture and history and wider societal narratives to argue their case. Clinton’s intertextual allusions tended to fall under the more progressive agenda of environmentalism and social justice, while Trump’s drew on concern over the economy and the narrative of national decline. The results shed light on the use of language and rhetoric in political discourse, in this case, how candidates mobilized certain discursive strategies and referenced other texts to influence voters and control the outcome of the election. This study contributes to the broader understanding of political communication and the role of discourse in shaping electoral outcomes.