Trump’s and Clinton’s Style and Rhetoric during the 2016 Presidential Election

References

• Arnold, E., & Labbé, D. (2015). Vote for me. Don’t vote for the other one. Journal of World Languages, 2, 32–49. 10.1080/21698252.2015.1010250
   Google Scholar
• Baayen, R. H. (2008). Analysis linguistic data: A practical introduction to statistics using R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511801686
   Google Scholar
• Balz, D., & Rucher, P. (2016). How Donald Trump won: The insiders tell their story? Washington Post, November 9th.
   Google Scholar
• Biber, Douglas, & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
   Google Scholar
• Biber, G., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
   Google Scholar
• Bligh, M., Merolla, J., Schroedel, J. R., & Gonzalez, R. (2010). Finding her voice: Hillary Clinton rhetoric in the 2008 presidential campaign. Woman’s Studies, 39, 823–850. 10.1080/00497878.2010.513316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boller, P. F., Jr (2004). Presidential campaigns. from George Washington to George W. Bush. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boyd, D. (2016). Reality check: I blame the media. Points, November 9th. Retrieved from https://points.datasociety.net/reality-check-de447f2131a3#.cosi2pmkr
   Google Scholar
• Caesar, J. W., Thurow, G. E., Tulis, J., & Bessette, J. M. (1981). The rise of rhetorical presidency. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 11, 158–171.
   Google Scholar
• Covington, M. A., & McFall, J. D. (2010). Cutting the Goridan knot: The moving-average type-token ratio (MATTR). Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 17, 94–100. 10.1080/09296171003643098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fisher, M. (2016). How Donald Trump broke the old rules of politics and won the White House. Washington Post, November 9th.
   Google Scholar
• Francis, W. N., & Kucera, H. (1982). Frequency analysis of English usage. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
   Google Scholar
• Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013). Text as data: The promise and pitfalls of automatic content analysis methods for political texts. Political Analysis, 21, 267–297. 10.1093/pan/mps028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, R. P. (1984). Verbal style and the presidency. A computer-based analysis. New York, NY: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hart, R. P., Childers, J. P., & Lind, C. J. (2013). Political tone. How leaders talk and Why. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226023298.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Kubát, M., & Cech, R. (2016). Quantitative analysis of US presidential inaugural addresses. Glottometrics, 34, 14–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labbé, D. (2007). Experiments on authorship attribution by intertextual distance in English. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 14, 33–80. 10.1080/09296170600850601
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Labbé, D., & Monière, D. (2003). Le discours gouvernemental. Canada, Québec, France (1945-2000) [The governmental discourse. Canada, Québec, France (1945–2000)]. Paris: Honoré Champion.
   Google Scholar
• Labbé, D., & Monière, D. (2008a). Les mots qui nous gouvernent. Le discours des premiers ministres québécois: 1960-2005. Montréal: Monière-Wollank.
   Google Scholar
• Labbé, D., & Monière, D. (2008). Je est-il un autre ? Proceedings JADT, 2008, 647–656.
   Google Scholar
• Labbé, D., & Monière, D. (2013). La campagne présidentielle de 2012. Votez pour moi! Paris: L’Harmattan.
   Google Scholar
• Lakoff, G., & Wehling, E. (2012). The little blue book: The essential guide to thinking and talking democratic. New York, NY: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Laver, M., Benoit, K., & Garry, J. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97, 311–331.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lichtman, A. J. (2016). Predicting 2016: How the ‘13 keys to the White House’ will turn in 2016. HubPages, June 7th. Retrieved from hubpages.com/politics/Predicting-the-2016-Election-the-13-Keys-to-the-White-House
   Google Scholar
• Millbank, D. (2016). Trump’s fake-news presidency. Washington Post, November 18th.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell, D. (2015). Type-token models: A comparative study. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 22(1), 1–21. 10.1080/09296174.2014.974456
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muller, C. (1992). Principes et Méthodes de Statistique Lexicale. Paris: Honoré Champion.
   Google Scholar
• O’Connor, B., Balasubramanyan, R., Routledge, B. R., & Smith, N. A. (2010). From tweets to polls: Linking text sentiment to public opinion time series. Proceedings 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 122–129.
   Google Scholar
• Paradis, E. (2011). Analysis of phylogenetics and evolution with R. New York, NY: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Pauli, F., & Tuzzi, A. (2009). The end of year addresses of the presidents of the Italian republic (1948–2006): Discourse similarities and differences. Glottometrics, 18, 40–51.
   Google Scholar
• Pennebaker, J. W. (2011). The secret life of pronouns. What our words say about us. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popescu, I. I. (2009). Word frequency studies. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Sainato, M. (2016). Email reveals Clinton camp spied on Sanders delegates before convention. Observer, November 14th. Retrieved from https://observer.com/2016/11/email-reveals-clinton-camp-spied-on-sanders-delegates-before-convention/
   Google Scholar
• Savoy, J. (2015). Text clustering: An application with the State of the Union addresses. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 66, 1645–1654. 10.1002/asi.2015.66.issue-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slatcher, R. B., Chung, C. K., Pennebaker, J. W., & Stone, L. D. (2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among US presidential and vice presidential candidates. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 63–75. 10.1016/j.jrp.2006.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sylwester, K., & Purver, M. (2015). Twitter language use to reflects psychological differences between Democrats and Republicans. PLoS One, 10(9), 1–18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24–54. 10.1177/0261927X09351676
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C., & Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclid dependency network. In Proceedings of NAACL 2003, ACL, 252–259.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, T., Hoffmann, P., Somasundaran, S., Kessler, J., Wiebe, J., Choi, Y., … Patwardhan, S. (2005). OpinionFinder: A system for subjectivity analysis. Proceedings Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing, Vancouver (BC), 34–35.
   Google Scholar
• Young, L., & Soroka, S. (2012). Affective news: The automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Political Communication, 29, 205–231. 10.1080/10584609.2012.671234
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yourish, K. (2016). Clinton and Trump have a terrible approval rating. Does it matter? New York Times, June 3rd.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, B. (2008). Classifying party affiliation from political speech. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 5, 33–48. 10.1080/19331680802149608
   Google Scholar
• Yu, B. (2013). Language and gender in congressional speech. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29, 118–132.
   Google Scholar