Debate Linguistics Reveals the Politics at Play in the 2024 Election
In the recent presidential and vice presidential debates, the language used by the candidates played a crucial role. To gain more insights into the linguistic strategies employed by the politicians, Scientific American consulted linguist and sociophonetician Nicole Holliday.
Nicole Holliday, an acting associate professor of linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley, specializes in studying the relationship between language and social identity. She has been researching political speech and is currently working on a book about the presidential speaking style. Holliday has closely analyzed the language patterns of all the candidates, providing valuable insights into their communication strategies.
Analyzing Kamala Harris’s speech patterns in the presidential debate, Holliday noted that Harris has adopted a more formal and polished tone, resembling a traditional presidential style. Despite this transformation, Harris still retains elements of African American English, especially when discussing personal topics like race and women’s rights. In the debate, Harris managed to strike a balance between sounding presidential and authentic, staying true to her unique speaking style.
Former President Donald Trump’s New York accent occasionally resurfaces, particularly when he feels threatened, according to Holliday. Candidates often modify their accents to appear more mainstream or presidential, but their natural speech patterns can emerge under pressure. During the debate, Trump’s pronunciation of certain words revealed traces of his New York accent, highlighting the complexity of linguistic performance in political settings.
In the vice presidential debate, Senator J. D. Vance and Governor Tim Walz emphasized their Midwestern identities, showcasing the classic “Minnesota nice” demeanor. Both candidates highlighted their humble middle-American backgrounds, aiming to connect with voters as relatable figures. Holliday observed that Vance and Walz, in contrast to their running mates, projected a more “default” persona, aligning themselves with the ordinary American narrative through their language choices.
Holliday also discussed how word choices can reflect political affiliations, creating linguistic divides between different groups. She introduced the concept of “shibboleths,” which are terms or phrases that distinguish one group from another. In the vice presidential debate, Vance’s use of terms like “illegal aliens” and “criminal migrants” served as shibboleths signaling his political stance and appealing to specific segments of the electorate.
Overall, the linguistic analysis of the 2024 election debates offers valuable insights into the candidates’ communication strategies and the political dynamics at play. By examining the language used by politicians, we can gain a deeper understanding of how they shape their messages to resonate with voters and convey their political identities effectively.