A Rhetorical Analysis Of The U.S. Presidential Debates Based Upon The DIG Model

American presidential debates play an important role in the final voting,for which it has attracted a large audience from all over the world.Up to now,foreign scholars have carried out many studies on American presidential debates.In China,researches are mainly carried out from the perspectives of discourse analysis,systematic-functional grammar,pragmatics,rhetoric,etc.As for the rhetorical analyses of the American presidential debates,previous studies mainly focus on the rhetorical devices and persuasion skills used by the candidates.Few scholars have used rhetorical criticism methods to conduct systematic analyses of these debates.This research is mainly a qualitative study.Based on Kenneth Burke's rhetorical thoughts,the discourses of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 American presidential debates are studied through the DIG(Dramatistic Pentad,Identification and Guilt Redemption)model.Firstly,the act,scene,agent,agency and purpose in the candidates' discourses are found out,and a close analysis of the ratios among the five elements and the operation mechanism of the pentad is conducted to find out the candidates' rhetorical motives behind the words.Then the identification strategies applied for realizing the candidates' purposes and rhetorical motives are figured out.Finally,the strategies used by the candidates to remove the sense of guilt are studied to have a better understanding of the rhetorical strategies and political stances of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.The results show that in the debates,the candidates have the same motive: both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump aim to convince the audience that they are the right person to be voted as president while their opponent is unqualified for it.To realize this motive,Hillary Clinton is very flexible in the handling of the pentad and ratios in her discourses while Donald Trump prefers the “scene” element and “scene-x” ratios.As for the identification strategies,both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have used “identification by sympathy”,“identification by antithesis” and “identification by inaccuracy” to achieve their motives.In addition,during the presidential debates,Hillary Clinton mainly uses the strategy of mortification to get rid of the sense of guilt while Donald Trump uses the strategy of scapegoating to get redemption.By applying Kenneth Burke's rhetorical thoughts to the analysis of American presidential debates,this research serves as a sample of applying Kenneth Burke's rhetorical thoughts in analyzing political artifacts.Besides,through the detailed analysis of the 2016 presidential debates,this research unveils the motives and rhetorical strategies of the American presidential candidates.Finally,as presidential candidates,both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are good at using rhetorical strategies.This research enables the readers to have a better understanding and appreciation of their rhetorical arts.