Record Detail

The present study investigates the frequency and functions of vague
expressions (e.g. something, sort of) used in the 2016 U.S. presidential debates by
Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The data under scrutiny include transcripts of
the televised debates (42,137 words). The study reveals that, while Trump’s speech
is less lexically varied than Clinton’s, it contains a noticeably greater number of
vague expressions. Trump’s tendency to use more instances of vague language is
most evident in the categories of ‘vague boosters’ (e.g. very), ‘vague estimators’
(e.g. many), ‘vague nouns’ (e.g. things) and ‘vague extenders’ (e.g. and other
places). Clinton, however, more frequently uses ‘vague subjectivisers’ (e.g. I think)
and ‘vague possibility indicators’ (e.g. would). The differences observed may be
attributed to the personal and professional backgrounds of the candidates and to the
different communicative purposes they seek to achieve.