Politeness in Presidential Debates

William O. Dailey is associate professor of communication and dramatic arts at Central Michigan University. Edward A. Hinck is professor and director of forensics at Central Michigan University. Shelly S. Hinck is professor of communication and dramatic arts at Central Michigan University.

• Part 1 I: POLITENESS THEORY AND THE STUDY OF CAMPAIGN DEBATES Chapter 2 1 Introduction: Politeness and Political Image in Campaign Debates Chapter 3 2 Politeness in Presidential Campaign Debates: An Overview Chapter 4 3 Vice Presidential Debates Part 5 II: THE ROLE OF POLITENESS IN CAMPAIGN OUTCOMES Chapter 6 4 Debating Policies: The 1960, 1976, and 1980 Campaigns Chapter 7 5 The 1992 and 2000 Presidential Debates Chapter 8 6 Directly Attacking the Opponent: The 1984, 1988, 1996, and 2004 Presidential Debates Part 9 III: IMPLICATIONS FOR DEBATE PLANNERS, POLITICIANS, CITIZENS, AND SCHOLARS Chapter 10 7 Debate Formats and Politeness Chapter 11 8 Politeness, Debates, and Campaign Outcomes Chapter 12 9 An Ideal Debate for the Electorate Chapter 13 10 Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research Chapter 14 Appendix A: Coding Politeness: Units and Schema Chapter 15 Appendix B: Politeness Schema Chapter 16 References

Because of the precision of this study's methodology, presented in an academic manner, this book can be helpful to scholars of rhetoric.