MỘT vài đặc TÍNH của văn hóa NGỮ CẢNH THẤP TRONG CUỘC TRANH LUẬN đầu TIÊN của các ỨNG cử VIÊN TỔNG THỐNG mỹ BARACK OBAMA và MITT ROMNEY

ABSTRACT
The thesis analyzed the first debate between the two typical representatives of
the United States in terms of low-context culture. The major aim of this thesis was
to explore how characteristics of low-context culture expressed through the way
two US presidential candidates debated. Case study and document analysis were
chosen as the main approach way and method of this study. Collected documents
were analyzed and finally conclusion was drawn out from the analyzed data. As a
result of completing the above procedure, the researcher has found out some
characteristics of low-context culture expressed clearly through the first debate by
the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. They are relying
on facts and statistics, using direct style in speaking, and employing linear logic.
Obama often gave more details but less clear structure than Romney did. Besides,
characteristics of low-context culture also affected to language strategies of the two
presidential candidates including lexical strategies and grammatical strategies. Both
candidates used simple words and spoken words with literal meaning. However,
Mitt Romney communicated more explicitly because he used shorter and simple
sentences so that the audiences could easily get his points. This study helps us
understand more about the communicative ways of the two presidential candidates
in particular and the people in the United States, a low-context culture in general.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
i




CONTENTS page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
ABSTRACT ii
LIST OF TABLES
v

PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the study
1
2. Aims of the study
2
3. Significance of the study
2
4. Scope of the study
2
5. Research questions
2
6. Organization 3
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
Chapter1: Literature review and theoretical background
1.1 Previous studies 4
1.2 Theoretical background
7
1.2.1 Low-context culture and high-context culture 7
1.2.2 Differences in characteristics of low-context and
high-context cultures 8
1.2.3 About the first debate by the US presidential candidates
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney 10
Chapter 2: Methodology
ii
2.1 Case study approach
12
2.2 Research methods and instruments
12
2.3 Data analysis
13

2.4 Ethical issue
13
Chapter 3: Results and discussion.
3.1 Some characteristics of low-context culture expressed through the first
debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
14
3.1.1 Rely on facts and statistics
14
3.1.2. Use direct style in speaking
19
3.1.3 Employ linear logic
21
3.2. Vebal strategies by the presidential candidates
28
3.2.1 Lexical strategies
28
3.2.2 Grammatical strategies
31
PART 5: CONCLUSION
1. Major findings of the research
38
2. Limitations
39
3. Implications
40
4. Suggestion for further studies
40
REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX
45

iii
LIST OF TABLES
1. Table: 1.2.2 a: Differences in characteristics of low-context culture and high-
context culture by Edward T. Hall, 1976 (pg 8-9)
2. Table 1.2.2 b: Differences in characteristics of low-context culture and high-
context culture by Sana Reynolds and Deborah Valentine, 2003 (pg 9)
3. Table 1.2.2 c: Differences in characteristics of low-context culture and high-
context culture by Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy,2010 (pg 10)
4. Table 3.2.1 a: Words used by the two presidential candidates (pg 28)
5. Table 3.2.1 b: Word types and word pairs (pg 29)
6. Table 3.2.2 a: Sentence Size (pg 31-32)
7. Table 3.2.2 b: Some emphasizing sentences (interrogative sentence, “let”…
sentences, “look”… sentences) (pg 35)
8. Table 3.2.2 c: Repetition and parallelism examples (pg 36-37)
iv
PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1. Rationale for the study
As a student studying about languages, the researcher sees that Vietnam culture
and Anglo-Saxon culture are so different. Vietnam culture is a high-context culture.
Meanwhile, Anglo-Saxon culture is a low-context culture. These two types of cultures
decide different ways of communication. The communicating ways are expressed in
daily life, in economic discourse and especially in political discourse.
American culture is one representative of low-context culture. Many characteristics
of low-context culture are expressed through debates between US presidential
candidates every four years.
In the current global background, learning English as well as finding out about
other cultures, especially American culture are very important. For that reason, the
researcher has chosen the topic “Some characteristics of low-context culture through
the first debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney” to
analyze.

1
2. Aims of the study
To raise the researcher’s awareness of the communicative ways in the major fields
of society, politics, education and culture as an English and international culture
learner.
3. Significance of the study
- helps us understand more about low-context culture to distinguish between low-
context and high-context cultures.
- helps us understand more about politics and life in the world.
- brings about a new and interesting way to approach and find out the politic life
through approaching and finding out the culture.
4. Scope of the study

The study focuses only on some characteristics of low-context culture expressed in
the first debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.
The research just concentrates on analyzing verbal arguments of the two candidates.
5. Research questions
- What are some characteristics of the first presidential debate by Barack Obama
and Mitt Romney in term of low-context culture?
- What are verbal strategies by the two presidential candidates?
- What are the lessons from low-context culture’s characteristics?
2
6. Organization of study
- Part 1 introduces the problem statement, the reason why the topic is worth
researching, the research aims and objectives, the significance of the study, the
research questions and the scope of study.
- Part 2 includes three chapters:
+ Chapter 1 presents a review of literature, relevant research associated with the
problem addressed in this study and theoretical background.
+ Chapter 2 presents the methodology and procedures used for data collection

and analysis.
+ Chapter 3 contains an analysis of the data and presentation of the results.
- Part 3 offers a summary and discussion of the research’s findings, implications
for practice, limitation of the study and recommendations for future research.

3
PART 2: DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
1.1 Previous studies
After finding, the researcher has seen some studies having topics relating to this
topic. For example:
In the seminar paper called “High-context and low-context communication styles”
(2005), Angela Gamsriegler has focused on the differences in low-context and high-
context communication styles across cultures and their influence on the way people
perceive information. Apart from dealing with the definition of used terms in the first
part, the seminar paper had provided information on the role of culture in
communication in its second part In addition, in the second part, the author has
identified culturally affected areas of communication, the differences in
communication styles, as well as the perception of information across cultures. In the
last chapter, she has explained the main causes for intercultural misunderstandings.
“The primary aim of this seminar paper was to show how a person’s cultural
background affects communication. What was found was that the process of
communication involves the perception, interpretation and evaluation of a person’s
behavior.” The perception, interpretation and evaluation of a person’s behavior are all
“dependent on a person’s cultural background, which determines the meanings
attached to a specific behavior”. Besides, the differences in perception of information
across cultures or in other words, the differences of how people across cultures
perceive information were described in the seminar paper. Specifically, “in low-context
4
cultures people tend to rely heavily on the spoken word whereas in high-context

cultures people focus strongly on context.” After observed and analyzed what people
perceived, Angela Gamsriegler has found out that “perceptual patterns are selective,
learned, consistent, inaccurate and, most importantly, culturally determined.” Finally,
she has concluded that “two people from different cultures will not only communicate
in different ways but also experience a situation differently.”
In another research called “Inference and culture: the distinction between low-
context culture and high context culture as a possible explanation between cultural
differences in cognition” of Hiroshi Yama and Norhayati Zakaria propose another
possible cultural and Eastern high context culture (Hall, 1976). Hiroshi Yama and
Norhayati Zakaria has seen a distinction in cognitive behaviors between Easterners and
Westerners that is while Westerners usually use holistic thinking to solve problems,
Westerners use analytic thinking more often. “This distinction in cognitive behaviors
has often been explained by using a framework based on the fact that Western culture
favors independent self-construal (individualist culture) and Eastern culture favors
interdependent self-construal (collectivist culture).” The two researchers particularly
focus on “the difference between the rule-based inference more common in low-
context Western cultures and the dialectical inference more common in high-context
Eastern cultures”. Besides, they have argued that rule-based inference using global
rules is more adaptive in low context cultures. In the conclusion, the primary goal to
propose a possible explanation for cultural differences in cognition of this paper has
clarified. The cultural differences in cognition include “the analytic cognition practiced
by Western cultures and the holistic cognition practiced by Eastern cultures”. Instead
of using the distinction between Western individualist culture and Eastern collectivist
culture, the two researchers used “the distinction between low context culture in the
West and high context culture in the East”. The two researchers have proposed a new
framework which is “contrasted with that of cultural psychologists (e.g., Nisbett, 2003;
5
Nisbett et al., 2001), who assume that culture and mind are inseparable and emphasize
the role of self-construal in culture and cognitive style.” Their framework has shown
that “culture and context are inseparable and, as such, that context has a strong

connection to the types of information required in order to draw effective meanings or
sense-making into the thinking process.”
One another research titled “What’s a cross cultural mediator to do? A low-context
solution for a high-context solution” (2008) of John Barkai explores “issues facing
mediators in cross-cultural conflicts, offer suggestions for conducting cross-cultural
mediations, and propose a template of factors that mediators should consider when
assisting parties in cross-cultural mediation.” This research was based on and
developed from researches by social scientists and anthropologists, particularly Edward
T. Hall and Geert Hofstede. After analyzing and evaluating, the researcher has
concluded that cultural differences are the reasons why cross-cultural mediations are
more complex than domestic mediations. “However, mediators who find themselves in
cross-cultural mediations can apply some basic principles and strategies to improve the
likelihood of success based upon the application of cultural dimension interests
(CDI’s) to their mediation.”
The most recent research is the one called “Lexical Analysis of Barack Obama vs
Mitt Romney (1st debate)” (2012) conducted by Martin Krzywinski. “The analysis
describes in detail the structure of each candidate's speech, words and phrases that they
used (exclusively or shared), and the degree to which they repeated themselves.” The
research’s aim is to “explore the structure of speech, as characterized by the use of
nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, pronouns and noun phrases. The speech patterns
of opposing candidates are compared in an effort to identify priorities, perspectives,
characteristic values and personality traits.”
6
These are some in many researches having topics relating to the thesis’s topic.
However, most of relating studies did not concentrate on analyzing the first debate by
the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in aspect of low-
context culture. Some researches focus on low-context culture, high-cotext culture,
their differences and their effect to communication and so on. Some others just pay
attention to analize characteristics of discourse of the first debate between the two
presidential candiate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. The researcher thinks that

maybe because this debate had just occurred, not many researchers choose it as an
object to analyze. The researcher can be sure that this research does not overlap with
anyone or anything.
1.2 Theoretical background
1.2.1 Low-context culture and high-context culture
There are two types of cultures including low-context culture and high- context
culture. Generally, in low-context, people often spell out more of the information
explicitly in the message. In contrast, in high-context culture most of the information is
inferred from the context of the message, little is spelled out. For example: An
American woman would like to drink a cup of coffee with no sugar and more fresh
milk. She orders it online and she has to specify all these details. This is low-context
communication. Whereas, a Vietnamese woman just have to say to the waiter: “như cũ
nhé!” (same as last time please!). The waiter can immediately understand what she
want and bring her the favorite cup of coffee. In this case, the waiter can do that
because he had the background information about this loyal customer. He has known
so well which the customer want and which the customer chose last time. “In high-
context communication, the message cannot be understood without a great deal of
background information.” (John Hooker, 2008).
Edward T. Hall is the anthropologist who made early discoveries of key cultural
factors, especially high and low context cultural factors. His theory of high- and low-
7
context culture helps us better understand the powerful effect culture has on
communication. According to Hall, “in a high-context culture, there are many
contextual elements that help people to understand the rules. As a result, much is taken
for granted. This can be very confusing for person who does not understand the
'unwritten rules' of the culture.” In contrast, “in a low-context culture, very little is
taken for granted. Whilst this means that more explanation is needed, it also means
there is less chance of misunderstanding particularly when visitors are present.”
Edward T Hall also wrote that:
A high-context communication or message is one in which most of the

information is already in the person, while very little is in the coded explicitly,
transmitted part of the message. A low-context communication is just the opposite,
i.e., the mass of the information is vested in the explicit code.
1.2.2 Differences in characteristics of low-context and high-context cultures
- According to Edward T. Hall, 1976
Table: 1.2.2 a
LOW-CONTEXT CULTURE HIGH-CONTEXT CULTURE
Overtly displays meanings through direct
communication forms
Implicitly embeds meaning at different
levels of the sociological context
Values individualism Values group sense
Tend to develop transitory personal
relationships
Tend to take time to cultivate and
establish permanent personal
relationships.
Emphasizes linear logic Emphasizes spiral logic
Values direct verbal interaction and is
less able to read nonverbal expressions
Values indirect verbal interaction and is
more able to read nonverbal expressions
Tend to use “logic” to present ideas Tends to use more “feeling” in expression
Tends to emphasize highly structured Tends to give simple ambiguous non-
8
messages, give details and place great
stress on words and technical signs
context messages
Perceive highly verbal persons favorably Perceives highly verbal persons less
favorably

- According to Sana Reynolds and Deborah Valentine, 2003
Table 1.2.2 b
LOW-CONTEXT CULTURE HIGH-CONTEXT CULTURE
Relies on explicit communication Relies on implicit communication
Emphasizes verbal communication Emphasizes nonverbal communication
Separates tasks from relationships Subordinates tasks to relationships
Emphasizes individual initiative and
decision making
Emphasizes collective initiative and
decision making
View employer/employee relationships as
mechanistic
Views employer/employee relationship as
humanistic
Relies on facts and statistics Relies on intuition or trust
Uses direct style in writing and speaking Uses indirect style in writing and
speaking
Prefers linear reasoning Prefers circular or indirect reasoning
Adheres to the letter of the law Adhere to the spirit of the law
- According to Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy, 2010
Table 1.2.2 c
LOW-CONTEXT CULTURE HIGH-CONTEXT CULTURE
Tend to prefer direct verbal interaction Tend to prefer indirect verbal interaction
Tend to understand meaning at one level
only
Tend to understand meanings embedded
at many sociocultural levels
Are generally less proficient in reading Are generally more proficient in reading
9
nonverbal cues nonverbal cues

Value individualism Value group membership
Rely more on logic Rely more on context and feeling
Employ linear logic Employ spiral logic
Say no directly Talk around point; avoid saying no
Communicate in highly structured
messages, provide details, stress literal
meaning, give authority to written
information
Communicate in simple, sometimes
ambigious messages, understand visual
messages readily
1.2.3 About he first debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and
Mitt Romney
“During presidential elections in the United States, it has become customary for the
main candidates (almost always the candidates of the two largest parties, currently the
Democratic Party and the Republican Party) to engage in a debate.” (Howard Lestrud,
2012). In the debates, candidates often discuss about the most controversial issues of
the time. The results of these debates have been nearly decided the arguably elections.
Presidential debates are hold late in the election cycle, after the political
parties have nominated their candidates. The candidates meet in a large hall, often
at a university, before an audience of citizens. The formats of the debates have
varied, with questions sometimes posed from one or more journalist moderators
and in other cases members of the audience.
According to Alan Schroeder, a professor in the school of journalism at
Northeastern University, is the author of "Presidential Debates: Fifty Years of High-
10
Risk TV”, “the primary function of debates is to allow voters to observe the candidates
in an inherently awkward situation, responding in real time under enormous pressure.
In that sense, debates resemble job interviews, with the electorate deciding whom to
hire.”

The first debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt
Romney hosted by Jim Lehrer of the "PBS NewsHour" and sponsored by the bipartisan
Commission on Presidential Debates had occurred at the Magness Arena at the
University of Denver in Denver, Colorado on Wednesday, October 3
rd
, 2012. During
90 minutes of the first debate, the two candidates would discuss about domestic issues,
and will follow a format designed by the commission. There were six roughly 15-
minute segments, with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion
for the remainder of each segment. These segments were three on the economy and one
each on health care, the role of government, and governing, with an emphasis
throughout on differences, specifics and choices. Both candidates had two-minute
closing statements.

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY
This is a descriptive analitic case study. It consits of a case study approach,
research methods and instruments, data analysis and ethical issue.
2.1 The case study approach
This study employed a case study approach. Case study was specifically selected
because it allows researchers an in-depth study of a target phenomenon in a single case
(Bell, 2005). As the current study objectives at seeking some characteristics expressed
11
through the first presidential debate by Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in term of
low-context culture and verbal strategies used by the two presidential candidates, case
study would be the most suitable approach.
2.2 Research methods and instruments
Document analysis was chosen as the main method of this study. The researcher
had to collect documents from many sources including books, articles, and the Google
search pages. A variety of keyword descriptions were used in searching such as low-
context culture, high-context culture, characteristics of low-context culture, feature of

low-context culture’s communication, first debate of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney,
critical discourse analysis, linear- thinking, linguistic strategies in political debate,
rhetorical techniques in political debate, and so on. Besides, the researcher has also
collected and synthesized statistics from the transcript of the first debate between the
two US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney downloaded from
website: />presidential-debate.
Recognizing that anyone can upload information online, the researcher has
realized that it is important to check the credibility of the information found to avoid
false or misleading. In order to do that, the researcher just searched information from
official websites with domains such as .gov, .edu, .org. In addition, the researcher
found background information on the authors of the online sources and determined if
the information was verifiable and authentic. Besides, the researcher considered if the
information was cited well and presented in a clear and organized manner to evaluate
the credibility of information found.
2.3 Data analysis
12
This was an important step for the discussion of the research. Data was coded
and put into the checklist to see whether characteristics of low-context culture and
vebal strategies were expressed throught the first debate of presidential candidates
Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Then, the coded data were entered into Microsoft
Excel for analysis and representation. Finally, conclusion was drawn out from the
analyzed data.
2.4 Ethical issue
In the process of conducting the research, in order to avoid issues that might
arise from lacking of permission of authors, the researcher just quoted from other
published sources with proper references. Usually it is no problem getting
permission for educational purposes.
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
3.1. Some characteristics of low-context culture expressed through the first
debate by the US presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney.

3.1.1 Rely on facts and statistics.
It is easy to see that facts and statistics appear many times in the first debate
between the two presidential candidates. They appeared in almost all speaking turns of
the the presidential candidates. After counted and synthesized, the researcher found out
13
that in this debate, there was at least 65 times Barack Obama and Mitt Romney used
facts. In which, Barack Obama used about 31 times and Mitt Romney used not less
than 34 times. However, both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney delivered about 53
statistics each one. Although facts and statistics would be the effective tools for the two
presidential candidates to prove their argument, very high appearing frequency of them
has made some people even feel difficult to follow the debate.
For example, when talking about the job problems, Barack Obama had shown
some facts and statistics such as “four years ago we went through the worst financial
crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of jobs were lost.”, and “Over the last 30
months, we've seen 5 million jobs in the private sector created. The auto industry has
come roaring back and housing has begun to rise”. When talking about education
problem, he had given some facts and statistics that are “We've got a program called
Race to the Top that has prompted reforms in 46 states around the country,…. I want to
hire another hundred thousand new math and science teachers and create 2 million
more slots in our community colleges ….”, or “… Governor Romney's central
economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the extension of the Bush tax
cuts, so that's another $2 trillion, and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the
military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion.” When talking about tax, he had shown
other facts and statistics like “my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of
families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times.”, or “for incomes over
$250,000 a year that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was
president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus and
created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.” or “97 percent of small businesses would
not see their income taxes go up” and so on.
Mitt Romney was even more positive in giving facts and statistics. For instance,

when trying to prove that under the president's policies, middle-income Americans
14
have been buried, Mitt Romney had given some facts and statistics such as “Middle-
income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300…., health care costs
have gone up by $2,500 a family.” Besides, when mentioned the tax problem, Romney
pointed out that “There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and
say it's completely wrong…. you're going to raise taxes by $3000 to $4,000 on — on
middle-income families. There are all these studies out there.”, and “Fifty-four percent
of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but
at the individual tax rate” or “with regards to 97 percent of the businesses are not —
not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate,… those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of
businesses happen to employ half — half — of all of the people who work in small
business.”; “Those are the businesses that employ one quarter of all the workers in
America. And your plan is take their tax rate from 35 percent to 40 percent.”
They are just some examples in so many facts and statistics that Barack Obama
and Mitt Romney had given in their first debate as evidences to prove their arguments.
In general, the two presidential candidates relied on facts and statistics when they
argued about whatever mentioned in the debate. Therefore, people can see that they
were always ready to give evidence to support their argument. That is a characteristic
of low-context culture because people in high context culture will not always ready to
do so. If people in high-context culture want to prove something they say is true, they
must use others ways instead of rely on facts and statistics.
Facts and statistics not only appear many times but also are highly persuasive in
the first debate between the two presidential candidates. When someone wants to prove
something they said is true, they have to provide hearers with persuasive facts and
statistics. In case they give unpersuasive facts and statistics, those evidences will
become useless and meaningless because they cannot persuade the hearers. In the first
15
debate, the two presidential candidates had done so well. The facts and statistics they
gave the audiences were not only adequate but also valuable.

For example, when discussed about how to deal with tax code, how to make sure
that Americans are reducing spending in a responsible way, as well as how to have
enough revenue to make those investments, Obama had shown a fact with statistics
“Governor Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the
extension of the Bush tax cuts, so that's another $2 trillion, and $2 trillion in additional
military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion.” By using this
valuable fact, the president had pointed out the difference between his and Mitt
Romney’s economic plan and the inadequacy of Romney’s plan. $5 trillion, $2 trillion
and $8 trillion are huge figures. They reflected that the central economic plan of Mitt
Romney is unsuitable and has made Americans doubt about the feasibility of this plan.
At the same time, it created a basic for questioning “How America pay for that, reduce
the deficit and make the investments that they need to make without dumping those
costs on the middle-class Americans.” With the specific facts and detailed figures,
Obama was successful in persuading people to believe him rather than Romney’s plan.
Facing to argument of Barack Obama, Mitt Romney critisized that the policies of
president affected to middle-income Americans. He had shown that:
Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This
is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I'll call it the economy tax. It's been crushing.
The same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president, electric rates are
up, food prices are up, health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family.
After seeing these facts and statistics, many people would really believe how badly
the president’s policies affected to middle-income Americans because they were rather
persuasive and they could reflect the fact in some ways. However in order to prove that
16
the only way to meet Governor Romney's pledge of not reducing the deficit or not
adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families, Obama had given some
facts and statistics: “We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600.”, and
“The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more… that
kind of top — top-down economics, where folks at the top are doing well so the
average person making 3 million bucks is getting a $250,000 tax break while middle-

class families are burdened further” Those specific figures had illustrated clearly how
middle-class families will be burdened under the pledge of Mitt Romney.
Facing to criticism of Obama, Mitt Romney also gave many facts and statistics to
support his key points protesting Obama’s arguments. For instance, in his effort to
prove that Obama’s plan to increase tax of big businesses, Romney said “with regards
to 97 percent of the businesses are not… taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they're taxed
at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen
to employ half… of all of the people who work in small businesses… 35 percent to 40
percent.” This fact and figures of Romney have clearly illustrated for the importance of
big businesses. Those businesses accounted for a very small percentage, just 3 percents
but employed half of all the people who worked in small businesses. As a result,
hearers have believed that Obama’s plan to increase tax of big businesses was wrong
because it could create bad effects on jobless rate.
Another example of persuasive facts and statistics given by Romney is “Spain —
Spain spends 42 percent of their total economy on government. We're now spending 42
percent of our economy on government.” Romney had reminded about Spain with its
unbalance budget and compared Spain with America. Then, he told that he did not
want to go down the path to Spain but wanted to go down the path of growth that puts
Americans to work, with more money coming in because they are working. Recalling
Spain and its fail in containing the balance of budget, Romney seemed successful in
17
persuade hearers that Obama’s policies was leading America to go down the path to
Spain. Although almost all facts and statistics given by Romney are true and
authorized, there are some of those considered as making up numbers to fit his attacks
and buried clear contrasts with the president- according to Tim Dickinson, a
progressive American political correspondent and blog author. For example, Romney
said "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut." Tim Dickinson considered it that “Romney flatly
lied about the cost of his proposal to cut income-tax rates across the board by another
20 percent (undercutting even the low rates of the Bush tax cuts). Independent
economists at the Tax Policy Center have shown that the price tag for those cuts is

$360 billion in the first year, a cost that extrapolates to $5 trillion over a decade.” In
addition, when Romney said “We've got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped
looking for work in this country", Mr. Dickinson asserted that:
Romney is lying for effect. The nation's crisis of joblessness is bad, but not 23
million bad. The official figure is 12.5 million unemployed. An additional 2.6
million Americans have stopped looking for jobs. How does Romney gin up his
eye-popping 23 million figure? He counts more than 8 million wage earners who
hold part-time jobs as also being "out of work.
Nevertheless, not few people would likely believe in those facts and statistics of
Romney because they seem rather persuasive.
3.1.2. Use direct style in speaking
In addition to relying on facts and statistics, the two presidential candidates also
used direct style in speaking. During the debate lasted for 90 minutes, each of
presidential candidate had performed their views and arguments. Obama and Romney
always directly expressed their opposite views. I would like to show some examples
for that. Obama had said “Governor Romney has a perspective that says if we cut
taxes, skewed towards the wealthy, and roll back regulations that we'll be better off.
18
I've got a different view. I think we've got to invest in education and training. I think
it's important for us to develop new sources of energy here in America,….”, or “And
Governor Romney earlier mentioned the Bowles-Simpson commission… And this is
a major difference that Governor Romney and I have.”. Romney said “first, education.
I agree, education is key”, or “ I don't want to go down the path to Spain. I want to go
down the path of growth that puts Americans to work, with more money coming in
because they're working.”; “I have my own plan. It's not the same as Simpson- Bowles.
But in my view, the president should have grabbed it. If you wanted to make some
adjustments to it, take it, go to Congress, fight for it.” The verbs used like “got” (got a
different view), “think”, “agree”, “want”, “have” (have my own plan) and so on have
told us that Obama and Romney are showing their own views in a very direct style.
The two presidential candidates not only directly expressed their opposite views

but also continuously denied and rejected the other and proved their views and policies
are true to persuade American to vote for them. Obama had said “When it comes to
corporate taxes, Governor Romney has said he wants to, in a revenue-neutral way,
close loopholes, deductions — he hasn't identified which ones they are — but thereby
bring down the corporate rate”; “Benefits were not affected at all and ironically if you
repeal "Obamacare" — and I have become fond of this term, "Obamacare"; “…
Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate. But that's not what I
believe.”
Romney denied and argued that: “There has to be revenue in addition to cuts.
Now, Governor Romney has ruled out revenue. He's — he's ruled out revenue”,
“They're suffering in this country”; “The president said he'd cut the deficit in half.
Unfortunately, he doubled it….”; “But the idea of taxing people more, putting more
people out of work — you'll never get there. You never balance the budget by raising
taxes”; “I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new
accountant.”; “in fact I was wrong when I said the president isn't proposing any
19
changes for current retirees. In fact, he is on Medicare. On Social Security, he's not.”
From those examples, the researcher has seen that Obama and Romney orderly denied
and rejected the other without using any litotes or euphemism. It is another feature of
low-context culture.
Especially, both presidential candidates directly admonished, critized even
satirized each other. At one point, Governer Romney admonished President Obama
that: “Mr. President, you’re entitled, as the president, to your own airplane and to your
own house, but not to your own facts, all right?”, or “You’ve been president four years.
You’ve been president four years”. The Governer critisized that Mr. President had not
lived up to a list of his promises before, and that “Middle-income families are being
crushed.” Then, when Romney could not give his plans in detail, Obama satirized him
that “ American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is
keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is it because that
somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them?” In addition,

Mr. President criticized Mr. Governer for his answer to a primary debate question last
year in which he joined his fellow Republicans in saying he would not accept a budget
deal allowing $1 of tax increases for every $10 in spending cuts. “Now, if you take
such an unbalanced approach, then that means you are going to be gutting our
investments in schools and education.” The admonishment and irony between the two
presidential has proved for the direct style in speaking of both of them.
3.1.3 Employ linear logic
In addition the the two above analized characteristics of low-context culture, the
researcher also found out another special one in this debate, that is employing linear
logic. Mary Ellen Guffey and Dana Loewy have written in the book “Business
Communication: Process & Product” that: “In terms of thingking patterm, low-context
communicators tend to use linear logic … High-context communicators, however, may
20
use spiral logic, circling around a topic indirectly and looking at it from many
tangential or divergent viewpoints.” In another book called “Cases on Globalized and
Culturally Appropriate”, Andrea Edmundson said “Low-context cultures tend to
emphasise logic and rationality and linear processes of discovery and thinking.”
Through the debate between the two presidential candidates Barack Obama and
Mitt Romney, the researcher sees that both Obama and Romney are linear thinkers.
Firstly, they both tended to be concerned with details. People can see that right
from the allocation of the time for discussion. “There will be six roughly 15-minute
segments, with two-minute answers for the first question, then open discussion for the
remainder of each segment.” It means in each segments, apart from two minutes to
answer the first question, the two presidential candidates would have up to 11 minutes
to discuss about this mentioned issue in details. The amount of time for them to discuss
in details was very much and they really made use of time.
For instance, when talking about education system, Obama immediately informed
to the audiences that he was going to do so. “Well, let me talk specifically about what I
think we need to do”. Then, he not only referred to an “enormous progress drawing on
ideas both from Democrats and Republicans that are already starting to show gains in

some of the toughest-to- deal-with schools” in a general way, but also present
specifically about his program “Race to the Top”. He explained that his program has
“prompted reforms in 46 states around the country, raising standards, improving how
we train teachers”. He presented his plan to “hire another hundred thousand new math
and science teachers and create 2 million more slots in our community colleges so that
people can get trained for the jobs that are out there right now” and “keep tuition low
for our young people”. Thank for the details provided, the audiences can understand
better about his program as well as its efficiency. Obama often gave more details than
Romney did. Romney delivered his plans to improve the economy, to withdraw health
21