What question did this study set out to answer?

This study examines how politicians incorporate opponent voices in election debates to manipulate discussion dynamics.

June 4, 2026Open Access

“You literally wrote this in your party manifesto”

Key Points

This study examines how politicians incorporate opponent voices in election debates to manipulate discussion dynamics.
Analyzed a specific interaction from the 2021 Dutch election debate.
Identified strategies such as quoting and recontextualizing opponent's statements.
Explored the concept of 'constructed argumentation' within debate context.
Politicians use recontextualization to pressure opponents and frame discussions favorably.
Constructed argumentation is prevalent, influencing the direction of debate interactions.
Opponents' arguments are strategically represented to gain rhetorical advantage.

Abstract

Abstract In election debates, it is essential for politicians to try to steer the discussion to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of their opponent. One strategy to do so is exploiting the polyphony inherent in discourse, employing quotes, paraphrases and references to prior speech. In this study, we analyze an interaction from a Dutch election debate from 2021 to answer the question: ‘how is the voice of the opponent included in the debate discourse by politicians to steer the interaction to their own advantage?’ By recontextualizing an opponent’s words, the discussion can be managed by representing the other’s argumentation. Therefore, we speak about ‘constructed argumentation’ in debates, as the words of the other party are recontextualized to appear within a particular discussion to put pressure on the opponent to argue, force particular discussion points, and frame the other’s position. This practice is part of the interactional fabric of election debates.

Mark Helpful

Bookmark

Relay

View Full Paper