Lakoff and Luntz Paper Assignment
DUE: FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 25
100 PTS, 3 Pages, typed, double-spaced, MLA format
Purpose: This assignment requires you to:
1) comprehend the excerpts from George Lakoff and Frank Luntz;
2) evaluate an instance of political communication by observing it from the
perspective of both Lakoff and Luntz;
3) make suggestions for improved language that are consistent with the general
style and approach of the politicians involved.
The political communication you will be evaluating for this assignment is the second
presidential debate on Wednesday, September 16th. Watch the whole of the debate
carefully and take notes while you do so. Then, working with a transcript of the
debate (widely available online) and with your outlines of Lakoff and Luntz, write a
three page paper that consists of two sections (the requirements for which are
below). You do not need an introduction or a conclusion; fast-forward to the
analysis. Number your sections clearly. You need quotations from the readings and
from the transcript, but you do not need a bibliography.
Section One
What would Lakoff say about this debate?
Imagine you’re George Lakoff and you’re watching this debate. What would Lakoff
notice about it? Using an example (or multiple examples), locate an instance (or
pattern of examples) in which one of the candidates could benefit from Lakoff’s
advice. In other words, find an example (or pattern of examples) in which one of the
candidates could frame things more effectively, and then provide some constructive
suggestions about how the candidate could frame things more effectively.
Section Two
What would Luntz say about this debate?
Imagine you’re Frank Luntz and you’re watching this debate. What would Luntz
notice about it? Locate an example (or pattern of examples) in which one of the
candidates could benefit from Luntz’s advice. In other words, find an example (or
pattern of examples) in which one of the candidates could be more persuasive by
implementing one of Luntz’s rules, and then provide some constructive suggestions
about how the candidate could frame things more effectively.
Both the Lakoff and Luntz sections should have the same basic structure.
a) Explain what Lakoff/Luntz regards as appropriate communications
procedure in this particular situation. Use a quotation or two to demonstrate
and explain the author’s views. (For Lakoff, this means a quick explanation of
framing. For Luntz, it means an explanation of one [or more] of his rules that
apply to the example you’ve selected.)
b) Without much fanfare or introduction, identify an incident (or pattern of
incidents) in which one of the candidates said or did something that was
contrary to the advice of Lakoff/Luntz. Use a quotation from the candidate to
make your point.
c) Then explain how the incident (or pattern of incidents) could have gone
differently (and better) if only the candidate had followed the advice of
Lakoff/Luntz. Explain what should have been said or done by actually writing
out improved language.
Grading Rubric
Formatting/Editing/Writing
30
Have you succeeded in implementing MLA format? Has your paper been carefully
edited? Is the writing clear and easy to read?
Accurate comprehension of Lakoff and Luntz
20
Did you understand Lakoff and Luntz, and then accurately and concisely re-describe
their ideas?
Use of quotations
10
Have you correctly and seamlessly incorporated quotations? Are your quotations wellchosen, grammatical, and properly formatted?
Quality of examples from candidates
20
In choosing your examples of communication from the candidates, did you take time to
find a particularly relevant and appropriate example?
Quality of suggestions
20
In suggesting new and different language for the candidates, how creative and
effective were your suggestions? Did it seem as though you actually spent some time
and care while word-smithing your new language? Did your suggestions seem like
actual improvements, or were they merely new and different? Are your suggestions the
kind of reasonable, temperate suggestions that could actually be implemented by the
candidates, or are they extreme suggestions that the candidates would probably never
actually adopt? Are the suggestions consistent with the general style and approach of
the politicians involved?