Objectives: Political discourse, as a mechanism, aims to legitimize political authority by symbolically influencing the public. As a result, U.S. presidential candidates have employed various deceptive or misleading tactics to influence public opinion and achieve their political goals. Therefore, this study seeks to investigate the intonation patterns and types (dominant and non-dominant) used by Hillary Clinton in her deceptive discourse. Methods: To achieve this objective, a sophisticated eclectic model was employed, consisting of Austin’s (1962) concept of speech acts, Grice’s (1975) theory of implicature, and Brazil's (1994) intonation model. Results: It was observed that the declarative tone was more frequently used than the referential tone. Specifically, the declarative tone, particularly the falling tone, dominated Clinton’s speech. Additionally, the non-dominant factor was higher than the dominant factor, indicating that Clinton did not assume a dominant role in her public speeches. Conclusions: The study revealed that Clinton used the declarative tone more frequently in her speech compared to the referential tone, suggesting a lack of shared knowledge, especially during her presidential candidacy announcement. Clinton intended to engage and mislead the public with her deceptive statements throughout her campaign. She employed deceptive techniques such as fabrication, evasion, and shifting responsibility through distancing from personal involvement. The study also indicated that she did not assume a dominant stance in her public speeches, which were designed to capture attention, convey empathy, compassion, and support for the majority of Americans.
