Argumentative Statements in The 2016 Presidential Debates Of The U.S: A Critical Discourse Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v4i2.347Keywords:
Argumentation, Critical Discourse Analysis, DebateAbstract
This study investigates the argumentative statements of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump during the debates. By employing two theories, Van Dijk's Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Toulmin's model of argument, it aims to expose how various ideologies are expressed in the structure of arguments. It uses Toulmin (2003) model of argument to analyze the structures of argumentation during the debates constituting six elements (i.e. claim, data, warrant, backing, qualifier, and rebuttal). While Van Dijk’s framework covering three levels of discourse structure (the meaning, the argumentation and the rhetoric) is used to analyze the reproduction of racism, manipulation, and Islamophobia. The result indicates the discourse of the candidates contributes the reproduction of manipulation by focusing on the positive self-presentation of “us” (civilized) and negative other-presentationof “them” (terrorists) as a mind control of the audience.
References
Becker, M. (2016). Argumentative texts and clause types. Science Direct, 38 (3), 444-456. doi: 10.1016.2010.06.012
Behnam, B., & Mahmoudy, B. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of the reports issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) director general on Iran's nuclear program during the last decade. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(12), 2196-2201.
Cahyono, B. B. (2016). Rhetorical strategies used in Indonesian persuasive essays written by students majoring in Indonesian and in English. Jurnal Ilmu Pendidikan, 7(3), 13-57.
Chouliaraki, Lilie; Fairclough, Norman. (1999). Discourse in late modernity; Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Dijk, T. A. (1995). Ideological discourse analysis. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.652.4149
Dijk, T. A. (1997). What is political discourse analysis. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52. doi:10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
Dijk, T. A. (2000). On the analysis of parliamentary debates on immigration. In Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R (Eds.), The semiotics of racism: Approaches in critical discourse analysis (pp. 85-104). Wien: Passagen
Dijk, T. A. (2005). Discourse Analysis as Ideology analysis. In C. Schf̃fner, & A. Wenden, Language and peace (pp. 17-33). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic.
Dijk, T. A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation. Discourse and Society, 17(3), 359-383. doi:10.1177/0957926506060250
Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation : the pragma-dialectical approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, F.H., Henkemans, A.F.S., & Houtlosser, P. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.
Hendrikus, D. W. (1991). Retorika Terampil Berpidato, berdiskusi, berargumentasi, bernegosiasi. Yogyakarta: Kanisius
Indah, R. N. (2007). Claims of fact in the argumentation on issues of Islamic countries in Newsweek international magazine. Jurnal Kajian Linguistik & Kebahasaan, 19(1), 51-60. ISSN 0852-9604
Jaffe, C. I. (2016). Public speaking: Concepts and skills for a diverse society. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Pascale, C.M. (Ed.). (2012). Social inequality & the politics of representation: A global landscape. London: SAGE Publications.
Qin, J., & Karabacak, E. (2010).The analysis of Toulmin elements in Chinese EFL university argumentative writing.Science Direct, 38(3), 444-456. doi: 10.1016.2010.06.012
Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2005). Discourse and discrimination : rhetorics of racism and antisemitism. London: Routledge.
Renkema, J. (2004). Introduction to discourse studies. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Pub Co.
Rogers, R. (2004). An introduction to critical discourse analysis in education. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rosyidah, N. (2008). A discourse analysis on argumentative statements delivered by democratic presidential nominees in the 2008 presidential debates of USA during primary elections season. Unpublished Thesis. Malang: Post Graduate Program of the State Islamic University Malang.
Schroeder, C. (1997). Knowledge and power, logic and rhetoric, and other reflections in the Toulminian mirror: A ritical consideration of Stephen Toulmin's contributions to composition. Jac: A Journal of Composition Theory, 17(1), 95-107. doi:10.2307/20866113
Stapleton, P. (2001). Assessing critical thinking in the writing of Japanese university students: Insights about assumptions, content familiarity and biology. Written Communication, 18 (4), 506-548.doi: 10.1177/0741088301018004004
Stapleton, P., & Wu, Y. A. (2015).Assessing the quality of arguments in students' persuasive writing: A case study analyzing the relationship between surface structure and substance. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 17, 12-23.
Toulmin, S. E. (2003). The uses of argument. New York: Cambridge University
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
