Argumentative statements in the 2016 Presidential Debates of the U.S: a critical discourse analysis

Khoirunisa, Andini and Indah, Rohmani Nur (2017) Argumentative statements in the 2016 Presidential Debates of the U.S: a critical discourse analysis. Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies, 4 (2). pp. 155-173. ISSN 2407-2575

[img]
Preview
Text (full text)
2469.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives.

Download (307kB) | Preview
Full text available at: https://jurnal.stainkediri.ac.id/index.php/jeels/a...

Abstract

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-presentation of “them” (terrorists) as a mind control of the audience.

Item Type: Journal Article
Keywords: Argumentation; Critical Discourse Analysis; Debate
Subjects: 20 LANGUAGE, COMMUNICATION AND CULTURE > 2003 Language Studies > 200302 English Language
Divisions: Faculty of Humanities > Department of English Language and Letters
Depositing User: Dr. Rohmani Nur Indah
Date Deposited: 07 Apr 2018 02:40

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Origin of downloads

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item