Argumentative Statements in The 2016 Presidential Debates Of The U.S: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Andini Khoirunisa,Rohmani Nur Indah

doi:10.30762/jeels.v4i2.347

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

Highlights

As a social creature, human requires social process through argumentation which involves two or more individuals responding one another's claim
FINDINGS & DISCUSSION Starting from Trump utterance, the Islamophobia issue emerges from the question of an audience member who identified herself as a Muslim
Trump begins to respond the question by stating his claim: “Well, you’re right about Islamophobia, and that’s a shame

Summary

Introduction

Human requires social process through argumentation which involves two or more individuals responding one another's claim. A claim can be admitted to support an argument only if its statement achieves the standard of argument (Toulmin, 2003). This standard requires the arguer to control a significant extent of authority in a culture showingthat the arguer is educated and having power (Schroeder, 1997). For instance, argumentation plays as a communicative process to present and test the acceptability of the arguer's standpoint. It means argumentation emerges when two or more individuals express a different point of views and construct a reason to test their standpoint

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion