The (Im)politeness of political fallacies: A pragmatic analysis
Abstract
This study aims at investigating linguistically from a pragmatic perspective the (im)politeness of political fallacies of the 2020 US presidential campaign debates. There is relatively little literature that tackles the relation between (im)politeness and political fallacies. This study tries to fill in that gap and shed light on these linguistic concepts in accordance with particular pragmatic theories. Two main pragmatic theories are used to analyse these data: Van Eemeren, and Henkemans’ (2017) Pragma-dialectical Theory of Fallacy, and Culpeper’s (1996, 2005) Theory of Impoliteness, in addition to Brown and Levinson’s views of politeness. The data are extracted from the first and the second (final) US presidential debates between Trump and Biden. They are analyzed in detail to find out the fallacies committed by the politicians and to determine whether they are committed politely or impolitely. This study ends with some conclusions that show the politicians' language has a considerable number of fallacies, and the fallacious arguments or fallacious standpoints committed by them are kinds of impolite fallacies, committed intentionally to impose their authority and power upon their opponents. Nevertheless, some other fallacies are committed in a polite way especially when addressing the audience to gain their approval.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Brown, P. and Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bousfiled, D. (2008). Impoliteness in the Struggle for Power. In D.Bousfield, and M.A.Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.127-154). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Culpeper, J. (1996). “Towards an Anatomy of Impoliteness”. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349-367.
Culpeper, J., Bousfield, D., and Whichmann, A. (2003). “Impoliteness Revisited with Special Reference to Dynamic and Prosodic Aspects”. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 1545-1579.
Culpeper, J. (2005). “Impoliteness and Entertainment in the Television Quiz Show: The Weakest Link”. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 35-72.
Culpeper, J. (2008). Reflections on Impoliteness, Relational Work and Power. In D.Bousfield, and M.A.Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies on Its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.17-44). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Eelen, G. (2001). A Critique of Politeness Theories. Manchester: St. Jerome.
Garcia-Pastor, M.D. (2007). A Socio-Cognitive Approach to Political Interaction: An Analysis of Candidates Discourse in U.S. Presidential Debates. Published Phd. Thesis. Valencia: university of Valencia.
Garcia-Pastor, M.D. (2008). Political Campaign Debates as Zero-Sum games: Impoliteness and Power in Candidates Exchange. In D. Bousfield and M.A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in Language: Studies in its Interplay with Power in Theory and Practice (pp.101-123). Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Hamblin, G.L. (1970). Fallacies. London: Methuen.
Hinck, E. and Hinck, S. (2002). “Politeness Strategies in the 1992 Vice Presidential and Presidential Debates”. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(4), 234-250.
Ismail, A. (2020). “The Most Tantalizing One-Word Mystery of the Presidential Debate: At least if you’re Muslim, or a right-wing blogger”. Slate Magazine 3o September. https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/09/joe-biden-inshallah-debate-confirmed.html. (Retrieved 4 December 2021).
Johnson, R.H. (2000). Manifest Rationality: A Pragmatic Theory of Argument. Mahwah, New Jersey, and London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (2014). The Pragmatics of Politeness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mills, S. (2005). “Gender and Impoliteness”. Journal of Politeness Research, 1, 263-280.
Mills, S. (2017). Sociocultural Approaches to (Im)politeness. In J.Culpeper, M. Haugh, D.Z. Kadar (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Linguistic (Im)politeness (pp41-60). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
NBC News. (2020). The First Presidential Debate. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cathmZFeXs&t=5305s
NBC News. (2020). The Final Presidential Debate. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCA1A5GqCdQ
Sarah, B. ., & Oladayo, M. M. (2021). Code-Switching and Code Mixing in the Selected Tracks of the Hip Hop Music of Flavour and 9ice. International Journal of English and Comparative Literary Studies, 2(3), 55-70. https://doi.org/10.47631/ijecls.v2i3.255
Szylko, J. (2013). An Interview, a Talk-Show or a Debate –the Role of a Journalist and the Changes Within the Journalistic interview. University of Warsaw. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328749074_An_interview_a_talk show_or_a_debate__the_role_of_a_journalist_and_the_changes_within_the_journalistic_interview (Retrieved 6 November 2021)
Van Eemeren, F.H., Grootendorst, R., and Henkemans, A.F.S. (2002). Argumentation Analysis, Evaluation, Presentation. Mahwah, New Jersey, and London: Lawrence, Erlbaum Associates.
Van Eemeren, F.H., and Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systemic Theory of Argumentation: The Pragma-Dialectical Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Eemeren, F.H., and Henkemans, A.F.S. (2017). Argumenation Analysis and Evaluation (2nd ed.). New York and London: Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
Walton, D. (1995). A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy. Albama: University of Albama Press.
Woods, J., Irvine, A., and Walton, D. (2004). Argument: Critical Thinking, Logic, and the Fallacies (2nd ed). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Warman, J.S., and Hamzah. (2020). “An Analysis of Logical Fallacy on Prabowo Subianto’s Argumentation during 2019 Indonesia Presidential Debate”. Lingua Didaktika, 14(1), 70-80.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
ISSN 1305-578X (Online)
Copyright © 2005-2022 by Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies