Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2020 - 2025
0
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies)
Khoirunisa, Andini
Unknown Affiliation
Education Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Argumentative Statements in The 2016 Presidential Debates Of The U.S: A Critical Discourse Analysis Khoirunisa, Andini; Indah, Rohmani Nur
JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies) Vol. 4 No. 2 (2017): JEELS November 2017
Publisher : Lembaga Penelitian dan Pengabdian Masyarakat IAIN Kediri

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | Full PDF (308.708 KB) | 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.
Argumentative Statements in The 2016 Presidential Debates Of The U.S: A Critical Discourse Analysis Khoirunisa, Andini; Indah, Rohmani Nur
JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies) Vol. 4 No. 2 (2017): JEELS November 2017
Publisher : Universitas Islam Negeri (UIN) Syekh Wasil, Kediri, Indonesia

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | 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.
Co-Authors Rohmani Nur Indah