A Pragmatic Analysis of Persuasive Arguments in the 2011 - 2020 US Presidential Campaign Speeches

Abstract

This paper aims to pragmatically analyze argumentation and persuasion techniques in a number of speeches delivered during the US presidential campaign between 2011 to 2020. The political system in the United States provides a context for shaping public opinion, and politicians must use language consciously in order to manipulate the voters and gain the necessary results. The objective of the current paper is to examine argumentation and persuasion in light of the semantic-pragmatic approach and understand the manner in which they are encompassed in political dialogue. The Eclectic Model, a quantitative approach used for the measurement of language related to elections and used to analyze political speeches – was used to conduct the analysis. Speech samples were derived from speeches, debates, and other campaign-related documents that were retrieved from publicly accessible media or online search engines between 2011 to 2020. The findings show that question deviation strongly correlates with word choice variation and that the reaction to it has emotional characteristics like laughter, applause, and crosstalk. Moreover, the research revealed that more powerful people participated more often and elicited affect-laden responses. The present findings may prove useful to scholars who focus on political language; hence, the research may be useful in understanding language manipulation in political situations.