A Pragmatic Study of Ad Hominem in American Presidential Debates

Abstract

This study conducts a pragmatic analysis of the ad hominem fallacy within American presidential debates. It analyzes the various types of the fallacy and the pragmatic strategies, encompassing speech acts and impoliteness strategies. The study employs a pragmatic model to examine these fallacies in appealing to audiences, discrediting opponents, and shaping perceptions of credibility. The paper addresses the following questions: What types of ad hominem are utilized in American presidential debates? What speech acts are employed to execute these fallacies? What impoliteness strategies are used to convey these fallacies? Three models are utilized to analyze the data: Damer 2009 for fallacy type, Searle 1975 for speech act, and Culpeper 1996 for impoliteness strategy. This study hypothesizes that American presidential candidates employ various types of ad hominem fallacies, speech acts, and impoliteness strategies to influence the audience. The study demonstrates that the pragmatic effects of ad hominem attacks on political discourse quality and their implications for democratic engagement.