2011

Yağma, ateş etmeye yol açar: Başkan Trump’ın Floyd’un ölümü hakkındaki tartışmacı söyleminin pragma-diyalektik analizi

Bu çalışma, George Floyd'un öldürülmesi üzerine protestocuların adalet, ırksal eşitlik ve polis reformları taleplerine yanıt olarak Başkan Trump'ın argümantasyonunu sorunsallaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. İlk tepkisinde Trump, öfkeli kalabalığı hayal kırıklığına uğratan ve harekete geçiren hafif bir retorik kullandı. Artan protestolara yanıt olarak, Trump kendi söylemini tırmandırdı. Protestocuların karakterini ve güvenilirliğini sorgulayan Trump, protestocuları “haydutlar” ve “teröristler” olarak etiketledi, ordunun konuşlandırılmasına atıfta bulundu ve “yağma başladığında ateş başlar” tweet'ledi. Trumps'ın yanıtının pragma-diyalektik analizi, rasyonel argümantasyonun isim verme, ad baculum ve ad hominem yanılgılarını içeren stratejik manevraları raydan çıkardığını ortaya koyuyor. Trump, gösterileri zorla durdurmak ve itaati güçlendirmek için ikna edici mantıktan korku uyandırmaya ve tehdit etme taktiklerine diyalektik bir geçiş yapıyor ve daha sonra ikna etmekten eristik söyleme geçiş yapıyor. Medyayı nefret ve anarşiyi kışkırtmakla ve kargaşayı alay edilen ve kişisel olarak istismara uğrayan demokratik rakibini suçlayarak tepkisini siyasallaştırıyor. Bunlar sosyo-politik bağlamda olduğu kadar ikna söylemi bağlamında da alakasız tartışmacı hareketlerdir.

Looting leads to shooting: A pragma-dialectical analysis of President Trump’s argumentative discourse on Floyd’s death

This study aims at problematizing President Trump’s argumentation in response to the protesters’ demands forjustice, racial equality and police reforms over the killing of George Floyd. In his first reaction, Trump used mildrhetoric that frustrated and galvanized the angry mobs. In response to escalating protests, Trump escalated his ownrhetoric. Calling into question the character and credibility of the protesters, Trump labelled the protesters “thugs”and “terrorists”, alluded to the deployment of the Military, and tweeted “when the looting starts, the shootingstarts”. Pragma-dialectical analysis of Trumps’ response reveals that rational argumentation yields to derailedstrategic maneuvering involving name-giving, ad baculum and ad hominem fallacies. Trump makes a dialecticalshift from persuasive logic to fear arousing and threat making tactics in order to coercively hold up demonstrationsand enforce compliance, and later shifts from persuasion to eristic discourse. He politicizes his response byaccusing the media of fomenting hatred and anarchy, and by blaming the mayhem on his democratic rival, who isridiculed and personally abused. These are irrelevant argumentative moves in the socio-political context as wellas in the context of the persuasion discourse.© 2020 JLLS and the Authors - Published by JLLS.

PDF

___

Alonzo, M., & Aiken, M. (2004). Flaming in electronic communication. Decision Support Systems, 36(3), 205-213.
Austin, J. (1961). How to do things with words . New York: Oxford University Press .
Bradner, E., Mucha, S., & Judd, D. (2020, June 8). Biden says he doesn't support defunding police. Retrieved on June 18, 2020 from https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/08/politics/joe-biden-defund-thepolice/index.html
Clark, I., & Grieve, J. (2019). Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS ONE, 14(9), 1-27.
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet linguistics: A student guide. London: Routledge.
Dahlman, C., Reidhav, D., & Wahlberg, L. (2013). Fallacies in ad hominem arguments. In Dahlman, C. (Ed.), Legal Argumentation Theory: Cross-disciplinary Perspectives (pp. 57-70). Law and Philosophy Library Springer.
Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (1992). Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A pragmadialectical perspective. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Eemeren, F., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic theory of argumentation: The para-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Elisberg, R. (2011, May 25). When democrats eat their young. Retrieved on June 1, 2020 from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/when-democrats-eat-their_b_407112
Fairclough, Norman. (2005). Blair’s contribution to elaborating a new ‘Doctrine of International Community.’ Journal of Language and Politics, 40(1), 41-63.
Golshan, T. (2016, October 19). Donald Trump’s strange speaking style, as explained by linguists. Retrieved on June 3, 2020 from https://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12423688/donald-trump-speechstyle-explained-by-linguists
Hall, K., Goldstein, D. M., & Ingram, M. B. (2016). The hands of Donald Trump: Entertainment, gesture, spectacle. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 6(2), 71-100.
Kayam, O. (2018). The readability and simplicity of Donald Trump’s language. Political Studies Review, 16(1), 73-88.
Lithwick, D. (2020, May 29). Whether the President understands the racist history of “looting and shooting” is beside the point. Retrieved on June 7, 2020 from https://slate.com/news-andpolitics/2020/05/trump-looters-shooters-racism.html
Monggong, L. (2017, July). Language and culture in the case of Merriam-Webster's correction over President Trump's tweets. Presentation at the International Seminar on Language Maintenance and Shift. Semarang, Indonesia.
Nicoloff, F. (1989). Threats and illocutions. Journal of Pragmatics, 13(4), 501-522.
Ott, B. L. (2017). The age of Twitter: Donald J. Trump and the politics of debasement. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 34(1), 59-68.
Peoples, S., Farm, A., & Lemire, J. (2020, June 9). Key democrats spurnpPush to defund police amid Trump attacks. Retrieved on June 15, 2020 from https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2020-06-09/key-democrats-spurn-push-to-defundpolice-amid-trump-attacks
Robinson, D. (2019, August 09). Text analysis of Trump's tweets confirms he writes only the (angrier) Android half. Retrieved on June 5, 2020 from http://varianceexplained.org/r/trump-tweets/
Sahlane, A. (2015). Dialectics of argument and rhetoric: Protesting the Iraq war in US-British opinion press. Discourse & Society, 26(6), 1-21.
Sahlane, A. (2012). Argumentation and fallacy in the justification of the 2003 war on Iraq. Argumentation 26(4), 459-488.
Salmon, M. H. (2013). Introduction to logic and critical thiking . Boston: Wadsworth, Inc.
Searle, J. (1970). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Sornig, Karl. (1989). Some remarks on linguistic strategies of persuasion. In R. Wodak (Ed.), Language, power and ideology: Studies in political discourse (pp. 95-113). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
van Dijk, T. (2002) Political discourse and political cognition. In P. Chilton & C. Schäffner (Eds.), Politics as text and talk: Analytic approaches to political discourse (pp. 203-237). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Walton, D. (2014). A dialectical analysis of the ad baculum fallacy. Informal Logic, 34(4), 276-310.
Walton, D. (2006). Poisoning th well. Argumentation, 20(3), 273-307.
Walton, D. (2000). Scare tactics: Arguments that appeal to fear and threats. University of Alabama Press . Springer Netherlands: Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Wang, Y., & Liu, H. (2018). Is Trump always rambling like a fourth-grade student? An analysis of stylistic features of Donald Trump's political discourse during the 2016 election. Discourse and Society, 29(3), 299-323.
Wodak, R. (2015). Political Argumentation. In G. Mazzoleni (Ed.), The International encyclopedia of political communication (pp. 43-52). New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell.
Yen, H., Woodward, C., & Seitz, Amanda. (2020, June 13). AP FACT CHECK: Trump’s law and order and misinformation. Retrieved on June 23, 2020 from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/apfact-check-trumps-law-and-order-and-misinformation