This research is aimed at characterizing the Dutch law of perjury with theories of lying as described by philosophers of language. In American law various inconsistencies of perjury cases led to...Show moreThis research is aimed at characterizing the Dutch law of perjury with theories of lying as described by philosophers of language. In American law various inconsistencies of perjury cases led to research on the topic. Those studies all have concluded that lying and perjury differ greatly in several notable areas. Often discussed is the well-known perjury case of former US President Clinton. Research states Bill Clinton obviously was not speaking the truth, but he was never impeached with perjury. Possible explanations could be a political agenda or the lack of adequate evidence. This research paper will discuss the differences between the Dutch and American legal systems, as well as offering a critical analysis of why these systems differ. The central question in this research answers in what ways the Dutch law of perjury can be characterized by the pragmatic theories of lying. Four court cases, all different in outcome, will be linguistically analysed. The linguistic analysis performed in this research is based on Grice’s maxims of Cooperation, Searle’s Speech Act theory, the provided definition of lying and the analytic tools as described by Shuy. This will provide various insights in the interpretation of the Dutch perjury law. Based on the results, this research paper concludes that lying cannot perfectly characterize the Dutch law of perjury, however, they cannot be fully separated from each other either. What this analysis clearly shows are the possibilities of a linguistic analysis when discussing perjury lawsuits. The discourse analysis can provide insights in someone’s intentions, as well as the weaknesses in someone’s statements. This paper strongly promotes the statement that using linguistic analyses is beneficial to the legal system, especially in court cases concerning crimes of language.Show less
This thesis investigates the use of ad hominem arguments in American political debates in relation to the degree of polarization. The types of ad hominem arguments, the fallaciousness of the...Show moreThis thesis investigates the use of ad hominem arguments in American political debates in relation to the degree of polarization. The types of ad hominem arguments, the fallaciousness of the arguments and the use of mitigation techniques are examined in this. Since an increase in polarization in United States politics is visible and ad hominem arguments are a symptom of polarization, one could expect an increase in frequency of ad hominem usage and an increase of frequency of fallacious ad hominems. Since Trump is perceived as the cause of the increasing polarization according to surveys, it could be expected that he uses more ad hominem arguments and more fallacious ad hominem arguments than his opponent. To test these hypotheses, a corpus was composed of 6 American presidential debates, 3 from the 2008 presidential campaigns and 3 from the 2016 presidential campaigns. To analyse this corpus, the four types of ad hominem arguments that Tindale (2007) distinguishes serve as guidelines. Tindale’s (2007) critical questions for identifying and evaluating ad hominem arguments are used to determine the fallaciousness of the arguments. The use of Ilie’s (2004) mitigation techniques within the corpus is also examined. This way, this study attempts to connect the evaluation of ad hominem arguments to polarization in politics. This study shows that the frequency of ad hominem use in the 2016 presidential debates was more than twice as high as in 2008. The frequency of ad hominem use was nearly equal between Trump and Clinton, but Trump’s fallacious ad hominem use had a significantly higher frequency. The amount of mitigation strategies used in the debates was found to be near zero. This means that some of the outcomes of this study are in line with the expectations: the increase in ad hominem frequency in 2016 versus 2008 and Trump’s higher frequency of fallacious ad hominem use. The fact that Trump and Clinton used a nearly equal amount of ad hominem arguments in the debates and the fact that the use of mitigation techniques was rare was not in accordance with expectations. Overall, the ad hominem use in the debates seems to support the idea of an increase in polarization in American politics. The ad hominem use in the debates also seems to support the idea that Trump has a relatively big influence on this increase, compared to his opponent.Show less
This study explores the nature of lying and its relationship to fiction. The purpose of this study is to challenge Meibauer’s (2015:158-182) claim that fiction cannot lie because authors do not...Show moreThis study explores the nature of lying and its relationship to fiction. The purpose of this study is to challenge Meibauer’s (2015:158-182) claim that fiction cannot lie because authors do not present their fiction as true. In doing so, this study will provide a compare-and-contrast analysis of the opening title cards of Joel and Ethan Coen’s film Fargo (1996) and Spike Lee’s film BlacKkKlansman (2018). Whereas the opening title card of the latter film appears to justly claim that it is based on a true story, the former appears to falsely assert this. This suggests that fiction may possess the capacity of lying. To determine this, the first chapter of this study establishes a pragmatic definition of lying, which, in essence, entails a speaker (S) asserting a proposition (p) which he/she does not believe in. Since this study focuses on fiction, the second chapter endeavors to establish a definition of fictional communication, which, in essence, entails an author (U) performing assertive illocutionary acts through fictive utterances and an audience (H) who ought to make believe the propositions (P) put forward in these utterances. The analysis and results of this study, which applies the theory provided in the first two chapters to the title cards of Fargo (1996) and BlacKkKlansman (2018), indicate that a speaker may well lie by means of a work of fiction.Show less
