The Role of Semantic Fallacies in Distorting Political Argumentation

الملخص

This current study examines the effect of Semantic errors on the distortion of political arguments via a qualitative case analysis of a specific political speech. The speech was segmented, transcribed, and examined using Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) in order to find semantic errors such stuffed  language, ambiguity, equivocation, and redefinition.  Without offering sound logic, the research shows that these linguistic techniques are purposefully employed to change meaning, elicit strong feelings, and increase  persuasive power. The result of this current study has been demonstrated how political actors can use semantic errors to simplify complicated topics, divert the focus of the audience, and influence public opinion, all of  which lead to  disinformation and political polarization.  As stated  by the final results semantic fallacies  are intentional rhetorical devices that skew political speech rather than being  unintentional linguistic mistakes. The study emphasizes  the necessity of critical language awareness  among audiences  in order to lessen their vulnerability to linguistic manipulation and to encourage more knowledgeable participation in democracy.