DELEGITIMIZATION THROUGH AD HOMINEM IN INDONESIAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: A SOCIOCOGNITIVE CRITICAL DISCOURSE ANALYSIS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21009/ishel.v2i1.69493Keywords:
Ad hominem, delegitimization, critical discourse analysis, political debates, sociocognitiveAbstract
This study investigates how ad hominem operates as a mechanism of delegitimization in the Indonesian presidential and vice-presidential debates of 2024 through a socio-cognitive critical discourse analysis framework. The research aims to examine the discursive construction, cognitive implications, and ideological functions of ad hominem within formal political discourse. The data consist of official debate transcripts, analyzed using a three-level socio-cognitive approach encompassing textual, cognitive, and social dimensions. The findings reveal that ad hominem is predominantly realized in implicit and indirect forms, embedded within evaluative language, presuppositions, and contrastive framing rather than overt personal attacks. These strategies function to shape audience cognition and reinforce ideological polarization through positive self-representation and negative other-representation. The study contributes theoretically by integrating argumentation theory and socio-cognitive discourse analysis, reconceptualizing ad hominem as a multidimensional discursive phenomenon rather than merely a logical fallacy. Practically, it offers insights for Indonesian language and literature education by promoting critical discourse awareness and enhancing students’ ability to analyze argumentative strategies in political texts.
References
Agnibaya, R. (2025). Dysphemistic language and social cognition: an analysis in online comments on 2024 presidential election coverage. Lingue: Jurnal Bahasa, Budaya, Dan Sastra, 7(1 SE-Articles), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.33477/lingue.v7i1.9240
Badrkhani, P. (2019). Discourse, ideology and heritage language socialization: micro and macro perspectives. Critical Discourse Studies, 16(2), 237–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1538892
Breeze, R. (2013). Corporate Discourse. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. Retrieved from https://digital.casalini.it/9781441177537
Cholifah, A. N., Alfaruqy, D., Pustika, R., & Sunarsih, S. (2024). Unmasking Logical Fallacies: An Analysis of The 2024 Indonesian Vice-Presidential Debates. Journal of Pragmatics and Discourse Research, 4(02), 159–167. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.51817/jpdr.v4i2.961
Durmus, E., Ladhak, F., & Cardie, C. (2019). The Role of Pragmatic and Discourse Context in Determining Argument Impact. In K. Inui, J. Jiang, V. Ng, & X. Wan (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP) (pp. 5668–5678). Hong Kong, China: Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1568
Fairclough, N. (1997). Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Analysis of Language. Language, 73, 189. https://doi.org/10.2307/416612
Firdaus, S. (2026). Ad Hominem at the Boundary of Reasonableness: Strategic Maneuvering and Ideological Polarization in the 2024 Indonesian Presidential Debates. Argumentation. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-026-09700-8
Firdaus, S., Kamal, M., & Anoegrajekti, N. (2025). Reconstruction of Political Ideology Through Ad Hominem Argument Strategy in the 2024 Presidential-Vice Presidential Debate. Proceeding of International Seminar on Humanity, Education, and Language, 1(1 SE-Humanity-Education-Language), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.21009/ishel.v1i1.57255
Gil-Bonilla, J. F. (2025). Critical Discourse Analysis of Pre-Electoral Interviews between Nicolás Maduro and María Corina Machado in the 2024 Venezuelan Elections. Lengua y Habla, 29, 238–257.
Hansson, S., & Reijven, M. H. (2025). Political discourse and argumentation. Qualitative Approaches. Routledge. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003502296-11
Hazaea, A., Noraini, I., & Fariza, N. (2017). Methodological Challenges in Critical Discourse Analysis: Empirical Research Design for Global Journalistic Texts. E-Bangi Journal of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, 12, 1823–1884.
Khoiron, K. (2025). Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Speech on Human Rights By Prabowo Subiyanto in The First Debate of The 2024 Presidential Election. Journal of Law, Politic and Humanities, 5(6 SE-Articles), 4661–4667. https://doi.org/10.38035/jlph.v5i6.2172
Patel, U., Mukherjee, A., & Mondal, M. (2023). “Dummy Grandpa, Do You Know Anything?”: Identifying and Characterizing Ad Hominem Fallacy Usage in the Wild. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 17, 698–709. https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v17i1.22180
Setyaningsih, Y., Rahardi, R. K., & Rahmat, W. (2025). Unpacking Argumentative Fallacies in Indonesia’s 2024 Presidential Debates: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Analysis. Jurnal Gramatika, 1(1), 30–47. https://doi.org/10.22202/jg.v11i1.9371
Shea, A. L., Omapang, A. K. B., Cho, J. Y., Ginsparg, M. Y., Bazarova, N. N., Hui, W., … Margolin, D. B. (2025). Beyond ad hominem attacks: A typology of the discursive tactics used when objecting to news commentary on social media. PLOS ONE, 20(8), e0328550. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0328550
van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Elite Discourse and Racism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483326184
van Dijk, T. A. (2000). Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446217856
van Dijk, T. A. (2005). Racism and Discourse in Spain and Latin America. John Benjamins. Retrieved from https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/books/9789027294364
van Dijk, T. A. (2008a). Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?id=jKEUzVDAmYAC
van Dijk, T. A. (2008b). Discourse and Power. Macmillan Education UK. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?id=NhILAQAAMAAJ
van Dijk, T. A. (2017). Socio-cognitive discourse studies. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies (1st Editio, p. 18). Routledge.
Walton, D. (1998). Ad Hominem Arguments. University of Alabama Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.id/books?id=-HTQY_b1_84C
Walton, D. (2006). Poisoning the Well. Argumentation, 20, 273–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9013-z
Wang, X., Sirianni, A. D., Tang, S., Zheng, Z., & Fu, F. (2020). Public Discourse and Social Network Echo Chambers Driven by Socio-Cognitive Biases. Physical Review X, 10(4), 41042. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevX.10.041042
Welle, M. T., & Shtok, N. (2026). Argumentation and Language in Identity Construction: A Discourse-Historical Analysis of Polarisation in the 2024 Trump-Harris Debate. Argumentation, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-026-09709-z
Wicke, P., & Bolognesi, M. M. (2025). Red and blue language: Word choices in the Trump and Harris 2024 presidential debate. PLOS ONE, 20(6), e0324715. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0324715
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). What CDA Is About – A Summary of Its History, Important Concepts and Its Developments1 (1st ed.). London: SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n1
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Saiyidinal Firdaus, Samsi Setiadi, Muhammad Kamal
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
