<p>Fallacy as a derailment of strategic maneuvering can be defined as the process of issuing a defective argument (when subjected to certain criteria) to support and strengthen a previously issued one for purposes of persuasion. However, fallacy is a broad topic that has been approached from different perspectives. Several studies have attempted to tackle it pragmatically. Yet, those attempts have suffered from many gaps and drawbacks which have characterized them as insufficient accounts in this regard. Many pragmatic aspects related to fallacy, like its pragmatic structure and the strategies used for issuing it, have not been given their due attention. Hence, this work has set itself the task of dealing with this problem. Precisely, it concerns itself with the aims of finding out the pragmatic structure and pragmatic strategies of fallacy in David Cameron’s, the British prime minister, war and electoral political speeches. In association with these aims, there is a development of a pragmatic model for the analysis of these two aspects in the speeches scrutinized. This model is built upon several models introduced by several scholars in addition to some contributions made by the researchers themselves. The validity of the developed model is tested by means of analyzing fourteen fallacious situations taken from David Cameron’s war and electoral political speeches. The analyses conducted have proved that the model developed is workable. Besides, they have yielded various results among which is that fallacy is a process composed of various stages. Each stage is distinct for its pragmatic components and strategies.</p>

This paper is mainly concerned with proving that it is not Wittgenstein, the German philosopher, who actually seeded the main gist of the Speech Act Theory; there are others who preceded him (and all those who followed him, the first of whom is Austin) in doing so: Arab scholars. Accordingly, this work starts by reviewing the most basic ideas of the original theory proposed by Austin and developed by Searle. The basic ideas presented by the Arabic theory are presented in the second section, and then a contrast between the two is made.

Abstract-This paper presents a critique of politeness theories. As such, it aims to show the shortcomings and defects of the different theoretical foundations and pragmatic models of politeness. This work is hopefully supposed to be significant for the specialists and analysts in the field of pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics and conversational analysis, ethnomethodology and communication studies. On the basis of the results of the criticism, it has been concluded that politeness theories suffer from different shortcomings and problems that lessen their efficiency in the successful analysis of interactive communication. Universalism, for instance, is not well-defined by Brown and Levinsons' theory. Leech's model is limited to some speech acts. Besides, his model is not clear whether to cover culture-specific as well as cross-cultural aspects of communication.

Language is used for influencing people. Various means, whether honest or dishonest, are appealed to for achieving this purpose. This means that people fulfill their goals either through telling their interlocutors the truth or through deceiving and misleading them. In this regard, deception is a key aspect of many strategic interactions including bargaining, military operations, and politics. However, in spite of the importance of this topic, it has not been pragmatically given enough research attention particularly in politics. Thus, this study sets itself the task of dealing with this issue in this genre from a pragmatic perspective. Precisely, the current work attempts to answer the following question: What is the pragmatics of deception in American presidential electoral speeches? Pragmatics, here, involves the speech acts used to issue deceptive utterances, deceptive strategies resulting in the violation of Grice's maxims, as well as cognitive strategies.In other words, this study aims at finding out the answer to the question raised above. In accordance with this aim, it is hypothesized that American presidential candidates use certain deceptive/misleading strategies to achieve their goals. In this regard, they utilize certain strategies which violate Grice's maxims such as ostensible promise, equivocation, fabrication, and dissociation. Moreover, they make use of certain cognitive strategies like: metaphor, presupposition, and positive self-representation/ negative other representation.In order to achieve the aim of the study and verify or reject its hypothesis, a model is developed for the analysis of the data under examination. Besides, a statistical means represented by the percentage equation is used to calculate the results. The most important finding arrived at by this study is that American presidential candidates most often resort to the strategies of giving an ostensible promise, equivocation, presupposition, and positive self/negative other representation to fulfill their goals.

Aspects like power, dominance or ideology affect our choice of words in addition to other contextual factors (such as settings, participants and so on). The power we enjoy as social actors or the ideology we adhere to concerning any issue in life may play a crucial role in our language production or interpretation. Issuing a certain speech act rather than another or producing one impolite form rather than a polite one owning to such aspects falls within the realm of critical pragmatics. It is one analytical methodology where critical issues are examined in terms of the pragmatic phenomena to explore how the latter aid in the manifestation of the former. It attempts to answer this question: what are the most common pragmatic phenomena that reveal how racists or sexists pass on their critical ideologies? It aims to develop an analytical model for critical pragmatics and identify the common pragmatic themes utilized. The study is qualitative. It confines itself to the political discourse in the American context. The analysis of the data proves the workability of the model that has been developed by the study. It also shows that various pragmatic phenomena can be utilized to unravel critical issues.