Quality of Arguments Used in the First-Round Presidential Debate: Critical Pragmatics and Stephen Toulmin’s Perspective
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/y71etj44Keywords:
Critical Pragmatics, Political Argumentation, Presidential DebateAbstract
It is important for politicians to have good argumentative skills. For state leaders, the ability to think logically, to use rhetoric, and to argue systematically, scientifically, sharply, and eloquently is very crucial. The year 2019 is the political year for Indonesia. Political campaigns leading to the presidential and legislative elections, both at national and regional levels, will happen in 2019. The focus of this research is to investigate the depth and breadth of the arguments stated by the presidential candidates and how those arguments are presented. The substantial research data source is in the form of a speech transcript of the recorded video of the first-round presidential debate by two pairs of president and vice president candidates. The research data were the debate arguments found in the video transcript and the contexts surrounding them. The data gathering method used observation by employing recording and note-taking techniques. After the data were gathered, they were selected and classified based on their types for further analysis. The analysis method was the distributional method and content analysis. Both data analysis methods were applied to yield significant results of the study. The results showed that there are simple patterns of argument containing claim, subclaim, data, and warrant. The orders of elements of arguments might be varied. The research results also showed that there were various pragmatic meanings found in the arguments used by the president and vice president candidates. The results of the study, which was analyzed using the critical pragmatic perspective, reflect how far the candidates were concerned with the marginalized, the underprivileged, and the subjugated people.
Downloads
References
[1] Ilie C. Parliamentary debates. In: The Routledge Handbook of Language and Politics. 2017.
[2] Peng MW, Pleggenkuhle-Miles EG. Current debates in global strategy. Int J Manag Rev. 2009;
[3] Van Eemeren FH, Garssen B, Krabbe ECW, Henkemans AFS, Verheij B, Wagemans JHM. Toulmin’s Model of
Argumentation. In: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. 2013.
[4] Kneuper CW. Teaching Argument: An Introduction to the Toulmin Model. Coll Compos Commun. 1978;
[5] Gu Y. Doing pragmatics. J Pragmat. 1998;
[6] Science L, Company P, Long MH, Canagarajah S, Peterson RA, Nagel J, et al. An Introduction to Discourse
Analysis: Theory and Method. J Pragmat. 2017;
[7] Rahardi RK. Personal and Communal Assumptions to Determine Pragmatic Meanings of Phatic Functions. Ling
Cult [Internet]. 2016;10(10(2)):95–8. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.21512/lc.v10i2.897
[8] Midtgarden T. Critical Pragmatism. Eur J Soc Theory. 2012;
[9] Rahardi RK. Pragmatic Phenomena Constellation in Specific Culture Dimension Language Study. Int J Humanit
Stud. 2017;1(1):84–92.
[10] Gunter Senft. Understanding Pragmatics. 1st ed. New York: Routledge; 2014. 233 p.
[11] Mao L. Pragmatics: An Introduction. J Pragmat. 2003;
[12] Ile C. Understanding pragmatics. J Pragmat. 2001;
[13] Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics. Journal of Linguistics. 1983.
[14] Rahardi RK. Pragmatik: Kefatisan berbahasa sebagai fenomena pragmatik baru dalam perspektif sosiokultural
dan situasional. 1st ed. Jakarta: Erlangga; 2018.
[15] Rahardi RK. Menemukan Hakikat Konteks Pragmatik. Pros Semin PRASASTI. 2015;
[16] Huang Q. Interlanguage Pragmatics Theory and Its Implications for Foreign Languages. J Lang Teach Res. 2010;
[17] Clark HH. Pragmatics of Language Performance. In: The Handbook of Pragmatics. 2008.
[18] Meyer CF, Halliday MAK, Hasan R. Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic
Perspective. TESOL Q. 2006;
[19] Allan K. The pragmatics of connotation. J Pragmat. 2007;
[20] Allan K., Jaszczolt K. The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. 2012.
[21] Scollon R, Scollon SW. Intercultural Communication. A discursive approach. SocioLinguistics. 2001.
[22] Van Eemeren FH, Garssen B, Krabbe ECW, Snoeck Henkemans AF, Verheij B, Wagemans JHM.
Argumentation Theory Argumentation theory. In: Handbook of Argumentation Theory. 2013.
[23] Goldberg AE. Pragmatics and Argument Structure. In: The Handbook of Pragmatics. 2008.
[24] Yuliana Setyaningsih. Metakognisi sebagai Keterampilan Melatih Siswa Berpikir Kritis dalam Pembelajaran
Bahasa. In: Yuliana Setyaningsih dan R. Kunjana Rahardi, editor. Prosiding Seminar Nasional PBSI, FKIP,
Universitas Sanata Dharma. Yogyakarta: Universitas Sanata Dharma; 2013. p. 166.
[25] Mahsun M. Metode Penelitian Bahasa. Jakarta PT Raja Grafindo Persada. 2005;
[26] Breeze R. Critical discourse analysis and its critics. Pragmatics. 2011;
[27] Agar M. Language, power, and ideology: Studies in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics. 1991.
[28] Bhatia A. The discourses of terrorism. J Pragmat. 2009;
[29] Szasz TS. Language and Humanism. Humanist. 1974;
[30] Steffensen SV, Fill A. Ecolinguistics: The State of the Art and Future Horizons. Lang Sci. 2014;
[31] Schilling J. On the Pragmatics of Qualitative Assessment. Eur J Psychol Assess. 2006;
[32] Flores-Salgado E, Castineira-Benitez TA. The use of politeness in WhatsApp discourse and moving'requests..’ J
Pragmat. 2018;
[33] Edelman M, Bourdieu P, Thompson JB, Raymond G, Adamson M. Language and symbolic power. Contemp
Sociol. 1992;
[34] Limberg H. Principles for pragmatics teaching: Apologies in the EFL classroom. ELT J. 2015;
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 AUTHOR
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
