Strategies of Language Use in Indonesian Vice Presidential Candidates Debate in the 2024 Election

Juamdan Zamha Zamihu

doi:10.21462/ijefl.v9i2.786

Juamdan Zamha Zamihu Universitas Dayanu Ikhsanuddin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21462/ijefl.v9i2.786

Keywords: debate, image of trustworthiness and competence, strategies of language use

Abstract

Understanding the language use strategies in political debates helps candidates craft their communication strategies strategically. Candidates need to resonate with voters, address their concerns, and effectively communicate their vision for the nation through their language and communication style. The objective of the study is to provide a comprehensive description of the strategies of language use in the Indonesian vice presidential candidates debate in the 2024 election to construct their identities, to frame issues in a particular way, to manipulate information to gain an advantage over their opponents, to establish authority and credibility, to persuade voters, and to present themselves in a certain light. It used content analysis to understand the main issues addressed and the candidates' stances on the issues. The data were collected by transcribing spoken content from video and audio recordings and then analyzed using thematic analysis, consisting of familiarization, generating themes, review, refinement, and defining and naming themes. The results showed that all three candidates aimed to project an image of trustworthiness and competence, but each used different techniques to achieve it. Muhaimin Iskandar focused on experience and continuity, Gibran on pragmatism and youth appeal, and Mahfud on intellectual authority and good governance. The choice of language was crucial to their strategies. Muhaimin Iskandar's populism resonated with rural voters, while Gibran's modern vocabulary appealed to the urban youth. Mahfud's academic tone established him as a knowledgeable figure.

References

Bailey, M. A., Hopkins, D. J., & Rogers, T. (2016). Unresponsive and Unpersuaded: The Unintended Consequences of a Voter Persuasion Effort. Political Behavior, 38(3), 713–746. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9338-8
Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2001). Presidential debate questions and the public agenda. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463370109385621
Bilmes, J. (2001). Tactics and Styles in the 1992 Vice Presidential Debate: Question Placement. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 34(2), 151–181. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327973RLSI34-2_1
Braet, A. C. (1992). Ethos, pathos, and logos in Aristotle's Rhetoric: A re-examination. Argumentation, 6(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00154696
Brown, L. M. (2007). The Contemporary Presidency: The Greats and the Great Debate: President William J. Clinton's Use of Presidential Exemplars. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 37(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2007.02588.x
Butler, J., Aronowitz, S., Laclau, E., Scott, J., Mouffe, C., & West, C. (1992). Discussion. October, 61, 108–120. https://doi.org/10.2307/778790
Christensen, E. (2008). The Heretical Political Discourse: A Discourse Analysis of the Danish Debate on Basic Income. Aalborg University Press.
Del Rosso, J. (2015). Talking About Torture: How Political Discourse Shapes The Debate. Columbia University Press.
Ghofur, M. A., Widodo, H. P., & Anggur, R. (2021). Independence of Reporting on Presidential Debates in Indonesian Media. MEDIO, 3(1).
Glassman, R. M. (2019). Words vs Violence: Democratic Debate and Civility in Political Discourse. In R. M. Glassman (Ed.), The Future of Democracy (pp. 103–132). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16111-8_13
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hwang, H., Gotlieb, M. R., Nah, S., & McLeod, D. M. (2007). Applying a Cognitive-Processing Model to Presidential Debate Effects: Postdebate News Analysis and Primed Reflection. Journal of Communication, 57(1), 40–59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9916.2007.00328.x
Joseph, B. C., & Widyastuti, W. (2023). The Impact of Intensifier as Women's Persuasion Strategy in Politics Vice-Presidential Debate. Edulitics (Education, Literature, and Linguistics) Journal, 8(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.52166/edulitics.v8i1.3962
Lakoff, G. (2010). The Poll Democrats Need to Know About Framing, Value-Shifting, the California Budget Crisis, and Why Democrats So Often Act Like Republicans. California Journal of Politics and Policy, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.5070/P2W898
Marietta, M. (2009). The Absolutist Advantage: Sacred Rhetoric in Contemporary Presidential Debate. Political Communication, 26(4), 388–411. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600903296986
Mark-Ungericht, B., & Weiskopf, R. (2007). Filling the Empty Shell. The Public Debate on CSR in Austria as a Paradigmatic Example of a Political Discourse. Journal of Business Ethics, 70(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-006-9111-8
Mascaro, C. M., & Goggins, S. P. (2015). Technologically Mediated Political Discourse During a Nationally Televised GOP Primary Debate. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 12(3), 252–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2015.1071687
Meany, J., & Shuster, K. (2002). Art, Argument and Advocacy: Mastering Parliamentary Debate. International Debate Education Association.
Popkin, S. L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. University of Chicago Press.
Proctor, K., & Su, L. I.-W. (2011). The 1st person plural in political discourse—American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(13), 3251–3266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010
Putra, H. P., & Widodo, P. (2020). Euphemisms in 2019 Presidential Election Debates. 5(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.22515/ljbs.v5i2.2656
Richardson, J. D., Huddy, W. P., & Morgan, S. M. (2008). The Hostile Media Effect, Biased Assimilation, and Perceptions of a Presidential Debate. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(5), 1255–1270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00347.x
Rosyidah, R. H. (2020). The Violation of Cooperative Principle in Conversational of Presidential Debate Indonesia 2019. English Learning Innovation, 1(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.22219/englie.v1i1.13165
Rosyidah, R. H. (2021). Politeness As a Strategy of Attack in Presidential Debate in Indonesia 2019. Journal of English Language Teaching and Learning (JETLE), 3(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.18860/jetle.v3i1.13456
Rowbottom, J. (2006). Media Freedom and Political Debate in the Digital Era. The Modern Law Review, 69(4), 489–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2006.00597.x
Self, J. W. (2005). The First Debate over the Debates: How Kennedy and Nixon Negotiated the 1960 Presidential Debates. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35(2), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2005.00253.x
Stark, A. (1992). “Political-Discourse” Analysis and the Debate over Canada's Lobbying Legislation. Canadian Journal of Political Science / Revue Canadienne de Science Politique, 25(3), 513–534.
Staubach, C. N. (1941). Propaganda in General Language Texts. The Modern Language Journal, 25(7), 515–520. https://doi.org/10.2307/317804
Stecker, F. (2011). The Podium, the Pulpit, and the Republicans: How Presidential Candidates Use Religious Language in American Political Debate. Praeger.
Whitney, D. C., & Wartella, E. (1992). Media Coverage of the “Political Correctness” Debate. Journal of Communication, 42(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1992.tb00780.x
Yawn, M., Ellsworth, K., Beatty, B., & Kahn, K. F. (1998). How a Presidential Primary Debate Changed Attitudes of Audience Members. Political Behavior, 20(2), 155–181.
Yuliawati, S., Sujatna, E. T. S., & Suganda, D. (2019). 2019 Indonesia Presidential-Vice Presidential Debate in Corpus Linguistics Perspective. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2(4), 150–156.