REPRESENTING THE INCUMBENT AND THE CONTENDER IN THE 2019 INDONESIAN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol5iss2pp215-238Abstract
Background and Purpose: The 2019 Indonesian presidential debates were an important part of the presidential election because it drew public interest, enabling the candidates to persuade the electorate. The debates reunited Joko Widodo, the incumbent and Prabowo Subianto, his former contender.
Methodology: The article selected the five debates during the 2019 presidential debates. The debates were analyzed with Transitivity from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), studying how process, participant and circumstance represent the presidential candidates.
Findings: The incumbent and contender, although from different parties, share similarities in their Transitivity patterns. Joko Widodo and Prabowo Subianto frequently employ Material, Relational and Mental processes to state their actions for governing Indonesia, describe present or future plans, and share their thoughts and hopes for the country. Being politicians, the incumbent and contender use language to construe themselves as the most suitable person to be president. The two candidates employ the pronoun ‘we’ to depict themselves as part of a group, be it a political party or the electorate. They also employ the pronoun ‘I’ to showcase their personal capability. The two candidates share patterns of Transitivity because their representation tries to persuade the electorate to vote for them.
Contributions: The present article extends research on political discourse because it studies data from Indonesia and data in the Indonesian language. The findings can serve to educate the electorate on how politicians employ language in persuasion.
Keywords: Debates, elections, Indonesia, president, transitivity.
Cite as: Fidyati, L., & Rajandran, K. (2020). Representing the incumbent and the contender in the 2019 Indonesian presidential debates. Journal of Nusantara Studies, 5(2), 215-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.24200/jonus.vol5iss2pp215-238
References
Abdul Manan, S. (2019). Covering women candidates in news reports on Malaysia’s 14th general elections. In K. Rajandran & S. Abdul Manan (Eds.), Discourses of Southeast Asia (pp. 1-22). Springer.
Benoit, W., & Brazeal, L. (2002). A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(4), 219–233.
Benoit, W., & Sheafer, T. (2006). Functional theory and political discourse: Televised debates in Israel and the United States. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 281-297.
Faradi, A. (2017). Kajian modalitas linguistik fungsional sistemik pada teks debat Capres-Cawapres pada Pilpres 2014-2019 dan relevansinya dengan pembelajaran wacana di sekolah. RETORIKA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa, 1(2), 233–249.
Halliday, M. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar (2nd ed.). Edward Arnold.
Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday's introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Matthiessen, C., Teruya, K., & Lam, M. (2010). Key terms in systemic functional linguistics. Continuum.
McKinney, M., & Warner, B. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 238-258.
Program Debat Pilpres. (2019, March 21). Program debat Pilpres 2019 raih lebih banyak pemirsa televisi. Nielsen Media. Retrieved from https://www.nielsen.com/id/en/press-releases/2019/program-debat-pilpres-2019-raih-lebih-banyak-pemirsa-televisi/
Rajandran, K. (2019). Portraying economic competence in Malaysian federal budget speeches. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies, 19(1), 17-35.
Salama, A. (2014). Decoding the socio-political meanings of presidential ‘I’ in Mubarak’s last presidential speech: A systemic-functional approach. Cogent Arts and Humanities, 1(1), 1–22.
Savoy, J. (2017). Trump’s and Clinton’s style and rhetoric during the 2016 presidential election. Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 25(2), 168–189.
Setiawan, I., Darma Laksana, I., Mahyuni, M., & Udayana, I. (2018). Transitivity in the text of Indonesian presidential candidates debate 2014-2019. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 5(6), 114–130.
Sharififar, M., & Rahimi, E. (2015). Critical discourse analysis of political speeches: A case study of Obama’s and Rouhani’s speeches at UN. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 5(2), 343-349.
Sinar, T. (2003). Teori dan analisis wacana: Pendekatan sistemik-fungsional. Pustaka Bangsa Press.
Steffens, N., & Haslam, S. (2013). Power through ‘us’: Leaders’ use of we-referencing language predicts election victory. PLoS ONE, 8(10), 1–6.
Suhardijanto, T., & Sinar, T. (2019). Sikap dan penilaian dalam debat presiden/wakil presiden 2019: Analisis wacana berbasis korpus. In A. Norsofiah, Y. Radiah, Z. Muhammad Zuhair, & W. Wan Azni (Eds.), Linguistik, bahasa dan pendidikan (pp. 153-159). Universiti Sains Malaysia.
Van Dijk, T. (1997). What is political discourse analysis? Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 11(1), 11-52.
Wang, J. (2010). A critical discourse analysis of Barack Obama’s speeches. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(3), 254-261.
Wijeyewardene, I. (2019). Examining agency in Thai argumentative political science texts. In K. Rajandran & S. Abdul Manan (Eds.), Discourses of Southeast Asia (pp. 45-67). Springer.
Wiratno, T. (2018). Pengantar ringkas linguistik sistemik fungsional. Pustaka Pelajar.
Yuliawati, S., Tuckyta, E., Sujatna, S., & Suganda, D. (2019). Indonesia presidential-vice presidential debate in corpus linguistics perspective. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 2(4), 150–156.
Zhang, Y. (2017). Transitivity analysis of Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s first television debate. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature, 6(7), 65-72.
