However, this research utilizes Toulmin’s model of argumentation in the form of spoken discourse. Debate is classified as a dialog spoken discourse.
Compared to those reasearch earlier, the complexity level in analyzing dialog is higher since it is two-way argumenting and the speakers talk spontaneously. The
present study, however, also aims to reveal which candidate has the better structures in each debate and their characteristics in forming powerful argument structures.
2.2 Theoritical Framework
2.2.1 Discourse Analysis
The scope of Discourse Analysis, a branch of linguistic analysis which attracts not only linguists but also non linguists, is very large. A word can be defined as a
discourse because it has context. Nonetheless, groups of sentences cannot be defined as discourse if they do not have context, unity, coherence and cohesion.
As it is very far-ranging, discourse is classified into many categorizations according to the form, content, nature, media delivery and the number of native
speakers. Based on the number of speakers, it is divided into a monologue discourse and dialogue. According to media delivery, discourse is also classified into two:
spoken and written discourse. Meanwhile, according to its nature, the discourse is labelled into 2, namely fiction and non-fiction. Discourse Analysis is also clasified
depending on the object studies. Discourse can be divided into political discourse, social discourse, cultural discourse, economic discourse, the discourse of sports,
health discourse, military discourse, legal discourse, and criminality discourse. Discourse analysis, according to Trapes-Lorax 2004:134 is defined as:
The study of language viewed communicatively andor of communication viewed linguistically. Any more detailed spelling out
of such a definition typically involves reference to concepts of language in use, language above or beyond the sentence, language as
meaning in interaction, and language in situational and cultural context.
In the sub-subjects of discourse analysis, there are some apparent subjects that are essential and frequently get attentions such as political discourse and also rhetoric.
2.2.2 Political Discourse
Discourse Analysis can be complex and it is not surprising that among the types of discourse there may be a gray area where there may appear to be no gap between
the two types of discourse apart. As with any legal discourse, politics and criminals who have parts that are not integral, the content or substance of the discourse should
be able to be separated and described in relative terms. Mulyana 2005: 57 says that the political area is seen as an area that is not true, cunning or tactical. This
provided an opportunity formation of specific terms in the area. Schiffrin 2001:411 states that political discourse is analysed not only from its political side
but also from the linguistic side. Politicians will make information up or twist information while using the media. They will say what the public will want to hear
in order to be elected. They set their words to tug and play with people’ emotions. In addition, Gee also states that discourses are ways of being in the world, or forms
of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes 1996:127. Watson 1994:
113 also assumes that discourses can be defined as connected sets of statements,
concepts, terms and expressions, which constitute a way of talking about or writing about a particular issue, thus framing the way people understand and act with
respect to that issue. Furthermore, Chilton also defines political discourse as a language use where the users intend to apply certain words or structure to associate
with certain political behaviour 2004:201. In politics, any aspect in public performances is essential. Politics and
language cannot be separated as language supports political development. Not only physical appearance and emotionally drive, politicians are required to pay attention
to every detail in conversing. From phonological aspect, lexical choice, to the structure of argument, politicians must be aware that if they do not converse in
utilizing language, politicians might not be considered succesful. Using pronounce, for instance ‘we’, is a powerful approach to reach out to and feel close.
Schiffrin 2001:411 states that there is a difficulty in balancing linguistic analysis and political analysis although the elements of that discourse remain
constant such as language role, language structure and the manipulation in using one of those to get political purpose.
2.2.3 Rhetoric
