Discourse Analysis and Argumentation Studies. It covers the argument structures analyzed by using Toulmin’s model of argumentation in the 1
st
debate, the 2
nd
debate, the 3
rd
debate and the 5
th
debate of Indonesia Presidential Debate 2014. The result of this research is supported by Aristotle’s appeals. Nonetheless, it is only to
describe how far the findings of this research can contribute to the result of the
2014’s president election.
1.5 Limitation of the Study
This research only addresses the president candidates’ utterances during the debates. Moreover, it only describes the model of arguments by Toulmin that exist
in debate. Toulmin’s argumentation model has a focus on how the arguments are structured. Hence, the focus of this thesis is on the structures of the arguments, not
to the logics of arguments such as syllogism. Furthermore, I analyzed the main arguments which are the core of the topic. The analysis of the arguments is not
about the unity of the whole arguments, but it is about the completion of each argument. Last but not least, the research will reveal the characteristicss in two
president candidates’ arguments. This research, of course, still leaves open further opportunities for future researchers to build new findings upon it.
1.6 Significance of the Study
On conclusion on this thesis, I hope the results of this research will contribute theoretically and practically. I believe that both Discourse and Argumentation
Studies are not that widely analyzed in Indonesia and personally found the lack
of books or research to be used as reference. Thus, the theoretical advantages that this thesis have are as follows:
1. It provides more classification and linguistic features for researchers interested
in applying Toulmin’s model of argumentation to analyze data in Bahasa Indonesia.
2. It contributes the way in analyzing Toulmin’s model which cannot be done only
by finding the linguistic features, but also the other characteristic such as the function of each element.
3. It gives explanation how arguments are structured in order to win over people.
Besides, the practical contributions that I hope the readers will gain are listed below:
1. It can gives more sensitivity in assessing better argument by applying
argumentation model of Toulmin because it is applicable. Not only will the art of persuasion be captured, but how good the claimants structure their
arguments. 2.
It can help people to understand how to produce arguments easily by bearing in mind the concept of strong structured argument which contains qualifier,
claim, ground, warrant, backing and rebuttal. 3.
It provides reference for other researchers who want to carry out further research or study relating to debate and argumentation especially using
Toulmin’s model.
1.7 Definitions of Key Terms
1. Argument: “The term “argument” is used in a special sense, referring to the
giving of reasons to support or criticize a claim that is questionable, or open to doubt. To say something is a successful argument in this sense means that it
gives a good reason, or several reasons, to support or criticize a claim” Walton, 2006: 1.
2. Argumentation: “The term argumentation will be used to refer to the whole
activity of making claims, challenging them, backing them up by producing reasons, criticizing those reasons, rebutting those criticisms, and so on”
Toulmin, Rieke, Jannik, 1984:14 3.
Rhetoric: “Rhetoric is the counterpart of Dialectic. Both alike are concerned with such things as come, more or less, within the general ken of all men and
belong to no definite science. Accordingly, all men make use, more or less, of both; for to a certain extent, all men attempt to discuss statements and to
maintain them, to defend themselves and to attack others. Ordinary people do this either at random or through practice and from acquired habit. Both ways
being possible, the subject can plainly be handled systematically, for it is possible to inquire the reason why some speakers succeed through practice and
others spontaneously; and every one will at once agree that such an inquiry is the function of an art” Aristotle, 2013:3.
4. Debate: “Debate is a direct oral argumentative contest between two opposing
sides, on a definite question, at a definite time. It is a specialized form of argumentation and requires special knowledge and skill not required in other
forms of argument. A good argumentative essayist is not necessarily a good debater. A man who can write and memorize and deliver a good argumentative
address is not necessarily a good debater. The latter must have all the skill of the former, and in addition he must know how to conduct his case on the
platform. He must know the rules of the game, and must be able to meet the many situations in offense and defense as they arise in the contest” O’Neil,
Paylock Scales, 1971:9.
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
