Previous Studies REVIEW OF LITERATURE

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Previous Studies

I am interested in investigating the study of arguments that president candidates used in Indonesia Presidential Debates in 2014 as I have already read some references which inspired me to hold research in this topic. In 2014, Indonesian citizens had to vote for the best candidates to be president and vice president. The 2014 President Election was very captivating to follow as there were only two different groups of presidential candidates. I myself as the researcher was also enthusiastic to follow the debate so I could contribute my choice to Indonesian future. Hence, I am eager to seek out the findings of those debates as this thesis’ data. There is some research related to argumentation. The first research is “Wacana Debat Argumentasi dalam Java Overland Varsities English Debate JOVED 2011 Kajian Pragma-dialektika ”. Nasihah 2012 found the result of the debate by analyzing the indicators of argument used by debaters in both positive and negative opponents in JOVED, to find speech act types of the debaters as well as the function and the speech act distributions existing in the JOVED 2011. The findings of the research show that the indicator types of argumentation used by two opponents are various. Those indicators sign the type and the role of speech act used by debaters as well as show the steps of debaters in using arguments. There are 3 types of speech act in the arguments: assertive, commisive and directive. These three have the role in the steps of conveying arguments which are confrontation, opening and conclusion. In my research, however, the role of moderators in the Indonesia Presidential Debate 2014 were quite strong which means the interactions were mostly controlled by the moderators. Besides, my focus in this research is on the structures of arguments. The theory of Toulmin has been applied to analyze arguments in TEMPO magazine with the title “Argumen dalam teks Opini Majalah TEMPO”Winahyu, 2011. The researcher analyzed 8 opinion texts in Tempo Magazine. She used Toulmin’s model of argument modified with Ramage and Bean’s theory. Moreover, to analyze the unity of the arguments, she used cohesion. She found that all Toulmin’s argumentative elements which are claim, data, warrant, backing, rebuttal and qualifier could be found in the texts. She also found that the eight opinion texts that she used as data are all argumentative since it has opening, content and closing, and the writers have an intention to make the readers agree with the writers’ arguments. Even though that research is in the form of written discourse, it has the same theory which is Toulmin’s model of argument. The third study is by Hidayati 2009. In her research, she employed Toulmin’s model to see whether it could benefit students in writing argumentative paragraphs. She held action research for which she planned the teaching, implemented, and observed that model in the classroom and at the end, she reflected the findings through the final argumentative writing products. She found that Toulmin’s model could increase students’ writings. 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