Table 3.1. The Debate List of Presidential Debate No
Theme The Participants
1 “Pembangunan Demokrasi, Pemerintahan
yang Bersih dan Kepastian Hukum ”
broadcasted on 9th June 2014 on SCTV, Indosiar and TV One
Prabowo-Hatta and Jokowi-JK
2 “Pembangunan Ekonomi dan Kesejahteraan
Sosial ” on 15th June 2014 on Metro TV dan
Bloomberg TV Prabowo Subianto
and Joko Widodo
3 “Politik Internasional dan Ketahanan
Nasional ” on 22nd June 2014 on TV One and
ANTV. Prabowo Subianto
and Joko Widodo
4 “Pembangunan Sumber Daya Manusia dan
Iptek” on 29th June 2014 on RCTI, MNCTV dan Global TV
Hatta Rajasa and Jusuf Kalla
5 “Pangan, Energi, Lingkungan” on TVRI dan
Kompas TV on 5th July 2014 Prabowo-Hatta and
Jokowi-JK
The reason why I chose 4 debates was because I only analyzed president candidates’ utterances. In the 4
th
debate, the participants were only between the vice president candidates only. I also employed purposive sampling in selecting the data
because analyzing spoken discourse is very complicated and I would need to choose which ones were the core of the answers of the question asked. I also collected
additional information through library research to enrich the points of views about politics, argument and debate.
3.3 Method of Data Analysis
To analyze the data, I used my interpretation which means I also employed inferential method. According to Krippendorff, this method makes use of
researcher’s knowledge and interpretation 2004: 36-37. As mentioned before, this
research is qualitative research. Therefore, the instrument of this research is the researcher Moleong, 1989. The researchers have the authority to interprete data
in order to collect their findings. Besides, I also applied referential method to classify functional characteristics of each element and distributional method to refer
to the linguistics features that each element has Sudaryanto, 1993. After classifiying the argument structure, I, then analyzed the different argument models
used by the candidates. Below are the steps I used to collect and analyze the data: 1.
I downloaded 5 Presidential debates 2014 from www.youtube.com. I, then watched all these debates of Presidential 2014 on Youtube. Next, I transcribed
all debates. 2.
I read and checked all the transcripts. I decided to use 4 debates out of 5 debates as I only wanted to analyze the president candidates who played the largest role
in the debates. 3.
The first stage is to discover the basic structures. Before categorizing, I listed a categorization to identify the elements of Toulmin’s argumentation model by
looking into the linguistic markers such as words, phrases, and clauses that signs elements of
Toulmin’s argumentation model being told. However, looking at the linguistic markers are not enough. It is needed to examine the other
characteristics of each idea unit. In the matters of physical characteristics, it is helpful to refer to linguistic markers to identify the element. Nevertheless, the
functional characteristics that those elements have define them stronger than the linguistics features.
Table 3.2. Summary of The Characteristics of Element of Toulmin’s Model
Features Elements
-The linguistic indicators are such as ‘kemungkinan’,
‘mungkin’, ‘pasti’, ‘pastinya’, ‘agaknya’, ‘kiranya, terbatas pada bukti’, ‘perlu’, ‘biasanya’, ‘tentu saja’
-It signs and functions to show the degree of certainty or possibility.
Qualifier
-Linguist ic indicators: ‘oleh karena itu’,’ jadi’,
‘ maka dari itu’, ‘saya kira’, ‘saya pikir’, ‘saya percaya’, ‘harus’, ‘sebaiknya’, ‘sebagai
konsekuensi’, ‘singkatnya’, ‘dapat disimpulkan’. -It is the answer of the question: what do you want to
prove? -It is argumentative because it shows position or
opinion so it needs further supports to be accepted. -It is the core of each argument
-It can be classified as one of these types of claim factual claim of fact, claim of value, claim of policy
Claim
-It has linguistic indicators: ‘karena’, ‘oleh karena’,
‘sehingga’, ‘untuk’, ‘agar’, ‘buktinya’, ‘contohnya’. -It is the answer of the question: what is the proof?
Why do you think that? -It functions as support of a claim.
-It is in the form of statiscal data, narratives, testimonies, causal reasons and facts.
Ground
-It has linguistic indicators: jika...,maka... -It is the answer of the questions: What is the
relationship of ground to claim? Or what is the assumption?
-It functions as a connection bridge of ground to claim.
-It is in the form of a general inference, general principle, principle of a particular field amd
assumption. Warrant
-It is answerable for question: is the warrant true?can you support the warrant?
-It functions to support warrant. -It strengthens warrant
-It is in the form of observation, data, historical facts,
or experts’ opinion. Backing
- The linguistic indicators such as: ‘asal’, ‘asalkan’,
‘kecuali’, ‘kalau’, ‘jika’. -It functions to to point out the weakness of claim
being told which has already been noticed by the claimant.
-It is answerable to a question: are you really sure your claim will be 100 correct in any condition?
Rebuttal
-It can be conditions or exception which decrease the authority of warrant.
Extracted from Toulmin, Rieke Janik, 1978 4.
First element to find is claim of each argument. The next step is finding grounds of the claim, warrant, backing and qualifier of that particular argument.
5. Afterwards, I put into a table in order to categorize the claim, ground, warrant,
backing, rebuttal and qualifier. The table is divided into 2 columns. The left column is the utterances and the right column is the classifications.
Table 3.3. Sample of Analysis Display
D1S2J President Candidates’ Utterance
The Elements of Toulmin’s
Argumentation Model
Kemungkinan Qualifier Q
Pejabat keuangan daerah itu kemungkinan yang mengambil uang rakyat.
Claim C Rekening tabungan pejabat itu melambung
tiba-tiba. Ground G
Seseorang yang kaya mendadak sering dicurigai yang tidak-tidak.
Warrant W Kasus-kasus korupsi selama ini melibatkan
pemeriksaan rekening bank tersangka kasus korupsi.
Backing B
Kecuali orang tersebut baru mendapat warisan dari orang tuanya.
Rebuttal R
6. I, then put information code from which I took the parts of utterances on the
right below each table. D stands for debate. S stands for segment. J is Jokowi. P is Prabowo.
For instance: D1S2J means it is taken from debate 1 segment 2 and the speaker is Jokowi.
7. After categorizing the arguments into the parts of Toulmin’s argument model, I
then described the reasons for categorizing them in such a way.
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
