AN ANALYSIS OF LINGUISTIC FEATURES IN THE JAKARTA’S GOVERNOR ELECTION DEBATE 2017
), Fitrawati Fitrawati(2), (1) English Department, FBS, Universitas Negeri Padang
Indonesia
(2) English Department, FBS, Universitas Negeri Padang
Indonesia
Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2018 E-Journal English Language and Literature
DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/ell.v7i1.9905
Full Text:
Language : en
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to analyze linguistic features of political language used by candidates of governor and deputy governor of’ Jakarta in election campaign debate 2017. This research used the descriptive qualitative method. Data of this research are the transcription of debate between three couples of candidates that happens during election campaign debate. The duration of debates is six hours, which is each of debate has six segments with different time. This data were analyzed based on Beard (2000) theory about linguistic features to persuade and influence citizens for supporting them in election. There are some lingusitc features were found in this research; they are metaphor, analogy, repetition and antithesis. The result of this study showed that not all of utterances used linguistic features. The data from debates are 41 datum. The first candidate (AHY) used 5 metaphor (56%), 3 repetition (33%), and 1 antithesis (11%). The second candidate (AHK) used 3 metaphor (23%), 4 analogy (31%), 4 repetition (31%) and 2 antithesis (15%). While the third candidate (ANS) used 1 metaphor (5%), 2 analogy (26%), 10 repetition (53%), 2 antithesis (16%). From the result of the study were known that the most widely linguistic feature used is repetition 17 times (41%).
Keywords
References
Arnold and Millar. 2011 Analogies as Tools for Meaning Making in ElementaryScience Education : How Do They Work in Classroom Setting. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2011 Vol. 7 No. 1, 29-39.
Atkinson.1984. Critical Discourse Analysis in Historiography : The Case of Hong Kong’s Evolving Political Identity. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
Baker and Ellece. 2011. Key Term in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Barker andGalasinski, 2001.Cultural Studies and Discourses Analysis.London: SAGE Publications.
Beard, Adrian. 2000. The language of politics. London: Routledge.
Charteris–Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and rhetoric: The persuasive power of metaphor. New York: Palgrave Macmillian.
Dailey and Hinck.2015. Discourse, Politics and Women as Global Leaders. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Company Publishing
G-Corbett,Greville. 2012. Features.New York. Oxford University Press.
Gerot and Wignell.2016. An Analyis of Descriptive Text in English Textbook Using Transitivity System (A Case Study of Reading Passages). Journal of English and Education 2016, 4(1), 147-158.
Graber.1981. The InternationalEncyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction.USA. Wiley Blackwell.
Glynn.2011. Analogies as Tools for Meaning Making in Elementary Science Education : How Do They Work in Classroom Setting. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2011 Vol. 7 No. 1, 29-39.
Hamzah. 2012. Linguistics and the English Language Instruction.Lingua:Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa 6 (1):17-25
Lakoff, George. 1996. Metaphor and War : The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in The Gulf. Viet Nam Generation Journal & Newsletter Vol. 3 No.
Rosa, Rusdi Noor. 2013. Introduction to Linguistic. Padang: Sukabina Press
Simpson. 2012. Translating the Metaphor : A Cognitive Stylistic Conceptualization.World Journal English Language Vol 2, No 4 57-68.
Syarif, Hermawati. 2016. Linguistics and the English Language Instruction. Lingua Didaktika:Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa 10 (1): 50-59.
Article Metrics
Abstract Views : 14082 times
PDF Downloaded : 219 times
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2018 E-Journal English Language and Literature
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
