Analysis of Conversation Structure in the 2024-2029 NTB Governor Candidate Debate: A Pragmatic Approach in Regional Head Elections
Authors
-
Andra Ade Riyanto
Universitas Mataram
-
Mochammad Asyar
Universitas Mataram
-
Ade Jauhari
Universitas Mataram
-
Januar Rizki Pratama R.
Universitas Mataram
-
M. Aprizal Umami
Universitas Mataram
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36312/jolls.v6i3.4805Keywords:
Political debate, Pragmatics, Conversation analysis, Politeness, ElectionAbstract
Political debates in Regional Head Elections (Pilkada) serve as strategic arenas in which candidates construct credibility, project leadership, and negotiate public image, yet research on subnational debates remains limited, with most studies focusing on national contests and isolated pragmatic dimensions. This study addresses this gap by examining the 2024 West Nusa Tenggara (NTB) gubernatorial debate through an integrated conversation-analytic and pragmatic framework. Using a qualitative interpretive design, the study analyzed verbatim transcripts of all three official debate sessions involving the three candidate pairs, examining turn-taking, interruptions, and adjacency pairs alongside speech acts, conversational maxims, and politeness/impoliteness strategies. The researcher served as the primary instrument, supported by a structured coding sheet, with data credibility strengthened through repeated verification against original recordings and peer checking. Findings reveal four interrelated patterns: interruptions and overlaps functioned as tools for interactional control and topic redirection; commissive and directive speech acts served as dominant persuasive resources for projecting commitment and challenging opponents; politeness strategies mitigated disagreement while impoliteness enabled credibility attacks; and candidates strategically observed or flouted cooperative maxims to manage accountability and control the debate agenda. The study concludes that political credibility in regional debates is constructed through an integrated system of interactional and pragmatic strategies shaped by local governance priorities, community values, and closer candidate-voter relationships, distinguishing subnational debates from national political discourse and warranting context-specific analytical attention.
Downloads
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085
Bull, P. (2021). Adversarial communication in political interviews and debates. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 88–104.
Bull, P., & Strawson, E. (2020). Fostering equivocation: How non-replying strategies function in televised political debates. Discourse & Communication, 14(3), 231–248.
Cuenca, M.-J. (2023). Disagreement, epistemic stance and contrastive marking in Catalan parliamentary debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 203, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.11.001
Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness: Using language to cause offence. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511975752
D’Errico, F., Poggi, I., & Leone, G. (2019). Strategic speech acts and emotional framing in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 221–234.
Deppermann, A., & Haugh, M. (Eds.). (2022). Action ascription in interaction. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108673419
Ekström, M., Tolson, A., & Kroon, Å. (2020). Media encounters and institutional power in subnational debate interaction. Discourse, Context & Media, 34, Article 100371.
Fanani, A., & Setiawan, S. (2020). Grammar of persuasion in political speeches: Modal and structural choices. Heliyon, 6(12), Article e05708.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e05708
Fetzer, A. (2018). Intertextuality and contextual shift in political debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 129, 133–145.
Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2018). Impoliteness and identity in political discourse. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(5), 688–711.
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.17048.bli
Greatbatch, D., & Clark, T. (2018). Using conversation analysis for decisions and interaction in institutional settings. Palgrave Macmillan.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Hariyanto, A., Setiawan, B., & Rahman, F. (2023). Local identity and pragmatic positioning in Indonesian regional elections. Asian Journal of Communication, 33(4), 312–329.
Hepburn, A., & Bolden, G. B. (2017). Transcribing for social research. SAGE Publications.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.
Hutchby, I. (2017). Hybridity, power and conversation analysis in media interaction. Language in Society, 46(2), 211–230.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740451600091X
Ilie, C. (2021). Debate discourse and parliamentary confrontation: A pragmatic perspective. Language and Dialogue, 11(2), 175–198.
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00088.ili
Ilie, C. (2022). Meta-questions and meta-answers: The interplay of metadialogic practices in PMQs. Journal of Pragmatics, 194, 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.04.004
Koch, E., & Küpfer, A. (2025). The politics of seeking and avoiding discourse in parliament. European Journal of Political Research, 64(4), 1899–1922. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.70013
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Liu, R.-Y. (2024). Constituting institutional identity in political discourse: The use of the first-person plural pronoun in China’s press conferences. Language in Society, 53(3), 421–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404523000386
Montgomery, M. (2019). The discourse of broadcast debate: Structure, performance, and interaction. Media, Culture & Society, 41(6), 789–806.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443718823148
Oswald, S. (2023). Pragmatics for argumentation. Journal of Pragmatics, 203, 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.001
Perez, A., & Fernandez, M. (2022). Speech act distribution and ethos construction in televised debates. Journal of Pragmatics, 188, 45–59.
Randour, F., Perrez, J., & Reuchamps, M. (2020). Twenty years of research on political discourse: A systematic review and directions for future research. Discourse & Society, 31(4), 428–443. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520903526
Savigny, H. (2020). Media, impoliteness, and gendered performances in political debate. Gender, Work & Organization, 27(6), 1210–1224.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12432
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Setiawan, H., Wijaya, M., & Firmansyah, R. (2024). Subnational political communication: Face-work and local values in regional debates. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13(3), 540–552.
Sidnell, J., & Stivers, T. (Eds.). (2013). The handbook of conversation analysis. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325001
Waddle, M. (2021). Strategic maneuverings and maxim violations in political question-answering. Argumentation, 35(2), 275–294.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-020-09536-7
Wijaya, M., & Rahman, F. (2023). Pragmatic strategies and voter reception in subnational elections. Discourse & Society, 34(2), 145–162.
Wodak, R. (2021). The politics of fear: The shameless discourse of right-wing populism (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Andra Ade Riyanto, Mochammad Asyar, Ade Jauhari, Januar Rizki Pratama R., M. Aprizal Umami
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with JOLLS agree to the following terms:
- For all articles published in JOLLS, copyright is retained by the authors. Authors permit the publisher to announce the work with conditions. When the manuscript is accepted for publication, the authors agree to implement a non-exclusive transfer of publishing rights to the journals.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
