Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

A Comparison Between Trump’s and Clinton’s Commissive Speech Act in America’s Presidential Campaign Speech

English Education Journal · Vol. 8 No. 2 (2018) · pp. 221–228

DOI
10.15294/eej.v8i3.21391
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Published
2018-03-22
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

This study aims to compare Trump’s and Clinton’s commissive speech act which include its types and functions. Descriptive qualitative method is applied in this study. The data were analyzed by using commissive speech act instrument adapted from Searle and Vandervecken. The result shows that there are six types of commissive speech act used by Trump. They are promising, threatening, pledging, offering, refusing, and assuring, the functions of which are to give solution, to insult, to show care, to threaten, to encourage, and to convince. Meanwhile Clinton only used two types of commissives; promise and assure. These types have the functions to give solution, to show care, and to convince. Regarding their similarities, it is found that both of them used two similar commissives; promising and assuring. In addition, promising becomes the most dominant type found. They also use these speech acts to give solution, show care, and convince the audience. Meanwhile as for the differences, it is found that Trump used more types of commissive speech act rather than Clinton did. They are threatening, pledging, offering, and refusing. Trump also used more functions of his commissive speech act that are as threatening, insulting, and encouraging.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 139 co-authorship links · 1 across different organisations · showing the 40 most connected

Hover or tap a name to highlight its co-authors. Double-click to open the author's page.

  • Politeknik Negeri Malang
  • University of Brawijaya
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Januarius MujiyantoAffiliation unknown16
Dwi RukminiAffiliation unknown10
Mursid SalehAffiliation unknown7
Issy YuliasriAffiliation unknown6
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown5
Abdurrahman FaridiAffiliation unknown5
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown4
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown4
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown3
Widhiyanto WidhiyantoAffiliation unknown3
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown3
Jumadi JumadiAffiliation unknown2
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown2
Wahyu Nur HidayatPoliteknik Negeri Malang1
Rahmana Ilmi HakimUniversity of Brawijaya1
Ellvina Pramitadewi PramitadewiAffiliation unknown1
Fauziyatur RohmahAffiliation unknown1
Aldhy Sigma Lintang PamungkasAffiliation unknown1
Heri CahyonoAffiliation unknown1
Moh. AsroriAffiliation unknown1
Dzulkifli AbdullahAffiliation unknown1
Moh. Ilhami HakimAffiliation unknown1
Dwi AngganiAffiliation unknown1
M. Syaeful Rizki UAffiliation unknown1
Amalia RahmawatiAffiliation unknown1
Daniela Elivas HastunarAffiliation unknown1
Ahmad SofwanAffiliation unknown1
Bambang Ruby SugiartoAffiliation unknown1
Hendro KuncoroAffiliation unknown1
Arina YuliartiAffiliation unknown1
Muhammad Ari SaputraAffiliation unknown1
Agnes Arum BudianaAffiliation unknown1
Trias SeptianingsihAffiliation unknown1
Abdul KhalimAffiliation unknown1
Ernidawati ErnidawatiAffiliation unknown1
Evita Ardy PrabasiwiAffiliation unknown1
Retno ApriliyantiAffiliation unknown1

Affiliations come from OpenAlex; journal OAI-PMH metadata carries none. Authors without an OpenAlex ID are matched by name, which can merge or split people.

Metadata source: OAI-PMH (metadata jurnal) https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/index.php/eej/oai, first harvested 5 Nov 2026, last seen 8 Nov 2026.
Original metadata (oai_dc)
<oai_dc:dc xmlns="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/  http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
	<dc:title xml:lang="en-US">A Comparison Between Trump’s and Clinton’s Commissive Speech Act in America’s Presidential Campaign Speech</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Ulum, Miftakhul</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Sutopo, Djoko</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Warsono, Warsono</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">This study aims to compare Trump’s and Clinton’s commissive speech act which include its types and functions. Descriptive qualitative method is applied in this study. The data were analyzed by using commissive speech act instrument adapted from Searle and Vandervecken. The result shows that there are six types of commissive speech act used by Trump. They are promising, threatening, pledging, offering, refusing, and assuring, the functions of which are to give solution, to insult, to show care, to threaten, to encourage, and to convince. Meanwhile Clinton only used two types of commissives; promise and assure. These types have the functions to give solution, to show care, and to convince. Regarding their similarities, it is found that both of them used two similar commissives; promising and assuring. In addition, promising becomes the most dominant type found. They also use these speech acts to give solution, show care, and convince the audience. Meanwhile as for the differences, it is found that Trump used more types of commissive speech act rather than Clinton did. They are threatening, pledging, offering, and refusing. Trump also used more functions of his commissive speech act that are as threatening, insulting, and encouraging.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2018-03-22</dc:date>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/article</dc:type>
	<dc:type>info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion</dc:type>
	<dc:type xml:lang="en-US">Peer-reviewed Article</dc:type>
	<dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
	<dc:identifier>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/21391</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/eej.v8i3.21391</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 8 No 2 (2018): June 2018; 221-228</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/eej.v8i3</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/21391/10648</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2018 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>