Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

The Comparison Between Evaluative Stance of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Realized in the Campaign Speeches of the United States Presidential Election 2016

English Education Journal · Vol. 9 No. 1 (2018) · pp. 25–33

DOI
10.15294/eej.v9i1.26950
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Published
2018-11-12
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare and explain the appraisal resource of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton realized in the campaign speeches of the United States Presidential Election 2016. This study is discourse analysis conducted by employing appraisal framework (Martin and White, 2005). It is focused on analyzing the appraising items of engagement utilized by the speakers in their first and last speech. The results show that in both speeches Trump produced 704 appraising items, while Hillary discovered 300 appraising items. Besides, it was also discussed that the engagement used contains more disclaim, such utilization by Trump was a medium to deliver his political agendas. While the existence of contrary position in Hillary’s speeches indicated her effort to clarify, even counter-strike all issues she dealt with. The similarities of appraising items utilized by the speakers were relied on both speeches, in the first speech, all features of engagement were deployed in the same configuration, while in the last speech, it happened only on disclaim and proclaim. Meanwhile, the differences of appraising items used were found in entertain and attribute in the last speech. In relation to the pedagogical implication, the study suggests that the English teaching and learning that adopts appraisal resource contextualized in hortatory text is an appropriate technique, the students are engaged to experience the relevant English language skills effectively and be able to produce text properly.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 144 co-authorship links · showing the 40 most connected

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

  • Institut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari
  • 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 unknown20
Dwi RukminiAffiliation unknown12
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown6
Widhiyanto WidhiyantoAffiliation unknown6
Rahayu Puji HaryantiAffiliation unknown4
Warsono WarsonoAffiliation unknown4
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown4
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown4
Abdurrahman FaridiAffiliation unknown3
Issy YuliasriAffiliation unknown3
Mursid SalehAffiliation unknown3
Suwandi SuwandiAffiliation unknown3
Hendi PratamaAffiliation unknown2
Zulfa SakhiyyaAffiliation unknown2
Dwi Anggani Linggar BharatiAffiliation unknown2
SRI WAHYUNIAffiliation unknown2
Katharina RustipaAffiliation unknown2
Agung Ginanjar AnjaniputraAffiliation unknown1
Aprilian Ria AdistiAffiliation unknown1
Siti NurohmahAffiliation unknown1
Saeful BahriAffiliation unknown1
Dian Puspita AnggraeniAffiliation unknown1
Hanum BestariAffiliation unknown1
Anik HidayatiAffiliation unknown1
Wa Ode Zulhidjah AwalyahInstitut Agama Islam Negeri Kendari1
Indah NurhidayahAffiliation unknown1
Lilis SulistiantiAffiliation unknown1
Fahmi Arif SangajiAffiliation unknown1
Atika PurwaningtyasAffiliation 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

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 5 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">The Comparison Between Evaluative Stance of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton Realized in the Campaign Speeches of the United States Presidential Election 2016</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Novi, Aris</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Fitriati, Sri Wuli</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Sutopo, Djoko</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">The aim of the study was to compare and explain the appraisal resource of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton realized in the campaign speeches of the United States Presidential Election 2016. This study is discourse analysis conducted by employing appraisal framework (Martin and White, 2005). It is focused on analyzing the appraising items of engagement utilized by the speakers in their first and last speech. The results show that in both speeches Trump produced 704 appraising items, while Hillary discovered 300 appraising items. Besides, it was also discussed that the engagement used contains more disclaim, such utilization by Trump was a medium to deliver his political agendas. While the existence of contrary position in Hillary’s speeches indicated her effort to clarify, even counter-strike all issues she dealt with. The similarities of appraising items utilized by the speakers were relied on both speeches, in the first speech, all features of engagement were deployed in the same configuration, while in the last speech, it happened only on disclaim and proclaim. Meanwhile, the differences of appraising items used were found in entertain and attribute in the last speech. In relation to the pedagogical implication, the study suggests that the English teaching and learning that adopts appraisal resource contextualized in hortatory text is an appropriate technique, the students are engaged to experience the relevant English language skills effectively and be able to produce text properly.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2018-11-12</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/26950</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/eej.v9i1.26950</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 9 No 1 (2019): March 2019; 25-33</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/eej.v9i1</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/26950/11856</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2018 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>