Melola Discovery

← Melola Discovery

Journal

The Comparison of Conversational Features Used by Joe Biden and Donald Trump in Political Debate

English Education Journal · Vol. 13 No. 1 (2023) · pp. 49–58

DOI
10.15294/eej.v13i1.71659
ISSN
2087-0108, 2502-4566
Published
2023-03-15
Publisher
Universitas Negeri Semarang
Language
eng

Abstract

Conversation analysis is used to identify the use of features in an interaction by considering the institutional settings or situation. Here, political situation is used because of the condition of controlled situation must be different. This study aimed to compare the conversational features used by Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the final presidential election debate of America in 2020. This was a qualitative study using the conversational analysis approach proposed by Schegloff (1974). The data were analyzed based on the conversational features used including turn-taking strategies, adjacency pairs, and repairs. The results found there were some similarities and differences of conversational features used by both candidates. The similarities showed both speakers preferred to use most of all turn-taking strategies, types of first and second-pair parts, and repair strategies. Besides, the differences were found in the number of conversational features used. Donald Trump tent to use more features since he used more turn-taking strategy to take the turn during the debate. In sum, in political setting, people tend to take more turn to share their idea and respond the other. It affects the use of another conversational features including the frequency of using them. Furthermore, the result of comparing using three features in a political situation becomes the novelty of this research since this setting is a rare topic in conversation analysis. This result is also contributed on enriching references of future research using conversation analysis specifically in a political setting.

Collaboration network of the authors

40 authors · 108 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 Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Different organisations
  • Same organisation
  • Affiliation unknown
  • Thicker line = more joint articles · bigger circle = more articles
Show as table
Co-authorOrganisationJoint articles
Issy YuliasriAffiliation unknown5
Widya AmaliaAffiliation unknown4
Rudi HartonoAffiliation unknown4
Dwi RukminiAffiliation unknown4
Sri Wuli FitriatiAffiliation unknown3
Januarius MujiyantoAffiliation unknown3
Katharina RustipaAffiliation unknown2
Frimadhona SyafriAffiliation unknown2
Fahrur RoziInstitut Teknologi Sepuluh Nopember2
Zulfa SakhiyyaAffiliation unknown2
Abdurrachman FaridiAffiliation unknown2
Indah NurhidayahAffiliation unknown1
Rahmiwati RahmiwatiAffiliation unknown1
Januarius MujiiyantoAffiliation unknown1
Annisa Nur AtikahAffiliation unknown1
SRI WAHYUNIAffiliation unknown1
Prahda Alifa FegasantiAffiliation unknown1
Fahmi MusthafaAffiliation unknown1
Urfatul MakhsunahAffiliation unknown1
Fahmi Arif SangajiAffiliation unknown1
Yesi Novita SariAffiliation unknown1
Syifa Fellashufa FadillahAffiliation unknown1
Henrikus Joko YuliantoAffiliation unknown1
Regita Widya MurtiAffiliation unknown1
Elinda UmisaraAffiliation unknown1
Inne NurmalasariAffiliation unknown1
Azka Iftiani RaisAffiliation unknown1
Faiz MaulidaAffiliation unknown1
Egi RaputriAffiliation unknown1
Yan MujiyantoAffiliation unknown1
Etri WijayantiAffiliation unknown1
Luluatul Musyafa'ahAffiliation unknown1
Etik Khusnul KhotimahAffiliation unknown1
Djanuarius MujiyantoAffiliation unknown1
Tomy WidiyantoAffiliation unknown1
Rahayu Puji HaryantiAffiliation unknown1
Ayu Dewi FatimahAffiliation 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">The Comparison of Conversational Features Used by Joe Biden and Donald Trump in Political Debate</dc:title>
	<dc:creator>Shofiah, Lina</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Pratama, Hendi</dc:creator>
	<dc:creator>Joko Yulianto, Henrikus</dc:creator>
	<dc:description xml:lang="en-US">Conversation analysis is used to identify the use of features in an interaction by considering the institutional settings or situation. Here, political situation is used because of the condition of controlled situation must be different. This study aimed to compare the conversational features used by Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the final presidential election debate of America in 2020. This was a qualitative study using the conversational analysis approach proposed by Schegloff (1974). The data were analyzed based on the conversational features used including turn-taking strategies, adjacency pairs, and repairs. The results found there were some similarities and differences of conversational features used by both candidates. The similarities showed both speakers preferred to use most of all turn-taking strategies, types of first and second-pair parts, and repair strategies. Besides, the differences were found in the number of conversational features used. Donald Trump tent to use more features since he used more turn-taking strategy to take the turn during the debate. In sum, in political setting, people tend to take more turn to share their idea and respond the other. It affects the use of another conversational features including the frequency of using them. Furthermore, the result of comparing using three features in a political situation becomes the novelty of this research since this setting is a rare topic in conversation analysis. This result is also contributed on enriching references of future research using conversation analysis specifically in a political setting.</dc:description>
	<dc:publisher xml:lang="en-US">Universitas Negeri Semarang</dc:publisher>
	<dc:date>2023-03-15</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/71659</dc:identifier>
	<dc:identifier>10.15294/eej.v13i1.71659</dc:identifier>
	<dc:source xml:lang="en-US">English Education Journal; Vol 13 No 1 (2023): March 2023; 49-58</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2087-0108</dc:source>
	<dc:source>2502-4566</dc:source>
	<dc:source>10.15294/eej.v13i1</dc:source>
	<dc:language>eng</dc:language>
	<dc:relation>https://journal.unnes.ac.id/sju/eej/article/view/71659/25117</dc:relation>
	<dc:rights xml:lang="en-US">Copyright (c) 2023 English Education Journal</dc:rights>
</oai_dc:dc>