TITLE

A Critical Discourse Analysis of

The 2016 First Presidential
Debate Between Donald Trump
And Hillary Clinton

By
Muzhaffar Hilmi Bin Muhammad
P79902
 THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK

The framework employed in this study

was that of Van Dijks (2004).

In this framework, he elaborates on 27

ideological strategies among which the
fundamental dichotomy of self positive-
representation and other negative
representation stand out.
 Van Dijk (2004) introduces these two
major strategies in the form of an
ideological square.
a) Emphasize Our good things
b) Emphasize Their bad things
c) De-emphasize Our bad things
d) De-emphasize Their good things
 Besides the general strategies of positive
self-presentation and negative other
presentation,Van Dijk (2004) also
introduces more detailed and subtle
ideological discourse structures which is
used for ideological discourse analysis.
 Categories of Ideological
Discourse Analysis

Actor description, authority,

categorization, consensus, disclaimer,
evidentiality, hyperbole, implication, irony,
lexicalization, national self glorification,
number game, polarization,
presupposition, vagueness, victimization.
INTRODUCTION
Overview of Critical Discourse Analysis
(CDA)

Overview of a debate.

Description of the American Presidential

Election.

Description of the American Presidential

Debate.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
During the US presidential primary
elections of 2016, one of the main
controversies between the major political
parties (Democratic and Republican) was
on the issue of the economy and security.

Both of the presidential candidates have a

different stance on the issue which were
addressed during the debate.
 Therefore, using Critical Discourse
Analysis is helpful in order to find out in
order to find out how the candidates of
each political party try to justify their
ideas and persuade their audience by
utilizing subtle ideological discourse
structures in their speech.
 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
This study is an attempt to show how the
issue of economy and security is viewed
and represented differently by the 2016
Republican and Democratic presidential
candidates of the USA in the presidential
debate.
With that in mind, there are several objectives
of this research and that is:

To identify the ideas put forward by each

political party (Republican and Democratic)
with respect to the issue of economy and
security.
To investigate how do the candidates in each
party try to justify themselves and persuade
the nation in order to win their support?
 RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The research questions in this research are
related to the objectives of the research. From
the objectives the questions are:
What are the ideas put forward by each
political party (Republican and Democratic)
with respect to the issue of economy and
security.
Based on van Dijks (2004) framework, how
do the candidates in each party try to justify
themselves and persuade the nation in order
to win their support?
 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The discourse of the presidential debates
is contextually relevant because it helps
shape the minds of the recipients, the
audience, as well as other groups,
institutions and the public.

Gaps in research.
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Conceptual framework

The Data analysis

Data
presidential (Van Djiks
transcription
debate framework)
Past Studies
Rashidi N. & Souzandehfar M. (2010). A
critical discourse analysis of the debates
between republicans and democrats over
the continuation of war in Iraq. Journal of
Linguistics and Intercultural Education.
Volume 3, pg56.
 Sami Flaifel. (2015). A Critical Discourse
Analysis of the 2012 American Presidential
Election Debates. Journal of College of
Languages. Issue 32. pg 1-26

Yang. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of

Taiwans National debate on economic ties
with China. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics.
Vol 11. pg 83-104.
Methodology
Qualitative Method.
Data: Transcription of the first 2016
presidential debate taken from The
Washington Post (September 26, 2016).
Participants: Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton.
Data analysis:Van Djik (2004) categories
of ideological discourse analysis.
REFERENCE
Rashidi N. & Souzandehfar M. (2010). A
critical discourse analysis of the debates
between republicans and democrats over
the continuation of war in Iraq. Journal of
Linguistics and Intercultural Education.
Volume 3, pg56.
Sami Flaifel. (2015). A Critical Discourse
Analysis of the 2012 American
Presidential Election Debates. Journal of
College of Languages. Issue 32. pg 1-26
 Gowhary et. al. (2014). A Critical Discourse
Analysis of the Electoral Talks of Iranian
Presidential Candidates in 2013. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences 192. pg132 141.
Van Dijk, T.A. (2004). Politics, ideology and
discourse. Retrieved November 10, 2016 from
http://www.discourse-in-society.org/teun.html.
Yang. (2013). A critical discourse analysis of
Taiwans National debate on economic ties with
China. Taiwan Journal of Linguistics. Vol 11. pg 83-
104.