Nur Lailiyah; Djatmika Djatmika; Riyadi Santosa; Sumarlam Sumarlam
Abstract
This study aimed to describe the complaining speech act strategy used by Covid-19 survivors from the gender and education perspective. Data were collected using structured interviews with 36 hospitalized survivors of different genders. The results indicated that female patients with undergraduate education ...
Read More
This study aimed to describe the complaining speech act strategy used by Covid-19 survivors from the gender and education perspective. Data were collected using structured interviews with 36 hospitalized survivors of different genders. The results indicated that female patients with undergraduate education use the modified blame strategy, while those with non-undergraduate education use the annoyance strategy. Undergraduate women complain more politely than non-undergraduate women and use longer and more interrogative sentences to soften the interlocutor. Non-undergraduate women blame using direct sentences showing irritation. Furthermore, men with undergraduate education use the annoyance strategy, while non-undergraduates use the ill consequences strategy. Undergraduate and non-undergraduate men tend to use aggressive complaining strategies and ask for improvement from their speech partners. However, women with undergraduate education sometimes realize their complaints to their interlocutors more rudely in the form of judgment than non-undergraduate women and men, as well as undergraduate men.
Monika Widyastuti Surtikanti; Djatmika Djatmika; Riyadi Santosa; Diah Kristina
Abstract
Studies on presidential debates provide evidence that the use of boosters helps to convey strong emphasis on candidates’ ideology. This persuasive strategy is best portrayed through the schematic structure of presidential debates. Therefore, this study aims to scrutinize the boosters’ functions ...
Read More
Studies on presidential debates provide evidence that the use of boosters helps to convey strong emphasis on candidates’ ideology. This persuasive strategy is best portrayed through the schematic structure of presidential debates. Therefore, this study aims to scrutinize the boosters’ functions realized in the first American Presidential Debate 2020. This is a qualitative study with a pragmatic approach that investigates booster’s functions using the domain, taxonomy, and componential analysis. The linguistic evidence in the result shows the candidates exploited several intensifiers largely, including force indication, source tagging, accentuating, and solidarity markers. These boosters emphasize the strength of past deeds, criticizing past policies to promote definite proposals, expose repetitive emotional expression, and seek solidarity in the thesis stage. Meanwhile, in the argument stage, they function as devices for articulating offensive and defensive arguments. The results imply the essential functions of boosters in the persuasive political discourse of presidential debate viewed from its communicative purpose reflected in each schematic structure.