CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 5Language, Discourse, Communication StrategiesLinguistics and Language AnalysisLinguistics and Discourse Analysis

ASSERTIVE ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS ON INTERRUPTION BY JOE BIDEN IN THE 2020 FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Open access
Fania Yulistiana, Widyastuti WİDYASTUTİ·2022·Celtic A Journal of Culture English Language Teaching Literature and Linguistics
DOI 10.22219/celtic.v9i1.21208
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

In a debate, interruption is a vital element because its utterance carries a distinct meaning. This study aims to demonstrate the presence of assertive illocutionary acts in Joe Biden's interruptions in the 2020 First Presidential Debate by identifying the type of interruption and assertive function contained within each interruption. This study utilizes the theory of assertive illocutionary acts by Searle and interruptions by Ferguson. The data were derived from Joe Biden's remarks in the 2020 First Presidential Debate. The results indicate that Joe Biden's interruption contains all functions of assertive illocutionary acts that aid in communicating the meaning of his utterances. The outcomes reveal that Joe Biden performed 21 interruptions, with the most parts being overlap interruptions (13 times), followed by simple interruptions (6 times), and the fewest being butting-in interruptions (2 times). In the interruption conducted by Joe Biden, assertive illocutionary speech acts were found with stating being the most dominant type (11 times), followed by claiming (5 times), complaining (2 times), reporting (1 time), explaining (1 time), and suggesting (1 time).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

OpenAlex · 10.22219/celtic.v9i1.21208

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • No one has comprehensively undertaken a specific study of illocutionary acts.

    “From those studies, the researchers found that no one has comprehensively undertaken a specific study of illocutionary acts.”

    From A SPEECH ACT ANALYSIS: ILLOCUTIONARY ACTS PRODUCED BY TEACHER IN ESL CLASSROOM (2023) · cites this paper as Yulistiana and Widyastuti (2022)

    The Introduction says previous researchers have extensively discussed illocutionary acts; it identifies a narrower gap concerning types of assertiveness in interruptions during presidential debates. It does not claim that no one has comprehensively studied illocutionary acts. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Ashfira, K. D., & Harjanto, T. D. (2020). Assertive Speech Acts in Donald Trump's Presidential Speeches. Lexicon, 7(1), 24-39. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.22146/lexicon.v7i1.64574 · DOI
  2. Beattie, G. W. (1982). Turn-taking and interruption in political interviews: Margaret Thatcher and Jim Callaghan compared and contrasted. Semiotica, 39(1-2), 93-114. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1982.39.1-2. · DOI
  3. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publication, Inc. https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/research-design/book255675
  4. Crystal, D. (2008). A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6th ed.). Blackwell Publishing.
  5. Crystal, D. (2020). Let's Talk: How English Conversation Works. In Oxford University Press (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. https://www.davidcrystal.com/GBR/Book-Detail/?bookId=79
  6. Ericson, J. M., Murphy, J. J., & Zeuschner, R. F. (2003). The Debater's Guide (3rd ed.). Southern Illinois University Press.
  7. G. Opina, K. (2017). Verbal Communication Behaviors: How Male and Female University Students Interact in Gendered Talks. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 5(5), 135. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20170505. · DOI
  8. Hidayah, P. N. (2021). The Use of Un/Marked Code To Show Politeness Among Multilingual Customers. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.22219/celtic.v8i2.16692 · DOI
  9. Husain, A., Hamamah, & Nurhayani, I. (2020). Commissive Speech Act in Indonesian Presidential Debate. OKARA: Jurnal Bahasa Dan Sastra, 14(1), 81- 98. https://doi.org/10.19105/ojbs.v14i1.3141 · DOI
  10. Khodijah, S. (2020). Illocutionary Act in Political Debate. Journal of Language Intelligence and Culture, 2(2), 141-158. https://doi.org/10.35719/jlic.v2i2. · DOI
  11. Kyrychenko, T. (2017). A communicative-pragmatic analysis of interruption realisation in modern English dialogical discourse. Lege Artis: Language Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, 2(1), 169-209. https://doi.org/10.1515/lart- 2017-0005 · DOI
  12. Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics (1st ed.). Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835976 · DOI
  13. Levinson, S. C. (2016). Speech Acts. In Y. Huang (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Pragmatics. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110214260.373 · DOI
  14. Litosseliti, L. (Ed.). (2010). Quantitative Methods: Concepts, Frameworks and Issues. In Research Methods in Linguistics. Continuum.
  15. Merrita, D. (2021). Nationalism Ideology: Critical Discourse Analysis of Joko Widodo's Speech in Indonesian Presidential Election. Celtic: A Journal of Culture, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.2219/celtic.v8i1.16474 · DOI
  16. Miller, M. G., & Sutherland, J. L. (2022). The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at Congressional Hearings. American Political Science Review, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055422000260 · DOI
  17. Pérez-Hernández, L. (2021). Speech Acts in English: From Research to Instruction and Textbook Development. In Cambridge University Press. University of Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108677073 · DOI
  18. Putra, A. H. W., Nababan, M. R., & Marmanto, S. (2019). Speech Acts Found in the Movie "The Good Doctor." International Journal of Multicultural and Multireligious Understanding, 6(5), 840-848. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.18415/ijmmu.v6i5.1150 · DOI
  19. Rahayu, F. N., Arifin, M. B., & Ariani, S. (2018). Illocutionary Act in the Main Characters' Utterances in Mirror Mirror Movie. Jurnal Ilmu Budaya, 2(2), 175- 187. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.30872/jbssb.v2i2.1065 · DOI
  20. Rohmah, Z., & Suwandi, A. F. (2021). Donald Trump's and Hillary Clinton's Interruptions in Presidential Debates. JEELS (Journal of English Education and Linguistics Studies), 8(1), 97-118. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.30762/jeels.v8i1.2359 · DOI
  21. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation. Language: Linguistic Society of America, 50(4), 696-735.
  22. Sartika, T. (2021). Critical Discourse Analysis of Donald Trump's and Joe Biden's Language in Use in The 2020 United States Presidential Debates. Proceedings International Conference on Education of Suryakancana 2021, 1, 412-417. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.35194/cp.v0i0.1379 · DOI
  23. Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge University Press.
  24. Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Searle, J. R. (2002). Speech Acts, Mind, and Social Reality (G. Grewendorf & G. Meggle (Eds.); Vol. 79). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94-010-0589-0 · DOI
  26. Shalaby, M. M. (2006). Interruption As a Measure of (Lack of) Conversational Power: a Gender -Dominance Analysis of Interruptions in Egyptian Tv Talk Shows. The Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Comparative Literature, 351-386.
  27. Sidnell, J. (2010). Conversation Analysis: An Introduction. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
  28. Sofian, E. S. (2021). Speech Acts Analysis in Joe Biden's Victory Speech. International Journal of Arts and Social Science, 4(5). www.ijassjournal.com
  29. Suwandi, A. F., & Thoriqussuud, M. (2021). A Study of Systemic Functional Linguistics: Political Ideology of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in First Presidential Debate. Journal of English and Teaching, 5(1), 166-187. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.33369/jeet.5.2.166-187 · DOI
  30. Thanh, N. T. T. (2022). Assertive speech acts of persuasion in English presidential election speeches. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 30, 666-675. https://doi.org/https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6750-0136
  31. Tymbay, A. A. (2021). Interruption as a reflection of speaker's identity in the 2020 US presidential debates. Suvremena Lingvistika, 47(92), 283-306. https://doi.org/10.22210/suvlin.2021.092. · DOI
  32. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
  33. Zimmerman, D. H., & West, C. (1975). Sex Roles, Interruptions, and Silences in Conversation. In Language and Sex: Difference and Dominance (pp. 105-129).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Yulistiana, F., & WİDYASTUTİ, W.
Affiliations
Universitas Negeri Surabaya (ID)
ORCID
Widyastuti WİDYASTUTİ
Venue
Celtic A Journal of Culture English Language Teaching Literature and Linguistics
Publisher
Universitas Muhammadiyah Malang
Published
2022-06-30
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
135-148
ISSN
  • 2356-0401 (ISSN-L)
  • 2621-9158
DOI
10.22219/celtic.v9i1.21208
OpenAlex
W4393198098
Cited by
5
References
0
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Celtic A Journal of Culture English Language Teaching Literature and Linguistics (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistics and Language Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
Keywords
interruptions, presidential debates, 2020 US presidential election, Joe Biden, John Searle, Ferguson, speech act theory, political discourse

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review