Cover not available

Article In: English Text Construction: Online-First Articles

Turn-taking and argumentation in the 2020 US presidential debate

ORCiD logo with link | Universitas PadjadjaranSumedang
ORCiD logo with link | Universitas PadjadjaranSumedang
 | Universitas PadjadjaranSumedang
 | Universitas PadjadjaranSumedang
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
Intense argumentation characterised the 2020 U.S. presidential debate. This study investigates the turn-taking strategies employed by Donald Trump and Joe Biden to build their arguments during the debate. The analysis draws on Stenström, Anna-Brita. 2014. An introduction to spoken interaction. London & New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar framework of turn-taking and Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar model of argumentation. A qualitative method is used, with data consisting of selected utterances from the first and second rounds of presidential debate videos obtained from C-SPAN. The findings indicate that “taking the turn” and its various subcategories are employed predominantly and assertively. Trump uses them to dominate the floor, while Biden adopts a more measured and structured approach. Trump’s arguments are characterised by assertive claims, specific backing, and repetition; Biden, by contrast, structures his arguments through data and warrants. Both candidates make use of distinct sub-strategies of “holding the turn” as they organise and deliver their logical arguments.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Method
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Taking the turn in forming arguments
    • 4.2Holding the turn in forming arguments
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Author queries
  • References
References (27)
References
Belmont University. 2020. Final 2020 presidential debate takes place on October 22. Office of Communications. [URL]
Benoit, William. L. 2007. Determinants of defense in presidential debates. Communication Research Reports 24(4). 319–325. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, William. L., Glenn J. Hansen & Rebecca M. Verser. 2003. A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs 70(4). 335–350. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoit, William. L., Mitchell S. McKinney & R. Lance Holbert. 2001. Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs 68(3). 259–273. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bilmes, Jack. 2014. Preference and the conversation analytic endeavor. Journal of Pragmatics 641. 52–71. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
C-SPAN. 2020. First 2020 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden [Video]. C-SPAN. [URL]
Commission on Presidential Debates. 2020. General election debate schedule. [URL]
. n.d.. About the CPD. Retrieved September 13, 2025, from [URL]
Craig, Geoffrey. 2016. Performing politics: Media interviews, debates and press conferences. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansson, Sten. 2018. Analysing opposition-government blame games: Argument models and strategic maneuvering. Critical Discourse Studies 15(3). 228–246. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hayashi, Makoto. 2013. Turn allocation and turn sharing. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 167–190. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 57–76. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutchby, Ian & Robin Wooffitt. 2008. Conversation analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kondik, Kyle. 2024. Notes on the state of politics: May 7, 2024. The Center for Politics. [URL]
Levinson, Stephen C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
NBC News. 2020. Final 2020 presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden [Video]. YouTube. [URL]
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4). 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1997. Third turn repair. In Gregory R. Guy, Crawford Feagin, Deborah Schiffrin, & John Baugh. (eds.), Towards a social science of language: Papers in honor of William Labov. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel A., Gail Jefferson & Harvey Sack. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53(2). 361–382.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schubert, Christoph. 2019. “OK, well, first of all, let me say …”: Discursive uses of response initiators in US presidential primary debates. Discourse Studies 21(4). 438–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack & Tanya Stivers (eds.). 2013. The handbook of conversation analysis. West Sussex: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stenström, Anna-Brita. 2014. An introduction to spoken interaction. London & New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 2003. The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tuman, Joseph S. 2007. Political communication in American campaigns. USA: Sage PublicationsGoogle Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Eemeren, Frans H. & Rob Grootendorst. 2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue