Qualitative analysis reveals distinct linguistic characteristics in campaign messages by political parties, highlighting cohesive devices and voter segmentation.
This article examines the linguistic strategies employed by political parties in crafting campaign messages through election banners, utilizing a Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) approach. The study focuses on identifying language patterns and cohesive devices found in five campaign banners representing various political parties. This research addresses a notable gap in the literature on Indonesian language studies, particularly in the domain of critical discourse analysis of political visual texts such as campaign banners, which have received limited scholarly attention. It offers a novel perspective on the ideological construction of meaning within outdoor media discourse as a form of language practice in Indonesia’s socio-political context. This study adopts a qualitative descriptive method guided by Fairclough’s model of critical discourse analysis. Data analysis was conducted through three stages: textual analysis, analysis of discourse practice, and analysis of social practice. Each banner was analyzed to uncover hidden meanings, linguistic structures, as well as rhetorical and persuasive strategies embedded within the campaign messages. The findings reveal that each political party exhibits distinct linguistic characteristics shaped by its ideological stance, voter segmentation, and political communication strategy. Populist diction, repetition, collective pronouns, and causal conjunctions were identified as key cohesive devices used to construct political identity and reinforce legitimacy. The practical implications of this study suggest that an understanding of linguistic strategies in campaign banners can be effectively integrated into Indonesian language education, particularly in teaching persuasive texts and political media discourse. Furthermore, the results may serve as a valuable reference for enhancing students’ critical literacy regarding political language, while fostering ethical awareness in the use of language in public discourse.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Samsulhadi et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: