Critical Conversation Analysis: the study of 14th presidential election debates based on turn taking, membership categorization, and preference organization

Conversation is a key tool in media debates during elections, playing a role in shaping public opinion and increasing participation. This structured arena reproduces rival ideologies and mobilizes public opinion by representing power relations and social inequalities through language. The main research question is: How do the conversational tools used by candidates—especially turn-taking, membership categorization, and preference organization—impact the formation of political power and identities?

This study uses a Critical Conversation Analysis approach to examine the debates between the two candidates of the 14th Iranian presidential election between Masoud Pezeshkian and Saeed Jalili. The focus is on turn-taking mechanisms,, membership categorization,, social role classification, and the preference organization within the discourse. Data are extracted from transcribed debates and analyzed using Jefferson’s transcription system and quantitative analysis tools.

The findings show that language in the political context is not merely a tool for message transmission, but a mechanism for producing power, reproducing collective identities, and managing ideological conflicts. Qualitative findings indicate that membership categorization, through the active distinction between “us” and “them,” reinforces identity and ideological boundaries, turning discursive competition into a struggle for political legitimacy.

The turn-taking pattern also reveals that controlling the flow of speech, redefining topics, and managing questions serve as tools to establish verbal superiority. When interacting with membership categorization and the intensity of confrontation, these mechanisms represent power structures at the micro-discursive level.