Appraisal In The Inaugural Addresses Of The Presidents Of America From Bush Senior To Obama
APPRAISAL IN THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES OF THE
PRESIDENTS OF AMERICA FROM BUSH SENIOR TO OBAMA
THESIS
BY
FERDIANTO YUSUF DAULAY
087009009/LNG
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MEDAN
2010
S
E
K O L A H
P A
S C
A S A R JA
N
(2)
APPRAISAL IN THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES OF THE
PRESIDENTS OF AMERICA FROM BUSH SENIOR TO OBAMA
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora in Linguistics at the Postgraduate School
University of Sumatera Utara
BY
FERDIANTO YUSUF DAULAY
087009009/LNG
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MEDAN
2010
(3)
Judul Tesis :
APPRAISAL IN THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES
OF THE PRESIDENTS OF AMERICA FROM
BUSH SENIOR TO OBAMA
Nama Mahasiswa :
Ferdianto Yusuf Daulay
Nomor Pokok : 087009009
Program Studi : Linguistik
Menyetujui
Komisi Pembimbing
(Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D) (Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd i)
Ketua Anggota
Ketua Program Studi, Direktur,
(Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D) (Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Chairun Nisa B., M.Sc)
(4)
Telah diuji pada Tanggal 30 Juli 2010
PANITIA PENGUJI TESIS:
Ketua : Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A., Ph.D Anggota : 1. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd
2. Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D 3. Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed. TESP
(5)
ABSTRACT
This thesis inquires how the appraisals belonging in the Attitude sub-systems of the Appraisal Theory are employed in the Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States of America from George Bush Senior to Barrack Obama. It shows the Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation elements in the Inaugural Address texts. It also demonstrates some of the ways the attitudinal elements function to convey the meanings that the presidents want to communicate. The analysis is done in the framework of a qualitative research. The findings show that the most dominant sub-system in the Inaugural Address is the Appreciation, the second most dominant is Judgement, and the least dominant is the Affect. The findings also establish that the uses of the attitudinal elements in the Inaugural Address texts, particularly the one delivered by Bush Jr in his second inauguration, refutes common presumption that political speeches are objective and empty of emotional elements.
Keywords: Inaugural Address, Appraisal Theory, Attitude, Affect, Judgement, Appreciation, Appraising/Evaluating Items.
(6)
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini menyelidiki bagaimana elemen-elemen appraisal yang tercakup dalam sub-sistem Attitude dari Teori Appraisal digunakan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan presiden-presiden Amerika Serikat dari George Bush Senior sampai Barrack Obama. Tesis ini menunjukkan elemen-elemen Affect, Judgement, dan Appreciation dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut. Tesis ini juga menunjukkan beberapa cara elemen-elemen attitudinal tersebut bekerja menyampaikan makna-makna yang ingin dikomunikasikan oleh presiden-presiden tersebut. Analisis ini dilakukan dalam kerangka kerja penelitian kualitatif. Temuan-temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sub-sistem yang paling dominan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan tersebut adalah Appreciation, paling dominan kedua adalah Judgement, dan yang paling tidak dominan adalah Affect. Temuan-temuan tersebut juga menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan-penggunaan elemen attitudinal dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut, khususnya pidato pelantikan yang disampaikan oleh Bush Junior dalam pelantikannya yang kedua-kalinya, membantah anggapan umum bahwa pidato-pidato politik bersifat objektif dan bebas dari elemen-elemen emosional.
Kata-kata kunci: Pidato Pelantikan, Teori Appraisal, Attitude, Affect, Judgement, Appreciation, Unit-unit Evaluasi/Appraisal.
(7)
PREFACE
This thesis explores the linguistic resources belonging to the attitude sub-systems of the Appraisal Theory as they are used in the Inaugurul Addresses of the presidents of America, from George Bush Senior to Barack Obama.
Chapter I is an introduction to the background of the problems analyzed in this study.
Chapter II provides an explanation on the Systemic Functional Linguistics and the Appraisal Theory along with its sub-systems.
Chapter III is on the framework, method, and the steps of the research.
Chapter IV is an exposition on the findings and the analysis on how the appraisal in the texts function to channel the messages the presidents want to communicate.
Chapter V is a conclusion and a recommendation for further studies on appraisals.
The appendix part contains the transcripts of the 6 Inaugural Address texts analysed in this research. The clauses containing the appraisal are numbered for ease of reference to the tables in chapter IV.
(8)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise belong to Allah, the Creator, the Master, and the Sustainer of the universes, visible and invisible. May Allah’s blessing be poured down on His beloved
Messenger, whose sacrifices in introducing the religion and wisdom to all mankind no other created being’s compares to. Let it be known that my mentioning of the
prophet is not an act of creating a good image on my self, but a way of showing my love of him, the beloved of Allah, and a deliberate profession of the belief that by the grace of Allah, he alone is the master of human wisdom.
I would like to extend my gratitude to my parents, Efendy Daulay and Rohani Nasution, who have been doing anything that they could to raise me well. There are times in which I would like to just throw myself on their feet to show my humble gratitude, realizing that all the cliches would only bring disgrace to their untainted sacrifices. May the Almighty reward them with everything good in this world and the hereafter.
I thank my wife, dr. Nurjannah Nasution, whose patience, encouragement, and other invaluable helps (and sometimes reverse psychology) are the points that kept me advancing (though reluctantly) in my writing of this thesis. My special thanks is to my children: Hafiz and Ihsan. Your presence, your laughter and whimperings are my daily dose of motivation.
My gratitude next goes to my supervisors, Prof. Tengku Silvana Sinar, Ph.D and Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd, whose invaluable suggestions helped much in the writing of
(9)
this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Edy Setia, M.Ed TESP whose invaluable criticism and suggestions did much for the perfection of this thesis.
I am especially indebted to Prof. Amrin Saragih, Ph.D, who has given much to introduce the marvellous and exciting world of the Systemic Functional Linguistics. His good-natured, generous character and fine way of explaining crucial yet impenetrable concepts are among the important things that encouraged me to keep moving on in my journey through the alien zone of Appraisal Theory.
I am also thankful for the friendship between my fellow classmates and me. Thanks to Bu Emi, Ade, Pak Zebar, Bu Rani, Ricky, Ita, Bima, and others. Let us all be thankful that facebook is around to keep us all in contact with each other.
Last, but not at all least, I would like to thank the helpful staffs at Program Studi Linguistik: Drs. Umar Mono, M.Hum, Nila (the ever helpful and, by so doing, encouraging), Arif, and Kak Kar.
Medan, July 2010
Ferdianto Yusuf Daulay
(10)
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : Ferdianto Yusuf Daulay
Place/Date of Birth : Sibolga/17 April 1979
Address : Jl. Bejomuna No. 56, Kel. Timbang Langkat, Kec. Binjai
Timur, Binjai, 20732
Sex : Male
Religion : Islam
Marital Status : Married with two children
Occupation : English lecturer
Office : Akademi Pariwisata Negeri Medan
Jl. Rumah Sakit Haji no. 12, Medan
Linguistics interest : Discourse Analysis, Semantics, Pragmatics, Cognitive
(11)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT………. i
ABSTRAK………. ii
PREFACE………. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……… iv
CURRICULUM VITAE……….. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS………. vii
LIST OF TABLES……… ix
LIST OF FIGURES……….. x
LIST OF APPENDICE………. xi CHAPTER I
CHAPTER II
CHAPTER III
INTRODUCTION………..
1.1Background of the Study……….
1.2The Scope of the Study……….
1.3The Problem of the Study………
1.4The Objectives of the Study………
1.5The Significance of the Study……….
1.6Appraisal Theory Terminology………
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………
2.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics……….
2.2 Appraisal Theory……… 2.2.1. Attitude ………
2.2.1.1 Affect………..
2.2.1.2 Judgement ……….
2.2.1.3 Appreciation………..
2.2.1.4 Classification of Modals……….
2.2.1.5 Differences………..
2.3.Reason for Adopting SLT and the Appraisal Theory... 2.4 Previous Related Researches……… RESEARCH METHOD………
3.1 The Research Framework……….
3.2 The Data………..
3.3 The Steps of the Research………..
3.3.1 Data Source Collection……….
3.3.2 Data Analysis……….
3.3.3 The Instrument of the Research ………..
1 1 5 5 6 6 7 9 9 12 16 19 20 23 25 26 28 29 32 32 33 33 33 35 38
(12)
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS………...
4.1 Data Analysis………..
4.1.1 Attitude in Bush Senior’s Inaugural Address………..
4.1.2 Attitude in Clinton’s Inaugural Addresses………
4.1.2.1 Attitude in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address……… 4.1.2.2 Attitude in Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address…..
4.1.3 Attitude in Bush Junior’s Inaugural Addresses……… 4.1.3.1 Attitude in Bush Junior’s First Inaugural Address… 4.1.3.2 Attitude in Bush Junior’s Second Inaugural
Address………..
4.1.4 Attitude in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
4.1.5 Counts of the Attitude………..
4.2. Findings and Discussion……….
4.3. The Possibility of Improving the Model………..
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION………
5.1 Conclusion………..
5.2 Recommendation……….
39 39 41 47 47 52 57 57 62 67 74 75 86 91 91 93
(13)
LIST OF TABLES
No Title Page
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17
Sub-systems of Affect……… Sub-systems of Judgement………
Sub-systems of Appreciation……….
Sub-types of Appreciation………...
Points of Differences/Borders……….
Clauses for Clearing Differences………
Affect in Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address………
Judgement in Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address………..
Judgement in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address……….
Affect in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address………..
Appreciation in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address………
Judgement in Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address………
Affect in Bush Jr’s First Inaugural Address………
Judgement in Bush Jr’s First Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Bush Jr’s First Inaugural Address………..
Affect in Bush Jr’s Second Inaugural Address………..
Judgement in Bush Jr’s Second Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Bush Jr’s Second Inaugural Address……….
Affect in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
Judgement in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
Appreciation in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
20 22 24 25 27 27 41 42 44 48 49 49 52 54 57 58 59 62 62 64 67 68 69
(14)
LIST OF FIGURES
No Title Page
2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7
Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual Metafunction……….
An Overview of Appraisal Resources………
Sub-systems of Attitude……….
The Place of Appraisal in SFL……….
Flow Chart of the Steps of the Research……….
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Bush Sr’s
Inaugural Address………..
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Clinton’s First
Inaugural Address……… The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Clinton’s
Second Inaugural Address……….
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Bush Jr’s First
Inaugural Address……… The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Bush Jr’s
Second Inaugural Address……….
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Obama’s
Inaugural Address………..
Place of the New Sub-system in the Appreciation Sub-system…………...
12 16 18 28 37 47
52 57 61 67 74 90
(15)
LIST OF APPENDICE
No Title Page
1
Transcripts of the Inaugural Addresses……….
1.1Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address……….
1.2Clinton’s First Inaugural Address………
1.3Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address………
1.4Bush Junior’s First Inaugural Address………..
1.5Bush Junior’s Second Inaugural Address……….
1.6Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
97 97 102 106 111 115 119
(16)
ABSTRACT
This thesis inquires how the appraisals belonging in the Attitude sub-systems of the Appraisal Theory are employed in the Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States of America from George Bush Senior to Barrack Obama. It shows the Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation elements in the Inaugural Address texts. It also demonstrates some of the ways the attitudinal elements function to convey the meanings that the presidents want to communicate. The analysis is done in the framework of a qualitative research. The findings show that the most dominant sub-system in the Inaugural Address is the Appreciation, the second most dominant is Judgement, and the least dominant is the Affect. The findings also establish that the uses of the attitudinal elements in the Inaugural Address texts, particularly the one delivered by Bush Jr in his second inauguration, refutes common presumption that political speeches are objective and empty of emotional elements.
Keywords: Inaugural Address, Appraisal Theory, Attitude, Affect, Judgement, Appreciation, Appraising/Evaluating Items.
(17)
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini menyelidiki bagaimana elemen-elemen appraisal yang tercakup dalam sub-sistem Attitude dari Teori Appraisal digunakan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan presiden-presiden Amerika Serikat dari George Bush Senior sampai Barrack Obama. Tesis ini menunjukkan elemen-elemen Affect, Judgement, dan Appreciation dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut. Tesis ini juga menunjukkan beberapa cara elemen-elemen attitudinal tersebut bekerja menyampaikan makna-makna yang ingin dikomunikasikan oleh presiden-presiden tersebut. Analisis ini dilakukan dalam kerangka kerja penelitian kualitatif. Temuan-temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sub-sistem yang paling dominan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan tersebut adalah Appreciation, paling dominan kedua adalah Judgement, dan yang paling tidak dominan adalah Affect. Temuan-temuan tersebut juga menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan-penggunaan elemen attitudinal dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut, khususnya pidato pelantikan yang disampaikan oleh Bush Junior dalam pelantikannya yang kedua-kalinya, membantah anggapan umum bahwa pidato-pidato politik bersifat objektif dan bebas dari elemen-elemen emosional.
Kata-kata kunci: Pidato Pelantikan, Teori Appraisal, Attitude, Affect, Judgement, Appreciation, Unit-unit Evaluasi/Appraisal.
(18)
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
That how a person uses language (his choice of words, his composing the wording of his message, intonation, etc) shows his morality is something which is widely believed by our society. Our society believes that one whose language is polite is that whose morality is good, while one who has a bad language, has a bad character. This belief may be difficult to qualify as acceptable, but at least there is an implication of it that people can agree on: that there is a strong connection between the language a person uses in responding to something and his feeling about that something.
Appraisal Theory (AT) departs from a thesis somewhat similar to the last statement above. AT claims that the language a person uses describes both his stances towards the issues he discusses and the person with whom he communicate (Martin & White, 2005: 1). In other words, in the view of AT, a text is a presentation of how the speaker or presenter of the text responds to the matter(s) discussed in the text (viz. his subjective opinion about it) and the person(s) he speaks with. In short, AT is about showing the appraisal of the speaker.
To cast off confusion as to which is which, it is useful to tell appraisal from Appraisal. Appraisal is derived from the word appraise, which, in daily usage, is what the Pocket Oxford Dictionary defines as: “1. estimate the value or quality of. 2 set a
(19)
price on (esp. officially).” In short, appraisal is about making estimation or
approximation of the value of thing(s). On the other hand, Appraisal is the linguistic elements in a text that show the stances of the speaker/writer concerning the issues he discusses in the text. And, last, Appraisal Theory is the linguistics theory that discusses Appraisal in a language. Since this thesis discusses Appraisal using Appraisal Theory, the use of appraisal must be regarded as to mean the Appraisal (i.e. the linguistic elements) and not the appraisal (i.e. the estimation of value) in the first meaning above. In other words, the appraisal meant in the title of this thesis is the appraising elements or the evaluating elements in the texts.
As has been observed in the works on AT, the issue of speaker’s emotion in
text has been an interest for researchers using functionally and semiotically oriented approaches and for those whose concern is with discourse, rhetoric and communicative effect (ibid). AT can be considered a full-blown theory that provides those linguists with a systematic and thorough approach in doing the research on the issue of speaker’s emotion in any text.
Inaugural Address is the speech delivered by an elected president of the United States of America at his Inauguration. The inauguration is usually held on January 20th of the year subsequent to a presidential election year. Before 1933, the inauguration is held on March 4th, the beginning day of a presidents term. But the twentieth amendment to the American constitution changed the date to January 20th because:
(20)
“…it was felt that there was just too much time between an election and the
swearing-in of the new president, and the Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1933, shortened the gap and the time a sitting president served in a “lame duck” capacity”(Genovese & Han, 2009: 626). As an example of this, the current president of America, Barrack Hussein Obama, won the presidential election of 2008 and delivered his Inaugural Address on the day of Tuesday, January 20, 2009.
The Inaugural Address of the President of the United States of America has always been a momentous event in the politics of the world. The world sees the Inaugural Address as the sneak preview, a kind of ‘abstract’ of the actions that the
new president will take in his presidency. Therefore, the Inaugural Address has always been anticipated with great interest by nations across the world. The writer may need to add that the last Inaugural Address viz. the one delivered by Barrack Hussein Obama, the 44th President of America, was watched by roughly 10 million people across the globe. This is a factor that motivates the writer to perform a study on the Inaugural Address of the President of America.
In an Inaugural Address, a president usually evaluates things around and pertaining to their speeches. Due to this evaluative nature, Inaugural Addresses of the presidents of the United States of America are also the objects of study for Appraisal Theory.
Inaugural Address is a political speech. It is basically a formal self-introduction by an elected president to his people. As with other political speeches, the most important aspect of this inauguration speech is creating good image: making
(21)
the president looks agreeable to and likened by his people in the very first formal meeting between him and the people. Therefore, Inaugural Speeches have their own forms and characteristics. It is hoped that this study will bring out some of the characteristics of Inaugural Addresses that will help to understand the nature of them and how they function to convey the messages of the presidents.
Another factor that makes researches on political speeches interesting is the common presumption that the language used in politics is devoid of emotional touches and subjective assumption, as well as being highly complicated. Political language is thought to be objective/unbiased, scientific, and far from being overt in showing emotion. This is a challenging assumption that needs to be dealt with using AT. It is hoped that this research will show the effectiveness of the systematic approach that makes up the whole body of AT in uncovering the elements of emotion in any text.
Last, the choosing of the last four presidents of America is because (other than their ‘currentness’) of the ‘dark’ images that overshadow the presidency of the three
of them: Bush Senior is overshadowed by the 1991 Gulf War, Clinton the sex scandal, and Bush Junior war on terrorism. Barrack Obama, on the other hand, is a major turning point in the foreign diplomacy of America. Being a Democrat, he stands as the monument of the will of the majority of American voters to change the international image of America, to transform from the haughty, know-it-all ‘Globo
(22)
1.2. The Scope of the Study
This study is focused on appraisal in the Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of United States of America, i.e. George Herbert Walker Bush (or, George Bush Senior), William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush (or, George Bush Junior), and Barack Hussein Obama. The appraisal that is going to be studied is the Attitude aspects of Appraisal in the inaugural addresses.
Specifically the study addresses only the verbal texts, focusing only on the attitude elements in the texts; with little reference to non-verbal contexts in passage.
1.3. The Problems of the Study
This study focuses on the Appraisals (elements) that are classified in the Attitude system of the Appraisal Theory. This is to say that of the three sub-systems of Appraisal Theory (i.e. Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation); the writer picks only the Attitude sub-system. This is done not only for the purpose of avoiding the tendency of doing a tedious research, but also because of what has been explained above.
As mentioned above, the writer tries to uncover the emotional elements in the inaugural texts to prove whether the common presumption that says political speeches is objective and devoid of emotional elements is true. To do this, it is only correct to choose to employ the sub-system of Appraisal Theory that deals with feeling: Attitude.
(23)
To define the problem discussed in this thesis, the writer addresses the following questions:
1. What are the Affect elements in the Inaugural Address texts? 2. What are the Judgement elements in the Inaugural Address texts? 3. What are the Appreciation elements in the Inaugural Address texts?
4. How do the attitudinal resources function to convey the messages of the presidents?
1.4. The Objectives of the Study
In line with the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1. To describe the Affect elements in the 6 Inaugural Address texts 2. To describe the Judgement elements in the 6 Inaugural Address texts 3. To describe the Appreciation elements in the 6 Inaugural Address texts
4. To describe some of the ways the attitudinal resources function to convey the messages of the presidents.
1.5. The Significance of the Study
Findings of the study are expected to offer both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, findings of the study will promote Appraisal Theory. It is noted that there has been very few academic writings, articles, books about it in North Sumatra.
(24)
Practically the findings offer description of the nature of political speeches, especially that of American presidents’s inaugural addresses and therefore provide
the information for the future research to be done on this topic using appraisal theory especially the different approach that might be used in the analysis.
1.6. Appraisal Theory Terminology
a. Appraisal Theory: The theory that extends the interpersonal function of language introduced by Systemic Functional Linguistics/Functional Grammar. Emerged in the middle of the 90’s, it concerns with roughly the three
interpersonal aspects of texts: Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation. AT claims that the language a person uses describes both his stances towards the issues he discusses and the person with whom he communicate.
b. Affect: One of the sub-division (the other two being Judgement and Appreciation) of the Attitude aspects of AT. Affect is about the personal emotion of the speaker; it is concerned with registering positive and negative feelings of the speaker toward the issue at hand: happy, sad, bored, etc.
c. Attitude: Values by which speakers pass judgements and associate
emotional/affectual responses with participants and processes.
d. Engagement: along with Attitude and Graduation, engagement is one of the main aspects of AT. It is concerned with how writers convey their point of view and how they align themselves with respect to the position of others.
(25)
e. Graduation: Values by which (1) speakers graduate (raise or lower) the interpersonal impact, force or volume of their utterances, and (2) by which they graduate (blur or sharpen) the focus of their semantic categorisations. f. Judgement: appraisal of other’s behaviour. It deals with attitudes towards
behaviour, which we admire or criticise, praise or condemn.
g. Appreciation: evaluation of phenomena. It involves evaluations of semiotic and natural phenomena, according to the ways in which they are valued or not in a given field.
h. Inaugural Address: address/speech delivered by a newly elected president of the United States of America in his inauguration ceremony.
(26)
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Systemic Functional Linguistics
Although it has been mentioned in the previous chapter that Appraisal Theory is a full-blown theory about emotion in text, the theory is still put ‘under the heading’ of another theory: Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). SFL is the linguistics school that was first introduced and developed by the English linguist Michael Alexander Kirkwood Halliday, emeritus professor of linguistics at the University of Sydney, Australia1.
SFL analyses language from the view point of meaning; SFL is a meaning-based linguistics theory. SFL, first and foremost, views language as a resource for making meaning. It discusses how language (or, rather, elements of language) functions to convey meaning that language-users want to communicate. In a clausal (SFL does not recognize sentence) level, for example, instead of discussing what categorizes as what (Subjects and Objects are usually nouns, etc), SFL looks at who the participants are, what action is done, and in what circumstances it is done.
SFL states that there are three modes of meaning, those that fall under the heading of metafunction of language. Metafunction is the function of the function of
1 After his retirement in 1987, Halliday has been visiting various universities, one of which is the Hongkong Polytechnic University (2009), as a visiting professor of linguistics [http://isfc2010. ubcconferences.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16&Itemid=5].
(27)
language. The term metafunction thus is used to avoid confusing the notion of what being talked about with the common word: function. As Halliday puts it
“We could have called them [i.e. the functions] simply ‘functions’; however
there is a long tradition of talking about the functions of language contexts where ‘function’ simply means purpose or way of using language, and has no significance for the analysis of language itself…the systemic analysis shows
that functionality is intrinsic to language…[thus] The term ‘metafunction’ was adopted to suggest that function was an integral component within the overall theory” (2004: 30-31).
The three metafunctions of language are the ideational/experiential metafunction, the textual and the interpersonal. It must be noted that these metafunctions work simultaneously, in the same time and space, in every utterance. This means that any utterance are equipped with all these three metafunctions, therefore the three must not be separated in analysing any utterance. By this view-point, any clause is regarded as a unit of experience, and hence grammar as a theory of experience2.
In the analysis of ideational metafunction, SFL first looks at the process, going-on that is represented in the text; then what participants are involved in the process and the circumstance of the process. SFL categorizes 6 kinds of process: material (the real, physical process that happens outside of human body, represented by verbs such as eat, kick, go, cut, etc), mental (the psychological process, the process that takes place in the mind, using verbs such as think, like, want, hate etc), verbal (the process of saying, of giving information verbally: talk, tell, instruct, say, etc),
2 Lecture on Systemic Functional Linguistics by Prof. Amrin Saragih at USU’
s postgraduate
(28)
relational (the process of being: is, become, stands for, symbolizes, etc), existential (the process of existing, of being a being: is, am, come, go by), and behavioural (the process made up of both mental and material activities: laugh, dream, cough).
By textual metafunction, SFL means the function of language as a medium for a speaker to arrange his message. Textual function refers to how language-users encode their messages into texts, determine the flow of the messages, and relate the messages with the previous ones thus maintaining the cohesion among the messages. SFL analyses this by looking at the themes and rhemes parts of clauses, the types of the themes, and the un/marked-ness of the theme.
Interpersonal metafunction is the metafunction that expresses a speaker’s
attitude and judgements. Thus it is the metafunction that serves to be the basis of the whole enterprise of Appraisal Theory. In the analysis of interpersonal metafunction, we look at mood and modality. Mood in English is about the two elements (subject and finite) of a clause that determines the form of the clause: whether it is an imperative, declarative, or interrogative. Modality is about those words that mark necessity, possibility or impossibility such as should, probably, maybe, etc. Since interpersonal metafunction is the basis of Appraisal Theory, mood and modality are also objects of study in an appraisal research.
(29)
Textual
Ideational
Interpersonal
Figure 2.1. Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual Metafunction (Martin & White, 2005: 8)
2.2. Appraisal Theory
Appraisal Theory is a linguistics theory about emotion, ethics, and aesthetics. It is basically about the systems3 in a language that determine how speakers of the language should express themselves in relation to their interlocutor or audience and the topic(s) of their talks itself.
One of the linguistic insights that underlies Appraisal Theory is that when people talk, they keep negotiating their relation with others. Simple as it may seem, the process of talking is quite a complex one: people calculating the knowledge of
3 The notion of system here is the one defined by Halliday as simply “
what could go instead
of what” as opposed to “what goes together with what” [the simplified definition of structure] (Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004: 22).
(30)
their interlocutor/audience, processing the proper wordings that match their calculation of their audience’s knowledge, adjusting the proper gesture and facial expression, etc4.
Of all these things happening when we talk, one of the most important is our consideration of our relation with person(s) with whom we talk. In almost every utterance that we produce, we keep considering and considering our relation with our interlocutor. On the other hand, our interlocutor also does the same thing. This means that we are actually negotiating our stance with our interlocutor. Appraisal Theory documents the elements that we use in this negotiating stance process, classifies them, and provides exposition on how they function in real language-speaking situation; all for the purpose of describing the system of appraisal in a language. In short, Appraisal Theory is a systematic linguistic theory of emotion in text.
The notion systematic is quite important since it will answer sceptical minds that question the use of this theory. It is quite acceptable to say that we don’t really
need Appraisal Theory to analyse emotion in text as we can use our logic and natural knowledge of language to even reach the conclusion of this thesis and the like. But this question actually not only doubts the use of doing Appraisal Theory but also the whole enterprise of scientific world. For what use is it to study physics, to take an example, if we can know the physical world based on our own deduction and knowledge of it?.
4
(31)
It is because of the notion scientific implies the concept of systematic and methodical that people actually doing science, linguistics included. Science makes our knowledge systematic and by turn the sytematism produces insights on the world. To sum up, the following comment by Bednarek on the importance of Appraisal Theory is quite worthy of reading
The contribution of appraisal theory to the study of evaluation can hardly be overestimated, since it provides the only systematic, detailed and elaborate framework of evaluative language (in A’Beckett, 2009: 3).
Continuing the discussion on appraisal system, the system meant here is actually linguistic resources: the elements of language that are used by speakers to express their emotion. Although the primary resource for evaluation of attitude is
adjectives, it doesn’t mean that evaluation is only realised with adjectives. For it is
clear that in our daily expression, attitude can be evaluated from any words used by speakers.
This implies that the evaluation resources can be a word of any word-class, a word group/phrase, or even a clause. In other words, emotion can be encoded with a single word, a group of words, or even a clause, as can be seen in the examples below from appraisal homepage (http://www.grammatics.com/Appraisal /AppraisalGuide/ Framed/ Frame.htm).
No doubt the men want to sleep with her but they
also respect, like and trust her. She is upfront and gutsy. If Mel were a man, I'd have a crush on her... I would adore her as a friend.
(32)
In the example above we find appraisal elements which are words [respect, like, trust, upfront, gutsy, and adore] and clauses [want to sleep and have a crush on]
It [the E-type Jaguar] is a masterpiece of styling whose proportions are dramatic yet perfectly judged and well-mannered; its crisp details are in complete harmony with the broader outlines of the gorgeous general arrangement, and, symbolically, it evokes with exquisite eloquence all the ideas of speed, glamour and romance associated with travel. You can just feel air and bodies rushing and swooning all over that lascivious shape. Never, ever, has that creaking old trope about form and function had a better character witness (The Independent, Weekend Review: p.1 27/01/2001). The appraisal elements which are words in the above example are: masterpiece, dramatic, crisp, and others. Those which are in groups/phrases are: perfectly judged, well-mannered, complete harmony, etc. But, unlike example number 1, this example does not have elements of appraisal which are in clause.
Appraisal Theory proposes that there are three linguistic resources to express emotions: attitude, engagement, and graduation. The difference between the three is shown in the following words (Martin and White, 2005: 35).
Attitude is concerned with our feelings, including emotional reactions,
judgements of behaviour and evaluation of things. Engagement deals with sourcing attitudes fand the play of voices around opinions in discourse.
Graduation attends to grading phenomena whereby feelings are amplified
(33)
A P P R A I S A L
ENGAGEMENT monogloss
heterogloss
Affect... ATTITUDE
Judgement…
Appreciation…
raise GRADUATION force lower
focus sharpen
soften
Figure 2.2. An Overview of Appraisal Resources (Martin & White, 2005: 38)
As has been stated in chapter I, this thesis discusses only the Attitude sub-system of Appraisal Theory. The following is an exposition of the sub-sub-system.
2.2.1. Attitude
Attitude is the sub-system of Appraisal Theory that, on the whole, covers feelings. The feelings meant here are the feelings that are either explicitly stated or implicitly stated. The explicit feelings—technically called inscribed attitude—are the feelings that are clear enough to be seen without employing interpretation. On the other hand, the implicit feelings—the invoked attitude—are the feelings that are results of the interpretation of what are actually said. The following is an example of the difference:
(34)
1. He is an incompetent fool. [explicit/inscribed]
2. I don’t think he can comprehend anything. [implicit/invoked]
In example number (1), the word “fool” is an explicit statement of negative attitude towards someone. People hardly need interpretation to get the intended meaning of the word. On the other hand, in the second example, the clause “don’t
think he can comprehend anything” is an implicit statement of a negative attitude. While people will not find it difficult to get the intended meaning, the actual, literal meaning of the clause is merely a statement of an opinion. We can only say that it is a negative attitude after we employ what linguists term as “pragmatic inference” of the
clause. In other words, the meaning of the clause is not literal.
This difference is of importance since it gives an idea that although Appraisal Theory works on lexis level (Martin and White, 2005: 8), it proves to be difficult to be completely lexis-minded in doing appraisal. To name one factor for the difficulty, metaphors, which almost always work as a way of evaluating, can hardly be reduced to a simpler form, not to mention a word. It is only acceptable that we analyse metaphors based on the whole words they are made of. And this is Martin and White’s ‘invoked’ stance if we read their explanation on indirect realisation (Ibid: 61-67).
Pertaining to the above difficulty, the position the writer takes in this thesis is the one of lexis base: in the tables in chapter IV, the writer presents only the important words in the clauses in the text; and yet, in the inaugural texts, the writer bolds the whole units/group of words (be it phrases or clauses) that make up the
(35)
dis/inclination: desire, fear
un/happiness: happy, sad in/security: confident, anxious dis/satisfaction: pleased, angry
sanction esteem mm
normality: fortunate, hapless capacity: powerful, weak tenacity: resolute,reckless
appreciation judgement affect
veracity: truthful,dishonest
propriety: ethical, immoral impact: exciting, tedious quality: good, nasty balance: unified, discordant complexity: simple, simplistic valuation: profound, shallow
composition reaction
complete meaning of the words. As for metaphors, the writer first gets their literal meanings, picks the core word [or, rather, the word that can regarded as the core], then finally puts it in the table.
Since Attitude are linguistic elements by which speakers realize their attitudes, each of the three subdivisions of Attitude are grouped into two regions: the positive (or, the likable) attitude and the negative (or, the unlikable attitude). Further, the negative feeling is differentiated from the negation of positive feeling and vice versa. This is because the two are different, although on certain contexts they may be seemingly similar. For example sad (which is a negative attitude) is differentiated from not happy (which is a negated positive attitude) because, to name a simple fact, a person can be “not happy” without being “sad”.
(36)
Attitude is divided into three regions: affect, judgement, and appreciation. Below are explanations of each of the regions.
2.2.1.1. Affect
Affect is the linguistic resource used to show positive and negative feeling; whether a speaker is bored, interested, happy, sad, etc. Several examples are grief, I’m grieved, it is a sad day.
Affect is further subdivided into four types:
a. dis/inclination: how the speaker inclined or disinclined to something. The typical words classified in this region are miss, long for, etc.
b. un/happiness: emotional feeling of the speaker whether he is happy or sad. The typical words classified in this region are cheerful, gloomy, buoyant, etc. c. in/security: the speaker’s emotions which is related with his ecosocial
well-being: anxiety, fear, confidence and trust. The typical words are: confident, comfortable, trusting, etc.
d. dis/satisfaction: emotions concerned with telos—the pursuit of goals—ennui, displeasure, curiosity, respect. The typical words are: engrossed, satisfied, pleased, etc.
(37)
Table 2.1. Sub-systems of Affect (Martin & White, 2005: 51)
Affect Positive Negative
dis/inclination or desire
un/happiness
In/security
dis/satisfaction
miss, long for, yearn for
cheerful, buoyant, jubilant; like, love, adore
together, confident, assured; comfortable, confident, trusting involved, absorbed, engrossed; satisfied, pleased, chuffed/ impressed, charmed, thrilled
wary, fearful, terrorised
sad, melancholy, despondent; cut-up, heart-broken … broken-hearted, heavy- hearted, sick at heart; sorrowful … grief-stricken, woebegone … dejected …;
dejected, joyless, dreary, cheerless, unhappy, sad; gloomy, despondent, … downcast, low, down, down in the mouth, depressed …; weepy,
wet-eyed, tearful, in tears … uneasy, anxious,
freaked out; startled, surprised, astonished
flat, stale, jaded; cross, angry, furious; bored with, sick of, fed up with
2.2.1.2. Judgement
Judgement is about attitudes towards behaviour. The linguistic resources that fall under the category of judgement are used to show or to express speakers’ positions about others’ conduct: whether he admires the behaviour or not, appreciate or condemn, etc. The following are examples taken from Bush Junior’s second
inaugural address
(1) Some have unwisely chosen to test America’s resolve…[-cap] (2) Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile…[+prop]
(38)
In the first example, the word ‘unwisely’ is a judgement on the capacity of the
people who “have chosen to test America’s resolve”. The prefix ‘un-‘ in the word
signifies that the judgement is one of negative type. In the second example, the dubbing of reformers as “democratic” is a judgement on the propriety of the
reformers; and it is a positive one since in American culture “being democratic” is
usually considered a good trait.
Judgement is divided into two types:
1. social esteem: is the region of judgements in which the evaluation of people’s
conduct is based on social ethics; on a standard of appropriateness. In this region there are judgements of
a. ‘normality’ (how unusual someone is); the typical words classified in this
domain are: normal, natural, familiar, lucky, stable, etc.
b. ‘capacity’ (how capable someone is): powerful, vigorous, healthy, fit, etc. c. ‘tenacity’ (how resolute someone is): plucky, reliable, tireless, loyal, etc. 2. social sanction: is the region of judgements in which the evaluation of people’s
conduct is based on legal/religious rules. Unlike those underlying social esteem, the rules on which social sanction are based are usually codified and written. Therefore violations of these rules are usually penalized; while on the other hand, people who violate social esteem rules are only considered “unfortunate” or, at
the worst level, “strange”. The latter stigma is about the worst ‘punishment’ a
(39)
to see a psychiatrist; but, if you break social sanction rules, you need the help of a lawyer (Martin & White, 2005: 53 and Martin & Rose, 2008: 68).
Back to social sanction, this region comprises judgement of two traits
a. ‘veracity’ (how truthful someone is); the typical words classified in this region are truthful, candid, tactful, etc.
b. ‘propriety’ (how ethical someone is): polite, ethical, law abiding, etc. The table below displays what have been discussed above
Table 2.2. Sub-systems of Judgement (op.cit: 53)
Social Esteem Positive (Admire) Negative (Criticise)
Normality ‘how special?’
capacity ‘how apable?’
tenacity
‘how dependable?’
lucky, fortunate, charmed …;
normal, natural, familiar …;
cool, stable, predictable …;
in, fashionable, avant garde …;
celebrated, unsung …
powerful, vigorous, robust …;
sound, healthy, fit …;
adult, mature, experienced …;
witty, humorous, droll …;
insightful, clever, gifted …;
balanced, together, sane …;
sensible, expert, shrewd …;
literate, educated, learned …;
competent, accomplished …;
successful, productive … plucky, brave, heroic …;
cautious, wary, patient …;
careful, thorough, meticulous tireless, persevering, resolute …;
reliable, dependable …;
faithful, loyal, constant …;
flexible, adaptable, accommodating …
unlucky, hapless, star-crossed …;
odd, peculiar, eccentric …;
erratic, unpredictable …;
dated, daggy, retrograde …;
obscure, also-ran … mild, weak, whimpy …;
unsound, sick, crippled …;
immature, childish, helpless …;
dull, dreary, grave …;
slow, stupid, thick …;
flaky, neurotic, insane …;
naive, inexpert, foolish …;
illiterate, uneducated, ignorant …;
incompetent; unaccomplished …;
unsuccessful, unproductive … timid, cowardly, gutless …;
rash, impatient, impetuous …;
hasty, capricious, reckless …;
weak, distracted, despondent …;
unreliable, undependable …;
unfaithful, disloyal, inconstant …;
(40)
Table 2.2. Continued
Social Sanction Positive (Praise) Negative (Condemn)
veracity [truth] ‘how honest?’
propriety [ethics] ‘how far beyond Reproach?’
truthful, honest, credible …;
frank, candid, direct …;
discrete, tactful … good, moral, ethical …;
law abiding, fair, just …;
sensitive, kind, caring …;
unassuming, modest, humble …;
polite, respectful, reverent …;
altruistic, generous, charitable …
dishonest, deceitful, lying …;
deceptive, manipulative, devious …;
blunt, blabbermouth … bad, immoral, evil …;
corrupt, unfair, unjust …;
insensitive, mean, cruel …;
vain, snobby, arrogant …;
rude, discourteous, irreverent …;
selfish, greedy, avaricious …
2.2.1.3. Appreciation
Appreciation is about evaluation of things, of concrete, natural objects: a novel, a scenery, a house, a musical composition, or any other objects. In the following example (op.cit), the bold parts are a speaker’s appreciation of a speech. The new president's speech was elegant and well-woven, sounding a panoply of themes without seeming scattered.
Appreciation is further divided into three types:
1. reaction: related to affection. It is further sub-divided into two systems: that of
impact (whether the phenomena grabs our attention) and quality (whether the
phenomena is liked by the speaker). The typical words belonging in the region of impact are: arresting, captivating, fascinating, etc. The typical words of quality are: okay, fine, beautiful, splendid, etc.
2. composition: related to our view of order. It is further sub-divided into two systems: balance [whether the phenomena is orderly, has a sense of balance and connectedness in it] and complexity [whether the phenomena is easy or
(41)
difficult to comprehend]. Typical words of balance are: symmetrical, proportioned, unified, logical, etc. Typical words of complexity are: simple, lucid, clear, intricate, reach, etc.
3. valuation: related to our considered opinions. The typical words belonging to this region are: penetrating, profound, priceless, worthwhile, etc.
Table 2.3. Subsytems of Appreciation (op.cit: 56)
Appreciation Positive Negative
Reaction: impact ‘did it
grab me?’
Reaction:
quality ‘did I like it?’
Composition: balance ‘did it hang together?’
Composition: Complexity ‘was it hard to
follow?’ Valuation
‘was it worthwhile?’
arresting, captivating, engaging …;
fascinating, exciting, moving …;
lively, dramatic, intense …;
remarkable, notable, sensational … okay, fine, good …
lovely, beautiful, splendid …;
appealing, enchanting, welcome … balanced, harmonious, unified, symmetrical, proportioned …;
consistent, considered, logical …;
shapely, curvaceous, willowly … simple, pure, elegant …;
lucid, clear, precise …;
intricate, rich, detailed, precise …
penetrating, profound, deep …;
innovative, original, creative …;
timely, long awaited, landmark …;
inimitable, exceptional, unique …;
authentic, real, genuine …;
valuable, priceless, worthwhile …;
appropriate, helpful, effective …
dull, boring, tedious …;
dry, ascetic, uninviting …;
flat, predictable, monotonous …;
unremarkable, pedestrian … bad, yuk, nasty …;
plain, ugly, grotesque …;
repulsive, revolting, off-putting … unbalanced, discordant, irregular, uneven, flawed …;
contradictory, disorganised …;
shapeless, amorphous, distorted … ornate, extravagant, byzantine …;
arcane, unclear, woolly …;
plain, monolithic, simplistic …
shallow, reductive, insignificant …;
derivative, conventional, prosaic…;
dated, overdue, untimely …;
dime-a-dozen, everyday, common; fake, bogus, glitzy …;
worthless, shoddy, pricey …;
ineffective, useless, write-off …
It may seem obvious that the boundaries between the three are somewhat blurry. To name one point of blurriness: the things that “grab people’s attention” [reaction] are usually the things that are “worthwhile”, the things that they consider
(42)
valuable [valuation]. Martin and White proposes an exposition to help tackle this issue:
Reaction is related to affection (emotive –‘it grabs me’, desiderative–‘I
want it’); composition is related to perception (our view of order); and valuation is related to cognition (our considered opinions). Alternatively,
the appreciation framework might be interpreted metafunctionally–with
reaction oriented to interpersonal significance, composition to textual
organisation and valuation to ideational worth. (Martin&White, 2005: 57) The following table summarises the above exposition
Table 2.4. Sub-types of Appreciation (Martin&White: 57)
Appreciation Mental Process Type Metafunction
Reaction Composition Valuation
Affection Perception Cognition
Interpersonal Textual Ideational
2.2.1.4. Classification of modals
Since modals also act as a medium to express evaluation, they are also included in the region of attitude. Modals are placed in the region of judgement. 1. For modalities of probability [surely, maybe, probably…], the classification is that
of veracity. Below are examples from Bush Senior’s inaugural address.
Surely, they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme
partisanship they plainly deplore. [Judgement: veracity]
The sentence above can be interpreted to be more ethical-sound and therefore its being placed in the region of veracity is more agreeable
(43)
2. For modalities of usuality [often, normal, average…], the classification is that of
normality. The following are examples.
The president often forgets thing [judgement: normality] It’s unusual for him to be late [judgement: normality]
3. For modalities of ability and capacity [can, strong enough, capable of…], the
classification is that of ability and capacity. Some examples are He can cook [judgement: capacity]
He is powerful enough to break these four bricks [judgement: capacity]
4. For modalities of obligation, the classification is that of propriety. The following are examples.
The man should wear coat; it’s freezing. [judgement: propriety]
You must be on time. [judgement: propriety]
5. For modalities of inclination [will, intend to, resolved…], Martin and White
proposed the clasification to be that of tenacity. Below are examples. I will do it. [judgement: tenacity]
She intends to do it. [judgement: tenacity]
2.2.1.5. Differences
To avoid confusion as to which is the domain of which, Martin and White defines boundaries between the three subdivisions of Attitude. The borders are especially helpful for making an objective limit of domains which will enable a researcher to check himself whether what he is doing is still according to what it should be.
(44)
The first border to be defined is as to which entity is object to which element of attitude and what points of the entity is to be evaluated. The following table describes this.
Table 2.5. Points of Differences/Borders (based on Martin & White, 2005: 57-60)
Kinds of Attitude To Evaluate Points of Evaluation
Affect Human and other conscious beings.
Emotion, feelings, things that happen in the heart.
Judgement Human and other conscious beings.
Behaviour/conduct/character. Appreciation Things/Phenomena; be it
phenomena of nature or linguistics [language-related]
The values, composition, and the things impact on speakers.
To make the differences clearer, there are relational clause formulas [for affect and judgement] and mental clause ones [for appreciation] to check whether the appraisal elements fitly belong to the region they are thought to belong. This is displayed by the table below.
Table 2.6. Clauses for Clearing Differences (based on Martin & White, op.cit: 58-59)
Kinds of Attitude Clauses to check Examples
Affect [person feels affect about something] [it makes person feel affect that [proposition]}.
I feel happy that… It makes happy that… Judgement [it was judgement for person/of person to
do that]
[(for person) to do that was judgement]
It was unfair of you to… For you to …is unfair Appreciation [Person consider something appreciation]
[Person see something as appreciation]
I consider it beautiful… They see it as beautiful…
(45)
2.3. Reason for Adopting SLT and the Appraisal Theory
The title of this part may induce meaning different from what is intended. It is actually meant to say that anybody who uses Martin & White’s Appraisal Theory
automatically uses SLT. As may have been inferred from the explanation above, SLT is closely related with Appraisal Theory. SLT provides the theoretical basis for Appraisal Theory, i.e the interpersonal metafunction of SLT serves to be the basis of Appraisal Theory. As Martin and White (2005: 7) puts it:
As indicated, our model of evaluation evolved within the general theoretical framework of SFL.
In the part entitled Situating Appraisal in SFL of their book (2005: 33-34) Martin and White directly point out the location of Appraisal in SFL
…we can locate appraisal as an interpersonal system at the level of discourse semantics. At this level it co-articulates interpersonal meaning with two other systems: negotiation and involvement.
The quotation above is translated into the figure below
Negotiation
Involvement Appraisal
Solidarity Power
(46)
2.4. Previous Related Researches
1. Sumarsih (2009) used appraisal theory in her dissertation entitled “Penggambaran Sikap, Pendirian, dan Penilaian dalam Teks dan Konteks melalui Bahasa Evaluatif”. In the dissertation, she examines evaluative
elements in 5 text genres in Indonesian language: fiction, interview texts, scientific texts, newspaper editorials, and news texts.
2. Suriyadi (a postgraduate student at University of North Sumatera) wrote a brief paper—presented at the Pertemuan Linguistik Utara on March 2-3, 2009 in Medan—on Appraisal Theory which discusses texts presented at the scientific writing seminar at the State Polytechnic Institute of Medan (Politeknik Negeri Medan). Both the works of Sumarsih and Suriyadi contribute to the writer’s better understanding on how the Appraisal Theory works on Bahasa Indonesia.
3. A’Beckett wrote a paper (2009) entitled Appraisal in the Russian Press: the Characterisation of the Ukranian Leaders in which she does what she says as “uncover the means of inviting negative perception of Ukrainian leaders (the former President Yuschenko and Prime Minister Timoshenko) in the Russian press” (page 1). To achieve this, she uses Appraisal Theory for the analysis of
evaluative language to analyse texts of Russian newspapers. This paper is especially helpful in understanding how the Appraisal Theory works on newpaper texts to reveal emotional elements in what is commonly regarded as objective news.
(47)
4. Page, in her paper (2003) entitled An analysis of APPRAISAL in childbirth
narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style, examines child-birth narratives while simultaneously using what she termed as ‘consideration of gender and storytelling style’. There are two findings that
she mentions in the paper (op.cit: 1)
that the women and men in this study have subtly differing story-telling styles as indicated by the relative proportion of AFFECT and APPRECIATION found in their narratives…[and that] gender is also important in understanding
the speakers’ self characterization as expressed through JUDGMENT.
This paper of Ruth’s gives the writer an important view on how sex difference
somehow contributes to how a speaker uses appraisal/evaluating elements of English.
5. Miller (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/millerD/miller-bush-gore.pdf) uses only the Engagement aspect of Appraisal Theory to analyse the decision made by the US Supreme Court on the case of Bush v. Gore 2000 (i.e the case of the year 2000’s US presidential election dispute between Bush Junior and
Al Gore). Among the interesting things that she found in the research is how the justices in the Supreme Court used Engagement resources to present and strengthen their legal arguments in the debate on the case.
6. Martin, in his article in the Discourse and Society journal entitled Mourning: How We are Aligned, examines appraisal elements in the September 2001 edition of a Hong Kong-based magazine’s editorial entitled Mourning. In it, he shows how the editorial uses appraisal resources to have the readers
(48)
sympathize with the unfortunate persons told in the editorial, to align the readers with the position and opinion of the writer(s) of the editorial.
This paper is one of the important papers on Appraisal Theory in that it is from the expert on the theory that shows how the theory works to uncover people’s
attitude through their writing. It therefore contributes to the writing of this thesis in the way that it shows more clearly what the writer meant his theory is and how it should be used.
(49)
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. The Research Framework
This research is done in the framework of a qualitative descriptive research type. Qualitative researches are based on the assumption that reality is the result of interactions between men. Reality is not what is out there in the ‘real world’; reality is
what men make out of the so-called the real world. Men use symbols (particularly language) to interact, to communicate these “reality” or meaning, between them.
Therefore to get the meaning of the real world, any researcher is to study these symbols in the environment they are used; and how they are used in the interaction between men. This viewpoint is introduced and maintained by the school of thought in social sciences that is called symbolic interactionists. The leading figures in symbolic interactionists are Dewey, Cooley, Parks, Mead, and particularly Blumer, who is regarded as the founder of this school of thought (Berg 2007: 8).
This symbolic interactionists’ view corresponds to the nature of this research.
The writer seeks to establish the ways the presidents make reality out of ‘the real
world’ and how they communicate their realities in their interaction with their
audiences using linguistic symbols (resources) available in English. To do this, the writer uses the Attitude sub-system of Appraisal Theory to analyse appraisal elements in the inaugural speeches and to uncover the realities/meaning communicated by the
(50)
presidents. This obtaining meaning purpose corresponds to Berg’s explanation that
qualitative researches
“…allow researches to share in their understandings and perceptions of others and to explore how people structure and give meaning to their daily lives. Researches using qualitative techniques examine how people learn about and make sense of themselves and others” (op.cit: 8-9).
As for the nature of its qualitative-ness, this research is descriptive in that it describes the appraisals in the texts as they are without any further action such as comparing or contrasting; it delimitates itself only as a description of the phenomena being researched.
3.2. The Data
The data are the clauses containing appraisals in the texts of the inaugural addresses of the Presidents of United States of America. There are 6 inaugural address texts altogether: one text from Bush Senior, two texts from Clinton, two texts from Bush Junior and one text from Obama.
3.3. The Steps of the Research
3.3.1. Data Source Collection
One of the first steps taken in this research is the collecting of the data source, which is the transcript of the inaugural addresses. The primary source of the inaugural address transcripts is an internet site, bartleby.com, which provides the transcripts of the inaugural addresses of all of the presidents of America. Each of the inaugural
(1)
the words of the Koran, and the varied faiths of our people (69). Americans move forward in every generation by reaffirming all that is good and true that came before—ideals of justice and conduct that are the same yesterday, today, and forever. In America’s ideal of freedom, the exercise of rights is ennobled by service, and mercy, and a heart for the weak (70). Liberty for all does not mean independence from one another. Our nation relies on men and women who look after a neighbor and surround the lost with love. Americans, at our best, value the life we see in one another, and must always remember (71) that even the unwanted have worth. And our country must abandon all the habits of racism (72), because we cannot carry the message of freedom and the baggage of bigotry at the same time (73).
From the perspective of a single day, including this day of dedication, the issues and questions before our country are many (74). From the viewpoint of centuries, the questions that come to us are narrowed and few (75). Did our generation advance the cause of freedom? And did our character bring credit to that cause?
These questions that judge us also unite us, because Americans of every party and background, Americans by choice and by birth, are bound to one another in the cause of freedom (76). We have known divisions, which must be healed (77) to move forward in great purposes—and I will strive in good faith (78) to heal them. Yet those divisions do not define America. We felt the unity and fellowship of our nation when freedom came under attack, and our response came like a single hand over a single heart (79). And we can feel that same unity and pride whenever America acts for good, and the victims of disaster are given hope, and the unjust encounter justice, and the captives are set free.
We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom (80). Not because history runs on the wheels of inevitability; it is human choices that move events. Not because we consider ourselves a chosen nation; God moves and chooses as He wills. We have confidence because freedom is the permanent hope of mankind, the hunger in dark places, the longing of the soul (81). When our Founders declared a new order of the ages; when soldiers died in wave upon wave for a union based on liberty; when citizens marched in peaceful outrage under the banner “Freedom Now”(82)—they were acting on an ancient hope that is meant to be fulfilled. History has an ebb and flow of justice, but history also has a visible direction (83), set by liberty and the Author of Liberty.
When the Declaration of Independence was first read in public and the Liberty Bell was sounded in celebration, a witness said, “It rang as if it meant something.” In our time it means something still. America, in this young century, proclaims liberty throughout all the world, and to all the inhabitants thereof (84). Renewed in our strength—tested, but not weary—we are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom (85).
May God bless you, and may He watch over the United States of America. 1.6 Obama’s Inaugural Speech
(2)
Barack Obama Inaugural Address
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 My fellow citizens:
I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed (1), mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors. I thank President Bush for his service to our nation, as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition (2).
Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath. The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace (3). Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms (4). At these moments, America has carried on (5) not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers (6), and true to our founding documents (7).
So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans (8).
That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war (9), against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some (10), but also our collective failure to make hard choices (11) and prepare the nation for a new age. Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly (12); our schools fail too many (13); and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet (14).
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land (15)—a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real (16). They are serious (17) and they are many (18). They will not be met easily or in a short span of time (19). But know this, America—they will be met (20).
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord (21).
On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas (22) that for far too long have strangled our politics (23).
We remain a young nation (24), but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things (25). The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit (26); to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
In reaffirming the greatness of our nation (27), we understand that greatness is never a given (28). It must be earned (29). Our journey has never been one of
(3)
shortcuts or settling for less (30). It has not been the path for the faint-hearted—
for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame (31). Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things (32)—some celebrated but more often men and women obscure in their labor, who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.
For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions (33) and traveled across oceans in search of a new life.
For us, they toiled in sweatshops (34) and settled the West; endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth (35).
For us, they fought and died, in places like Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.
Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw (36) so that we might live a better life. They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.
This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth (37). Our workers are no less productive (38) than when this crisis began. Our minds are no less inventive (39), our goods and services no less needed (40) than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished (41). But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests (42) and putting off unpleasant decisions (43)—that time has surely passed (44). Starting today, we must pick ourselves up (45), dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done (46). The state of our economy calls for action, bold and swift (47), and we will act (48)—not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place (49), and wield technology’s wonders to raise health care’s quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil (50) to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age. All this we can do (51). All this we will do (52).
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions—who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten (53) what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand (54) is that the ground has shifted beneath them (55)—that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply (56). The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works—whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely,
(4)
reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day—because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government (57).
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched (58), but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control (59)—
the nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous. The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our Gross Domestic Product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart—not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good (60).
As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine (61), drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations (62). Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born (63): know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child (64) who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and we are ready to lead once more (65).
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us (66), nor does it entitle us (67) to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.
We are the keepers of this legacy (68). Guided by these principles once more, we can meet those new threats that demand even greater effort—even greater cooperation and understanding between nations (69). We will begin to responsibly leave Iraq to its people (70), and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan (71). With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly (72) to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet (73). We will not apologize for our way of life, nor will we waver in its defense, and for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger (74) and cannot be broken (75); you cannot outlast us (76), and we will defeat you.
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness (77). We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus—and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass (78); that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller (79), our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace.
(5)
To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West—know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history; but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.
To the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty (80), we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.
As we consider the road that unfolds before us, we remember with humble gratitude those brave Americans (81) who, at this very hour, patrol far-off deserts and distant mountains. They have something to tell us, just as the fallen heroes who lie in Arlington whisper through the ages. We honor them not only because they are the guardians of our liberty (82), but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves (83). And yet, at this moment—a moment that will define a generation (84)—it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.
For as much as government can do and must do, it is ultimately the faith and determination of the American people upon which this nation relies. It is the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job which sees us through our darkest hours. It is the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child, that finally decides our fate (85).
Our challenges may be new (86). The instruments with which we meet them may be new (87). But those values upon which our success depends—honesty and hard work, courage and fair play, tolerance and curiosity, loyalty and patriotism—these things are old (88). These things are true (89). They have been the quiet force of progress throughout our history (90). What is demanded then is a return to these truths (91). What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility (92)— a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task.
This is the price and the promise of citizenship.
This is the source of our confidence—the knowledge that God calls on us to shape an uncertain destiny.
This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed—why men and women and children of every race and every faith can join in celebration across this magnificent mall (93), and why a man whose father less than sixty years ago might
(6)
not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath (94).
So let us mark this day with remembrance, of who we are and how far we have traveled. In the year of America’s birth, in the coldest of months, a small band of patriots huddled by dying campfires on the shores of an icy river. The capital was abandoned. The enemy was advancing. The snow was stained with blood. At a moment when the outcome of our revolution was most in doubt, the father of our nation ordered these words be read to the people:
“Let it be told to the future world … that in the depth of winter, when nothing but hope and virtue could survive … that the city and the country, alarmed at one common danger, came forth to meet … it.”
America! In the face of our common dangers, in this winter of our hardship, let us remember these timeless words (95). With hope and virtue, let us brave once more the icy currents (96), and endure what storms may come. Let it be said by our children’s children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God’s grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations.