CHAPTER II REVIEW ON LITERATURE

CHAPTER II REVIEW ON LITERATURE This chapter is divided into two parts: (1) theoretical framework that contains the theory dealing with this research and is applied to analyze the data. In this part, the writer explains Appraisal theory which is begun with the explanation of Systemic Functional Linguistics as the approach of this research. The next is the explanation of one aspect of Appraisal theory that is judgment as

  the theory applied to dissect the data of this research, (2) the review on the related researches clarifying the previous research which is related to this research.

  B.1 Theoretical Framework B.1.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics

  This research applies Halliday’s approach to analyze a language used appropriate to the language function that is to interact. This Halliday’s approach is called by Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) or sometimes called as Systemic Functional Grammar (SFG). Halliday draw SFG as grammar which is based on the functional approach. This grammar is used as source to say the purpose of the connection between spoken or written situation and culture which is appeared.

  Halliday develops three metafunctions namely ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning. Ideational meaning is meanings about the world. This involves looking at what topics get talked about, when, by whom, and how topic transition and closure is achieved, etc. Interpersonal meaning is meaning about roles and relationship, this involves looking at what kind of role relations are established through talk, what attitudes interactants express to and about each other, what kind of things they find funny, and how they negotiate to take turns, etc. While textual meaning is meanings about the messages, this involves looking at different types of cohesion used to tie chunks of the talk together, different patterns of salience and foregrounding, etc.

  As the explanation in previous chapter that Appraisal theory is a part of interpersonal meaning in a discourse which in register level is in form of tenor (see page 6). Tenor refers to the role handled by the participants in a text. It represents the social reality realizing the negotiation of the social relationship among the participants (Martin, 1992: 532). The participants, here, cover the writer of the text, the people of the things involved in a text and the readers or the audiences, as the addressees or the communicants. It mediates these relationships along three dimensions, i.e. status, contact and effect.

  a.

  Status explores the relationship of the interlocutors in culture’s social hierarchy. Status clarifies the interdependency level between the writer and the participants, the writer and the reader/s, and between the participants involved either equal or unequal.

  b.

  Contact represents the familiarity of language among the users, whether it is understandable or not. Hasan in Martin (1992: 529) states that contact refers to social distance, which for it is determined by frequency and the range of previous interaction. It is broken down into involved and uninvolved depending on familiarity of participants with each other. Poynton in Martin suggests the realization principle for contact needs to be considered from the point of view system and process.

  c.

  And effect deals with the judgment or the assessment of the writer to the reader/s and the participant/s in a text. The assessment can be positive or negative. It relatively depends on how the writer positions him/herself in the subject in question. Affect, according to Martin, refers to the degree of emotional charge in the relationship between participants. Seeing the explanation of three dimensions above, affect is the most appropriate dimension which is dealt with one category of Appraisal theory that is judgment. The following is the explanation of Appraisal theory and the elements of it.

  B.1.1.1 Appraisal Theory

  Appraisal theory is an analytical framework of the language used in expressing the attitude towards something. The theory is divided into three subsystems namely Attitude, Engagement and Graduation. Each subsystem has several subcategories. Here is a figure of the overall framework of Appraisal theory:

AFFECT ATTITUDE APPRECIATION JUDGEMENT CONTRACT APPRAISAL THEORY ENGAGEMENT EXPAND FORCE GRADUATION FOCUS

  

Figure 1. Framework of Appraisal theory (based on Martin & White, 2005)

  Attitudes are related to the evaluation of thing, character, person, and feeling. Graduation is how the attitude is applied, and one thing that should be paid attention about attitude is the gradable attitude. While engagement related to the attitude is divided into two types that is contract related to the source of attitude that is not coming from the writer and expand related to the source of attitude coming only from the writer (Martin via Widya, 2008: 97). In this study the researcher only used one subcategory of the attitude subsystem that is judgment to dissect public comments.

  B.1.1.1.1 Attitude: Judgment

  Attitude is an assessment given to an event which is expressed in the form of many reactions either affect, judgment, or appreciation. Affect deals with personal emotion as the reaction of event using words such as ‘happy’,

  ‘sad’, ‘angry’, etc. Appreciation refers to an assessment in form of respect of valuation of something. While judgment deals with assessment towards behavior, which we admire or criticize, praise or condemn (Martin & White, 2005: 35)

  Judgment is normative assessment from the person behavior side related to the behavioral rules or convention (Martin & Rose via Widya, 2008: 35).

  Judgment can be expressed positively or negatively dealing with social norms. The normative assessment is differentiated to be two kinds that are social esteem consisted of admiration or criticism and social sanction consisted of praise or condemnation (Martin & Rose via Widya, 2008: 36). As the example, the following is one of western people’s comment directed to the corrupted police shown in IPBD video: “how stupid this police in front of camera”. If it is seen from the use of word, the writer gave negative assessment to the police. In other hand, there is also positive assessment toward police as follow: “…the

  police man was very very friendly about it…”, which shown positive evaluation by admiring the corrupted police.

  (1) Social esteem covers the assessment toward normality, capacity and tenacity (Martin & White via Khristianto, 2012: 29). The following is illustrative realizations for social esteem presented in Table 1.

  Table 1. Judgments – Social Esteem (Martin & White, 2005: 53) SOCIAL ESTEEM Positive [admire] Negative [criticize] ‘venial’ Normality

  lucky, fortunate, charmed..; unlucky, hapless, star-crossed..; ‘how special?’ normal, natural, familiar..; odd, peculiar, eccentric..; cool, stable, predictable..; erratic, unpredictable..; in, fashionable, avant garde..; dated, daggy, retrograde..; celebrated, unsung.. obscure, also-ran..

  Capacity

  ‘how capable?’ 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.. 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..

  Tenacity

  ‘howdependable?’ plucky, brave, heroic..; cautious, wary, patient..; careful, thorough, meticulous..; tireless, persevering, resolute..; reliable, dependable..; faithful, loyal, constant..; flexible, adaptable..; accommodating.. timid, cowardly, gutless..; rash, impatient, impetuous..; hasty, capricious, reckless..; weak, distracted, despondent..; unreliable, undependable..; unfaithful, disloyal, inconstant..; stubborn, obstinate, willful..

  According to Martin and Rose (via Widya, 2008: 25), social esteem or also called as personal judgment is normative assessment which is not dealt with legalization in law. (2)

  Social sanction on the other hand is more often codified in writing, as edicts, decrees, rules, regulations and laws about how to behave as surveilled by church and state with penalties and punishments as levers against those not complying with the code. Sharing values in this area underpins civic duty and religious observances (Martin & White, 2005: 52). While the illustrative realizations for social sanction are presented in Table 2 below.

  Table 1. Judgments – Social Sanction (Martin & White, 2005: 53) SOCIAL SANCTION ‘mortal’ Positive [praise] Negative [condemn] Veracity [truth]

  ‘how honest?’ truthful, honest, credible..; frank, candid, direct..; discrete, tactful.. dishonest, deceitful, lying..; deceptive, manipulative, devious..; blunt, blabbermouth..

  Propriety [ethics]

  ‘how far beyond reproach’ good, moral, ethical..; law abiding, fair, just..; sensitive, kind, caring..; unassuming, modest, humble..; polite, respectful, reverent..; altruistic, generous, charitable.. bad, immoral, evil..; corrupt, unfair, unjust..; insensitive, mean, cruel..; vain, snobby, arrogant..; rude, dsicourteous, irreverent..; selfish, greedy, avaricious..

  The parameters for organizing judgment reflect grammatical distinctions in the system of modalization (Halliday via Martin & White, 2005: 54) which the proportions are normality to usuality, capacity to ability, tenacity to inclination, veracity to probability and propriety to obligation.

  Halliday’s work on mood, modality and interpersonal metaphor provides the bridge between interpersonal grammar and appraisal which underpins these connections (Halliday 1994, Martin 1992b, 1995b via Martin and White, 2005: 54). The following are the realization of that modal opposition: 1.

  Modalizations of probability in Mood can be related to lexicalized judgments of veracity:

• He’s certainly naughty.
• It’s true, honest, credible, authentic, bogus, etc.

  2. Modalities of usuality which can be related to lexicalized judgments of normality:

• He’s often naughty.
• It’s normal, average, fashionable, peculiar, odd, etc.

3. Modalities of ability can be related to judgments of capacity:

• He can go.
• He’s healthy enough, mature enough, clever enough, etc.

  4. Modulations of inclination can be related to lexicalized judgments of tenacity: I will go.

• I’m resolute, steadfast, unyielding, unflinching, etc.
• 5.

  And modulations of obligation can be related to lexicalized judgments of propriety: You should go.

• It’d be corrupt, insensitive, arrogant, selfish, rude, etc.
• The words typed in bold are the example of realizations of each type of judgment. Judgment of veracity can be lexicalized by the use of modalization of probability ‘certainly’, judgment of normality by the use of modality of usuality such as often, usually, sometimes, etc., judgment of capacity by the use of modality of ability ‘can/could/be able/be capable’, judgment of tenacity by the use of modulation of inclination ‘will/would/be going to’, and judgment of propriety by the use of modulation of obligation ‘shall/should’.

  B.1.2 Discourse Analysis

  Besides using Appraisal theory, this study also applied discourse analysis to explain the data further after they are dissected using judgment aspect.

  Because it is not enough if the data in this study is analyzed only using Appraisal theory, it needs another theory to know and interpret the message contained in the data using discourse analysis. As stated by Little John (via Laili, 2013: 8) stated that discourse analysis was born from the realization that the issues contained In this communication is not limited to the use of sentence or parts of sentence, speech function, but also covers the structure of the message is more complex and inherently called discourse. The conclusion that can be drawn from the definition above is that discourse analysis is the study covering, analyzing, and interpreting a message contained on the written or spoken discourse that is meant by the speaker or writer then can be understood by the listener or reader.

  B.2 Review on Related Researches

  This research used comments which are written by two different groups of public in reacting one issue (IPBD video) to see the potential differences inside their assessment, premise and view remembering that each person has different way of thinking. Research analyzing comments has been done by Khristianto (2012) which analyzed comments of two different communities (Indonesian and Western) on perceiving the issue of Innocence of Moslem (IM) film. Here is his result:

  

Perbedaan opini dari kedua kelompok masyarakat tersebut

memperlihatkan perbedaan nilai dan ideology yang

dianut.Masyarakat Indonesia yang sangat religious dan selalu

berpegang pada agama dalam melihat segala sesuatu sangat

berlawanan dengan masyarakat Barat yang lebih banyak

menyandarkan segala sesuatunya pada logika dan akalnya saja

  (Khristianto, 2012: 67). His result of the study says that the difference of opinion from both groups of society (Indonesian and Western) toward issue of IM shown the difference assessment and ideology each hold. Indonesian Moslem always holds on to the religion in seeing anything and so contrary to the Western people who are more leaning anything to their logic and mind.

  There is also another research which has been done by applying Appraisal theory. One of them is done by Liu (2013) entitled Evaluation in Chinese

  University EFL Students’ English Argumentative Writing: An Appraisal Study. This

  study investigated the use of evaluative language between the high- and low- rated English argumentative essays by two Chinese university EFL students. This study used all elements of Appraisal theory which found that the high-rated essay successfully employed appraisal values to foreground authorial voice and position readers, thus manipulating arguablity of utterances and building strong persuasion (Liu, 2013: 1).

  Another research is done by Widya (2008) on her master thesis entitled “Analisis Sistem Appraisal dan Ideologi dalam Kolom Punk-Zine”. She explored the appraisal system found in punk-zine columns in order to identify ideology that the writer wants to present to the readers. The result of her study is that the writer’s attitude identified through appraisal devices in punk-zine column. The attitude that writer wants to tell to the reader, are (1) negative attitude and assessment given by the writer to the government and the government supporting party, (2) positive attitude and assessment to punk music and circumstances, (3) on negative and positive attitude and assessment. In addition, ideology that the writer wants to present is opposed to the government and supporting the free thought and free speaking (Widya, 2008: xv).

  Suherman (2008) also explored the appraisal system employed by Suara

  

Merdeka and Meteor Daily Newspaper in their crime news on which to identify

  the similarities and differences between the two with respect to readers’ positioning. His master thesis result revealed that both daily newspapers employ the same appraisal devices with somehow different proportions. The differences between the two lie on the issues, such as (1) Suara Merdeka presents argumentative news items focusing on who did what, and where, while Meteor presents chronological narratives of the crime news; (2) Suara Merdeka does not employ code-switching while Meteor does by occasionally turning from Indonesian and to Javanese at word level; (3) Suara Merdeka simply presents objective facts without flavor of the journalist while Meteor’s news items may be subjective and consist of additional information according to the journalist’s interpretation of the event (Suherman, 2008: xiv).

  Another research is also done by Milasari (2006) who analyzed Martin Luther King Jr.’S speech entitled ‘I have a dream’. The result of her research is that the speech employs three kinds of attitude; affect, judgment and affect.

  There are 172 chunks consists of 35 affect, 84 judgment and 53 appreciation. All clause-complexes have attitude. The use of judgment dominates the percentage of attitudes used. 2) Dealing with the feelings of the speech “I have a dream”, Martin Luther King Jr. reflected himself through 35 affect, 84 judgments and 53 appreciations. His statements represented himself as a good orator and a great revolusioner with his high capability and wonderful way of thinking (Milasari, 2006: vii).

  The researcher used those researches and journals as guiding in analyzing the data used in this research. In addition by seeing the results and findings of those researchers also can be used as the measurement for this research in analyzing and defining the data which is in form of comments.