A study of adverbs of stance in Barack Obama and Bill Clinton speeches.

(1)

i ABSTRACT

Raka, Gde Birama Anuraga. (2016). A Study of Adverbs of Stance in Barack Obama and Bill Clinton speeches. Yogyakarta: English Language Education Study Program, Department of Language and Arts, Faculty of Teachers Training and Education, Sanata Dharma University.

The way people interact plays a key role in sharing information in communication. Discourse analysis is an interactively developing activity between speakers, who express not only factual information in the form of spoken words but also their feelings and judgments. In daily communication people communicate in certain way that they react to one another’s ideas or feelings in the conversation. Often this means that they take a “stance”.

There are two research problems in this study, they are “How is the discoursal distribution of adverbs of stance used in both Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s?” and “How is the sentential distribution of adverbs of stance like in both Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s? Therefore, the objectives of this study are to explain how is the discoursal distribution and sentential distribution of adverbs of stance found in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches

As for method this study used qualitative method. The source of the data was Youtube.com and then the data were transcripted. Therefore, the data are inform of transcripts. To analyze the data researcher implemented cross tabulations of adverbs of stance in discoursal and sentential distribution.

The findings suggested that for the discoursal distribution of adverbs of stance were located almost in every paragraph, and each of them conveys different meanings such as expressing certainty, doubt, limitation, attitude and actuality. On the other hand, the findings about sentential distribution of adverbs of stance suggested that in matter of sentential distribution, adverbs of stance were mostly occupying initial position as setting.

(2)

ABSTRAK

Raka, Gde Birama Anuraga. (2016). A Study of Adverbs of Stance in Barack Obama and Bill Clinton speeches. Yogyakarta: Pendidikan Bahasa Ingris, Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa dan Seni, Fakultas Keguruan dan Ilmu Pendidikan, Universitas Sanata Dharma.

Cara manusia dalam berinteraksi memegang peran yang penting dalam komunikasi. Discourse analysis adalah situasi dimana pembicara tidak hanya menyampaikan informasi faktual tetapi juga perasaan dan penilaian mereka. Dalam komunikasi sehari-hari manusia berreaksi dengan cara tertentu dalam menanggapi pendapat atau perasaan manusia lainnya, hal ini disebut “stance”.

Penelitian ini memiliki dua pertanyaan yaitu “Bagaimanakah penggunaan adverbs of stance dalam pidato Obama dan Clinton” dan “Bagaimanakah penyebaran adverb of stance dalam tingkat kalimat pada pidato Obama dan Clinton?” Sehingga tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan penggunaan adverbs of stance dalam pidato Obama dan Clinton serta untuk menjelaskan bagaimana adverbs of stance di distribusikan dalam tingkat kalimat.

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif. Data didapatkan dari Youtube.com lalu di transkripsikan. Data yang diperoleh menggunakan dua cross tabulations.

Berdasarkan analisis ditemukan bahwa untuk distribusi adverbs of stance dan maknanya, mereka terletak hampir di semua paragraf dan memiliki fungsi sebagai penunjuk ekpressi keyakinan, keraguan, batasan, sikap, dan kenyataan. Di sisi lain, dalam hal distribusi averbs of stance dalam kalimat, berdasarkan hasil analisis ditemukan bahwa adverbs of stance sebgaian besar terletak di awal kalimat.

(3)

(4)

A STUDY OF ADVERBS OF STANCE

IN BARACK OBAMA AND BILL CLINTON SPEECHES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

Gde Raka Birama Anuraga Student Number: 121214118

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(5)

A STUDY OF ADVERBS OF STANCE

IN BARACK OBAMA AND BILL CLINTON SPEECHES

A SARJANA PENDIDIKAN THESIS

Presented as Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements to Obtain Sarjana Pendidikan Degree

in English Language Education

Gde Raka Birama Anuraga Student Number: 121214118

ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION STUDY PROGRAM DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE AND ART EDUCATION FACULTY OF TEACHERS TRAINING AND EDUCATION

SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY YOGYAKARTA

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

vi ABSTRACT

There are two research problems in this study, they are “How is the discoursal distribution of adverbs of stance used in both Obama’s and Bill

Clinton’s?” and “How is the sentential distribution of adverbs of stance like in

both Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s? Therefore, the objectives of this study are to

explain how is the discoursal distribution and sentential distribution of adverbs of

stance found in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches

(11)

vii

ABSTRAK

Clinton?” Sehingga tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan penggunaan adverbs of stance dalam pidato Obama dan Clinton serta untuk menjelaskan bagaimana adverbs of stance di distribusikan dalam tingkat kalimat.

Penelitian ini menggunakan metode kualitatif. Data didapatkan dari Youtube.com lalu di transkripsikan. Data yang diperoleh menggunakan dua cross tabulations.

(12)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank Lord for all the blessings that I have received in my life. He had surrounded me with good people, provided me with the strength, patience and health that I really needed, and stayed with me in every single day.

I would like to express my gratitude to my thesis advisor, Dr. Emanuel Sunarto, M.Hum., for his time, patience, and kindness. He had shown his valuable support during my thesis progress by providing meaningful feedback and never ending motivation. I would also like to thank him for believing in me and bringing out the best in me.

My deepest gratitude goes to my parents, I Nyoman Wija and Ini Ary Dibyono, for their unconditional love, affection, support and prayer. I would like to thank them for always being there for me and convincing me that I deserved the best things in my life. I also thank my younger sister, Niluh Cikara. They were the reason why I kept striving and working on my goals.

Furthermore, I thank my friend, Shella, Niko, and Galih who accompanied, helped, and motivated me when I was working on my thesis. I also thank my classmates, Nenny, Marcell, Ansel, Indira, who encouraged me to keep working on my thesis. Then, I thank the people in my class D group, Penguins. I appreciated the four year of togetherness. I learned a lot of meaningful things from them. They had shown me that family was not limited to the people who shared the same blood.

(13)

Finally, I would like to show my gratitude to all PBI students and all my friends whose names cannot be mentioned one by one in this section. I was grateful for every help, support, and motivation that they had given to me.

(14)

Page

TITLE PAGE ... i

APPROVAL PAGES ... ii

STATEMENT OF WORK’S ORIGINALITY ... iv

PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN PUBLIKASI ... v

ABSTRACT ... vi

ABSTRAK ... vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... x

LIST OF APPENDICES ... xiii

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1 A. Research Background... 1

B. Problem Formulation ... 3

C. Research Objectives ... 3

D. Benefits and Significance ... 3

1. For English Teachers... 4

2. For English Learners ... 4

3. For Future Research ... 4

E. Problem Limitation ... 4

F. Definition of Terms ... 5

(15)

2. Speech ... 5

3. Adverbs of Stance ... 5

4. Sentence Linearity ... 6

CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 7 A. Previous Studies ... 7

B. Theoretical Description ... 9

1. Discourse Analysis ... 9

2. Speech ... 9

3. Adverbs of Stance ... 10

4. Placement of Adverbs of Stance ... 12

C. Theoretical Framework ... 14

CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY 15 A. Research Method ... 15

B. Research Objectives ... 16

C. Research Instruments ... 16

D. Data Gathering Techniques ... 17

E. Data Analysis Techniques ... 17

1. Observation Table 1 to Check Discourse Distribution . 18 2. Observation Table 2 to check Sentential Distribution .. 19

(16)

xii

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 22

A. Discoursal Distribution of Adverbs of Stance ... 22

B. Sentential Distribution of Adverbs of Stance ... 30

CHAPTER V: CONCLUSIONS 39 A. Conclusions ... 39

B. Recommendations ... 43

1. For English Teachers ... 43

2. For English Learners ... 43

3. For Future Researchers ... 43

REFERENCES ... 44

(17)

xiii

LIST OF TABLES

Page Table 1. Discoursal Distribution of Adverbs of Stance ... 23 Table 2. Sentential Distribution of Adverbs of Stance ... 31

(18)

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Page Appendix A Obama’s Speech Transcript ... 45 Appendix B Clinton’s Speech Transcript ... 63

(19)

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

This part consists of the research background, problem formulation, research objectives, benefits and significance, problem limitation, and assumption. Furthermore the definition of terms is also presented to explain essential key terms of this research in order to clarify the meaning.

A. Research Background

Speaking is a matter of how to deliver ideas verbally. When people speak, they will use many expressions and one of them is adverb of stance. The problem is how to make use of them appropriately and where to place such expression in the speech. This study is about the adverbs of stance used by Barrack Obama and Bill Clinton in their speeches. Adverb of stance is the expression used by the speaker that can show opinion, condition or attitude and evaluation (Biber, 1999). In this era, public speaking is essential. Therefore, we have to be able to make and deliver a good speech. For English learners the understanding of the use of adverbs is undeniable.

Adverbs of stance are used to show personal judgment or feeling (Biber, 1999). In a speech for example, we cannot be one hundred percent sure about something. Statements always involve some kind of evaluation or judgment. We can use many types of degree of certainty which are included as adverb of stance.

(20)

Biber and Finnegan suggest that adverbs of stance mean the lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment concerning the propositional content of a message (1989). Biber et al. suggest that adverbs of stance could be used to show personal feelings, attitudes, judgments, or assessments that a speaker or writer has about the information in a proposition and stance is the expression of one’s personal viewpoint concerning proposed information (1999). All the definitions focus on the expression of individual speakers or writers rather than on interactive relations. It is the characteristic of an affective style that spontaneously develops or is strategically employed in the interaction with a person or a group of persons, coloring the interpersonal exchange in that situation. The examples are being polite, distant, cold, warm, and supportive (Scherer, 1998.P38). Therefore, the understanding of these adverbs is needed to be brought and learned for English learners especially English as second language. Adverbs of stance can occupy multiple positions in a sentence. So, to put or distribute the adverb of stance sometimes can be problematic, each part has its own reasons or results. Understanding the distribution in paragraphs or sentences can help English learners to have better understanding of these adverbs. The arrangement of the adverb of stance may be vary depending on the context. To see how adverbs of stance are used and put together, and analyze sentential and paragraph distribution of these adverbs is the main idea of this study.

(21)

B. Problem Formulation

There are two research problems this research, which are formulated as follows.

1. How is the discourse distribution of adverbs of stance used in both Obama’s and Bill Clinton’s speeches?

2. How is the sentential distribution of adverbs of stance like in both Obama’s and

Bill Clinton’s speeches? C. Research Objectives

The researcher analyzes the sentential distribution and paragraph distribution of adverbs of stance. There are two research objectives formulated as follows.

1. To explain the discoursal distribution of adverbs of stance in Obama’s and Clinton speeches.

2. To explain the sentential distribution of adverbs of stance in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches.

D. Benefits and Significance

The benefits and significance of the study of explaining the discoursal and sentential distribution in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches are elaborated as follows.

(22)

1. For English teachers

This study provides information for teachers so that they would be aware of the importance of adverbs of stance. Furthermore, this study also gives some real examples in order to give factual context which covers positioning of adverbs of stance.

2. For English Learners

This research aims not only to introduce adverbs of stance but also to show adverbs of stances that are used in practical use. Adverbs of stance are important to be introduced because these adverbs are used in daily life. English learners could use this research as a reference to learn about adverbs of stance especially in discoursal and sentential distribution. English learners will be able to use adverbs of stance in actual situation.

3. For future researchers

This research provides information related to adverbs of stance classification and position. Future researchers could use this research as additional data in conducting a research related to principles of adverbs of stance. Furthermore, this research is also useful for future researchers who conduct the same researches in different fields related to adverbs of stance.

E. Problem Limitation

The researcher focused on analyzing positions of adverbs of stance in sentences and paragraphs in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches. The topic was about health care issue in America. There was only one speech for each speaker.

(23)

The speeches were obtained from Youtube and then transcripted. The transcripts were analyzed and broken down into two tables.

F. Definition of Terms

This part exposes the key terms of this research namely discourse analysis, speech, adverbs of stance, and sentence linearity. The key terms are defined as follows.

1. Discourse Analysis

According to Brown and Yule (1983) discourse analysis is typically based on the linguistic output of someone other than the analyst. The type of linguistic material is sometimes described as performance data and may contain features such as hesitations, slips, and non-standard forms.

2. Speech

Speech is one technique of public speaking. It is about delivering ideas, opinions, or persuasions verbally in front of public or audiences ( Dwiwibawa, 2008).

3. Adverbs of Stance

Biber and Finnegan (1998) suggest that stance is the lexical and grammatical expression of attitudes, feelings, judgments, or commitment of a message. Adverbs stance markers can be characterized with respect to two major parameters, which are semantic class and placement in the clause. In addition, most stance adverbs are similar in becoming setting in clause and presenting the speaker's attitude or thought in that clause (Hunston & Thompson, 2001:58-59).

(24)

4. Sentence Linearity

In the theory of informative language structure, adverbs of stance are typically used as setting Firbas (1992, p. 9).

(25)

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

This part exposes the theories used by the researcher. This part consists of previous studies, theoretical description, and theoretical framework.

A. Previous Studies

Adverbs of stance have been studied previously by Douglas Biber, Dolezalova, Kristen Precht, and Francisco Alonso Almeida - Nila Vázquez.

The study by Biber (2004) about study of stance covers the analysis of linguistic choices in discourse, which may express meanings other than literal. Biber (2004) studies the stance in multi-register aspects from a historical perspective to conclude that stance marking varies across some conditions: Stance strategies with similar function may be different from one condition to another, and they may also increase or decrease in frequency. Furthermore, for the conclusion, the majority of works generally based on historical texts deals with modal verbs.

The study by Doležalová (2010) deals with sentence adverbials in newspaper reports. She seeks for adverbial stances in the newspaper and focuses on characteristic features of individual sentence adverbials, their semantics, form and position. The findings were the semantic category of stance adverbials, the category of doubt and certainty was the most used class on the basis of the results

(26)

of the analysis. With 31 occurrences it constitutes 43 % of all the stance adverbials analyzed (72 samples). The adverbials perhaps and probably appeared with high frequency in the analyzed articles. It was expected that these adverbials, which show doubt about the proposition and express predictions and suppositions that have not been clearly proven, would occur commonly in news.

The study by Krirsten Precht (2003) discusses about Stance moods in spoken English, her interest was on British and American English. The study was about the analysis in the attitude, emotion, certainty and doubt (stance) in a large corpus of British and American conversation. The findings are assessed through an automated procedure for identifying stance, lexical items, occurring in particular grammar frames. The frequencies were analyzed with a multi-variants statistical procedure known as factor analysis which identifies co-occurrence patterns (factors). The conclusion from the study was in general conversation among adults, the Americans tended to use much more affect, and tended to use a small, pat set of affect markers as evaluations at the end of stories. The British tended to use more evidential overall, and seemed to increase the number and intensity of evidential to show involvement.

The study from Francisco Alonso Almeida - Nila Vázquez (2006) aims to find stance and the way stance is expressed through modal verbs. This study uses qualitative method and analyses about 350,000 words from eleven different English books. The main conclusion is that adverbs of stance expressed through modals are not systematically used, and the function may be affected and influenced by more than one form.

(27)

Different from the previous studies, this study aims to explain discoursal distribution and sentential distribution of adverbs of stance in political speeches to be more specific this study uses Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches. This study also exposes the sentence linearity of adverbs of stance.

B. Theoretical Description

In this part, the researcher exposes the theories used in this study. There are several theories about discourse analysis, speech, adverbs of stance and placement of adverbs. The theories are as follows:

1. Discourse Analysis

Discourse analysis is a broad term for the study of the ways in which language is used in texts and contexts (Nordquist, 2005). According to Taylor (2013) discourse analysis is concerned with language use as a social phenomenon and therefore goes beyond one speaker or one newspaper article to find features which have a more generalized relevance. Another theory from Wood and Kroger (2000) suggest that discourse analysis is not only about method, it is also a perspective on the nature of language and its relationship to the central issues of the social sciences.

2. Speech

Speech is about expressing and delivering the speaker’s ideas and feelings (Lucas, 2009). There are three main types of speech namely informative, persuasive and occasional speech (Baumeyer, 2006). Informative speech is used

(28)

to convey information to the audience about something new or important. There are a few types of informative speeches: speeches about objects, speeches about events, speeches about processes speeches about concepts. The Persuasive Speech challenges beliefs or assumptions. Persuasive speeches usually deal with controversial topics. There are three main types of persuasive speeches namely speech of fact, speech of value and speech of policy. The occasional speech is used in certain occasion (Baumeyer, 2006).

3. Adverbs of Stance

Adverbs stance markers can be characterized with respect to two major parameters semantic class and placement in the clause. In addition, most stance adverbs are similar in having scope over an entire clause and presenting the speaker's attitude or framing towards the proposition in that clause (Hunston & Thompson, 2001).

First the semantic class of adverbs of stance. Biber et al (1999, pp. 854-857) distinguish three main types of stance adverbs, based on semantic criteria, epistemic adverbs, attitudinal, and stylistic. These adverbs express meanings associated with the speaker or writer's attitude, or stance, towards what s\he is saying. Epistemic stance adverbs indicate how certain the speaker or writer is, or where the information comes from. Attitudinal stance adverbs indicate feelings or judgments about what is said or written. Style stance adverbs indicate how something is said or written (Hunston&Thompson, 2001). The term ''stance'' is used here as a cover term for the three major domains epistemic stance commenting on the certainty(doubt), reliability, limitation of a proposition

(29)

including comment on the source of information. Attitudinal stance adverbs convey the speaker's attitude, feelings, or value judgments. Biber et al (1999, p.854). Style stance adverbs describe the manner in which the information is being presented

Adverbs of stance base on epistemic criteria. Epistemic stance adverbs provide speakers comment on the status of the information presented in the main clause. Under epistemic stance adverbs, it is possible to distinguish among several sub- class. They are adverbs of stance showing certainty, doubt, actuality, source of knowledge, limitation and attitudinal.

Adverbs of stance showing doubt and certainty show the speaker's certainty or doubt about the proposition in the clause. They include both absolute judgments of certainty and indication of belief in various levels of probability Biber et al (1999, p.854) Certainty can be seen as a variety of epistemic modality expressed through epistemic comments. One type of epistemic comment is certainty expressions (e.g., probably, perhaps, undoubtedly) that provide clues to the writer‘s certainty or assessment of the truth of a statement and qualify a writer‘s attitude towards expressed knowledge (Coates, 1983). Actuality and reality adverbs comment on the status of the proposition as real life fact (Biber et al. 1999).The adverbs of the second group indicate reality or possibility (allegedly, certainly, presumably, seemingly, supposedly). The adverbs of the third group, 'assuming hearer's agreement', include once more the adverb apparently of the first group and the adverbs clearly, obviously of second group, next to naturally, of course, and plainly. Adverbs of source of knowledge show

(30)

the source of the information reported in the associated proposition .These adverbs include adverbs such as evidently, apparently, reputedly, reportedly which allude to evidence supporting the proposition (Biber et al, 1999). Evidential primarily indicate sources of knowledge. They show the source of the information or the evidence of what the writer proposes, which offers the reader high reliability and objectivity. It refers to the speaker or writer‘s expressed attitudes towards knowledge, more specifically, to how they obtain and evaluate knowledge (Marin-Arrese et al., 2004). Epistemic stance adverbs can mark the limitation of the proposition. Stance adverbs commonly used to mark limitation include: generally, largely, mainly, typically (Biber et al., 1999). A variety of linguistic expressions can be used to describe a speaker‘s attitude; one of them is

so-called evaluative adverbs. Attitudinal stance adverbs convey speakers‘ personal

attitudes or feelings towards the proposition e.g. likes and dislikes, evaluations of events and personal experiences, value judgment ,or assessment of expectations (e.g. fortunately, happily, interestingly, oddly, strangely, unfortunately) (Biber et al., 1999, Conrad and Biber ,2000).

4. Placement of Adverbs.

In their function as modifier, adverbs occupy several positions. Therefore,they are more mobile occupying initial, medial or end position, as in (Downing and Locke, 2002)

(1) Really, I don’t like fishing. (2) I really don’t like fishing.

(31)

Stance adverbs are placed in initial position as adjuncts, their scope extend to the whole clause. Their meaning express the speaker's attitude to the content of the clause or comment on its truth value (ibid 1998) as in:

(3) Hopefully, the new plan will lead to some improvements.

Biber et al., (1999, p. 872) state that semantic category of stance adverbs can be placed in medial position. Adverbs conveying certainty, likelihood, actuality, limitation are often placed immediately before and after the verb. In this position, the adverbs indicates their relationship to the state or action described by the verb as in:

(4) For some months Wallace had actually practiced law. (5) The primary lesion is generally treated with pituitary surgery.

Attitude and style adverbs also occur in medial position, often immediately the following subject.

(6) At the time my mother fortunately never thought of selling her books. Unlike other types of adverbs like degree, manner, stance adverbs sometimes are not used at the end of the sentence as in the following example:

(7) She will leave definitely.

On the other hand, many stance adverbs function as adjuncts, and they may appear at the end of the sentence of internally, set off by a comma, as the following example illustrates:

(8) He is not available just now, unfortunately.

(32)

C. Theoretical Framework

Obama and Clinton as we know experienced public speaking, because their job required them to do so. They can express their personal feelings in their speeches to convince people about their ideas. Therefore, language device is needed in order to express their feelings. One of language devices available is adverbs of stance. Discourse analysis plays role in this study as G brown and G yule suggest that discourse analysis typically uses data taken from written texts or tape recordings (1983).

The classifications are generated form Biber et al theories that say there are three main types of stance adverbs, epistemic adverbs, attitudinal, and stylistic (1999, pp. 854-857). Therefore the classification would be adverbs of stance showing doubt, certainty, source of knowledge, limitation and attitudinal. Even though there are many terms can be used, the researcher referred to Biber’s theories.

The sentential distribution of adverbs of stance is more or less similar with other adverbs. As modifier in group structure, adverbs occupy fixed positions. However, they are more mobile, occupying initial, medial or end position, as in (Downing and Locke, 2002). Therefore, the researcher uses these three positions as the classification in sentential distribution. Furthermore, Firbas also suggests in relation to sentence linearity adverbs are best to be placed initially (1992).

(33)

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This research aims to analyze adverbs of stance used by Obama and Clinton in their speeches. The results are expected to show the comparison and frequency from both speakers. This chapter consists of research method, research objects, research instruments, and data gathering techniques, data analysis techniques, and research procedure.

A. Research Method

Since this research connects verbal description, checklists and comparison of adverbs together this research refers to qualitative research. The data from this study are taken from Youtube videos and then trasncripted into documents. According to Neuman (2011), qualitative research usually consists of written or spoken words rather than data in the form of numbers. Myers (1997) also suggests that data of qualitative research are in a form of descriptive data. This study

focuses on Obama’s and Clinton’s national speeches. The researcher chose health

care issues as the topic of the speeches. According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2006) argue that qualitative researchers go directly to the particular setting of interest to observe and collect their data. The research is conducted with descriptive analysis to analyze checklist tables. The majority data analyzed in this study are in the form of descriptive data.

(34)

The data were gathered from Youtube and the transcripted, methods applied in this research is document analysis. According to Wahyuni (2012), content analysis is one of numerous methods used to analyze text data. Further, Kondracky and Wellman (2002) point out that the text data might be in verbal, print, or electronic form which might obtained from articles, books or manuals (as cited in Wahyuni, 2012). Documents become the text data in this research. In this case, the transcripts are observed and analyzed.

B. Research Objectives

There are two objectives in this study, which are to explain discoursal distribution and to explain sentential distribution in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches.

C. Research Instruments

The research instruments applied in this study are cross tabulations. The cross tabulations are developed based on the focus of this research. Therefore, the cross tabulations are divided into two parts namely table 1 and table 2. The first cross tabulation is about comparisons of adverbs of stance in discoursal distribution. The cross tabulation generated based on adverbs of stance classification. Table 2 is the cross tabulation related to adverbs of stance sentential distribution. The cross tabulation is developed based on Firbas’ (1998) theories. In this research, there are six category used in the checklists to analyze the adverbs of stance, Adverbs of stance showing doubt, certainty, limitation, attitude, source of knowledge and actuality.

(35)

D. Data Gathering Techniques

In this study, the researcher analyzes speeches as the main source, they are in form of descriptive data. The speeches are collected from Youtube. The data were collected based on the topics of the speeches. The videos were transcripted into two written speeches. The adverbs were collected by using Microsoft Words tools. The researcher uses “find” tools to locate the adverbs. The topic is about health care issue. The researcher choose such topic referring to Mecola (2014) health care issue has been discussed by several presidents and yet this issue has not been solved. This topic has been center of attention for several years. The speakers are both male, this is to make sure that gender doesn’t affect the results later on. This decision was taken referred to Lakoff (1973) that suggests “women language” and “men language” is different.

E. Data Analysis Techniques

This study focuses on adverbs of stance discoursal and sentential distribution of adverbs of stance. The first objective is to explain adverbs of stance discoursal distribution. For this objective, the researcher conducted several steps. First, the researcher determine the text segmentations in form of paragraph then these paragraph orders are numbered. In order to clarify the location of adverbs of stance the researcher also employs line numbering. Each line is numbered alongside the paragraph numbering. Second, the researcher observe the data and find adverbs of stance with a program in Microsoft Words namely Find. Next, the researcher employs orthographic device by bolding adverbs of stance found in both speeches. The findings are put into tables consisting of six types of adverbs

(36)

of stance. There are three main types of stance adverbs, based on semantic criteria which are epistemic adverbs, attitudinal, source of knowledge and stylistic Biber et al.(1999, pp. 854-857). Furthermore, epistemic stance can be divided into stance showing doubt and certainty. Before adverbs of stance were placed in the table, the researcher analyze what are adverbs of stance present in both speech based on Biber theories and then code them based on their categories. Table 1 which is the discoursal distribution of adverbs of stance are developed as follows.

Table 1.1 Comparative Cross Tabulation of Discoursal Distribution of Adverbs of Stance

Adverbs of Stance Obama’s Totals Clinton’s Totals Grand Totals Sub Types Expressions

Certainty ∑ Expression

Doubt ∑ Expression

Actuality ∑ Expression

Source knowledge Limitation ∑ Expression

Attitudinal ∑ Expression

The table above shows six types of adverbs of stance according to Biber’s theories. The left side of the table consists of list the classification and the expression found in both speeches. The expressions are divided based on their classifications. There are also rows for total expressions found in both speeches. This rows are to indicate the totals expressions of adverbs of stance found in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches.

(37)

In the middle section, there are Obama and Clinton columns. These columns where the researcher put the check marks. The check mark indicates the expression used by the speakers. There are also totals columns. These columns shows the total of adverbs of stance used by each speakers.

Meanwhile at the right hand of the table, there is grand total row. This row shows the totals of adverbs of stance used by both speakers. In other words, this row show which adverbs of stance are mostly used by both speakers.

In conclusion, discoursal distribution of adverbs of stance discussed about types of adverbs of stance, their frequency and their functions in both speeches.

2. Comparative Cross Tabulation of Sentential Distribution of Adverbs of Stance

The second objective of this study is to explain the sentential distribution of adverbs of stance. In order to fulfill this objective the researcher divided the data into sentence segmentations. Each sentence containing adverbs of stance is labeled based on its syntactic function. From this segmentation the researcher analyses the position of adverbs of stance and counts their frequency. There will be shown how adverb of stance occupy several positions. Adverbs of stance can occupy initial, medial and last position (Biber et all., 1999). Therefore, Table 2 is developed as follows.

(38)

Table 2.1 Cross Tabulation of The Adverbs of Stance: Sentential Distribution Adverbs of Stance Adverbs of Stance Distribution in Sentences

Sub Types

Expressions _{Adv + S + V} _{S + Adv + V} _{S + V + Adv} _{S + V + O +}

Adv

Obama’s Clinton’s Obama’s Clinton’s Obama’s Clinton’s Obama’s Clinton’s

∑

Position ED

∑

Position AC

∑

Position SK

∑

Position AT

∑

Position Grand

∑

Table 2 consists of classifications of adverbs of stance, totals positions, and the position of adverbs of stance itself. Table 2 aims to find the position adverbs of stance can occupy, and also to show both findings in both speeches as comparison. Adverbials are mobile and can occupy several positions. Therefore, the researcher divided the positions into four types.

First adverbs of stance are occupying initial position. This position is pictured as Adv+S+V. Second, adverbs of stance occupying medial position. The researcher also divided this position into two subs, which are adverbs of stance occur before or after the verb Firbas (1992, p. 84). The positions are pictured as S+Adv+V and S+V+Adv. Third, adverbs of stance occupying final position. This position is pictured as S+V+O+Adv. The positions are also counted to find the

(39)

totals. These totals are to find the most frequent position occupied by adverbs of stance in each speeches. In contrast the grand total is to show the most frequent position occupied by adverbs of stance in both speeches.

F.Research Procedure

This research begins with observations. The researcher observes the speech transcripts from both speakers. Then from the observations the researchers categorize any adverbs of stance found in both speeches. Adverbs of stance found in both speeches are analyzed in order to find their discoursal and sentential distributions.

(40)

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this chapter, the results of this research would be explained. Besides, another finding related to this research would also be revealed so that the results would be compared. This section is intended to analyze adverbs of stance found in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches. Adverbs of stance are not as popular as other adverbs. Despite their unpopular use, adverbs of stance have decent use in showing personal judgment about the proposition. Therefore, adverbs of stance are also important to be introduced. In analyzing the adverbs of stance in Obama’s and Clinton’s speech, the researcher made classification tables, figures and checklist tables. The criteria of adverbs of stance and their position in a sentence were put and employed in the tables to analyze the data and to get the research results and other findings.

A. Discoursal Distributions of Adverbs of Stance

This following part shows the analysis of Adverbs of Stance in Obama’s speech. Table 1 shows that both speakers have different tendency in using adverbs of stance. Obama was more likely to use adverbs of stance showing certainty, while Clinton was likely to use adverbs of stance showing attitude.

(41)

Table 1 shows the classification and distribution of adverbs of stance in Obama’s and Clinton’s speeches. The researcher used Biber’s theories. Based on semantic criteria, there are three main types of stance adverbs, which are epistemic adverbs, attitudinal, source of knowledge and stylistic (Biber et al., 1999, pp. 854-857). Epistemic adverbs consist of adverb of stance showing doubt and certainty.

Table 1 shows several adverbs of stance used by Obama and Clinton. Based on the table above, there are six classifications of adverbs of stance. However, there are only five types of adverbs of stance found in both speeches.

First, Table 1 shows adverbs of stance showing certainty. According to Biber (2006) this particular adverbs are used to express someone’s attitudes or personal feelings, about how certain they are about its truth, and what perspective they are taking. Take closer look in this following example:

(1)

Obama: “Since health care represents one-sixth of our economy, I believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't, rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. (Applause) And that is precisely what those of you in Congress have tried to do over

the past several months.” (P3, L142)

Clinton: “I believe it because of the conversations I have had with thousands of health care professionals around the country, with people who are outside this city but are inside experts on the way this system

works and wastes money.” (P3, 153)

These expressions show that both Obama and Clinton were certain about their ideas about health care issues. In Obama’s side, he was certain that his

(42)

decision not to rebuild new system from scratch but to fix the old system makes more sense. In Clinton’s side, he was certain about his idea after having a conversation with many professionals. From table 1, it shows that Obama was more certain that Clinton. The comparison is Obama used eleven times adverbs of stance, and Clinton only used six times. And Obama’s speech has larger varieties of adverbs of stance. It has eight different expressions. On the other hand, Clinton’s speech only has three types of expressions showing certainty. However, both of them had similarity in some expressions. They used the expressions of “I believe” and “indeed”. The expression of “I believe” is frequently used by both speakers.

Second, both of Obama and Clinton also used adverbs of stance expressing doubt. Unlike adverbs of stance showing certainty, these adverbs show doubt or uncertainty towards their ideas. It makes sense if both speaker used adverbs of stance showing doubt since in real life, it is possible to be less certain or even doubtful about something. The examples are presented as follows.

(2)

Obama: “(applause) I know that the Bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. I think it's a good idea, and I'm directing my Secretary of Health and Human Services to move forward on this initiative today.” (P8, L533)

Clinton: “That is, children a year. I think we can save money in this system if we simplify it. And we can make the doctors and the nurses and the people that are giving their lives to help us all be healthier a whole lot happier, too, on their jobs. Under our proposal there would be one standard insurance form, not hundreds of them.” (P6, L335)

(43)

These sentences contain adverbs of stance showing doubt. The expression of “I think” signals the attitude of uncertainty or doubt (Biber, 1999, p. 89). Even though they were doing public speaking and trying to convey their ideas, they felt necessary to put such adverbs. Obama’s line shows that he was uncertain whether or not his idea was good enough in his action to overcome health care issue. Clinton’s line also has similar attitude. He was also uncertain about his idea to simplify health care program. He was uncertain that such idea could actually reduce the cost of health care and make it even more available to most Americans. His attitude was pictured by his adverbs of stance. Furthermore, it gives the audience more information about what he really felt.

According to Biber (1999) actuality and reality adverbs comment on the status of the proposition as real life fact. It means that these adverbs indicate someone’s perspective about something as a fact or thing that usually happens. The examples are as follows.

(3)

Obama: “So tonight, I return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future -- and that is the issue of health care. Obviously, I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last. (Applause) It has now been nearly a century since Theodore Roosevelt first called for health care reform and ever since, nearly every President and Congress, whether Democrat or

Republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way.”(P1, L33) Clinton: “At the same time, our plan will track quality indicators, so that doctors can make better and smarter choices of the kind of care they provide. We have evidence that more efficient delivery of health care doesn't decrease quality. Basically, it may enhance it.” (P9, L574)

(44)

Those examples contain Adverbs of stance expressing actuality. The

expressions of “obviously” and “basically” are categorized as actuality adverbs. It

shows what Obama and Clinton thought about the situation as a fact. Obama saw the fact as he was not the first president who tried to solve health care problems. Surely he was not the first president struggling to solve the issues. By using that expression, Obama showed that he was aware of that and he saw those phenomena as real life fact. Clinton had different attitude. He saw the increase of health care did not decrease the quality. Instead, it would enhance the development. By using such expression, Clinton tried to convey his idea that it would be the beginning or the foundation of the development. Table 1 shows that Obama’s speech contains more varieties of the expression compared to Clinton’s. Obama’s speech contains four different types and Clinton’s only contains one type. Obama saw this problem as something more personal and factual more than Clinton did.

Next, the adverb of stance showing limitation. Epistemic stance adverbs can mark the limitation of the proposition Biber (1999). It means that adverbs of stance can indicate how the speakers limit their prepositions. The expression shows what their perspectives are. The examples are as follows.

(4)

Obama: “We'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange – a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices. Insurance companies will generally have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lets them compete for

millions of new customers.” (P5, L251)

Clinton: “This health care system of ours is badly broken, and it is time to fix it. Despite the dedication of generally millions of talented health care professionals, our health care is too uncertain and too expensive, too

(45)

bureaucratic and too wasteful. It has too much fraud and too much greed. At long last, after decades of false starts, we must make this our most urgent priority,

giving every American health security, health care that can never be taken away”

(P1, L43)

In the speeches above both contain the similar expressions indicating adverb of stance showing limitation. Both Obama and Clinton used the expression of “generally”. Obama’s line is about insurance companies that take part in the exchange. The preposition “to participate” is limited as something usual or common to be done. Adverb of stance sets a limitation towards the preposition. In other words, Obama assumed that participation from insurance companies was something common to be done in order to get customers. Clinton’s line tells about how uncertain and expensive health care service was. The adverbs of stance limit the preposition of “millions of talented professionals”. It shows that Clinton referred to many people who were considered as professionals. He didn’t refer to specific professionals in a specific place or time. It means that he referred to all of them.

The last classification is adverb of stance expressing attitude. Attitudinal

adverbs convey speaker’s personal attitudes or feelings towards the proposition. It

can be pictured as likes and dislikes, evaluations of events, personal experiences, value judgment, or assessment of expectations (Biber et al., 1999 and Biber ,2000). The examples found in their speeches are as follows.

(5)

Obama: “Unfortunately, It happens every day. One man from Illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gallstones that he didn't even know about.”(P2, L83)

(46)

Clinton: “Luckily for me and for our Nation, I didn't have to look very far. Over the last months, Hillary and those working with her have talked to literally thousands of Americans to understand the strengths and

the frailties of this system of ours.” (P2, L70)

Even though both of the sentences contain adverbs of stance showing attitude, Obama and Clinton showed different attitude. Obama’s line shows the feeling of disappointment expressed by the adverb. He used the expression of

“unfortunately”. It shows his personal feelings about the issues. Obama saw this

particular issue as something bad. The expression gives us bigger picture of what he felt at that time. In other hand, Clinton’s line shows his positive attitude towards the issue. He used the expression of “luckily”. It is immediately followed by preposition. In this case, he also gave bigger picture of what he and Americans thought at that time. He believed that he was in an advantageous position because of what happened recently. Based on the table, it shows that Clinton put more of his feelings or judgmental values towards the health care issues than Obama did. In total there are eight times Clinton used adverbs of stance showing attitude and Obama only used five times. Clinton used six types of adverb of stance and Obama only used three types of adverb of stance showing attitude.

In conclusion, both Obama and Clinton had different approach in their speeches. In a matter of discourse distribution, from Table 1 it shows that adverbs of stance are located almost in every paragraph. The most frequent adverb of stance used by Obama based on the table is adverbs of stance showing certainty. It means that he is certain and sure about his ideas and thoughts. Compared to adverb of stance showing doubt, we can conclude that Obama felt less uncertain about his ideas. It makes perfect sense since in his speech he mentioned that he

(47)

determined to be the man who solved the issues. Despite Obama’s certainty, Clinton had different approach. He used Adverbs of stance showing attitude more frequently. It means that Clinton put more his judgmental value towards the issue. It shows how meaningful this issue for him. Even though he used adverbs of stance showing attitude more frequently, he also used adverbs of stance showing certainty. Both speakers were actually similar in terms of using adverbs of stance to describe their personal judgments. But Obama is more certain than Clinton and Clinton put more of his feelings compared to Obama. Adverbs of stance showing source of knowledge is not found. It is because both Obama and Clinton deliver their very own ideas, so they didn’t feel necessary to quote from someone’s idea or maybe books.

B. Sentential Distributions of Adverbs of Stance

Adverbs of stance are similar with other adverbs. They are mobile, can occupy initial, medial or last position (Biber et all, 1999, p. 855). Despite its mobility, adverbials are best to be put initially as the setting of the sentence. (Firbas, 1992). In other words adverbials are usually placed initially. However, not all of the adverbials in the initial position pictures the setting, some may also picture the perspective of the sentence. (Firbas, 1992, p. 48) Adverbials can also be placed medially. If this happens, adverbials which are placed before the verb have less communicative degree than those which are placed after the verb (Firbas, 1992). Table 2 shows that mostly adverbs of stance found in both speeches occupy initial position. Adverbs of stance occupying medial and last position are also found.

(48)

(49)

From the Table 2, it shows that there are multiple position occupied by adverbs of stance in both Obama’s and Clinton’s speech. There are four classifications used in the table. Theory of sentence linearity from Firbas (1992) indicates that position can affect the meaning of the sentence, the further the word is placed the more communicative it will be. The locations are initial, medial (before or after verb), and final position.

First, let’s begin with the adverbs of stance showing certainty. According

to the table these adverbs mostly occupy initial position but there is also adverb occupying medial and last position. The examples are as follows.

(6) Obama’s (P3, L142)

I believe It makes more sense(…)

Adv. Certainty S V O

Clinton’s (P3, L150)

I believe we all understand That

Adv. Certainty S V O

Those are the examples of adverbs of stance expressing certainty located initially. Obama and Clinton put the adverbs initially in order to give their sentence setting of their personal’s feeling. Using the theory of sentence linearity, adverbs occupying initial position are less communicative and they are not the focus of the sentence. The idea is to give setting of feelings not to interfere the focus of the sentence. Not all of adverbs showing certainty occupy initial position,

(50)

here is the example of adverb of stance showing certainty occupying medial position.

(7) Clinton’s (P2, L117)

The principles that i believe must embody our effort to reform America

S Con Adv.

Certainty

Mod V O Prep

The example shows that all of them are located medially before the verb, which means that they are less communicative and they are not the focus of the sentence. The adverb gives specification of what Clinton felt. Since it is not located initially, it doesn’t play as the setting, but the specification instead. Based on the table the adverbs of stance showing certainty not only occupy initial and medial, but also last position. The example as follows.

(8) Clinton’s (P9, L548)

The choice will be left to the worker(…) and certainly not some government bureaucrat

S V O Adv. Certainty

This example shows that adverbs of stance showing certainty can also be placed in the last part. It means that Clinton wanted to focus on government bureaucrat together with his feeling of certainty. Based on sentence linearity, because the adverb is placed further it has more communicative values. (Firbas 1992, p. 53). In other words, Clinton tried to convey his strong level of certainty through his line.

Next, the adverbs of stance showing doubt. The table shows that these adverbs occupy three positions, they are initial, and medial before the verb.

(51)

Adverbs of stance showing doubt were placed initially by both speakers. The examples are:

(9) Obama’s (P8, L524)

I think that is good idea

Adv. Doubt S V O

Clinton’s (P6, L335)

I think we can save money

Adv. Doubt S V O

The example shows how adverbs of stance showing doubt are placed initially. Both sentences shows that these adverbs act as the setting of the sentences. They show the setting of Obama’s and Clinton’s personal feelings. Being placed initially makes them less communicative and still not the focus of the sentence. It indicates that Obama and Clinton did not want their doubt to be the focus. Compared to another position, adverbs of stance showing doubt mostly placed initially. However, there are some which were placed medially. These are the examples:

(10) Clinton’s (P3, L180)

Both sides I think understand the literal ethical imperative (…)

S Adv. Doubt V O

The example shows how adverb of stance showing doubt are placed medially right before the verb. It shows that the adverb acts as the specification of the sentence. It adds extra information about what Clinton felt about the issues. Because it is located medially, it doesn’t have a strong communicative level. It is not the focus of the sentence.

(52)

Adverbs of stance showing actuality becomes the next subject. In both speeches, some adverbs of stance showing actuality located initially and medially before the adverb. These are the examples of adverbs of stance located initially by both speakers:

(11) Obama’s (P1, L33)

Obviously i am not the first president

Adv. Actuality S To be N

Clinton’s (P9, L574)

Basically it may enhance them

Adv. Actuality S V O

The examples show adverbs of stance expressing actuality are placed initially. They provide the sentence setting of both Obama’s and Clinton’s attitude towards the issue. By placing these adverbs initially both speakers gave their line setting of actuality. Mostly, these adverbs are located initially. Despite its appearance in initial positions, some appeared in medial positions. Those adverbs appearing in the medial position belong to Obama’s. The example analyzed as follows.

(12) Obama’s (P8, L375)

A budget that would essentially have turned (…)

S Mod Adv. Actuality V

The example above indicates that the adverb was located medially before the adverb. It has a less communicative level, and acts as specification in which proved further ideas or information about the sentence. In this case, Obama added his judgmental value towards the issue, and saw it as a factual aspect. Obama put

(53)

the expression before the verb in order to lift up the communicative level. In contrast with Clinton, he put the adverbs only in initial position.

Next, the adverbs of stance showing limitation. Based on the table, these adverbs are located only in initial and medial position. Both speakers used the adverb differently. Obama placed the adverb medially but Clinton placed it initially. The examples are analyzed as follows.

(13) Obama’s (P5, L251)

Insurance Company will generally have an incentive (…)

S Mod Adv. Limitation V

Clinton’s (P1, L43)

(…) Generally millions our health care is too uncertain (…)

Adv. Limitation S To be Adj

The examples above show different locations of adverbs of stance showing limitation. Obama put his adverb medially right before the verb and Clinton put his adverb initially. It indicates that adverb of stance showing limitation in Obama’s line is more communicative than that in Clinton’s line. Based on the theory sentence linearity, initial adverbs have less communicative level. In Clinton’s line, the adverb acts as the setting of the preposition. In Obama’s line, the adverb acts as specification and gives further information about the limitation of his line.

The last is adverbs of stance showing attitude. From the table, it shows that these adverbs is mostly mobile. These adverbs are placed either in an initial, a medial and the final position. Both speakers used the adverbs differently. These are the examples:

(54)

(14) Obama’s (P2,L83)

Unfortunately it happens everyday

Adv. Attitude S V Adv. Time

Clinton’s (P4, L225)

Someone in your family unfortunately has had an illness

S Adv. Attitude V N

The example above shows two different positions of the adverbs of stance showing attitude. Obama placed the expression initially but Clinton placed it medially. In this sense, Clinton’s line consists of more communicative adverb of

stance compared to Obama’s. It shows that Clinton put more of his feeling in his

line. Obama just put the adverb initially, as mean of setting. However based on the table we learned that both Obama and Clinton also put their adverbs of stance in the last part. In that sense, both Obama and Clinton showed high level of personal feeling in their lines.

In conclusion, the adverbs of stance can occupy different positions such as initial, medial, and final position. The examples of adverbs of stance in initial position could be found in example (6), (9). The examples of adverbs of stance in medial position could be found in example (7), (10), and (12). The examples of adverbs of stance in final position could be found in example (8). Adverbs of stance are predominantly located in initial position. The Finding shows that there are twenty five adverbs of stance located in initial position. The finding is in line with Firbas theory that said adverbs are mostly located initially (1992). They act as the setting and have low communicative level. However, some adverbs appear at medial and last position. In that case, those adverbials do not have high

(55)

communicative level and only show the speaker’s feeling, attitude, or judgment more than as setting.

(56)

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS

This chapter consists of two parts, they are conclusions and suggestions. The first part is the conclusions which reveals the answers of the research questions. Furthermore, related findings are also presented. The second part is about suggestions for English teachers, English Learners, and future researchers who are interested in conducting research related to Adverbs of Stance.

A. Conclusions

This research is conducted in order to explain how adverbs of stance used in discourse level speech and to show how the sentential distribution of adverbs of stance in both speeches is. After analyzing the data, the researcher found out that adverbs of stance can be used differently in discourse level. There are several roles and positions occupied by these adverbs.

The findings show that adverb of stance can be used to show certainty. According to Biber (2006, p. 87) this particular adverbs are used to express someone’s attitudes or personal feelings, how certain they are about its truth, and what perspective they are taking. The findings show that Obama was more certain compared to Clinton. Obama used adverbs of stance showing certainty eleven times and Clinton only did six times. It also indicates that Obama has more expression, Clinton only has three kinds of expressions to show his certainty but

(57)

Obama has eight expressions showing certainty. The findings also show in totals there are seventeen occurrences of adverbs of stance. Compared to other types, adverbs of stance showing certainty is the most dominant. It means that adverbs of certainty are commonly used in those two speeches. In sentential distribution, adverbs of stance showing certainty is most likely occupying initial position with fifteen times appearances. These findings are in line with the statement from Firbas (1992) that suggest adverbials are best to be put initially as the setting of the sentence. Even though some located in medial and last position they majority located initially. In this sense, adverbs of stance showing certainty is only as the setting of the sentence not as the focus.

The finding shows that Obama and Clinton also used adverbs of stance showing doubt. These adverbs are used to show doubt or uncertainty towards ideas or thoughts (Biber, 1999). These adverbs are identified in several paragraphs. It shows from both speakers Clinton is more uncertain. The findings indicate that there are four times he used such adverbs and Obama with only two times mentioned such adverbs. It also shows that Obama used two different expressions of doubt and Clinton only one expression. Overall there are six times adverbs of stance showing doubt found in both speeches. In a matter of sentential distribution, adverbs of stance showing doubt mostly are occupying initial position with five occurrences and only one occurrence in medial position. Adverbs of stance showing doubt found in both speeches play a role as setting.

Second, Adverbs of stance showing actuality were also found in both speeches. These adverbs were used to show actuality and reality adverbs on the

(58)

status of the proposition as real life fact (Biber et al., 1999, p. 854). Both Obama and Clinton used these adverbs. In total Obama used four times of these adverbs and Clinton only once. It can be concluded that Obama saw the issue as something more actual compared to Clinton. In sentential distribution there are three adverbs of stance showing actuality located initially and there are two adverbs located medially. It means that these adverbs are mostly placed initially.

Third, Adverbs of stance showing limitation. Epistemic stance adverbs can mark the limitation of the proposition (Biber, 1999, p. 90). It means that adverbs of stance can indicates how far speakers think about their ideas. In paragraph there are several expression used by both speakers. These adverbs were used three times. Clinton used these adverbs two times and Obama used them only one time. They were used as the limitation mark from the speakers. In total there are two types of adverbs of stance expressing limitation found in both speeches. In sentential distribution, adverbs of stance showing limitation mostly placed initially. This finding match with the theory from Firbas that says adverbs are commonly placed in initial position (1992, p. 11). However, not all of them located initially, the researcher also found one expression located in medial position.

Next, adverbs of stance showing attitude. These adverbs were used by both speakers. In their speeches, these adverbs were used to show their attitude, or personal judgment about certain issue. As Biber and Conrad suggests attitudinal stance adverbs convey speakers‘ personal attitudes or feelings towards the proposition, it can show likes and dislikes, evaluations of events and personal

(59)

experiences, value judgment ,or expectations (2000, p. 87). These adverbs were mostly used by Clinton. Clinton used adverbs of stance showing attitude seven times and Obama five times. It shows that Clinton put his personal feeling more than Obama did. In their sentential distribution, these adverbs are found mostly occupying medial and last position. Even though, it is not in line with Firbas’s theory, but these adverbs remain as the setting instead of the focus of the sentence. Because according to Biber et al, adverbs of stance showing attitude tend to occupy medial position (1999, p. 872).

In conclusion, there are five types of adverbs of stance found in both speeches, namely adverbs of stance showing certainty, doubt, limitation, actuality and attitude. Adverbs of stance showing source of knowledge however are not found in both speeches. In discoursal distribution, adverbs of stance expressing doubt are mostly used, it means both speakers were certain and confident about their ideas to overcome the healthcare issue. The findings also show that Obama is more certain than Clinton and Clinton is put more attitudinal stances in his speech. The conclusion dealing with the sentential distribution of adverbs of stance shows that adverbs of stance found in both speeches occupy three positions namely, initial, medial and final position. In both speeches adverbs of stance found in both speeches are mostly occupying initial position. However there are adverbs of stance occupying medial and final position. The finding suggests that final position is the least position occupied by adverbs of stance.

(60)

B. Recommendations

In this part, the researcher exposes the recommendations for English teachers, English learners and Future researchers.

1. For English Teachers

This research aims to show adverbs of stance in discourse distribution and sentential distribution. English teachers are encouraged to explain and introduced these adverbs to their students. English teachers are expected to give examples and explain these adverbs with some knowledge taken from this study.

2. For English Learners

English learners are encouraged to use and apply adverbs of stance when necessary. The examples of discourse distribution and sentential distribution from the study could be implemented in public speaking or speech contest.

3. For Future Researchers

Future researchers are encouraged to conduct another research about adverbs of stance. Since adverbs of stance have broad aspects to discuss, future researchers are recommended to have broader sources and examples.

(1)

believe that all of us should have insurance. Why should the rest of us pick up the tab when a guy who doesn't think he needs insurance or says he can't afford it gets in an accident, winds up in an emergency room, gets good care, and everybody else pays? Why should the small business people who are struggling to keep afloat and take care of their employees have to pay to maintain this wonderful health care infrastructure for those who refuse to do anything? If we're going to produce a better health care system for every one of us, every one of us is going to have to do our part.

Doubt

674

680

690

695

700

710

720

P11

Tonight I want to say plainly how I think we should do that. Most of the money will come, under my way of thinking, as it does today, from premiums paid by employers and individuals. That's the way it happens today. But under this health care security plan, every employer and every individual will be asked to contribute something to health care. This concept was first conveyed to the Congress about years ago by President Nixon. And today, a lot of people agree with the concept of shared responsibility between employers and employees and that the best thing to do is to ask every employer and every employee to share that. The Chamber of Commerce has said that, and they're not in the business of hurting small business. The American Medical Association has said that. Some call it an employer mandate, but I think it's the fairest way to achieve responsibility in the health care system. And it's the easiest for ordinary Americans to understand because it builds on what we already have and what already works for so many Americans. It is the reform that is not only easiest to understand but easiest to implement in a way that is fair to small business, because we can give a discount to help struggling small businesses meet the cost of covering their employees. We should require the east

(2)

730

740

750

760 765

770

780

790

bureaucracy or disruption and create the cooperation we need to make the system cost conscious, even as we expand coverage. And we should do it in a way that does not cripple small businesses and low-wage workers. Every employer should provide coverage, just as three-quarters do now. Those that pay are picking up the tab for those who don't today. I don't think that's right. To finance the rest of reform, we can achieve new savings, as I have outlined, in both the Federal Government and the private sector through better decision making and increased competition. And we will impose new taxes on tobacco. I don't think that should be the only source of revenues. I believe we should also ask for a modest contribution from big employers who opt out of the system to make up for what those who are in the system pay for medical research, for health education centers, for all the subsidies to small business, for all the things that everyone else is contributing to. But between those two things, we believe we can pay for this package of benefits and universal coverage and a subsidy program that will help small business. These sources can cover the cost of the proposal that I have described tonight. We subjected the numbers in our proposal to the scrutiny of not only all

the major agencies in Government—I know a

lot of people don't trust them, but it would be interesting for the American people to know that this was the first time that the financial experts on health care in all of the different Government agencies have ever been required to sit in the room together and agree on numbers. It had never happened before. But obviously, that's not enough. So then we gave these numbers to actuaries from major

accounting firms and major Fortune

companies who have no stake in this other than to see that our efforts succeed. So I believe our numbers are good and achievable. Now, what does this mean to an individual American citizen? Some will be asked to pay more. If you're an employer and you aren't

(3)

Doubt

800

810

820

insuring your workers at all, you'll have to pay more. But if you're a small business with fewer than employees, you'll get a subsidy. If you're a firm that provides only very limited coverage, you may have to pay more. But some firms will pay the same or less for more coverage. If you're a young, single person in your twenties and you're already insured, your rates may go up somewhat because you're going to go into a big pool with middle-aged people and older people, and we want to enable people to keep their insurance even when someone in their family gets sick. But I think that's fair because when the young get older they will benefit from it, first, and secondly, even those who pay a little more today will benefit years from now by our bringing health care costs closer to inflation. Over the long run, we can all win. But some will have to pay more in the short run. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the Americans watching this tonight will pay the same or less for health care coverage that will be the same or better than the coverage they have tonight. That is the central reality. If you currently get your health insurance through your job, under our plan you still will. And for the first time, everybody will get to choose from among at least three plans to belong to. If you're a small business owner who wants to provide health insurance to your family and your employees, but you can't afford it because the system is stacked against you, this plan will give you a discount that will finally make insurance affordable. If you're already providing insurance, your rates may well drop because we'll help you as a small business person join thousands of others to get the same benefits big corporations get at the same price they get those benefits. If you're self-employed, you'll pay less, and you will get to deduct from your taxes percent of your health care premiums. If you're a large employer, your health care costs won't go up as fast, so that you will have more money to put into higher wages and new jobs and to put into the

(4)

Doubt work of being competitive in this tough global economy. Now, these, my fellow Americans, are the principles on which I think we should base our efforts security, simplicity, savings, choice, quality, and responsibility. These are the guiding stars that we should follow on our journey toward health care reform. Over the coming months, you'll be bombarded with information from all kinds of sources. There will be some who will stoutly disagree with what I have proposed and with all other plans in the Congress, for that matter. And some of the arguments will be genuinely sincere and enlightening. Others may simply be scare tactics by those who are motivated by the self-interest they have in the waste the system now generates, because that waste is providing jobs, incomes, and money for some people. I ask you only to think of this when you hear all of these arguments Ask yourself whether the cost of staying on this same course isn't greater than the cost of change. And ask yourself, when you hear the arguments, whether the arguments are in your interest or someone else's. This is something we have got to try to do together.

830

840

P12

I want also to say to the Representatives in Congress, you have a special duty to look beyond these arguments. I ask you instead to look into the eyes of the sick child who needs care, to think of the face of the woman who's been told not only that her condition is malignant but not covered by her insurance, to look at the bottom lines of the businesses driven to bankruptcy by health care costs, to look at the "for sale" signs in front of the homes of families who have lost everything because of their health care costs. I ask you to remember the kind of people I met over the last year and a half the elderly couple in New Hampshire that broke down and cried because of their shame at having an empty refrigerator to pay for their drags; a woman who lost a 3490$, job that she used to support her six children because her youngest child was so ill

(5)

850

860

870

880

that she couldn't keep health insurance, and the only way to get care for the child was to get public assistance; a young couple that had a sick child and could only get insurance from one of the parents' employers that was a nonprofit corporation with employees, and so they had to face the question of whether to let this poor person with a sick child go or raise the premiums of every employee in the firm by 500$; and on and on and on. I know we have differences of opinion, but we are here tonight in a spirit that is animated by the problems of those people and by the sheer knowledge that if we can look into our heart, we will not be able to say that the greatest nation in the history of the world is powerless to confront this crisis. Our history and our heritage tell us that we can meet this challenge. Everything about America's past tells us we will do it. So I say to you, let us write that new chapter in the American story.

Let us guarantee every American

comprehensive health benefits that can never be taken away. You know, in spite of all the work we've done together and all the progress we've made, there's still a lot of people who say it would be an outright miracle if we passed health care reform. But my fellow Americans, in a time of change you have to have miracles. And miracles do happen. I mean, just a few days ago we saw a simple handshake shatter decades of deadlock in the Middle East. We've seen the walls crumble in Berlin and South Africa. We see the ongoing brave struggle of the people of Russia to seize freedom and democracy. And now it is our turn to strike a blow for freedom in this country, the freedom of Americans to live without fear that their own Nation's health care system won't be there for them when they need it. It's hard to believe that there was once a time in this century when that kind of fear gripped old age, when retirement was nearly

synonymous with poverty and older

Americans died in the street. That's

(6)

Attitude

890

892

century ago Americans had the courage to change, to create a Social Security System that ensures that no Americans will be forgotten in their later years. Forty years from now, our grandchildren will also find it unthinkable that there was a time in this country when hardworking families lost their homes, their savings, their businesses, lost everything simply because their children got sick or because they had to change jobs. Our

grandchildren will find such things

unthinkable tomorrow if we have the courage to change today. This is our chance. This is our journey. And when our work is done, we will know that we have answered the call of history and met the challenge of our time. Thank you very much, and God bless America.

A study of adverbs of stance in Barack Obama and Bill Clinton speeches.

ABSTRAK

ABSTRAK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

Hedges In Barack Obama’s Speeches

Relevance theory: an analysis of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s interview

METAPHORICAL PATTERNS IN BARACK OBAMA’S SPEECHES.

AN ANALYSIS OF ASSERTIVE SPEECH ACT ON SENTENCES USED IN THE SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA An Analysis Of Assertive Speech Act On Sentences Used In The Speeches Of Barack Obama.

A PRAGMATICS ANALYSIS of PROMISING UTTERANCES in BARACK OBAMA SPEECHES A Pragmatics Analysis Of Promising Utterances In Barack Obama Speeches.

INTRODUCTION A Pragmatics Analysis Of Promising Utterances In Barack Obama Speeches.

PRAGMALINGUISTICS FORM of PROMISE in BARACK OBAMA SPEECHES A Pragmatics Analysis Of Promising Utterances In Barack Obama Speeches.

A SOCIO-PRAGMATICS ANALYSIS OF PROMISING UTTERANCES IN BARACK OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN SPEECHES.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF APPRAISALS ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON IN NEW HAMPSHIREPRIMARY IN 2008.

A Register Analysis Related to Gender on Presidential Campaign Speeches of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania Primary (Systemic Functional Linguistics Approach).

Dukungan

Links

A study of adverbs of stance in Barack Obama and Bill Clinton speeches.

ABSTRAK

ABSTRAK

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF APPENDICES

Parts

Dokumen yang terkait

Hedges In Barack Obama’s Speeches

Relevance theory: an analysis of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s interview

METAPHORICAL PATTERNS IN BARACK OBAMA’S SPEECHES.

AN ANALYSIS OF ASSERTIVE SPEECH ACT ON SENTENCES USED IN THE SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA An Analysis Of Assertive Speech Act On Sentences Used In The Speeches Of Barack Obama.

A PRAGMATICS ANALYSIS of PROMISING UTTERANCES in BARACK OBAMA SPEECHES A Pragmatics Analysis Of Promising Utterances In Barack Obama Speeches.

INTRODUCTION A Pragmatics Analysis Of Promising Utterances In Barack Obama Speeches.

PRAGMALINGUISTICS FORM of PROMISE in BARACK OBAMA SPEECHES A Pragmatics Analysis Of Promising Utterances In Barack Obama Speeches.

A SOCIO-PRAGMATICS ANALYSIS OF PROMISING UTTERANCES IN BARACK OBAMA’S CAMPAIGN SPEECHES.

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF APPRAISALS ON PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN SPEECHES OF BARACK OBAMA AND HILLARY CLINTON IN NEW HAMPSHIREPRIMARY IN 2008.

A Register Analysis Related to Gender on Presidential Campaign Speeches of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania Primary (Systemic Functional Linguistics Approach).

Dokumen yang Anda mencari sudah siap untuk unduhkan