APPRAISAL IN THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES OF THE
PRESIDENTS OF AMERICA FROM BUSH SENIOR TO OBAMA
THESIS
BY
FERDIANTO YUSUF DAULAY
087009009/LNG
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
MEDAN
2010
SE
K O L A H
P A
S C
A S A R JA N
APPRAISAL IN THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES OF THE
PRESIDENTS OF AMERICA FROM BUSH SENIOR TO OBAMA
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Magister Humaniora in Linguistics at the Postgraduate School
University of Sumatera Utara
BY
FERDIANTO YUSUF DAULAY
087009009/LNG
UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA
POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
Judul Tesis :
APPRAISAL IN THE INAUGURAL ADDRESSES
OF THE PRESIDENTS OF AMERICA FROM
BUSH SENIOR TO OBAMA
Nama Mahasiswa :
Ferdianto Yusuf Daulay
Nomor Pokok : 087009009
Program Studi : Linguistik
Menyetujui
Komisi Pembimbing
(Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D) (Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd i)
Ketua Anggota
Ketua Program Studi, Direktur,
(Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A, Ph.D) (Prof. Dr. Ir. T. Chairun Nisa B., M.Sc)
Telah diuji pada Tanggal 30 Juli 2010
PANITIA PENGUJI TESIS:
Ketua : Prof. T. Silvana Sinar, M.A., Ph.D Anggota : 1. Dr. Sumarsih, M.Pd
ABSTRACT
This thesis inquires how the appraisals belonging in the Attitude sub-systems of the Appraisal Theory are employed in the Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States of America from George Bush Senior to Barrack Obama. It shows the Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation elements in the Inaugural Address texts. It also demonstrates some of the ways the attitudinal elements function to convey the meanings that the presidents want to communicate. The analysis is done in the framework of a qualitative research. The findings show that the most dominant sub-system in the Inaugural Address is the Appreciation, the second most dominant is Judgement, and the least dominant is the Affect. The findings also establish that the uses of the attitudinal elements in the Inaugural Address texts, particularly the one delivered by Bush Jr in his second inauguration, refutes common presumption that political speeches are objective and empty of emotional elements.
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini menyelidiki bagaimana elemen-elemen appraisal yang tercakup dalam sub-sistem Attitude dari Teori Appraisal digunakan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan presiden-presiden Amerika Serikat dari George Bush Senior sampai Barrack Obama. Tesis ini menunjukkan elemen-elemen Affect, Judgement, dan Appreciation dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut. Tesis ini juga menunjukkan beberapa cara elemen-elemen attitudinal tersebut bekerja menyampaikan makna-makna yang ingin dikomunikasikan oleh presiden-presiden tersebut. Analisis ini dilakukan dalam kerangka kerja penelitian kualitatif. Temuan-temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sub-sistem yang paling dominan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan tersebut adalah Appreciation, paling dominan kedua adalah Judgement, dan yang paling tidak dominan adalah Affect. Temuan-temuan tersebut juga menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan-penggunaan elemen attitudinal dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut, khususnya pidato pelantikan yang disampaikan oleh Bush Junior dalam pelantikannya yang kedua-kalinya, membantah anggapan umum bahwa pidato-pidato politik bersifat objektif dan bebas dari elemen-elemen emosional.
PREFACE
This thesis explores the linguistic resources belonging to the attitude
sub-systems of the Appraisal Theory as they are used in the Inaugurul Addresses of the
presidents of America, from George Bush Senior to Barack Obama.
Chapter I is an introduction to the background of the problems analyzed in
this study.
Chapter II provides an explanation on the Systemic Functional Linguistics and
the Appraisal Theory along with its sub-systems.
Chapter III is on the framework, method, and the steps of the research.
Chapter IV is an exposition on the findings and the analysis on how the
appraisal in the texts function to channel the messages the presidents want to
communicate.
Chapter V is a conclusion and a recommendation for further studies on
appraisals.
The appendix part contains the transcripts of the 6 Inaugural Address texts
analysed in this research. The clauses containing the appraisal are numbered for ease
of reference to the tables in chapter IV.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All praise belong to Allah, the Creator, the Master, and the Sustainer of the
universes, visible and invisible. May Allah’s blessing be poured down on His beloved
Messenger, whose sacrifices in introducing the religion and wisdom to all mankind
no other created being’s compares to. Let it be known that my mentioning of the
prophet is not an act of creating a good image on my self, but a way of showing my
love of him, the beloved of Allah, and a deliberate profession of the belief that by the
grace of Allah, he alone is the master of human wisdom.
I would like to extend my gratitude to my parents, Efendy Daulay and Rohani
Nasution, who have been doing anything that they could to raise me well. There are
times in which I would like to just throw myself on their feet to show my humble
gratitude, realizing that all the cliches would only bring disgrace to their untainted
sacrifices. May the Almighty reward them with everything good in this world and the
hereafter.
I thank my wife, dr. Nurjannah Nasution, whose patience, encouragement, and
other invaluable helps (and sometimes reverse psychology) are the points that kept
me advancing (though reluctantly) in my writing of this thesis. My special thanks is
to my children: Hafiz and Ihsan. Your presence, your laughter and whimperings are
my daily dose of motivation.
My gratitude next goes to my supervisors, Prof. Tengku Silvana Sinar, Ph.D
this thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Edy Setia, M.Ed TESP whose invaluable
criticism and suggestions did much for the perfection of this thesis.
I am especially indebted to Prof. Amrin Saragih, Ph.D, who has given much to
introduce the marvellous and exciting world of the Systemic Functional Linguistics.
His good-natured, generous character and fine way of explaining crucial yet
impenetrable concepts are among the important things that encouraged me to keep
moving on in my journey through the alien zone of Appraisal Theory.
I am also thankful for the friendship between my fellow classmates and me.
Thanks to Bu Emi, Ade, Pak Zebar, Bu Rani, Ricky, Ita, Bima, and others. Let us all
be thankful that facebook is around to keep us all in contact with each other.
Last, but not at all least, I would like to thank the helpful staffs at Program
Studi Linguistik: Drs. Umar Mono, M.Hum, Nila (the ever helpful and, by so doing,
encouraging), Arif, and Kak Kar.
Medan, July 2010
Ferdianto Yusuf Daulay
CURRICULUM VITAE
Name : Ferdianto Yusuf Daulay
Place/Date of Birth : Sibolga/17 April 1979
Address : Jl. Bejomuna No. 56, Kel. Timbang Langkat, Kec. Binjai
Timur, Binjai, 20732
Sex : Male
Religion : Islam
Marital Status : Married with two children
Occupation : English lecturer
Office : Akademi Pariwisata Negeri Medan
Jl. Rumah Sakit Haji no. 12, Medan
Linguistics interest : Discourse Analysis, Semantics, Pragmatics, Cognitive
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT………. i
ABSTRAK………. ii
PREFACE………. iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT……… iv
CURRICULUM VITAE……….. vi
1.1 Background of the Study……….
1.2 The Scope of the Study……….
1.3 The Problem of the Study………
1.4 The Objectives of the Study………
1.5 The Significance of the Study……….
1.6 Appraisal Theory Terminology………
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………
2.1 Systemic Functional Linguistics……….
2.2 Appraisal Theory………
2.2.1. Attitude ………
2.2.1.1 Affect………..
2.2.1.2 Judgement ……….
2.2.1.3 Appreciation………..
2.2.1.4 Classification of Modals……….
2.2.1.5 Differences………..
2.3.Reason for Adopting SLT and the Appraisal Theory...
2.4 Previous Related Researches………
RESEARCH METHOD………
3.1 The Research Framework……….
3.2 The Data………..
3.3 The Steps of the Research………..
3.3.1 Data Source Collection……….
3.3.2 Data Analysis……….
CHAPTER IV
CHAPTER V
DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS………...
4.1 Data Analysis………..
4.1.1 Attitude in Bush Senior’s Inaugural Address……….. 4.1.2 Attitude in Clinton’s Inaugural Addresses………
4.1.2.1 Attitude in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address………
4.1.2.2 Attitude in Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address….. 4.1.3 Attitude in Bush Junior’s Inaugural Addresses………
4.1.3.1 Attitude in Bush Junior’s First Inaugural Address…
4.1.3.2 Attitude in Bush Junior’s Second Inaugural
Address………..
4.1.4 Attitude in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
4.1.5 Counts of the Attitude………..
4.2. Findings and Discussion……….
4.3. The Possibility of Improving the Model………..
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION………
5.1 Conclusion………..
5.2 Recommendation……….
39 39 41 47 47 52 57 57
62 67 74 75 86
91 91 93
LIST OF TABLES
Sub-systems of Appreciation……….
Sub-types of Appreciation………...
Points of Differences/Borders……….
Clauses for Clearing Differences………
Affect in Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address………
Judgement in Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address………..
Judgement in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address……….
Affect in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address………..
Appreciation in Clinton’s First Inaugural Address………
Judgement in Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address………
Affect in Bush Jr’s First Inaugural Address………
Judgement in Bush Jr’s First Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Bush Jr’s First Inaugural Address………..
Affect in Bush Jr’s Second Inaugural Address………..
Judgement in Bush Jr’s Second Inaugural Address………
Appreciation in Bush Jr’s Second Inaugural Address……….
Affect in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
Judgement in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
Appreciation in Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
LIST OF FIGURES
No Title Page
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.1
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual Metafunction……….
An Overview of Appraisal Resources………
Sub-systems of Attitude……….
The Place of Appraisal in SFL……….
Flow Chart of the Steps of the Research……….
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Bush Sr’s
Inaugural Address………..
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Clinton’s First
Inaugural Address………
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Clinton’s
Second Inaugural Address……….
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Bush Jr’s First
Inaugural Address………
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Bush Jr’s
Second Inaugural Address……….
The Networks of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation in Obama’s
Inaugural Address………..
Place of the New Sub-system in the Appreciation Sub-system…………... 12
16
18
28
37
47
52
57
61
67
74
LIST OF APPENDICE
No Title Page
1
Transcripts of the Inaugural Addresses……….
1.1 Bush Sr’s Inaugural Address……….
1.2 Clinton’s First Inaugural Address………
1.3 Clinton’s Second Inaugural Address………
1.4 Bush Junior’s First Inaugural Address………..
1.5 Bush Junior’s Second Inaugural Address……….
1.6 Obama’s Inaugural Address……….
97
97
102
106
111
115
ABSTRACT
This thesis inquires how the appraisals belonging in the Attitude sub-systems of the Appraisal Theory are employed in the Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States of America from George Bush Senior to Barrack Obama. It shows the Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation elements in the Inaugural Address texts. It also demonstrates some of the ways the attitudinal elements function to convey the meanings that the presidents want to communicate. The analysis is done in the framework of a qualitative research. The findings show that the most dominant sub-system in the Inaugural Address is the Appreciation, the second most dominant is Judgement, and the least dominant is the Affect. The findings also establish that the uses of the attitudinal elements in the Inaugural Address texts, particularly the one delivered by Bush Jr in his second inauguration, refutes common presumption that political speeches are objective and empty of emotional elements.
ABSTRAK
Tesis ini menyelidiki bagaimana elemen-elemen appraisal yang tercakup dalam sub-sistem Attitude dari Teori Appraisal digunakan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan presiden-presiden Amerika Serikat dari George Bush Senior sampai Barrack Obama. Tesis ini menunjukkan elemen-elemen Affect, Judgement, dan Appreciation dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut. Tesis ini juga menunjukkan beberapa cara elemen-elemen attitudinal tersebut bekerja menyampaikan makna-makna yang ingin dikomunikasikan oleh presiden-presiden tersebut. Analisis ini dilakukan dalam kerangka kerja penelitian kualitatif. Temuan-temuan penelitian menunjukkan bahwa sub-sistem yang paling dominan dalam pidato-pidato pelantikan tersebut adalah Appreciation, paling dominan kedua adalah Judgement, dan yang paling tidak dominan adalah Affect. Temuan-temuan tersebut juga menunjukkan bahwa penggunaan-penggunaan elemen attitudinal dalam teks-teks pidato pelantikan tersebut, khususnya pidato pelantikan yang disampaikan oleh Bush Junior dalam pelantikannya yang kedua-kalinya, membantah anggapan umum bahwa pidato-pidato politik bersifat objektif dan bebas dari elemen-elemen emosional.
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study
That how a person uses language (his choice of words, his composing the
wording of his message, intonation, etc) shows his morality is something which is
widely believed by our society. Our society believes that one whose language is
polite is that whose morality is good, while one who has a bad language, has a bad
character. This belief may be difficult to qualify as acceptable, but at least there is an
implication of it that people can agree on: that there is a strong connection between
the language a person uses in responding to something and his feeling about that
something.
Appraisal Theory (AT) departs from a thesis somewhat similar to the last
statement above. AT claims that the language a person uses describes both his stances
towards the issues he discusses and the person with whom he communicate (Martin &
White, 2005: 1). In other words, in the view of AT, a text is a presentation of how the
speaker or presenter of the text responds to the matter(s) discussed in the text (viz. his
subjective opinion about it) and the person(s) he speaks with. In short, AT is about
showing the appraisal of the speaker.
To cast off confusion as to which is which, it is useful to tell appraisal from
Appraisal. Appraisal is derived from the word appraise, which, in daily usage, is what
price on (esp. officially).” In short, appraisal is about making estimation or
approximation of the value of thing(s). On the other hand, Appraisal is the linguistic
elements in a text that show the stances of the speaker/writer concerning the issues he
discusses in the text. And, last, Appraisal Theory is the linguistics theory that
discusses Appraisal in a language. Since this thesis discusses Appraisal using
Appraisal Theory, the use of appraisal must be regarded as to mean the Appraisal (i.e.
the linguistic elements) and not the appraisal (i.e. the estimation of value) in the first
meaning above. In other words, the appraisal meant in the title of this thesis is the
appraising elements or the evaluating elements in the texts.
As has been observed in the works on AT, the issue of speaker’s emotion in
text has been an interest for researchers using functionally and semiotically oriented
approaches and for those whose concern is with discourse, rhetoric and
communicative effect (ibid). AT can be considered a full-blown theory that provides
those linguists with a systematic and thorough approach in doing the research on the
issue of speaker’s emotion in any text.
Inaugural Address is the speech delivered by an elected president of the
United States of America at his Inauguration. The inauguration is usually held on
January 20th of the year subsequent to a presidential election year. Before 1933, the
inauguration is held on March 4th, the beginning day of a presidents term. But the
twentieth amendment to the American constitution changed the date to January 20th
“…it was felt that there was just too much time between an election and the swearing-in of the new president, and the Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, passed in 1933, shortened the gap and the time a sitting president served in a “lame duck” capacity”(Genovese & Han, 2009: 626).
As an example of this, the current president of America, Barrack Hussein
Obama, won the presidential election of 2008 and delivered his Inaugural Address on
the day of Tuesday, January 20, 2009.
The Inaugural Address of the President of the United States of America has
always been a momentous event in the politics of the world. The world sees the
Inaugural Address as the sneak preview, a kind of ‘abstract’ of the actions that the
new president will take in his presidency. Therefore, the Inaugural Address has
always been anticipated with great interest by nations across the world. The writer
may need to add that the last Inaugural Address viz. the one delivered by Barrack
Hussein Obama, the 44th President of America, was watched by roughly 10 million
people across the globe. This is a factor that motivates the writer to perform a study
on the Inaugural Address of the President of America.
In an Inaugural Address, a president usually evaluates things around and
pertaining to their speeches. Due to this evaluative nature, Inaugural Addresses of the
presidents of the United States of America are also the objects of study for Appraisal
Theory.
Inaugural Address is a political speech. It is basically a formal
self-introduction by an elected president to his people. As with other political speeches,
the president looks agreeable to and likened by his people in the very first formal
meeting between him and the people. Therefore, Inaugural Speeches have their own
forms and characteristics. It is hoped that this study will bring out some of the
characteristics of Inaugural Addresses that will help to understand the nature of them
and how they function to convey the messages of the presidents.
Another factor that makes researches on political speeches interesting is the
common presumption that the language used in politics is devoid of emotional
touches and subjective assumption, as well as being highly complicated. Political
language is thought to be objective/unbiased, scientific, and far from being overt in
showing emotion. This is a challenging assumption that needs to be dealt with using
AT. It is hoped that this research will show the effectiveness of the systematic
approach that makes up the whole body of AT in uncovering the elements of emotion
in any text.
Last, the choosing of the last four presidents of America is because (other than
their ‘currentness’) of the ‘dark’ images that overshadow the presidency of the three
of them: Bush Senior is overshadowed by the 1991 Gulf War, Clinton the sex
scandal, and Bush Junior war on terrorism. Barrack Obama, on the other hand, is a
major turning point in the foreign diplomacy of America. Being a Democrat, he
stands as the monument of the will of the majority of American voters to change the
international image of America, to transform from the haughty, know-it-all ‘Globo
1.2. The Scope of the Study
This study is focused on appraisal in the Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents
of United States of America, i.e. George Herbert Walker Bush (or, George Bush
Senior), William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush (or, George Bush Junior),
and Barack Hussein Obama. The appraisal that is going to be studied is the Attitude
aspects of Appraisal in the inaugural addresses.
Specifically the study addresses only the verbal texts, focusing only on the
attitude elements in the texts; with little reference to non-verbal contexts in passage.
1.3. The Problems of the Study
This study focuses on the Appraisals (elements) that are classified in the
Attitude system of the Appraisal Theory. This is to say that of the three
sub-systems of Appraisal Theory (i.e. Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation); the writer
picks only the Attitude sub-system. This is done not only for the purpose of avoiding
the tendency of doing a tedious research, but also because of what has been explained
above.
As mentioned above, the writer tries to uncover the emotional elements in the
inaugural texts to prove whether the common presumption that says political speeches
is objective and devoid of emotional elements is true. To do this, it is only correct to
choose to employ the sub-system of Appraisal Theory that deals with feeling:
To define the problem discussed in this thesis, the writer addresses the
following questions:
1. What are the Affect elements in the Inaugural Address texts?
2. What are the Judgement elements in the Inaugural Address texts?
3. What are the Appreciation elements in the Inaugural Address texts?
4. How do the attitudinal resources function to convey the messages of the
presidents?
1.4. The Objectives of the Study
In line with the problems, the objectives of the study are:
1. To describe the Affect elements in the 6 Inaugural Address texts
2. To describe the Judgement elements in the 6 Inaugural Address texts
3. To describe the Appreciation elements in the 6 Inaugural Address texts
4. To describe some of the ways the attitudinal resources function to convey the
messages of the presidents.
1.5. The Significance of the Study
Findings of the study are expected to offer both theoretical and practical
contributions. Theoretically, findings of the study will promote Appraisal Theory. It
is noted that there has been very few academic writings, articles, books about it in
Practically the findings offer description of the nature of political speeches,
especially that of American presidents’s inaugural addresses and therefore provide
the information for the future research to be done on this topic using appraisal theory
especially the different approach that might be used in the analysis.
1.6. Appraisal Theory Terminology
a. Appraisal Theory: The theory that extends the interpersonal function of
language introduced by Systemic Functional Linguistics/Functional Grammar.
Emerged in the middle of the 90’s, it concerns with roughly the three
interpersonal aspects of texts: Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation. AT
claims that the language a person uses describes both his stances towards the
issues he discusses and the person with whom he communicate.
b. Affect: One of the sub-division (the other two being Judgement and
Appreciation) of the Attitude aspects of AT. Affect is about the personal
emotion of the speaker; it is concerned with registering positive and negative
feelings of the speaker toward the issue at hand: happy, sad, bored, etc.
c. Attitude: Values by which speakers pass judgements and associate
emotional/affectual responses with participants and processes.
d. Engagement: along with Attitude and Graduation, engagement is one of the
main aspects of AT. It is concerned with how writers convey their point of
e. Graduation: Values by which (1) speakers graduate (raise or lower) the
interpersonal impact, force or volume of their utterances, and (2) by which
they graduate (blur or sharpen) the focus of their semantic categorisations.
f. Judgement: appraisal of other’s behaviour. It deals with attitudes towards
behaviour, which we admire or criticise, praise or condemn.
g. Appreciation: evaluation of phenomena. It involves evaluations of semiotic
and natural phenomena, according to the ways in which they are valued or not
in a given field.
h. Inaugural Address: address/speech delivered by a newly elected president of
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1. Systemic Functional Linguistics
Although it has been mentioned in the previous chapter that Appraisal Theory
is a full-blown theory about emotion in text, the theory is still put ‘under the heading’
of another theory: Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). SFL is the linguistics
school that was first introduced and developed by the English linguist Michael
Alexander Kirkwood Halliday, emeritus professor of linguistics at the University of
Sydney, Australia1.
SFL analyses language from the view point of meaning; SFL is a
meaning-based linguistics theory. SFL, first and foremost, views language as a resource for
making meaning. It discusses how language (or, rather, elements of language)
functions to convey meaning that language-users want to communicate. In a clausal
(SFL does not recognize sentence) level, for example, instead of discussing what
categorizes as what (Subjects and Objects are usually nouns, etc), SFL looks at who
the participants are, what action is done, and in what circumstances it is done.
SFL states that there are three modes of meaning, those that fall under the
heading of metafunction of language. Metafunction is the function of the function of
1 After his retirement in 1987, Halliday has been visiting various universities, one of which is
language. The term metafunction thus is used to avoid confusing the notion of what
being talked about with the common word: function. As Halliday puts it
“We could have called them [i.e. the functions] simply ‘functions’; however there is a long tradition of talking about the functions of language contexts where ‘function’ simply means purpose or way of using language, and has no significance for the analysis of language itself…the systemic analysis shows that functionality is intrinsic to language…[thus] The term ‘metafunction’
was adopted to suggest that function was an integral component within the overall theory” (2004: 30-31).
The three metafunctions of language are the ideational/experiential
metafunction, the textual and the interpersonal. It must be noted that these
metafunctions work simultaneously, in the same time and space, in every utterance.
This means that any utterance are equipped with all these three metafunctions,
therefore the three must not be separated in analysing any utterance. By this
view-point, any clause is regarded as a unit of experience, and hence grammar as a theory
of experience2.
In the analysis of ideational metafunction, SFL first looks at the process,
going-on that is represented in the text; then what participants are involved in the
process and the circumstance of the process. SFL categorizes 6 kinds of process:
material (the real, physical process that happens outside of human body, represented
by verbs such as eat, kick, go, cut, etc), mental (the psychological process, the process
that takes place in the mind, using verbs such as think, like, want, hate etc), verbal
(the process of saying, of giving information verbally: talk, tell, instruct, say, etc),
2 Lecture on Systemic Functional Linguistics by Prof. Amrin Saragih at USU’
relational (the process of being: is, become, stands for, symbolizes, etc), existential
(the process of existing, of being a being: is, am, come, go by), and behavioural (the
process made up of both mental and material activities: laugh, dream, cough).
By textual metafunction, SFL means the function of language as a medium for
a speaker to arrange his message. Textual function refers to how language-users
encode their messages into texts, determine the flow of the messages, and relate the
messages with the previous ones thus maintaining the cohesion among the messages.
SFL analyses this by looking at the themes and rhemes parts of clauses, the types of
the themes, and the un/marked-ness of the theme.
Interpersonal metafunction is the metafunction that expresses a speaker’s
attitude and judgements. Thus it is the metafunction that serves to be the basis of the
whole enterprise of Appraisal Theory. In the analysis of interpersonal metafunction,
we look at mood and modality. Mood in English is about the two elements (subject
and finite) of a clause that determines the form of the clause: whether it is an
imperative, declarative, or interrogative. Modality is about those words that mark
necessity, possibility or impossibility such as should, probably, maybe, etc. Since
interpersonal metafunction is the basis of Appraisal Theory, mood and modality are
also objects of study in an appraisal research.
Textual
Ideational
Interpersonal
Figure 2.1. Ideational, Interpersonal, and Textual Metafunction (Martin & White, 2005: 8)
2.2. Appraisal Theory
Appraisal Theory is a linguistics theory about emotion, ethics, and aesthetics.
It is basically about the systems3 in a language that determine how speakers of the
language should express themselves in relation to their interlocutor or audience and
the topic(s) of their talks itself.
One of the linguistic insights that underlies Appraisal Theory is that when
people talk, they keep negotiating their relation with others. Simple as it may seem,
the process of talking is quite a complex one: people calculating the knowledge of
3 The notion of system here is the one defined by Halliday as simply “
what could go instead of what” as opposed to “what goes together with what” [the simplified definition of structure]
their interlocutor/audience, processing the proper wordings that match their
calculation of their audience’s knowledge, adjusting the proper gesture and facial
expression, etc4.
Of all these things happening when we talk, one of the most important is our
consideration of our relation with person(s) with whom we talk. In almost every
utterance that we produce, we keep considering and considering our relation with our
interlocutor. On the other hand, our interlocutor also does the same thing. This means
that we are actually negotiating our stance with our interlocutor. Appraisal Theory
documents the elements that we use in this negotiating stance process, classifies
them, and provides exposition on how they function in real language-speaking
situation; all for the purpose of describing the system of appraisal in a language. In
short, Appraisal Theory is a systematic linguistic theory of emotion in text.
The notion systematic is quite important since it will answer sceptical minds
that question the use of this theory. It is quite acceptable to say that we don’t really
need Appraisal Theory to analyse emotion in text as we can use our logic and natural
knowledge of language to even reach the conclusion of this thesis and the like. But
this question actually not only doubts the use of doing Appraisal Theory but also the
whole enterprise of scientific world. For what use is it to study physics, to take an
example, if we can know the physical world based on our own deduction and
knowledge of it?.
4
It is because of the notion scientific implies the concept of systematic and
methodical that people actually doing science, linguistics included. Science makes
our knowledge systematic and by turn the sytematism produces insights on the world.
To sum up, the following comment by Bednarek on the importance of Appraisal
Theory is quite worthy of reading
The contribution of appraisal theory to the study of evaluation can hardly be overestimated, since it provides the only systematic, detailed and elaborate framework of evaluative language (in A’Beckett, 2009: 3).
Continuing the discussion on appraisal system, the system meant here is
actually linguistic resources: the elements of language that are used by speakers to
express their emotion. Although the primary resource for evaluation of attitude is
adjectives, it doesn’t mean that evaluation is only realised with adjectives. For it is
clear that in our daily expression, attitude can be evaluated from any words used by
speakers.
This implies that the evaluation resources can be a word of any word-class, a
word group/phrase, or even a clause. In other words, emotion can be encoded with a
single word, a group of words, or even a clause, as can be seen in the examples below
from appraisal homepage (http://www.grammatics.com/Appraisal /AppraisalGuide/
Framed/ Frame.htm).
No doubt the men want to sleep with her but they
In the example above we find appraisal elements which are words [respect,
like, trust, upfront, gutsy, and adore] and clauses [want to sleep and have a crush on]
It [the E-type Jaguar] is a masterpiece of styling whose proportions are dramatic yet perfectly judged and well-mannered; its crisp details are in complete harmony with the broader outlines of the gorgeous general arrangement, and, symbolically, it evokes with exquisite eloquence all the ideas of speed, glamour and romance associated with travel. You can just feel air and bodies rushing and swooning all over that lascivious shape. Never, ever, has that creaking old trope about form and function had a better character witness (The Independent, Weekend Review: p.1 27/01/2001).
The appraisal elements which are words in the above example are:
masterpiece, dramatic, crisp, and others. Those which are in groups/phrases are:
perfectly judged, well-mannered, complete harmony, etc. But, unlike example number
1, this example does not have elements of appraisal which are in clause.
Appraisal Theory proposes that there are three linguistic resources to express
emotions: attitude, engagement, and graduation. The difference between the three is
shown in the following words (Martin and White, 2005: 35).
A P P R A I S A L
ENGAGEMENT monogloss
heterogloss
Affect... ATTITUDE
Judgement…
Appreciation…
raise GRADUATION force lower
focus sharpen
soften
Figure 2.2. An Overview of Appraisal Resources (Martin & White, 2005: 38)
As has been stated in chapter I, this thesis discusses only the Attitude
sub-system of Appraisal Theory. The following is an exposition of the sub-sub-system.
2.2.1. Attitude
Attitude is the sub-system of Appraisal Theory that, on the whole, covers
feelings. The feelings meant here are the feelings that are either explicitly stated or
implicitly stated. The explicit feelings—technically called inscribed attitude—are the
feelings that are clear enough to be seen without employing interpretation. On the
other hand, the implicit feelings—the invoked attitude—are the feelings that are
results of the interpretation of what are actually said. The following is an example of
1. He is an incompetent fool. [explicit/inscribed]
2. I don’t think he can comprehend anything. [implicit/invoked]
In example number (1), the word “fool” is an explicit statement of negative
attitude towards someone. People hardly need interpretation to get the intended
meaning of the word. On the other hand, in the second example, the clause “don’t
think he can comprehend anything” is an implicit statement of a negative attitude.
While people will not find it difficult to get the intended meaning, the actual, literal
meaning of the clause is merely a statement of an opinion. We can only say that it is a
negative attitude after we employ what linguists term as “pragmatic inference” of the
clause. In other words, the meaning of the clause is not literal.
This difference is of importance since it gives an idea that although Appraisal
Theory works on lexis level (Martin and White, 2005: 8), it proves to be difficult to
be completely lexis-minded in doing appraisal. To name one factor for the difficulty,
metaphors, which almost always work as a way of evaluating, can hardly be reduced
to a simpler form, not to mention a word. It is only acceptable that we analyse
metaphors based on the whole words they are made of. And this is Martin and
White’s ‘invoked’ stance if we read their explanation on indirect realisation (Ibid:
61-67).
Pertaining to the above difficulty, the position the writer takes in this thesis is
the one of lexis base: in the tables in chapter IV, the writer presents only the
important words in the clauses in the text; and yet, in the inaugural texts, the writer
dis/inclination: desire, fear un/happiness: happy, sad in/security: confident, anxious dis/satisfaction: pleased, angry
sanction esteem mm
normality: fortunate, hapless capacity: powerful, weak tenacity: resolute, reckless
appreciation judgement affect
veracity: truthful, dishonest propriety: ethical, immoral
impact: exciting, tedious quality: good, nasty
balance: unified, discordant complexity: simple, simplistic
valuation: profound, shallow composition
reaction
complete meaning of the words. As for metaphors, the writer first gets their literal
meanings, picks the core word [or, rather, the word that can regarded as the core],
then finally puts it in the table.
Since Attitude are linguistic elements by which speakers realize their
attitudes, each of the three subdivisions of Attitude are grouped into two regions: the
positive (or, the likable) attitude and the negative (or, the unlikable attitude). Further,
the negative feeling is differentiated from the negation of positive feeling and vice
versa. This is because the two are different, although on certain contexts they may be
seemingly similar. For example sad (which is a negative attitude) is differentiated
from not happy (which is a negated positive attitude) because, to name a simple fact,
a person can be “not happy” without being “sad”.
Attitude is divided into three regions: affect, judgement, and appreciation.
Below are explanations of each of the regions.
2.2.1.1. Affect
Affect is the linguistic resource used to show positive and negative feeling;
whether a speaker is bored, interested, happy, sad, etc. Several examples are grief,
I’m grieved, it is a sad day.
Affect is further subdivided into four types:
a. dis/inclination: how the speaker inclined or disinclined to something. The
typical words classified in this region are miss, long for, etc.
b. un/happiness: emotional feeling of the speaker whether he is happy or sad.
The typical words classified in this region are cheerful, gloomy, buoyant, etc.
c. in/security: the speaker’s emotions which is related with his ecosocial
well-being: anxiety, fear, confidence and trust. The typical words are: confident,
comfortable, trusting, etc.
d. dis/satisfaction: emotions concerned with telos—the pursuit of goals—ennui,
displeasure, curiosity, respect. The typical words are: engrossed, satisfied,
Table 2.1. Sub-systems of Affect (Martin & White, 2005: 51)
Affect Positive Negative
dis/inclination or desire
un/happiness
In/security
dis/satisfaction
miss, long for, yearn for
cheerful, buoyant, jubilant; like, love, adore
together, confident, assured; comfortable, confident, trusting involved, absorbed,
engrossed; satisfied, pleased, chuffed/ impressed, charmed, thrilled
wary, fearful, terrorised
sad, melancholy, despondent; cut-up, heart-broken …
broken-hearted, heavy- hearted, sick at heart; sorrowful … grief-stricken, woebegone … dejected …; dejected, joyless, dreary, cheerless, unhappy, sad; gloomy, despondent, …
downcast, low, down, down in the mouth, depressed …; weepy, wet-eyed, tearful, in tears …
uneasy, anxious, freaked out; startled, surprised, astonished
flat, stale, jaded; cross, angry, furious; bored with, sick of, fed up with
2.2.1.2. Judgement
Judgement is about attitudes towards behaviour. The linguistic resources that
fall under the category of judgement are used to show or to express speakers’
positions about others’ conduct: whether he admires the behaviour or not, appreciate
or condemn, etc. The following are examples taken from Bush Junior’s second
inaugural address
In the first example, the word ‘unwisely’ is a judgement on the capacity of the
people who “have chosen to test America’s resolve”. The prefix ‘un-‘ in the word
signifies that the judgement is one of negative type. In the second example, the
dubbing of reformers as “democratic” is a judgement on the propriety of the
reformers; and it is a positive one since in American culture “being democratic” is
usually considered a good trait.
Judgement is divided into two types:
1. social esteem: is the region of judgements in which the evaluation of people’s
conduct is based on social ethics; on a standard of appropriateness. In this region
there are judgements of
a. ‘normality’ (how unusual someone is); the typical words classified in this
domain are: normal, natural, familiar, lucky, stable, etc.
b. ‘capacity’ (how capable someone is): powerful, vigorous, healthy, fit, etc.
c. ‘tenacity’ (how resolute someone is): plucky, reliable, tireless, loyal, etc.
2. social sanction: is the region of judgements in which the evaluation of people’s
conduct is based on legal/religious rules. Unlike those underlying social esteem,
the rules on which social sanction are based are usually codified and written.
Therefore violations of these rules are usually penalized; while on the other hand,
people who violate social esteem rules are only considered “unfortunate” or, at
the worst level, “strange”. The latter stigma is about the worst ‘punishment’ a
to see a psychiatrist; but, if you break social sanction rules, you need the help of a
lawyer (Martin & White, 2005: 53 and Martin & Rose, 2008: 68).
Back to social sanction, this region comprises judgement of two traits
a. ‘veracity’ (how truthful someone is); the typical words classified in this region
are truthful, candid, tactful, etc.
b. ‘propriety’ (how ethical someone is): polite, ethical, law abiding, etc.
The table below displays what have been discussed above
Table 2.2. Sub-systems of Judgement (op.cit: 53)
Social Esteem Positive (Admire) Negative (Criticise)
Normality
lucky, fortunate, charmed …; normal, natural, familiar …; cool, stable, predictable …; in, fashionable, avant garde …; celebrated, unsung …
powerful, vigorous, robust …; sound, healthy, fit …;
adult, mature, experienced …; witty, humorous, droll …; insightful, clever, gifted …; balanced, together, sane …; sensible, expert, shrewd …; literate, educated, learned …; competent, accomplished …; successful, productive …
plucky, brave, heroic …; cautious, wary, patient …; careful, thorough, meticulous tireless, persevering, resolute …; reliable, dependable …;
faithful, loyal, constant …; flexible, adaptable, accommodating …
unlucky, hapless, star-crossed …; odd, peculiar, eccentric …; erratic, unpredictable …; dated, daggy, retrograde …; obscure, also-ran …
mild, weak, whimpy …; unsound, sick, crippled …; immature, childish, helpless …; dull, dreary, grave …;
slow, stupid, thick …; flaky, neurotic, insane …; naive, inexpert, foolish …; illiterate, uneducated, ignorant …; incompetent; unaccomplished …; unsuccessful, unproductive …
Table 2.2. Continued
Social Sanction Positive (Praise) Negative (Condemn)
veracity [truth]
‘how honest?’
propriety [ethics]
‘how far beyond Reproach?’
truthful, honest, credible …; frank, candid, direct …; discrete, tactful …
good, moral, ethical …; law abiding, fair, just …; sensitive, kind, caring …; unassuming, modest, humble …; polite, respectful, reverent …; altruistic, generous, charitable …
dishonest, deceitful, lying …; deceptive, manipulative, devious …; blunt, blabbermouth …
bad, immoral, evil …; corrupt, unfair, unjust …; insensitive, mean, cruel …; vain, snobby, arrogant …; rude, discourteous, irreverent …; selfish, greedy, avaricious …
2.2.1.3. Appreciation
Appreciation is about evaluation of things, of concrete, natural objects: a
novel, a scenery, a house, a musical composition, or any other objects. In the
following example (op.cit), the bold parts are a speaker’s appreciation of a speech.
The new president's speech was elegant and well-woven, sounding a panoply of themes without seeming scattered.
Appreciation is further divided into three types:
1. reaction: related to affection. It is further sub-divided into two systems: that of
impact (whether the phenomena grabs our attention) and quality (whether the
phenomena is liked by the speaker). The typical words belonging in the region
of impact are: arresting, captivating, fascinating, etc. The typical words of
quality are: okay, fine, beautiful, splendid, etc.
2. composition: related to our view of order. It is further sub-divided into two
systems: balance [whether the phenomena is orderly, has a sense of balance
difficult to comprehend]. Typical words of balance are: symmetrical,
proportioned, unified, logical, etc. Typical words of complexity are: simple,
lucid, clear, intricate, reach, etc.
3. valuation: related to our considered opinions. The typical words belonging to
this region are: penetrating, profound, priceless, worthwhile, etc.
Table 2.3. Subsytems of Appreciation (op.cit: 56)
Appreciation Positive Negative
Reaction:
‘was it worthwhile?’
arresting, captivating, engaging …; fascinating, exciting, moving …; lively, dramatic, intense …; remarkable, notable, sensational …
okay, fine, good …
lovely, beautiful, splendid …; appealing, enchanting, welcome …
balanced, harmonious, unified, symmetrical, proportioned …; consistent, considered, logical …; shapely, curvaceous, willowly …
simple, pure, elegant …; lucid, clear, precise …;
intricate, rich, detailed, precise …
penetrating, profound, deep …; innovative, original, creative …; timely, long awaited, landmark …; inimitable, exceptional, unique …; authentic, real, genuine …; valuable, priceless, worthwhile …; appropriate, helpful, effective …
dull, boring, tedious …; dry, ascetic, uninviting …; flat, predictable, monotonous …; unremarkable, pedestrian …
bad, yuk, nasty …; plain, ugly, grotesque …;
repulsive, revolting, off-putting …
unbalanced, discordant, irregular, uneven, flawed …;
contradictory, disorganised …; shapeless, amorphous, distorted …
ornate, extravagant, byzantine …; arcane, unclear, woolly …; plain, monolithic, simplistic …
shallow, reductive, insignificant …; derivative, conventional, prosaic…; dated, overdue, untimely …; dime-a-dozen, everyday, common; fake, bogus, glitzy …;
worthless, shoddy, pricey …; ineffective, useless, write-off …
It may seem obvious that the boundaries between the three are somewhat
blurry. To name one point of blurriness: the things that “grab people’s attention”
valuable [valuation]. Martin and White proposes an exposition to help tackle this
issue:
Reaction is related to affection (emotive –‘it grabs me’, desiderative–‘I want it’); composition is related to perception (our view of order); and valuation is related to cognition (our considered opinions). Alternatively, the appreciation framework might be interpreted metafunctionally–with reaction oriented to interpersonal significance, composition to textual organisation and valuation to ideational worth. (Martin&White, 2005: 57)
The following table summarises the above exposition
Table 2.4. Sub-types of Appreciation (Martin&White: 57)
Appreciation Mental Process Type Metafunction
Reaction Composition Valuation
Affection Perception Cognition
Interpersonal Textual Ideational
2.2.1.4. Classification of modals
Since modals also act as a medium to express evaluation, they are also
included in the region of attitude. Modals are placed in the region of judgement.
1. For modalities of probability [surely, maybe, probably…], the classification is that
of veracity. Below are examples from Bush Senior’s inaugural address.
Surely, they did not do this to advance the politics of petty bickering and extreme partisanship they plainly deplore. [Judgement: veracity]
The sentence above can be interpreted to be more ethical-sound and therefore
its being placed in the region of veracity is more agreeable
2. For modalities of usuality [often, normal, average…], the classification is that of
normality. The following are examples.
The president often forgets thing [judgement: normality] It’s unusual for him to be late [judgement: normality]
3. For modalities of ability and capacity [can, strong enough, capable of…], the
classification is that of ability and capacity. Some examples are
He can cook [judgement: capacity]
He is powerful enough to break these four bricks [judgement: capacity]
4. For modalities of obligation, the classification is that of propriety. The following
are examples.
The man should wear coat; it’s freezing. [judgement: propriety] You must be on time. [judgement: propriety]
5. For modalities of inclination [will, intend to, resolved…], Martin and White
proposed the clasification to be that of tenacity. Below are examples.
I will do it. [judgement: tenacity]
She intends to do it. [judgement: tenacity]
2.2.1.5. Differences
To avoid confusion as to which is the domain of which, Martin and White
defines boundaries between the three subdivisions of Attitude. The borders are
especially helpful for making an objective limit of domains which will enable a
researcher to check himself whether what he is doing is still according to what it
The first border to be defined is as to which entity is object to which element
of attitude and what points of the entity is to be evaluated. The following table
describes this.
Table 2.5. Points of Differences/Borders (based on Martin & White, 2005: 57-60)
Kinds of Attitude To Evaluate Points of Evaluation
Affect Human and other conscious
beings.
Emotion, feelings, things that happen in the heart.
Judgement Human and other conscious beings.
Behaviour/conduct/character.
Appreciation Things/Phenomena; be it phenomena of nature or linguistics [language-related]
The values, composition, and the things impact on speakers.
To make the differences clearer, there are relational clause formulas [for
affect and judgement] and mental clause ones [for appreciation] to check whether the
appraisal elements fitly belong to the region they are thought to belong. This is
displayed by the table below.
Table 2.6. Clauses for Clearing Differences (based on Martin & White, op.cit: 58-59)
Kinds of Attitude Clauses to check Examples
Affect [person feels affect about something] [it makes person feel affect that [proposition]}.
I feel happy that…
It makes happy that…
Judgement [it was judgement for person/of person to do that]
[(for person) to do that was judgement]
It was unfair of you to…
For you to …is unfair
Appreciation [Person consider something appreciation] [Person see something as appreciation]
I consider it beautiful…
2.3. Reason for Adopting SLT and the Appraisal Theory
The title of this part may induce meaning different from what is intended. It is
actually meant to say that anybody who uses Martin & White’s Appraisal Theory
automatically uses SLT. As may have been inferred from the explanation above, SLT
is closely related with Appraisal Theory. SLT provides the theoretical basis for
Appraisal Theory, i.e the interpersonal metafunction of SLT serves to be the basis of
Appraisal Theory. As Martin and White (2005: 7) puts it:
As indicated, our model of evaluation evolved within the general theoretical framework of SFL.
In the part entitled Situating Appraisal in SFL of their book (2005: 33-34)
Martin and White directly point out the location of Appraisal in SFL
…we can locate appraisal as an interpersonal system at the level of discourse semantics. At this level it co-articulates interpersonal meaning with two other systems: negotiation and involvement.
The quotation above is translated into the figure below
Negotiation
Involvement Appraisal
Solidarity
2.4. Previous Related Researches
1. Sumarsih (2009) used appraisal theory in her dissertation entitled
“Penggambaran Sikap, Pendirian, dan Penilaian dalam Teks dan Konteks
melalui Bahasa Evaluatif”. In the dissertation, she examines evaluative
elements in 5 text genres in Indonesian language: fiction, interview texts,
scientific texts, newspaper editorials, and news texts.
2. Suriyadi (a postgraduate student at University of North Sumatera) wrote a
brief paper—presented at the Pertemuan Linguistik Utara on March 2-3, 2009
in Medan—on Appraisal Theory which discusses texts presented at the
scientific writing seminar at the State Polytechnic Institute of Medan
(Politeknik Negeri Medan). Both the works of Sumarsih and Suriyadi
contribute to the writer’s better understanding on how the Appraisal Theory
works on Bahasa Indonesia.
3. A’Beckett wrote a paper (2009) entitled Appraisal in the Russian Press: the
Characterisation of the Ukranian Leaders in which she does what she says as
“uncover the means of inviting negative perception of Ukrainian leaders (the
former President Yuschenko and Prime Minister Timoshenko) in the Russian
press” (page 1). To achieve this, she uses Appraisal Theory for the analysis of
evaluative language to analyse texts of Russian newspapers. This paper is
especially helpful in understanding how the Appraisal Theory works on
newpaper texts to reveal emotional elements in what is commonly regarded as
4. Page, in her paper (2003) entitled An analysis of APPRAISAL in childbirth
narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style,
examines child-birth narratives while simultaneously using what she termed
as ‘consideration of gender and storytelling style’. There are two findings that
she mentions in the paper (op.cit: 1)
that the women and men in this study have subtly differing story-telling styles as indicated by the relative proportion of AFFECT and APPRECIATION found in their narratives…[and that] gender is also important in understanding the speakers’ self characterization as expressed through JUDGMENT.
This paper of Ruth’s gives the writer an important view on how sex difference
somehow contributes to how a speaker uses appraisal/evaluating elements of
English.
5. Miller (http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/millerD/miller-bush-gore.pdf)
uses only the Engagement aspect of Appraisal Theory to analyse the decision
made by the US Supreme Court on the case of Bush v. Gore 2000 (i.e the case
of the year 2000’s US presidential election dispute between Bush Junior and
Al Gore). Among the interesting things that she found in the research is how
the justices in the Supreme Court used Engagement resources to present and
strengthen their legal arguments in the debate on the case.
6. Martin, in his article in the Discourse and Society journal entitled Mourning:
How We are Aligned, examines appraisal elements in the September 2001
edition of a Hong Kong-based magazine’s editorial entitled Mourning. In it,
sympathize with the unfortunate persons told in the editorial, to align the
readers with the position and opinion of the writer(s) of the editorial.
This paper is one of the important papers on Appraisal Theory in that it is
from the expert on the theory that shows how the theory works to uncover people’s
attitude through their writing. It therefore contributes to the writing of this thesis in
the way that it shows more clearly what the writer meant his theory is and how it
should be used.
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
3.1. The Research Framework
This research is done in the framework of a qualitative descriptive research
type. Qualitative researches are based on the assumption that reality is the result of
interactions between men. Reality is not what is out there in the ‘real world’; reality is
what men make out of the so-called the real world. Men use symbols (particularly
language) to interact, to communicate these “reality” or meaning, between them.
Therefore to get the meaning of the real world, any researcher is to study these
symbols in the environment they are used; and how they are used in the interaction
between men. This viewpoint is introduced and maintained by the school of thought
in social sciences that is called symbolic interactionists. The leading figures in
symbolic interactionists are Dewey, Cooley, Parks, Mead, and particularly Blumer,
who is regarded as the founder of this school of thought (Berg 2007: 8).
This symbolic interactionists’ view corresponds to the nature of this research.
The writer seeks to establish the ways the presidents make reality out of ‘the real
world’ and how they communicate their realities in their interaction with their
audiences using linguistic symbols (resources) available in English. To do this, the
writer uses the Attitude sub-system of Appraisal Theory to analyse appraisal elements
presidents. This obtaining meaning purpose corresponds to Berg’s explanation that
qualitative researches
“…allow researches to share in their understandings and perceptions of others and to explore how people structure and give meaning to their daily lives. Researches using qualitative techniques examine how people learn about and make sense of themselves and others” (op.cit: 8-9).
As for the nature of its qualitative-ness, this research is descriptive in that it
describes the appraisals in the texts as they are without any further action such as
comparing or contrasting; it delimitates itself only as a description of the phenomena
being researched.
3.2. The Data
The data are the clauses containing appraisals in the texts of the inaugural
addresses of the Presidents of United States of America. There are 6 inaugural
address texts altogether: one text from Bush Senior, two texts from Clinton, two texts
from Bush Junior and one text from Obama.
3.3. The Steps of the Research
3.3.1. Data Source Collection
One of the first steps taken in this research is the collecting of the data source,
which is the transcript of the inaugural addresses. The primary source of the inaugural
address transcripts is an internet site, bartleby.com, which provides the transcripts of
address texts is titled according to the names of the presidents delivering it: i.e. “the
Inaugural Address of George Herbert Walker Bush, the First Inaugural Address of
William Jefferson Clinton, the Second Inaugural Address of William Jefferson
Clinton, the First Inaugural Address of George Walker Bush, the Second Inaugural
Address of George Walker Bush, and the Inaugural Address of Barrack Hussein
Obama”.
The writer also finds other websites which provide presidential inaugural
speeches, such as presidency.ucsb.edu, and by comparing the content of the texts, the
writer can verify that the texts displayed are indeed the correct text of the American
president inaugural addresses. To be able to see the actual situation of the
Inauguration, the writer downloaded three inauguration videos from the internet (that
of Bush Senior’s, Bush Junior’s first, and Clinton’s first inauguration); this actually
implies that the videos function only as additional information in this research, not as
primary as the inaugural address texts.
The text files that had been obtained from the internet were then converted
from.hml type into .doc type in order to make them readable to the word processing
software [i.e. Microsoft’s Words]. The texts are examined closely to mark appraisal
elements in the texts. Then the results are interpreted to construe their meanings in the
