REFERENCES
Butler, C. (2003). Structure and Function: A Guide to Three Major
Structural-Functional Theories. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Available at:
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=fxzPs31VDHIC&pg=PA486&lpg= PA486&dq=halliday+polarity+and+modality&source
Retrieved on March, 2012
Departemen Pendidikan Nasional. (2005). Pedoman Penulisan Karya Ilmiah:
Laporan Buku, Makalah, Skripsi, Tesis dan Disertasi, Bandung:
Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Eggins, S. (2004). Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistic: 2nd Edition.
London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Available at:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=sS7UXugIIg8C&q=involves&d q=editions
Retrieved on January, 2012
Fairlough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York: Routledge
Fauzia, A. (2009). Explicit Modality in Barack Obama’s Speeches: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Obama’s Commitment Toward Islam. Bandung:
Gerot, L. and wignell, P. (1994). Making Sense of Functional Grammar. Australia: Gerd Stabler
Henry, F. and Tator, C. (2002) Discourses of Domination. Univ. of Toronto Press Available at:
http://grammar.about.com/od/d/g/discourseterm.htm Retrieved on January, 2012
Hornby, A.S. (2000). Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. UK: Oxford University Press
Leeuwen, T.V. (2005). Introducing Social Semiotic. New York: Routledge Available at:
Malmkjaer, K. (1991). The Linguistics Encyclopedia. London: Routledge. Available at:
Retrieved on April, 2012
Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Available at:
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=OJFrFmpGSnUC&pg=PA2&lpg= PA2&dq=Qualitative+study
Retrieved on July, 2012
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. California: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Muntigl, P. (2004). Narrative Counselling: Social and Linguistics Processes of
Change. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company
Available at:
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=VxKBz85_lfsC&pg=PA61&lpg=P A61&dq=modality+halliday+1994:359&source
Retrieved on March, 2012
Paltridge, B. (2000). Making Sense of Discourse Analysis. Australia: Gerd Stabler Phillips, L. and Jorgensen, M.W. (2002). Discourse Analysis as Theory and
Method. Great Britain: TJ International Ltd., Padstow, Cornwall.
Available at:
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=zw7njKgg_pwC&pg=PA66&lpg= PA66&dq=fairclough+three+dimensional&source
Rahayu, N.S. (2008). The Identity Construction of George W. Bush in ‘State of Union‘: A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Annual Speech delivered
by The President of USA on January, 10 2007. Bandung: Universitas
Pendidikan Indonesia.
http://books.google.co.id/books?id=gIy6RuEThFEC&pg=PA282&lpg =PA282&dq=Fairclough,+N.+(1989)
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This study investigates the expression of modality and evaluation of Hillary Clinton in a speech. Clinton is the sixty-seventh and current Secretary of States of the United States. She was sworn in on January 21st, 2009 and scheduled to end on January 20th, 2013.
According to Halliday (1985: 86), modality refers to the intermediate choices between yes and no. It is a significant technique in the expression of argument and opinion. By employing modality, people are free to express ideas that are not facts with various degrees of certainty.
Furthermore, Fairclough (2003: 164) proposes that modality deals with what speakers commit themselves to, concerning what is true and what is necessary. Meanwhile, evaluation deals with what speakers commit themselves to, concerning what is desirable or undesirable.
Modality means a speaker’s judgment of the probabilities, or the
obligation involved in what he is saying (Halliday, 1994). In harmony with Halliday, Fairclough (2003) sees that modality has to do with commitment which covers the speaker’s judgment and attitude in presenting his ideas and messages in
Moreover, evaluation is the aspect of meaning in text which deals with values (Fairclough, 2003: 215). Evaluation has to do with the way in which speakers commit themselves to values and concern the speaker’s commitment to desirability. Through evaluation, how the authors use words in his speech related to value can be analyzed.
Speech has a significant role in shaping and setting issues in the society, it limits the topic of what and how it is talked about (Henry and Tator, 2002). As Secretary of States of the United States, Clinton has an authority to make some polices and to convey her thought to the public. Through speech, she is able to deliver her idea about some matters.
As it was reported by BBC news on December 7th, 2011, Clinton delivered her speech in front of the United Nations in Geneva, Switzerland. She declared that gay rights are human rights. It was the anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which provided the opportunity for Clinton to challenge other governments by defending lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people.
of their sexual orientation. She also argued that it is violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay.
Who you are is a matter of how you speak, how you write, as well as how you look, how you hold yourself, or how you move (Fairclough, 2003). Additionally, when people act or do some activities, they also act out the social structure, declaring their own status, and creating the shared system of value and knowledge (Halliday, 1978). Through the speech, Clinton expressed her attitude toward some matters in human rights, specifically human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. Fairclough (2003) believes what speakers commit themselves to in texts is a significant part of what they are.
Therefore, the above phenomenon leads the researcher to investigate the expression of modality and evaluation of Hillary Clinton in her speech which relates to her commitment toward human rights, especially human rights of LGBT people. The study examines an analysis of modality and evaluation which would be limited by using Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistic as the tool of
analysis.
There are some speeches delivered by Clinton. However, there is just one speech taken, which is related to the LGBT issue as the focus of this study. The study represents a speech delivered by Hillary Clinton on December 6th, 2011.
1.2 Statement of Problem
1.3 Aims of the Study
In accordance with the research question above, the present study has two aims, which are:
1. To discover type of modality and evaluation are used in the speech. 2. To reveal Clinton’s commitment towards human rights of LGBT
people.
1.4 Significance of the Study
The following are some significances of the present study:
1. The study will enrich the concept of modality and evaluation analysis. 2. The study will be significant in raising people’s awareness toward
some issues of modality and evaluation in a discourse.
3. The study will be beneficial and helpful for the future researchers as their guide, to conduct research on similar topic.
1.5 Organization of the Paper
CHAPTER III
RESEARCH METHOD
This chapter covers the research method which is applied in the present study. It contains of formulation of problem, research design, text analyze include description of the object, research procedure, and clarification of terms
3.1 Formulation of Problem
Modality and evaluation analysis are performed in this study in order to reveal Hillary Clinton‟s commitment toward human rights of LGBT people in her
speech. The research problem is framed into one research question:
What are expression of modality and evaluation released in Clinton‟s speech?
3.2 Research Design
Furthermore, qualitative study as it is described by Maxwell (2005: 2) refers to:
The activities of collecting and analyzing data, developing and modifying theory, elaborating or refocusing the research questions, and identifying and eliminating validity threats are usually all going on more or less simultaneously, each influencing all of the others.
Qualitative study is also descriptive (Bogdan and Biklen, 1982 in Tesch 1990). Additionally, Travers (2001: 2) proposes that one of the methods employed by qualitative study is textual analysis. According to Miles and Huberman (1994: 1), the data is usually in the form of words rather than numbers.
The previous explanation leads the writer into a conclusion that qualitative design especially text analysis is the most appropriate method of this study. In addition, the analysis of modality and evaluation would be limited by using Halliday‟s Systemic Functional Linguistic as the tool of analysis.
3.3 Text Analyze
3.3.1 Description of the Object
The speech entitled “Remarks in Recognition of International Human
Rights Day”. The transcript of this speech consists of 37 paragraphs with 3746 words. In this speech, Clinton outlined the history of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. She believes that universal human rights include freedom of expression and freedom of belief. She also made clear that rights are not conferred by government; they are the birthright of all people. Therefore governments are bound to protect them.
Clinton stated that gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights. Moreover she promoted and protected the human rights of LGBT people. It is explained in the speech that is a violation of human rights when people are beaten or killed because of their sexual orientation, or because they do not conform to cultural norms about how men and women should look or behave. She also cited that is a violation of human rights when governments declare it illegal to be gay.
deals with participation to embrace human rights for all people including LGBT people. Through the speech, Clinton showed her commitment and attitude toward LGBT rights issues.
3.4 Research Procedure
This study is a textual analysis of Hillary Clinton‟s speech. The study analyzes the
speech transcript to answer the research question. Qualitative descriptive method is employed in this study. The study examines the expression of modality and evaluation in Clinton‟s speech by analyzing the occurrence of modality and
evaluation in every clause of the speech.
The first step of the analysis is reading closely and repeatedly the transcript of Hillary Clinton‟s speech. The second step is analyzing clauses in the
speech. In this step, Halliday‟s Systemic Functional Linguistic is performed.
The third step is identifying the object of the research. In this step, the expression of modality and evaluation is identified. And the last step is interpreting the object of the research that has been identified in the previous step. And the conclusion is drawing from it.
3.5 Clarification of the terms
There are some important terms which are frequently used in this study. It is necessary to look at their definitions in order to avoid ambiguity.
Lesbian: woman who is sexually attracted to the other women
(Oxford, 2000).
Gay: men sexually attracted to men (http://geneq.berkeley.edu) Bisexual: a person who is sexually attracted to both men and
women (Oxford, 2000).
Transgender: people are those whose psychological self („gender identity‟) differs from social expectations for the physical sex they
were born with (http://geneq.berkeley.edu).
Modality (of a clause or sentence): the intermediate choices
between yes and no (Halliday, 1985).
Evaluation is the aspect of meaning in text which deals with values
(Fairclough, 2003).
Speech: formal talk that a person gives to an audience (Oxford,
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
The study is performed in the aiming of finding out the expression of modality and evaluation released in Clinton’s speech. In order to answer this problem, the
study applies the concept of modality in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistic (SFL).
Through textual analysis, it is discovered that there are modalities in form of seven kinds of modal verbs: will, would, can, must, should, could, and need to. It is also found that there are four types of evaluation occur in the speech: Assumed Values, Evaluative Statement, Affection Evaluation and Evaluation through Deontic Modality.
There are different ways of the occurrence of those modality and evaluation in the speech. Modal verb ‘will’ occurred 14 times, ‘would’ occurred
seven times, ‘can’ occurred 15 times, ‘must’ occurred four times, ‘should’
occurred three times, ‘could’ occurred one times and ‘need to’ occurred one times.
Modal verb ‘can’ and ‘will’ are the two most frequent modal verbs in the speech. Clinton’s commitment toward human rights of LGBT people is interpreted
On the other hand, the occurrence of evaluation is also different one another. In the term of desirability, Assumed Value occurred 87 times; Evaluative Statement occurred 43 times; Affective Evaluation occurred 11 times; and Deontic Modality occurred seven times. Meanwhile, in the term of undesirability, Assumed Value occurred 20 times; Affective Evaluation occurred 12 times; Evaluative Statement occurred nine times. There is no occurrence of Deontic Modality in this term.
Assumed Value, both in terms of desirability and undesirability, is the most frequent type of evaluation that occurred in the speech. The domination of Assumed Value leads to an interpretation that Clinton tends to use implicit meaning in her speech which can make Clinton easily deliver her thought without being realized by the audience.
5.2 Suggestion
Textual analysis in a speech is very interesting. Halliday’s Systemic Functional
Linguistic (SFL) as the tool analysis in this study is found very impressive. However, there is always room for improvement in this paper.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Page Page of Approval
Statement of Authorization i
Preface ii
2.3 Discourse and Discourse Analysis 12
2.4 Previous Studies on Modality 15
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD
3.1 Formulation of Problem 18
3.2 Research Design 18
3.3 Text Analyzed 19
3.3.1 Description of the Object 20
3.4 Research Procedure 21
3.5 Clarification of the Terms 21
CHAPTER IV FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Findings 23
4.1.1 Modality 23
4.1.2.2 Modality through Mental Process 30 4.1.2.3 Occurrence of Modality 30
4.1.2 Evaluation 33
4.1.2.1 Evaluation through Evaluative Statement 34 4.1.2.2 Evaluation through Deontic Modality 34 4.1.2.3 Evaluation through Relational Process 35 4.1.2.4 Evaluation through Assumed Value 36 4.1.2.5 Occurrence of Evaluation 37
4.2 Discussion 39
CHAPTER V CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion 44
5.2 Suggestions 45
REFERENCES 47
