A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE Penelitian... · A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR...

A STUDY OF ARGUMENTSIN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE

Ignasia Yuyun

ABSTRACT

This paper attempts to identify the representation of argumentsin a private senior high school debate’s club in Bandung. Thisstudy used a case study method, particularly text analysis (Travers,2001) and involved a debate activity of senior high school studentsthat was purposively chosen. Halliday and Matthiessen’ theory ofmood and modality (2004) and Eggins and Slade’ analyticalstrategies (1997) the paper will then delineate the results, showingthat the arguments in the debate are represented through theextensive use of the declarative mood, median probability,extension conjunction, questions, and commands in declarative,explicitly subjective modality, and realization of metaphoricalexplicit subjective modality. Moreover, mood and modality analysisis helpful to understand the interpersonal meaning of the debatefrom a new perspective, which elaborates the subtleties of languageuse in this kind of genre and helps us have a better understandingof it. Therefore, such a study suggests that similar analysis couldalso benefit English learners in their improvement of Englishproficiency so that they can develop their communicativecompetence more effectively.Keywords : argument, debate, mood, modality, interpersonal

meaning, senior high school

1. INTRODUCTION

Critical thinking has turned to become more important incontemporary teaching and educational circles. For many reasons,educators have become very interested in teaching ‘thinking skills’of various kinds in contrast with teaching information and content

Ignasia Yuyun adalah Dosen di Universitas Kristen Krida Wacana Jakarta. AlamatKorespondensi: Ukrida Language Training Center (ULTC) Jl. Tanjung DurenRaya No.4, Jakarta Barat 11470. Email: [email protected]

109

Jurnal Penelitian Vol. 14, No. 1, November 2010

110

(Fisher, 2001). Many educators have long advocated the teachingof critical thinking skills such as reasoning (argumentation) andproblem solving. Skills in argumentation, spoken and written, hasbeen considered as one of critical thinking dispositions (Ennis, 1987,cited in Emilia, 2009) has thus been considered to be critical tochallenge students’ critical thinking, as Kurfiss (1988) states “Criticalthinking involves justification of beliefs and argumentation is thevehicle by which justification is offered … learning the skills ofargument enables students to reason ef fectively in variousdisciplines” (1988: 13).

Moreover, an argument expresses and supports a contentionor viewpoint on an issue and an issue is a matter of public debateon which there are different views (Mc Gregor, 2001: 2). In anargument, the author presents a point of view and attempts topersuade others of the validity of his or her opinion (Feez & Joyce,1998; Shulman, 2004: 148).

Critical thinking is not the same as, and should not be confusedwith, intelligence; it is a skill that may be improved in everyone(Walsh & Paul, 1988: 13). This coincides with Mitchell’s (1998: 41)suggestion that ‘critical thinking ability is significantly improved bycourses in argumentation and debate and by debate experience’.Thus, debate is relevant to the necessity of critical thinkingdevelopment. In line with this, some schools and universities havebeen trying hard to develop students’ critical thinking throughdebate activities. Of course, to help developing students’ languageskills of efficient listening, convincing public speaking, and debate(argumentation) in relation to extensive reading and follow-upwriting. In this measure, students can learn the proper competencefor developing efficient interpersonal communication as well asgetting ready for the challenges of the 21st century.

Thus, the Theoretical Framework of this study based on thetheories of Functional Linguistic and Functional Grammar especiallyMood and Modality (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Eggins & Slade,1997; Halliday, 1994) function as the fundamental framework inidentifying the assertiveness of arguments in debate. Mood hasevolved out of the requirement that language should serve as ameans of action, a way of exchanging goods-and-services andinformation (Halliday, 1989: 68). By looking at the mood structure,clause by clause, we can see the way the dialogue proceeds as a

111

Ignasia Yuyun, A Study of Arguments in Senior High School ....

series of exchanges (Halliday, 1994: 102). While, modality refers toa speaker’s attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of aproposition expressed by a clause. It also extends to his/her attitudetowards the situation or event described by a clause.

Moreover, this current study uses the theory of the linguisticfeatures of argumentation (Feez & Joyce, 1998: 142; Derewianka,1990: 76-78). These theories are indeed significant to help inanalyzing the findings toward the representation of arguments indebate. As regards the linguistic features of argumentation, cited inEmilia (2009), when we write arguments, we use whatever languageresources will work most effectively to sway the reader to our wayof thinking (Feez & Joyce, 1998: 141). Therefore Feez & Joyce (1998:142) suggest the following characteristics (1) introduces andsequences arguments by using linking devices such as first, second,furthermore, on the other hand, in conclusion, although, after lookingat both sides of this debate, (2) focuses on the topic and organizesarguments with topic sentences; (3) explains, describes, and usesevidence in arguments to make the arguments more ‘factual’ andso more powerful, (4) uses technical terms and abstract ‘packaging’nouns, (5) show; cause and effect which are shown with words like“lead to”,” contributes to”, the consequence, cause, (6) judges andevaluates; (7) asseses degrees of what is probable or usual by usingmust, never, and inevitably asses how probable or usual somethingis, (8) uses objective language, (9) attributes assessment to expertsources; and (10) appeal to the reader.

Moreover, as discussed by Derewianka (1990: 76-78), there aresome expressions used in argumentation. These are, among othersas follows; (1) generalised participants, some times human but oftenabstract (issues, ideas, opinions, etc), (2) possibility of technicalterms relating to the issue, (3) variety of verb (process types), suchas action, linking, saying (say, argue, point out, assert), and mental(think, perceive, understand), (4) mainly timeless present tensewhen presenting position and points in the argument, but mightchange according to the stage of the text, (5) frequent use of passiveto help structure the text, (6) nominalization to make the argumentsound more objective and to help structure the text, (7) conjunctionsassociated with reasoning, (8) arguments quite often employ emotivewords (blatant disrespect, we strongly believe) and verbs such as“should”. Such emotive language is more appropriate to spoken


112

debate, and essays are generally more successful if the writer seeksto convince the reader through logic and evidence.

Further, the use of two previous studies has each significantcontribution to this study too. Zhixiang’s study (2006) on “A FunctionalAnalysis of Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor in Political Debates”contributes some perspectives on analyzing mood metaphor andmodality metaphor in debate. Furthermore, Gadd’s study (1999) on“A Systemic Functional Analysis of a Televised Political Debate beforethe 1996 Australian Federal Election” also provides detailed linguisticanalysis and interpretative discussion to help in analyzingassertiveness of arguments in debate. Unlike these two previousstudies, the present study explores more fully mood and modalityanalysis and interpretative discussion in order to investigate the levelof assertiveness in the debate. In other words, this present studymore focuses on mood and modality analysis comprehensively.

Based on the background above, it is the aim of the study toemploy systemic functional analysis especially mood and modalityanalysis to analyze arguments in senior high school debate.

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The subjects of this study are volunteers who are members ofdebate club in a private senior high school in Bandung. They havebeen familiar with debate activity and debate competition for moreor less one year.

Moreover, the procedures of data collections employed in thisstudy are observation through recording of descriptive data (Lutz& Iannaccone, 1969, cited in Marshall, et al., 2006) and discourseanalysis (Travers, 2001: 4). First, the observation is intended to seethe way using language in debate activity. The type of observationapplied on this study is non-participant observation, possessed ascomplete observer in which the researcher observes the activitiesof a group without in any way becoming a participant in thoseactivities (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993: 384). By making use of theobser vation, it is expected that the language competence inexpressing their arguments performed by senior high schooldebaters may figured out that may be obvious through done throughrecording. The second is the discourse analysis. Here, the text ofdebate is transcribed from the video into written text in a broad

113


sense. The excerpt from the text is then analyzed on the basis ofthe following steps. First, dividing sentences carefully clause byclause, number the sentences and each clause, code the elementsto ease the way of analysis.

Furthermore, in order to get the comprehensive analysis, thefollowing steps were conducted:i) Underlining and bolding all related grammatical items of each

clause that meet the criteria of mood and modality devices onthe debate. They are mood devices (mood type, mood adjunct,and metaphor of mood) and modality devices (modality type,orientation and manifestation of modality, modality value, andmetaphor of modality).

ii) Listing the classfied data separately into tables, they are firstlyput in in chain of clauses based on the order of speakers.

iii) Dividing the devices into two categories: mood devices andmodality devices. Then, counting the frequency and thepercentage of the fulfillment of mood and modality devices inthe debate, and assembling the data into table.

iv) Interpreting the result of analysis based on the connection ofmood and modality devices.

3. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

This section summarises the results of the study onrepresentation of arguments in a debate setting. It includes theanalysis of mood system and modality system.

3.1 Mood System in Senior High School Debate

As regards the mood system, it covers mood type, mood adjunct(conjunctive adjunct), and mood metaphor. Firstly, there are fivetypes of clauses to be analyzed in the debate: declarative, wh-interrogative, imperative, elliptical clause, and non-finite.

Table 3.1 presents the total picture of mood types. Overall,there are 484 items that occured in all speakers in the debate. Themost common used is declarative with 430 occurences (90%).Meanwhile, the other types are around 1-6%.


114

Table 3.1: Total of Mood TypesClause Type Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total %

Declarative 90Full 79 55 91 55 48 66 394Elliptical 10 5 5 6 1 9 36WH-interrogative 2Full 2 - - 1 - 3 6Elliptical - - 2 - - 3 5Imperative 1 1 1 - 2 1 6 1Minor - 3 6 4 4 14 31 6Non finite 1 1 - - - 4 6 1Total 93 65 105 66 55 100 484 100% 19 13 22 14 11 21 100

There is a big variety of the mood choices of the speakers inthe debate. In the delivery of arguments, as throughout the debate,the most common sentence type by an overwhelming margin isdeclarative mood with positive polarity (90%). Meanwhile, othersentence types were spread over the debate around 1-6% as seen inTable 3.1.

These declarative statements are used to give information andconvey certainty: as Halliday points out, a declarative sentence suchas ‘it is’ conveys the highest possible degree of probability, moreeven than ‘it must be’ (1994: 357). In this case, the speakers wish toappear to be authoritative speaker whose opinions are not to bedoubted.

In this debate, as seen in Chart 3.1, Speaker #2 of AffirmativeTeam has the highest percentage (22%) of using declarative indelivering the argument. However, the difference is not reallysignificant because the other speakers are around 11-21%.

115


Chart 3.1. Comparative Percentages of Declarative Mood

In the debate, Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team is responsiblefor rebutting points made by the Negative, continuing with theirarguments, and giving a brief summary of the whole arguments. Inline with this, the speaker mostly uses declarative to convey theiropinions and beliefs through statements in order to convince theaudience. Of course, the use of declarative is intended to makeasser tions (Gadd, 1999): So, we believe that if we put thisadvertisement on TV, it would make teenagers watch TV, they see theadv on TV and they will be curious what is cigarette and many others.In other words that a great majority of declarative mood employedby Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team shows her assertiveness indelivering her arguments in the debate.

The second is conjunctive adjunct (conjunction). There arethree categories of conjunctive adjunct to be analyzed in the debate:elaboration, extension, and enhancement.

Table 3.2 presents the total picture of conjunctive relation.Overall, there are 309 items that occured in all speakers in thedebate. The most common used is extension with 166 occurences(54%). Meanwhile, enhancement was employed 127 occurences(41%), and elaboration was employed 16 occurences (5%).


116

Table 3.2: Total of Conjunction TypesMood Adjunct

(Textual Adjunct- Aff.1 Neg. 1 Aff.2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total %Conjunctive Adjunct)ElaborationAppositive - 1 2 2 2 2 9 3Clarifying - 1 3 2 - 1 7ExtensionAdditive 31 20 33 13 12 14 123 40Adversative 7 3 6 3 - 5 24 8Varying 6 3 6 1 2 1 19 6EnhancementMatter - - 2 - - - 2 1Manner - - - - - - - -Spatio temporal 4 1 2 5 5 7 24 8Causal conditional 14 13 22 12 13 27 101 32Total 62 42 76 38 34 57 309 100% 20 14 25 12 11 18 100

The analysis of conjunctive adjunct tells the structure of logicalrelation. This inferres that all speakers convey their argumentsthrough elaboration, extension, and enhancement. In this debate,the argument is largely hold together by extending relations, whichis 54% of the debate, they are addition (123 items), adversativerelation (24 items), and variation (19 items) as presented on Table3.2. In particular, additive of the extension type was the mostcommon employed by all speakers; that is 123 items (40%). Theother types were spread over the debate round 1-32%. It means thatthe speakers’ concern is to tell audience the supplementar yinformation in order to improve it or make it complete as well asthe link among sentences, or the variation of meaning of the motion.

On the other hand, spatio-temporal and causal-condition werethe most common employed of enhancement in this debate as well;both of them are causation and consequence where the speakers’concern is to tell their audience both why things happened and whatwould be the result of them. For example, thus, so are used to signalthat a conclusion is construed as the expected outcome of theargument that has been presented. First, second, next, then are used

117


to sequence arguments, or piece of evidence in the debate (Martin& Rose, 2007: 138).

Moreover, elaboration is rarely used in delivering arguments.It suggests that the speakers rarely use exemplifying and givingexploratory when they deliver their arguments. Whereas, givingexample and explanation are crucial in a debate.

Chart 3.2. Comparative Percentages of Conjunction

As seen on Table 3.2 and Chart 3.2, Speaker #2 of AffirmativeTeam has the highest percentage of using conjunction (25%).Meanwhile, the other speakers are around 11-20%. This indicatesthat the speaker is extremely well to create cohesion in herarguments since conjunctive adjunct acts to connect messages inthe discourse (Martin & Rose, 2007: 143). In other words that agreat majority of conjunction employed by Speaker #2 of AffirmativeTeam shows her assertiveness through cohesive arguments in thedebate.

As the last mood system, mood metaphor has threeclassifications to be analyzed in this study. The classification ofmetaphor of mood based on speech function and mood type. Theyare question and command in declarative mood, statement andcommand in interrogative mood, and statement and question inimperative mood.


118

Table 3.3: Total of Mood MetaphorMood Metaphor Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total %

Mood DeclarativeSpeech - Question 4 2 - 3 4 2 15 39Function - Command 1 - 1 1 2 2 7 19

Interrogative- Statement - - 4 - - 6 10 26- Command - - - - - - - -Imperative- Statement 1 1 1 - 2 1 6 16- Question - - - - - - - -

Total 6 3 6 4 8 11 38 100 % 16 8 16 10 21 29 100

As seen on Table 3.3, overall, there are 38 items that occuredin all speakers in the debate. Speech function was mostlymetaphorically realized in the declarative mood by all speakers with22 occurences (58%), followed by the interrogative mood with 10occurences (26%), and interative mood with 6 occurences (16%).

This analysis shows that the incongruent transference in theprocess of the realization of speech functions, such as of fercommand, statement, and question. One speech function can berealized by various moods, and one mood can realize differentspeech functions. In interacting with another person, the speakerwill inevitably enact one of the speech roles: anything he says willbe intended and interpreted as a statement, or a question, or acommand or an offer. By acting out a role; he is simultaneouslycreating a desired role for the other person (even if the other personis not in turn carry out that role) in asking a question, for example,the speaker creates the role of answerer for the other person.However, the speaker may also project a role onto himself or herselfor the other person by the way s/he talks about them.

In this study, commands and questions are mostly realized indeclarative mood (58%). This indicates that the speakers prefer usingdeclarative mood to metaphorically realize a command instead ofthe typical use of the imperative mood. Therefore, their speech tone

119


is softened and the social distance between them and the audienceis shortened so that they are more likely to get the audience’sunderstanding and support. Also, it is found that debaters sometimesreplace declarative mood with imperative mood for the sake ofemphasis.

Alternatively, the speakers use statements which are realizedin interrogative mood (26%). It suggests that speakers sometimesplay both of the roles of speaker and audience. They ask a question,and then they answer it themselves. And, this makes the debatesound as natural and vivid as if it were a dialogue with the audience.Therefore, the audience is much likely to accept his argument.

In addition to the use of mood metaphor, the speakers also usestatements which are realized in imperative mood (16%). In thedebate as Zhixiang (2006) stated that when they speakers want toexplain something, they usually use the clause let me…, that is, animperative tone upon a simple statement. In other words, thedeclarative meaning is metaphorically realized through theimperative structure let me…. This kind of structure serves to makethe speaker’s presentation sound more authoritative.

As seen on Table 3.3 and Chart 3.3, Speaker #3 of NegativeTeam has the highest percentage of using mood metaphor (29%).Meanwhile, the other speakers are around 8-21%. This indicates thatin order to convey the messages of the argument, Speaker #3 ofNegative Team prefers using various strategies by usingmetaphorical forms, to achieve her purpose, such as persuading orevaluating. This is in line with her role in the debate to makesummary speech after the floor debate to review the major issuesof the debate, and to leave a lasting impression on the minds of theaudience or adjudicators.


120

Chart 3.3. Comparative Percentages of Mood Metaphor

3.2 Modality System in Senior High School Debate

This section includes modality type, modality value, orientationand manifestaion of modality, and modality metaphor.

Firstly, as regards with the modality type, there are twocategories to be analyzed in the debate. They are modalization(epistemic modality), which consists of probability and usuality andmodulation (deontic modality) which consists of obligation andinclination.

Table 3.4: Total of Modality TypeModality Types Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total

Modalization Probability 45 11 23 15 13 17 124(Epistemic) Usuality - - 3 - 2 - 5Modulation Obligation 7 3 2 - 3 1 16(Deontic) Inclination 1 2 7 1 5 1 17Total 53 16 35 16 23 19 162

Table 3.4 presents the total picture of modality type. Overall,there are 156 items that occured in all speakers in the debate.Modalization-probability is the most common in all speakers with124 occurences (77%), followed by modulation-inclination with 17

121


occurences (10%), modulation-obligation with 16 occurences (10%),and modalization-usuality with 5 occurences (3%).

As the dominant modality type, the probability indicates thatthe speakers explicitly or implicitly qualifies their commitment tothe truth of the proposition expressed by the sentence they utter(Lyons, 1977: 797) cited in Vázquez & Giner (2008: 175). Thisanalysis also inferres that the speakers mostly use probability toexpress their attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of aproposition expressed by a clause. In the debate, as shown in Table3.5 below, the probability is expressed through the use of modalfinites, mood adjunct, mental verbs, and nominalization to expressthe speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim.

Table 3.5: Probability IndicatorsIndicators Frequency %

Modal FinitesWould 9 6Will 50 34Can 17 12Should 4 3Mood adjunctMaybe 6 4VerbsKnow 26 18Believe 10 7Realize 2 1See 3 2Think 14 10Nominalization 4 3Possibility (= it’s possible) 4 3Total 145 100

According Toulmin (2003: 83), the probability is not only usedas a means of qualifying conclusions and assertions, but also asindication of the strength of the backing which we have for theassertion, evaluation or whatever. It is the quality of the evidenceor argument at the speaker’s disposal which determines what sortof qualifier he is entitled to include in his statements. By qualifying


122

the conclusions and assertions in the ways the speakers do, theyauthorize their audience to put more or less faith in the assertionsor conclusions to bank on them, treat them as correspondingly moreor less trustworthy.

Chart 3.4. Comparative Percentages of Modality Type

In terms of the percentage of using modality by the speakers,as shown in Chart 3.4, Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team has thehighest percentage of using modality with 53 occurences (33%).Whereas, the others are around 10-21%. This indicates that Speaker#1 of Affirmative Team mostly uses modality expression to showher attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of the argumentssince modality represents the speaker’s angle: either on the validityof the assertion or on the rights and the proposal. Particularly, inline with her role as Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team, she functionsmodality to define the motion, to describe exactly what the basisfor debate will be, to explain any ambiguous words, to set any limitsto the debate, to interpret the motion as a whole, and state exactlywhat contention is going to be tried and proved.

Secondly, in connection with modality value, there are threetypes of modality value that occur in the debate, they are high,median, and low. These values are in the respect of modality types.

123


Overall, as seen on Table 3.6 and Table 3.7, there are 162occurences of modality value used by the speakers. The result showsmedian probability (would, will, think) the most common used bythe speakers with 73 occurences (45%). The second modality valuethat mostly employed in the debate is high probability (know,believe, realize, see) with 41 occurences (25%). The next is lowinclination (can) with 17 occurences (11%), followed by medianobligation (is/are to, should, are supposed to) with 12 occurences(7%), low probability (possibility, maybe) with 10 occurences (6%),median usuality (usually) with 5 occurences (3%), and high obligation(obligation, force) with 4 occurences (3%). On the contrary, there isno employment of high, low usuality, low obligation, and high,median inclination.

Table 3.6: Total of Modality ValueModality Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total

Modalization Probability(Epistemic) - High 18 5 9 4 2 3 41

- Median 25 6 13 11 6 12 73- Low 2 - 1 - 5 2 10Usuality- High - - - - - - -- Median - - 3 - 2 - 5- Low - - - - - - -

Modulation Obligation(Deontic) - High 1 - 2 - - 1 4

- Median 6 3 - - 3 - 12- Low - - - - - - -Inclination- High - - - - - - -- Median - - - - - - -- Low 1 2 7 1 5 1 17

Total 53 16 35 16 23 19 162


124

Table 3.7: Modality IndicatorsModality Value Indicators Frequency %High Modal finite

Have to 1 1NominalizationIt’s obligation (=it’s obliged) 2 1VerbsKnow 26 16Believe 10 6Realize 2 1See 3 2Force (=must) 1 1

Medium Modal finitesWould 9 6Will 50 31Should 4 2Mood adjunctUsually 5 4PredicatorIs/are to 7 4Are supposed to 1 1VerbsThink 14 8

Low Mood adjunctMaybe 6 4Modal finitesCan 17 10NominalizationIt’s possibility (=it’s possible) 4 2

Total 162 100

As previously mentioned, probability is dominantly used bythe speakers in delivering their arguments. In addition to the use ofprobability, as seen in Table 3.6, median probability has the highestpercentage (45%). The use of median probability by the speakersindicates that most speakers in the debate convey their opinion withmedian certainty since epistemic interpretations have to do with

125


knowledge and understanding regarding the level of certainty of aproposition’s truth (Griffiths, 2006: 111).

In the debate, as seen in Chart 3.5, Speaker #1 of AffirmativeTeam, who has the highest percentage of using median probability(34%), use modal operator (will, would) and mental verb (think) toshow their median level of certainty. Meanwhile, the other speakersare around 8-18%.

Chart 3.5. Comparative Percentages of Median Probability

Moreover, the speakers use high probability (25%) to delivertheir arguments since they must convince audience concerning theiropinion. In line with Martin, et al. (1997: 70), by using mental verbs(know, believe, realize, see) the speakers have high level of certaintyto what they understand. In other words, they confidently delivertheir knowledge and understanding through high probability. As therest, low probability is expressed through mood adjunct (maybe) toshow the speakers’ low level of certainty.

Thirdly, there are four types of Orientation and Manifestationof Modality that occured in the debate; they are implicitly subjective,implicitly objective, explicitly subjective, and explicitly objective.


126

Table 3.8: Total of Orientation and Manifestation of ModalityOrientation of Modality Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total

ModalizationImplicitly subjective 27 8 20 8 10 8 81Implicitly objective 25 10 19 13 10 8 85Explicitly subjective 30 16 15 11 7 13 92Explicitly objective - - 3 - 3 - 6

82 34 57 32 30 29 264

Table 3.8 presents the total pictures of orientation andmanifestation of modality employed in the debate. Overall there are264 devices that occured in all speakers. Explicitly subjectivemodality is the most common in all speakers with 92 occurences(35%). The second type that mostly employed by the speakers isimplicitly objective modality with 85 occurences (32%), implicitlysubjective modality with 81 occurences (31%), and explicitly objectivemodality with 6 occurences (2%).

Table 3.9: Modality IndicatorsOrientation

and Manifestation Indicators Frequency %of Modality

Implicitly Subjective Finite ModalWould 9 6Will 50 31Can 17 10Should 4 2Have to 1 1

Implicitly Objective Mood adjunctMaybe 6 4Usually 5 4Predicatoris/are to 7 4are supposed to 1 1

127


Orientationand Manifestation Indicators Frequency %

of ModalityExplicitly Subjective Mental Verbs

Know 26 16Believe 10 6Realize 2 1See 3 2Think Force (=must) 1 1

Explicitly Objective NominalizationIt’s possibility 4 2It’s obligation 2 1

Total 162 100

Clearly seen on Table 3.9, the speakers express explicitlysubjective modality through mental verbs such as know, believe,realize, see, think and causative verb ‘force’ (=must). Meanwhile,implicitly objective modality is expressed through mood adjunct(maybe, usually) and predicator (is/are to, are supposed to). Also,implicitly subjective modality is shown through finite modals (would,will, can, should, have to) and explicitly objective modality isexpressed through nominalization (it’s obligation, it’s possibility).

As previously mentioned, the dominant orientation andmanifestation of modality is explicitly subjective modality. Thisindicates that the debaters try to give the prominence to their pointof view and to highlight the firmness of their attitude or belief so asto win the audience’s support and understanding (Zhixiang, 2006).By using mental verbs (know, believe, think, realize, see, feel, want,tell, say, try), the debaters explicitly construct themselves as thesource of the assessment, and to some extent, place their authorityto assess at risk (Martin, 1995: 23). In line with this, Halliday &Matthiessen (2004: 624) stated that explicitly subjective modality isthe most effective way that used to give prominence to the speaker’sown point of view since modality represents the speaker’s angle;either on the validity of the assertion or on the rights and theproposal.


128

Chart 3.6. Comparative Percentages of Explicitly Subjective Modality

Clearly shown in Chart 3.6, as the most dominant participantthat uses explicitly subjective modality, Speaker #1 of AffirmativeTeam shows her assertiveness prominently through some mentalverbs (we know that..., we believe that..., we realize that...). Inparticular, Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team is a starter of the debatewho defines the motion, describes exactly what the basis for debatewill be, explains any ambiguous words, sets any limits to the debate,interprets the motion as a whole, and states exactly what contentionis going to be tried and proved.

As regards with the modality metaphor, the explicitly subjectiveand explicitly objective forms of modality are all strictly speakingmetaphorical, since all of them represent the modality as being thesubstantive proposition.

Table 3.10: Total of Modality MetaphorMetaphor of Modality Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total

Explicitly subjective 21 4 9 8 4 8 54Explicitly objective - - 3 - 3 - 6

21 4 12 8 7 8 60

Table 3.10 presents the total picture of modality metaphor.Overall, there are 60 items that occured in all speakers in the debate.It is inevitable that explicitly subjective of modality metaphor is the

129


most common in all speakers with 54 occurences (90%). Whereas,explicitly objective modality metaphor was employed 6 times in allspeakers (10%).

Explicitly subjective form of modality is shown through clauseswhich based on the semantic relationship of projection. In this type,the speaker’s opinion regarding the probability that his observationis valid is coded not as a modal element within the clause, whichwould be its congruent realization, but as a separate, projectingclause in a hypotactic clause complex. For example, to the congruentform it probably is so corresponds with the metaphorical variant Ithink it is so, with I think as the primary or ‘alpha’ clause (Halliday,2000: 354). The reason for regarding this as a metaphorical variantis that the proposition is not, in fact, I think; the proposition is it isso.

In the debate, debaters sometimes would like to emphasizethe subjectivity of their points of view so as to make one’s statementmore assertive; and the most effective way of doing that is to dressit up as if it was this that constituted the assertion (‘explicit’ I think)(Halliday, 2000: 362). The subjective nature of the assessment isreinforced by the modality in a separate clause.

Alter natively, explicitly objective form of modality isrepresented through nominalization, such as: possibility, probability,likelyhood, certainly, unusualness, regularity, typicality, intention,desire, determination, need, obligation, regulation, compulsion andso on. By means of these nominalizations, modality is construed asan unquestionable fact i.e. modality is expressed explicitly withobjectivity.

In line with this, Halliday (2000: 362) points out that one of themost effective ways of creating objectivity is through the use ofexplicitly objective form of modality. By using it, the speaker canmake his or her point of view appear to be a quality of the eventitself because this objectification is clearest in cases where themodality is expressed in a separate clause, namely in explicitlyobjective form.


130

Chart 3.7. Representation of Arguments

Overall, as shown in Chart 3.7, arguments are representedthrough the extensive use of the declarative mood, and wheremarkers of modality occur, they indicate median modality. Certaintyis the currency of value in the debate. Therefore it is rarely to findor never hear the use of modal verbs such as might, could, but wesometimes hear should, have to. Moreover, debaters use somemental verbs such as think, believe, know to show their assertivenessexplicitly in their arguments. Also, the cohesive arguments are alsoused to show the debaters’ assertiveness. This is shown throughthe use of conjunction. Finally, the speakers employ a variety ofways to convey their arguments which are realized metaphoricallyin terms of mood and modality.

4. CONCLUSION

Based on the main findings above, mood and modality anaysishas shown what principles exist that creates semantic links in thearguments between sentence and clause. This analysis is helpful tounderstand the interpersonal meaning of the debate from a newperspective, which elaborates the subtleties of language use in thiskind of genre and helps us have a better understanding of it. Thisanalysis demonstrates that Systemic Functional Grammar,characterized by its multi-level and multi-function, could provide us

131


with a theoretical framework for genre analysis. Moreover, throughthe functional analysis, we find that language form is consistent withits function. Therefore, such a study suggests that similar analysiscould also benefit English learners in their improvement of Englishlistening, speaking and writing so that they can develop theircommunicative competence more effectively.

This study has examined the representation of arguments inthe debate. There are some important things that need furtherconsideration for future research. This study is limited in terms ofreference materials and time limitation, it is dif ficult for theinvestigation to be comprehensive and exhaustive and many aspectsof the functional grammar and pragmatics in senior high school’sdebate remain untouched. Since senior high school’s debate is onlya small part of public debates, it may not be typical enough torepresent the public debate genre. Finally, the data comes from theauthor’s own calculation, which may involves some margin of errors.


132

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Chaffee, J. 2000. Thinking Critically 6th Edition. Boston: HoughtonMifflin Company.

Christie, F and Derewianka, B. 2008. School Discourse. London:Continuum.

Eggins, S and Slade, D. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation.London: Cassell.

Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional LinguisticSecond Edition. London: Continuum International .

Emilia, E., Gustine, G., Rodliyah, R. S. 2005. Student’s CriticalCapacity in Writing Thesis: Analysis of Transitivity Systemof Systemic Functional Grammar. Bandung: IndonesiaUniversity of Education.

Emilia, E. 2008. Menulis Tesis and Disertasi. Bandung: Alphabeta.Emilia, E. 2009. Argumentative Writing. Bandung: Indonesia

University of Education.Fisher, A. 2001. Critical Thinking: An Introduction. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.Fraenkel, J. R. and Wallen, N. E. 1993. How to Design and Evaluate

Research in Education. Singapore: Mc Graw-Hill Inc.Gadd, N. 1999. A Systemic Functional Analysis of a Televised

Political Debate before the 1996 Australian Federal Election.Melbourne: University of Melbourne.

Grif fiths, P. 2006. An Introduction to English Semantics andPragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985/1989. Spoken and Written Language.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar.New York: Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M and Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context, and Text:Aspect of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective.Victoria: Deakin University.

Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction toFunctional Grammar. London: Arnorld.

133


Kur fiss, J. G. 1988. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, andPossibilities. Washington D.C.: ASHE (Association for theStudy of Higher Education).

Martin, J. R. 1995. “Interpersonal Meaning, Persuasion, and PublicDiscourse: Packing Semiotics Punch”. Australian Journalof Linguistics 15 (1995), 33-67.

Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. 2007. Working with discourse. London:Continuum.

Mitchell, G. R. 1998. “Pedagogical Possibilities for ArgumentativeAgency in Academic Debate.” Argumentation & Advocay,35 (2). 41-60.

Quinn, S. 2005. Debating . Brisbane: Australian ElectronicPublisher.

Shulman, M. 2004. Thinking Cri t ical ly : World Issues forReading,Writing and Research. Ann Arbor: The Univerisityof Michigan Press.

Toulmin, S. E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Travers, M. 2001. Qualitative Research Through Case Studies.London: SAGE Publication Ltd.

Watler, E. 2008. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary ThirdEdition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Zhixiang, Z. 2006. A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM inPolitical Debates. Unpublished Thesis.

A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE Penelitian... · A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR...

Documents

Transcript of A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE Penelitian... · A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR...