A MOOD AND MODALITY ANALYSIS OF ARGUMENTS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING Ignasia Yuyun Krida Wacana Christian University

(UKRIDA), Jakarta, Indonesia ignasia_y@ukrida.ac.id Abstract This paper seeks to demonstrate the systemic functional approach especially mood and modality analysis in applied linguistics research, via a case study of the representation of arguments in Indonesian senior high school English debating. The paper will centre around the students English proficiency in debating, which will then be related to mood and modality system looked at in this study. The background and the related literature of the study is first discussed, which is followed by an account of the methodology. The paper will then delineate the results, showing that the arguments in debating are represented through the extensive use of the declarative mood, median probability, extension conjunction, questions and commands in declarative, explicitly subjective modality, and realization of metaphorical explicit subjective modality. Keywords: argument, debate, mood, modality, senior high school, systemic functional I. INTRODUCTION Critical thinking has turned to become more important in contemporary teaching and education circles. In line with this, some Indonesian high schools and universities have been trying hard to develop students critical thinking through debating. This is in line Mitchell (1998:41) that critical thinking ability is significantly improved by courses in argumentation and debate and by debate experience. Of course, to help developing students language skills of efficient listening, convincing public speaking, and debate (argumentation) in relation to extensive reading and followup writing. Moreover, debating as a public speaking activity is the act of public communication involving a transaction between a speaker and an audience. In debating, the speaker efficiently delivers a listenable speech that is received and understood by serious listeners (Berko et al. 1999:299). Of course, the speaker might need a variety of ways to deliver an argument in debating. This is in line with Mc Gregor (2001:2, cited in Emilia 2009) that since an argument functions as the heart of critical thinking, it expresses and supports a viewpoint on an issue and an issue is a matter of public debate on which there are different views. In addition, in an argument, the speaker or the author presents a point of view and attempts to persuade others of the validity of his or her opinion (Feez & Joyce 1998; Shulman 2004:148; see Emilia 2009). 1I. CONCEPT AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In debating, a speakers linguistic proficiency is measured through some linguistic features. Thus, the Theoretical Framework of this study based on the theories of Functional Grammar especially Mood and Modality (Halliday & Matthiessen 2004; Eggins & Slade 1997; Halliday 1994) function as the fundamental framework in identifying the representation of arguments in debating. Mood has evolved out of the requirement that language should serve as a means of action, a way of exchanging goods-and-services and information (Halliday 1989:68). By looking at the mood structure, clause by clause, we can see the way the dialogue proceeds as a series of exchanges (Halliday 1994:102). While, modality refers to a speakers attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of a proposition expressed by a clause. It also extends to his/her attitude towards the situation or event described by a clause. Moreover, in line with Halliday & Matthiessen (2004), Martin & Rose (2007:138), Feez & Joyce (1998:141), Anderson & Anderson (1997), and Derewianka (1990:76-78) suggest the following linguistic features the speaker might use in delivering argument including (1) the use of words showing the authors attitude (modality, such as should, must, ...); (2) the use of nominalizations 1

aiming to make the argument sound more objective and to help structure the text; (3) the use of conjunctions or connectives associated with reasoning (therefore, so, because, because of, the first reason, etc); (4) the use of objective language making opinion sound objective; (5) the use of variety of verb (process types) action, linking, saying (say, argue, point out, assert) and mental (think, perceive, understand). Such emotive language is more appropriate to spoken debate, and essays are generally more successful if the speaker seeks to convince the reader through logic and evidence. Further, the use of two previous studies has each significant contribution to this study too. Zhixiangs study (2006) on A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor in Political Debates contributes some perspectives on analyzing mood metaphor and modality metaphor in debate. Furthermore, Gadds study (1999) on A Systemic Functional Analysis of a Televised Political Debate before the 1996 Australian Federal Election also provides detailed linguistic analysis and interpretative discussion to help in analyzing arguments in debating. Unlike these two previous studies, the present study explores more fully mood and modality analysis and interpretative discussion in order to investigate the representation of arguments in debating. III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The subjects of this study were volunteers who are members of debating club in a private senior high school in Bandung. They have been familiar with debating activity and debating competition for more or less one year. Moreover, the procedures of data collections employed in this study were observation through video recording (Lutz & Iannaccone 1969, cited in Marshall, et al. 2006) and discourse analysis (Travers 2001:4). By making use of the observation, it is expected that the language competence in expressing arguments performed by senior high school debaters may be figured out obviously through recording. Moreover, the discourse analysis enabled the text of debate was transcribed from the video into written text in a broad sense. The excerpt from the text was then analyzed on the basis of the following steps: dividing sentences carefully clause by clause, number the sentences and each clause, and code the elements to ease the way of analysis. IV. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 1. MOOD ANALYSIS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING This section includes mood type, mood adjunct (conjunctive adjunct), and mood metaphor. Firstly, dealing with mood type, there is a big variety of the mood choices of the speakers in debating. In the delivery of arguments, as throughout the debating, the most common sentence type by an overwhelming margin is declarative mood with positive polarity (90%). Meanwhile, other sentence types were spread over the debating around 1-6%. These declarative statements are used to give information and convey certainty: as Halliday points out, a declarative sentence such as it is conveys the highest possible degree of probability, more even than it must be (1994:357). In this case, the speakers wish to appear to be authoritative speaker whose opinions are not to be doubted. Moreover, conjunctive adjunct that commonly used is extension (54%) followed by enhancement (41%) and elaboration (5%). The analysis of conjunctive adjunct tells the structure of logical relation through elaboration, extension, and enhancement. In this debating, the argument is largely hold together by extending relations (54%) including addition, adversative relation, and variation. In particular, addition was the most common employed by all speakers (40%). The other types were spread over the debate round 1-32%. These infer the speakers concern is to tell audience the supplementary information in order to improve it or make it complete, as well as the link among sentences, or the variation of meaning of the motion. On the other hand, spatio-temporal and causal-condition were the most common employed of enhancement in this debating as well; both of them are causation and consequence where the speakers concern is to tell their audience both why things happened and what would be the result of them. For example, thus, so are used to signal that a conclusion is construed as the expected outcome of the argument that has been presented. First, second, next, then are used to sequence arguments, or piece of evidence in the debate (Martin & Rose 2007:138).

Moreover, the rare use of elaboration suggests the speakers rarely use exemplifying and giving exploratory in delivering their arguments. Whereas, giving example and explanation are crucial in a debating. The last mood system is mood metaphor based on speech function and mood type. In this study, commands and questions are mostly realized in declarative mood (58%). This indicates the speakers prefer using declarative mood to metaphorically realize a command instead of the typical use of the imperative mood. Therefore, their speech tone is softened and the social distance between them and the audience is shortened so that they are more likely to get the audiences understanding and support. In addition, it is found debaters sometimes replace declarative mood with imperative mood for the sake of emphasis. Alternatively, the speakers use statements realized in interrogative mood (26%). It suggests speakers sometimes play both of the roles of speaker and audience. They ask a question, and then they answer it themselves. And this makes the debating sound 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 use statements realized in imperative mood (16%). In the debating, as Zhixiang (2006) stated that when the speakers want to explain something, they usually use the clause let me, that is, an imperative tone upon a simple statement. In other words, the declarative meaning is metaphorically realized through the imperative structure let me. This kind of structure serves to make the speakers presentation sound more authoritative. 2. MODALITY ANALYSIS IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATING This section includes modality type, modality value, orientation and manifestation of modality, and modality metaphor. Firstly, the modality type including modalization (epistemic modality), which consists of probability, and usuality and modulation (deontic modality) consisting of obligation and inclination. Overall, modalization-probability is the most common in all speakers (77%), followed by modulationinclination (10%), modulation-obligation (10%), and modalization-usuality (3%). As the dominant modality type, the probability indicates the speakers explicitly or implicitly qualifies their commitment to the truth of the proposition expressed by the sentence they utter (Lyons 1977:797) cited in Vzquez and Giner (2008:175). This analysis also inferres the speakers mostly use probability to express their attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of a proposition expressed by a clause. In the debating, the probability is expressed through the use of modal finites (would, will, can, should), mood adjunct (maybe), mental verbs (know, believe, realize, see, think), and nominalization (possibility = its possible) to express the speakers degree of force or certainty concerning the claim. Secondly, in connection with modality value (high, median, and low). The finding shows median probability (would, will, think) mostly common used by the speakers (45%). The second modality value mostly employed in the debating is high probability (know, believe, realize, see) (25%), followed by low inclination (can) (11%), median obligation (is/are to, should, are supposed to) (7%), low probability (possibility, maybe) (6%), median usuality (usually) (3%), and high obligation (obligation, force) with (3%). On the contrary, there is no employment of high, low usuality, low obligation, and high, median inclination. As previously mentioned, probability is dominantly used by the speakers in delivering their arguments. In addition to the use of probability, median probability has the highest percentage (45%). The use of median probability by the speakers indicates most speakers convey their opinion with median certainty since epistemic interpretations have to do with knowledge and understanding regarding the level of certainty of a propositions truth (Griffiths 2006:111). Moreover, the speakers employ high probability (25%) to deliver their arguments since they must convince audience concerning their opinion. In line with Martin, et al. (1997:70), by using mental verbs (know, believe, realize, see) the speakers have high level of certainty to what they understand. In other words, they confidently deliver their knowledge and understanding through high probability. As the rest, low probability is expressed through mood adjunct (maybe) to show the speakers low level of certainty. Thirdly, Orientation and Manifestation of Modality found in the debating including implicitly subjective, implicitly objective, explicitly subjective, and explicitly objective. The finding shows 3

explicitly subjective modality is the most common in all speakers (35%), followed by implicitly objective modality (32%), implicitly subjective modality (31%), and explicit objective modality (2%). In delivering arguments, the speakers express explicit subjective modality through mental verbs such as know, believe, realize, see, think and causative verb force (=must). Meanwhile, implicit objective modality is expressed through mood adjunct (maybe, usually) and predicator (is/are to, are supposed to). In addition, implicit subjective modality is shown through finite modals (would, will, can, should, have to) and explicit objective modality is expressed through nominalization (its obligation, its possibility). These indicate the debaters try to give the prominence to their point of view and to highlight the firmness of their attitude or belief so as to win the audiences 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 the source of the assessment, and to some extent, place their authority to assess at risk (Martin 1995:23). In line with this, Halliday and Matthiessen (2004:624) stated explicitly subjective modality is the most effective way to give prominence to the speakers own point of view since modality represents the speakers angle; either on the validity of the assertion or on the rights and the proposal. As regards with the modality metaphor, the explicitly subjective and explicitly objective forms of modality are all strictly speaking metaphorical, since all of them represent the modality as being the substantive proposition. The finding clearly shows explicitly subjective of modality metaphor is the most common in all speakers (90%). Whereas, explicitly objective modality metaphor was employed 10% in all speakers. Explicitly subjective form of modality is shown through clauses based on the semantic relationship of projection. In this type, the speakers opinion regarding the probability reveals his observation is valid and coded not as a modal element within the clause, which would be its congruent realization, but as a separate, projecting clause in a hypotactic clause complex. For example, to the congruent form it probably is so corresponds with the metaphorical variant I think it is so, with I think as the primary or alpha clause (Halliday 2000:354). The reason for regarding this as a metaphorical variant is that the proposition is not, in fact, I think; the proposition is it is so. In the debating, debaters sometimes would like to emphasize the subjectivity of their points of view so as to make ones statement more assertive; and the most effective way of doing that is to dress it up as if it was this that constituted the assertion (explicit I think) (Halliday 2000:362). The subjective nature of the assessment is reinforced by the modality in a separate clause. Overall, as shown in Chart 1, arguments are represented through the extensive use of the declarative mood, and where markers of modality occur, they indicate median probability. Moreover, debaters use some mental verbs such as think, believe, know to express their explicit arguments. In addition, the cohesive arguments are also used in debating through conjunction. Finally, the speakers employ a variety of ways to convey their arguments realized metaphorically in terms of mood and modality.
Representation of the Argum ents in the Debate

Metaphorically Explicitly Subjective

Declarative

Explicitly Subjective Median Probability

Extension Questions & Commands in Declarative

Chart 1 Representation of Arguments 4

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study demonstrates that Systemic Functional Grammar, characterized by its multilevel and multi-function, could provide us with a theoretical framework for genre analysis. Moreover, t hrough the functional analysis, we find that language form is consistent with its function. In addition, this analysis is helpful to understand the interpersonal meaning of the debating from a new perspective, which elaborates the subtleties of language use in debating. Therefore, t his study also has important pedagogical implications for both students and teachers. Students improve their English skill so that they can develop their communicative competence more effectively , particularly in debating. Meanwhile, teachers may have a better understanding of genre analysis, debating in particular. BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. 1997a. Text Types in English 1. Australia: Macmillan. Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. 1997b. Text Types in English 2. Australia: Macmillan. Berko, R. M, et al. 1999. The Public Speaker/The Public Listener Second Edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing. Derewianka, B. 1990. Exploring How Texts Work, Sydney: PETA. Eggins, S and Slade, D. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation. London: Cassell. Eggins, S. 2004. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistic Second Edition. London: Continuum International . Emilia, E. 2009. Argumentative Writing. Bandung: Indonesia University of Education. Gadd, N. 1999. A Systemic Functional Analysis of a Televised Political Debate before the 1996 Australian Federal Election. Melbourne: University of Melbourne. Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. 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 SocialSemiotic Perspective. Victoria: Deakin University. Halliday, M.A.K. and Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnorld . Martin, J.R. 1995. Interpersonal Meaning, Persuasion, and Public Discourse: Packing Semiotic Punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics 15 (1995), 33-67. Martin, J.R. et al. 1997. Working with Functional Grammar. New York: Arnold. Martin, J.R, and Rose, D. 2007. Working with discourse. London: Continuum. 5

Mitchell, G. R. 1998. Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative Agency in Academic Debate. Argumentation & Advocay, Vol. 35, No. 2. Travers, M. 2001. Qualitative Research Through Case Studies. London: SAGE Publication Ltd. Zhixiang, Z. 2006. A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM in Political Debates. Unpublished Thesis.