A Study of Mood and Modality in High School Debate

A STUDY OF ARGUMENTS
IN SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE
I gnasia Yuyun
ABSTRACT
This paper attempts to identify the representation of arguments
in a private senior high school debate’s club in Bandung. This
study used a case study method, particularly text analysis (Travers,
2001) and involved a debate activity of senior high school students
that was purposively chosen. Halliday and Matthiessen’ theory of
mood and modality (2004) and Eggins and Slade’ analytical
strategies (1997) the paper will then delineate the results, showing
that the arguments in the debate 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. Moreover, mood and modality analysis
is helpful to understand the interpersonal meaning of the debate
from a new perspective, which elaborates the subtleties of language
use in this kind of genre and helps us have a better understanding
of it. Therefore, such a study suggests that similar analysis could
also benefit English learners in their improvement of English
proficiency so that they can develop their communicative
competence more effectively.
Keywords : argument, debate, mood, modality, interpersonal
meaning, senior high school
1. INTRODUCTION
Critical thinking has turned to become more important in
contemporary 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. Alamat
Korespondensi: Ukrida Language Training Center (ULTC) Jl. Tanjung Duren
Raya No.4, Jakarta Barat 11470. Email: ignasia_y@ukrida.ac.id
109

Jurnal Penelitian Vol. 14, No. 1, November 2010
110
(Fisher, 2001). Many educators have long advocated the teaching
of critical thinking skills such as reasoning (argumentation) and
problem solving. Skills in argumentation, spoken and written, has
been considered as one of critical thinking dispositions (Ennis, 1987,
cited in Emilia, 2009) has thus been considered to be critical to
challenge students’ critical thinking, as Kurfiss (1988) states “Critical
thinking involves justification of beliefs and argumentation is the
vehicle by which justification is offered … learning the skills of
argument enables students to reason effectively in various
disciplines” (1988: 13).
Moreover, an argument expresses and supports a contention
or viewpoint on an issue and an issue is a matter of public debate
on which there are different views (Mc Gregor, 2001: 2). In an
argument, 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).
Critical thinking is not the same as, and should not be confused
with, 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 by
courses in argumentation and debate and by debate experience’.
Thus, debate is relevant to the necessity of critical thinking
development. In line with this, some schools and universities have
been trying hard to develop students’ critical thinking through
debate activities. Of course, to help developing students’ language
skills of efficient listening, convincing public speaking, and debate
(argumentation) in relation to extensive reading and follow-up
writing. In this measure, students can learn the proper competence
for developing efficient interpersonal communication as well as
getting ready for the challenges of the 21st
century.
Thus, the Theoretical Framework of this study based on the
theories of Functional Linguistic and Functional Grammar especially
Mood and Modality (Halliday & Matthiessen, 2004; Eggins & Slade,
1997; Halliday, 1994) function as the fundamental framework in
identifying the assertiveness of arguments in debate. 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

111
Ignasia Yuyun, A Study of Arguments in Senior High School ....
series of exchanges (Halliday, 1994: 102). While, modality refers to
a speaker’s 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, this current study uses the theory of the linguistic
features of argumentation (Feez & Joyce, 1998: 142; Derewianka,
1990: 76-78). These theories are indeed significant to help in
analyzing the findings toward the representation of arguments in
debate. As regards the linguistic features of argumentation, cited in
Emilia (2009), when we write arguments, we use whatever language
resources will work most effectively to sway the reader to our way
of thinking (Feez & Joyce, 1998: 141). Therefore Feez & Joyce (1998:
142) suggest the following characteristics (1) introduces and
sequences arguments by using linking devices such as first, second,
furthermore, on the other hand, in conclusion, although, after looking
at both sides of this debate, (2) focuses on the topic and organizes
arguments with topic sentences; (3) explains, describes, and uses
evidence in arguments to make the arguments more ‘factual’ and
so 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 and
evaluates; (7) asseses degrees of what is probable or usual by using
must, never, and inevitably asses how probable or usual something
is, (8) uses objective language, (9) attributes assessment to expert
sources; and (10) appeal to the reader.
Moreover, as discussed by Derewianka (1990: 76-78), there are
some expressions used in argumentation. These are, among others
as follows; (1) generalised participants, some times human but often
abstract (issues, ideas, opinions, etc), (2) possibility of technical
terms relating to the issue, (3) variety of verb (process types), such
as action, linking, saying (say, argue, point out, assert), and mental
(think, perceive, understand), (4) mainly timeless present tense
when presenting position and points in the argument, but might
change according to the stage of the text, (5) frequent use of passive
to help structure the text, (6) nominalization to make the argument
sound more objective and to help structure the text, (7) conjunctions
associated with reasoning, (8) arguments quite often employ emotive
words (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 seeks
to convince the reader through logic and evidence.
Further, the use of two previous studies has each significant
contribution to this study too. Zhixiang’s 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, Gadd’s 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
assertiveness of arguments in debate. Unlike these two previous
studies, the present study explores more fully mood and modality
analysis and interpretative discussion in order to investigate the level
of assertiveness in the debate. In other words, this present study
more focuses on mood and modality analysis comprehensively.
Based on the background above, it is the aim of the study to
employ systemic functional analysis especially mood and modality
analysis to analyze arguments in senior high school debate.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The subjects of this study are volunteers who are members of
debate club in a private senior high school in Bandung. They have
been familiar with debate activity and debate competition for more
or less one year.
Moreover, the procedures of data collections employed in this
study are observation through recording of descriptive data (Lutz
& Iannaccone, 1969, cited in Marshall, et al., 2006) and discourse
analysis (Travers, 2001: 4). First, the observation is intended to see
the way using language in debate activity. The type of observation
applied on this study is non-participant observation, possessed as
complete observer in which the researcher observes the activities
of a group without in any way becoming a participant in those
activities (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993: 384). By making use of the
observation, it is expected that the language competence in
expressing their arguments performed by senior high school
debaters may figured out that may be obvious through done through
recording. The second is the discourse analysis. Here, the text of
debate is transcribed from the video into written text in a broad

113
sense. The excerpt from the text is then analyzed on the basis of
the following steps. First, dividing sentences carefully clause by
clause, number the sentences and each clause, code the elements
to ease the way of analysis.
Furthermore, in order to get the comprehensive analysis, the
following steps were conducted:
i) Underlining and bolding all related grammatical items of each
clause that meet the criteria of mood and modality devices on
the 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, and
metaphor of modality).
ii) Listing the classfied data separately into tables, they are firstly
put in in chain of clauses based on the order of speakers.
iii) Dividing the devices into two categories: mood devices and
modality devices. Then, counting the frequency and the
percentage of the fulfillment of mood and modality devices in
the debate, and assembling the data into table.
iv) Interpreting the result of analysis based on the connection of
mood and modality devices.
3. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
This section summarises the results of the study on
representation of arguments in a debate setting. It includes the
analysis 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 five
types 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. The
most common used is declarative with 430 occurences (90%).
Meanwhile, the other types are around 1-6%.

114
Table 3.1: Total of Mood Types
Clause Type Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total %
Declarative 90
Full 79 55 91 55 48 66 394
Elliptical 10 5 5 6 1 9 36
WH-interrogative 2
Full 2 - - 1 - 3 6
Elliptical - - 2 - - 3 5
Imperative 1 1 1 - 2 1 6 1
Minor - 3 6 4 4 14 31 6
Non finite 1 1 - - - 4 6 1
Total 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 in
the debate. In the delivery of arguments, as throughout the debate,
the most common sentence type by an overwhelming margin is
declarative mood with positive polarity (90%). Meanwhile, other
sentence types were spread over the debate around 1-6% as seen in
Table 3.1.
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.
In this debate, as seen in Chart 3.1, Speaker #2 of Affirmative
Team has the highest percentage (22%) of using declarative in
delivering the argument. However, the difference is not really
significant 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 responsible
for rebutting points made by the Negative, continuing with their
arguments, and giving a brief summary of the whole arguments. In
line with this, the speaker mostly uses declarative to convey their
opinions and beliefs through statements in order to convince the
audience. Of course, the use of declarative is intended to make
assertions (Gadd, 1999): So, we believe that if we put this
advertisement on TV, it would make teenagers watch TV, they see the
adv on TV and they will be curious what is cigarette and many others.
In other words that a great majority of declarative mood employed
by Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team shows her assertiveness in
delivering her arguments in the debate.
The second is conjunctive adjunct (conjunction). There are
three 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 the
debate. 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 Types
Mood Adjunct
(Textual Adjunct- Aff.1 Neg. 1 Aff.2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total %
Conjunctive Adjunct)
Elaboration
Appositive - 1 2 2 2 2 9 3
Clarifying - 1 3 2 - 1 7
Extension
Additive 31 20 33 13 12 14 123 40
Adversative 7 3 6 3 - 5 24 8
Varying 6 3 6 1 2 1 19 6
Enhancement
Matter - - 2 - - - 2 1
Manner - - - - - - - -
Spatio temporal 4 1 2 5 5 7 24 8
Causal conditional 14 13 22 12 13 27 101 32
Total 62 42 76 38 34 57 309 100
% 20 14 25 12 11 18 100
The analysis of conjunctive adjunct tells the structure of logical
relation. This inferres that all speakers convey their arguments
through elaboration, extension, and enhancement. In this debate,
the argument is largely hold together by extending relations, which
is 54% of the debate, they are addition (123 items), adversative
relation (24 items), and variation (19 items) as presented on Table
3.2. In particular, additive of the extension type was the most
common employed by all speakers; that is 123 items (40%). The
other types were spread over the debate round 1-32%. It means that
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 debate 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

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 giving
exploratory when they deliver their arguments. Whereas, giving
example 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 Affirmative
Team has the highest percentage of using conjunction (25%).
Meanwhile, the other speakers are around 11-20%. This indicates
that the speaker is extremely well to create cohesion in her
arguments since conjunctive adjunct acts to connect messages in
the discourse (Martin & Rose, 2007: 143). In other words that a
great majority of conjunction employed by Speaker #2 of Affirmative
Team shows her assertiveness through cohesive arguments in the
debate.
As the last mood system, mood metaphor has three
classifications to be analyzed in this study. The classification of
metaphor of mood based on speech function and mood type. They
are question and command in declarative mood, statement and
command in interrogative mood, and statement and question in
imperative mood.

118
Table 3.3: Total of Mood Metaphor
Mood Metaphor Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total %
Mood Declarative
Speech - Question 4 2 - 3 4 2 15 39
Function - 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 occured
in all speakers in the debate. Speech function was mostly
metaphorically realized in the declarative mood by all speakers with
22 occurences (58%), followed by the interrogative mood with 10
occurences (26%), and interative mood with 6 occurences (16%).
This analysis shows that the incongruent transference in the
process of the realization of speech functions, such as offer
command, statement, and question. One speech function can be
realized by various moods, and one mood can realize different
speech functions. In interacting with another person, the speaker
will inevitably enact one of the speech roles: anything he says will
be intended and interpreted as a statement, or a question, or a
command or an offer. By acting out a role; he is simultaneously
creating a desired role for the other person (even if the other person
is 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 herself
or the other person by the way s/he talks about them.
In this study, commands and questions are mostly realized in
declarative mood (58%). This indicates that the speakers prefer using
declarative mood to metaphorically realize a command instead of
the typical use of the imperative mood. Therefore, their speech tone

119
is softened and the social distance between them and the audience
is shortened so that they are more likely to get the audience’s
understanding and support. Also, it is found that debaters sometimes
replace declarative mood with imperative mood for the sake of
emphasis.
Alternatively, the speakers use statements which are realized
in interrogative mood (26%). It suggests that 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 debate
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 which are realized in imperative mood (16%). In the
debate as Zhixiang (2006) stated that when they 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 speaker’s presentation sound more authoritative.
As seen on Table 3.3 and Chart 3.3, Speaker #3 of Negative
Team has the highest percentage of using mood metaphor (29%).
Meanwhile, the other speakers are around 8-21%. This indicates that
in order to convey the messages of the argument, Speaker #3 of
Negative Team prefers using various strategies by using
metaphorical forms, to achieve her purpose, such as persuading or
evaluating. This is in line with her role in the debate to make
summary speech after the floor debate to review the major issues
of the debate, and to leave a lasting impression on the minds of the
audience 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, orientation
and manifestaion of modality, and modality metaphor.
Firstly, as regards with the modality type, there are two
categories to be analyzed in the debate. They are modalization
(epistemic modality), which consists of probability and usuality and
modulation (deontic modality) which consists of obligation and
inclination.
Table 3.4: Total of Modality Type
Modality 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 - 5
Modulation Obligation 7 3 2 - 3 1 16
(Deontic) Inclination 1 2 7 1 5 1 17
Total 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 with
124 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 that
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 Vázquez & Giner (2008: 175). This
analysis also inferres that the speakers mostly use probability to
express their attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of a
proposition expressed by a clause. In the debate, as shown in Table
3.5 below, the probability is expressed through the use of modal
finites, mood adjunct, mental verbs, and nominalization to express
the speaker’s degree of force or certainty concerning the claim.
Table 3.5: Probability Indicators
Indicators Frequency %
Modal Finites
Would 9 6
Will 50 34
Can 17 12
Should 4 3
Mood adjunct
Maybe 6 4
Verbs
Know 26 18
Believe 10 7
Realize 2 1
See 3 2
Think 14 10
Nominalization 4 3
Possibility (= it’s possible) 4 3
Total 145 100
According Toulmin (2003: 83), the probability is not only used
as a means of qualifying conclusions and assertions, but also as
indication of the strength of the backing which we have for the
assertion, evaluation or whatever. It is the quality of the evidence
or argument at the speaker’s disposal which determines what sort
of qualifier he is entitled to include in his statements. By qualifying

122
the conclusions and assertions in the ways the speakers do, they
authorize their audience to put more or less faith in the assertions
or conclusions to bank on them, treat them as correspondingly more
or 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 the
highest 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 show
her attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of the arguments
since modality represents the speaker’s angle: either on the validity
of the assertion or on the rights and the proposal. Particularly, in
line with her role as Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team, she functions
modality to define the motion, to describe exactly what the basis
for debate will be, to explain any ambiguous words, to set any limits
to the debate, to interpret the motion as a whole, and state exactly
what contention is going to be tried and proved.
Secondly, in connection with modality value, there are three
types 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 162
occurences of modality value used by the speakers. The result shows
median probability (would, will, think) the most common used by
the speakers with 73 occurences (45%). The second modality value
that mostly employed in the debate is high probability (know,
believe, realize, see) with 41 occurences (25%). The next is low
inclination (can) with 17 occurences (11%), followed by median
obligation (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 is
no employment of high, low usuality, low obligation, and high,
median inclination.
Table 3.6: Total of Modality Value
Modality 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 10
Usuality
- 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 Indicators
Modality Value Indicators Frequency %
High Modal finite
Have to 1 1
Nominalization
It’s obligation (=it’s obliged) 2 1
Verbs
Know 26 16
Believe 10 6
Realize 2 1
See 3 2
Force (=must) 1 1
Medium Modal finites
Would 9 6
Will 50 31
Should 4 2
Mood adjunct
Usually 5 4
Predicator
Is/are to 7 4
Are supposed to 1 1
Verbs
Think 14 8
Low Mood adjunct
Maybe 6 4
Modal finites
Can 17 10
Nominalization
It’s possibility (=it’s possible) 4 2
Total 162 100
As previously mentioned, probability is dominantly used by
the speakers in delivering their arguments. In addition to the use of
probability, as seen in Table 3.6, median probability has the highest
percentage (45%). The use of median probability by the speakers
indicates that most speakers in the debate convey their opinion with
median certainty since epistemic interpretations have to do with

125
knowledge and understanding regarding the level of certainty of a
proposition’s truth (Griffiths, 2006: 111).
In the debate, as seen in Chart 3.5, Speaker #1 of Affirmative
Team, who has the highest percentage of using median probability
(34%), use modal operator (will, would) and mental verb (think) to
show their median level of certainty. Meanwhile, the other speakers
are around 8-18%.
Chart 3.5. Comparative Percentages of Median Probability
Moreover, the speakers use 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, there are four types of Orientation and Manifestation
of 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 Modality
Orientation of Modality Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total
Modalization
Implicitly subjective 27 8 20 8 10 8 81
Implicitly objective 25 10 19 13 10 8 85
Explicitly subjective 30 16 15 11 7 13 92
Explicitly objective - - 3 - 3 - 6
82 34 57 32 30 29 264
Table 3.8 presents the total pictures of orientation and
manifestation of modality employed in the debate. Overall there are
264 devices that occured in all speakers. Explicitly subjective
modality is the most common in all speakers with 92 occurences
(35%). The second type that mostly employed by the speakers is
implicitly objective modality with 85 occurences (32%), implicitly
subjective modality with 81 occurences (31%), and explicitly objective
modality with 6 occurences (2%).
Table 3.9: Modality Indicators
Orientation
and Manifestation Indicators Frequency %
of Modality
Implicitly Subjective Finite Modal
Would 9 6
Will 50 31
Can 17 10
Should 4 2
Have to 1 1
Implicitly Objective Mood adjunct
Maybe 6 4
Usually 5 4
Predicator
is/are to 7 4
are supposed to 1 1

127
Orientation
and Manifestation Indicators Frequency %
of Modality
Explicitly Subjective Mental Verbs
Know 26 16
Believe 10 6
Realize 2 1
See 3 2
Think Force (=must) 1 1
Explicitly Objective Nominalization
It’s possibility 4 2
It’s obligation 2 1
Total 162 100
Clearly seen on Table 3.9, the speakers express explicitly
subjective 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 is
expressed through nominalization (it’s obligation, it’s possibility).
As previously mentioned, the dominant orientation and
manifestation of modality is explicitly subjective modality. This
indicates that 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 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 the
source of the assessment, and to some extent, place their authority
to assess at risk (Martin, 1995: 23). In line with this, Halliday &
Matthiessen (2004: 624) stated that explicitly subjective modality is
the most effective way that used to give prominence to the speaker’s
own point of view since modality represents the speaker’s angle;
either on the validity of the assertion or on the rights and the
proposal.

128
Chart 3.6. Comparative Percentages of Explicitly Subjective Modality
Clearly shown in Chart 3.6, as the most dominant participant
that uses explicitly subjective modality, Speaker #1 of Affirmative
Team shows her assertiveness prominently through some mental
verbs (we know that..., we believe that..., we realize that...). In
particular, Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team is a starter of the debate
who defines the motion, describes exactly what the basis for debate
will be, explains any ambiguous words, sets any limits to the debate,
interprets the motion as a whole, and states exactly what contention
is going to be tried and proved.
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.
Table 3.10: Total of Modality Metaphor
Metaphor of Modality Aff. 1 Neg. 1 Aff. 2 Neg. 2 Aff. 3 Neg. 3 Total
Explicitly subjective 21 4 9 8 4 8 54
Explicitly 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 all
speakers (10%).
Explicitly subjective form of modality is shown through clauses
which based on the semantic relationship of projection. In this type,
the speaker’s opinion regarding the probability that his observation
is valid is 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 debate, debaters sometimes would like to emphasize
the subjectivity of their points of view so as to make one’s 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.
Alternatively, explicitly objective form of modality is
represented through nominalization, such as: possibility, probability,
likelyhood, certainly, unusualness, regularity, typicality, intention,
desire, determination, need, obligation, regulation, compulsion and
so on. By means of these nominalizations, modality is construed as
an unquestionable fact i.e. modality is expressed explicitly with
objectivity.
In line with this, Halliday (2000: 362) points out that one of the
most effective ways of creating objectivity is through the use of
explicitly objective form of modality. By using it, the speaker can
make his or her point of view appear to be a quality of the event
itself because this objectification is clearest in cases where the
modality is expressed in a separate clause, namely in explicitly
objective form.

130
Chart 3.7. Representation of Arguments
Overall, as shown in Chart 3.7, arguments are represented
through the extensive use of the declarative mood, and where
markers of modality occur, they indicate median modality. Certainty
is the currency of value in the debate. Therefore it is rarely to find
or never hear the use of modal verbs such as might, could, but we
sometimes hear should, have to. Moreover, debaters use some
mental verbs such as think, believe, know to show their assertiveness
explicitly in their arguments. Also, the cohesive arguments are also
used to show the debaters’ assertiveness. This is shown through
the use of conjunction. Finally, the speakers employ a variety of
ways to convey their arguments which are realized metaphorically
in terms of mood and modality.
4. CONCLUSION
Based on the main findings above, mood and modality anaysis
has shown what principles exist that creates semantic links in the
arguments between sentence and clause. This analysis is helpful to
understand the interpersonal meaning of the debate from a new
perspective, which elaborates the subtleties of language use in this
kind of genre and helps us have a better understanding of it. This
analysis 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, through
the functional analysis, we find that language form is consistent with
its function. Therefore, such a study suggests that similar analysis
could also benefit English learners in their improvement of English
listening, speaking and writing so that they can develop their
communicative competence more effectively.
This study has examined the representation of arguments in
the debate. There are some important things that need further
consideration for future research. This study is limited in terms of
reference materials and time limitation, it is difficult for the
investigation to be comprehensive and exhaustive and many aspects
of the functional grammar and pragmatics in senior high school’s
debate remain untouched. Since senior high school’s debate is only
a small part of public debates, it may not be typical enough to
represent the public debate genre. Finally, the data comes from the
author’s own calculation, which may involves some margin of errors.

132
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Chaffee, J. 2000. Thinking Critically 6th
Edition. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin 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 Linguistic
Second Edition. London: Continuum International .
Emilia, E., Gustine, G., Rodliyah, R. S. 2005. Student’s Critical
Capacity in Writing Thesis: Analysis of Transitivity System
of Systemic Functional Grammar. Bandung: Indonesia
University 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.
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 Social-Semiotic Perspective.
Victoria: Deakin University.
Halliday, M. A. K. and Matthiessen, C. 2004. An Introduction to
Functional Grammar. London: Arnorld.

133
Kurfiss, J. G. 1988. Critical Thinking: Theory, Research, and
Possibilities. Washington D.C.: ASHE (Association for the
Study of Higher Education).
Martin, J. R. 1995. “Interpersonal Meaning, Persuasion, and Public
Discourse: Packing Semiotics Punch”. Australian Journal
of Linguistics 15 (1995), 33-67.
Martin, J. R. and Rose, D. 2007. Working with discourse. London:
Continuum.
Mitchell, G. R. 1998. “Pedagogical Possibilities for Argumentative
Agency in Academic Debate.” Argumentation & Advocay,
35 (2). 41-60.
Quinn, S. 2005. Debating. Brisbane: Australian Electronic
Publisher.
Shulman, M. 2004. Thinking Critically: World Issues for
Reading,Writing and Research. Ann Arbor: The Univerisity
of Michigan Press.
Toulmin, S. E. 2003. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Travers, M. 2001. Qualitative Research Through Case Studies.
London: SAGE Publication Ltd.
Watler, E. 2008. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary Third
Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zhixiang, Z. 2006. A Functional Analysis of Interpersonal GM in
Political Debates. Unpublished Thesis.

A Study of Mood and Modality in High School Debate

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Study of Mood and Modality in High School Debate

Similar to A Study of Mood and Modality in High School Debate (20)

More from Tye Rausch

More from Tye Rausch (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Study of Mood and Modality in High School Debate