Language Evaluation of Covid-19 Vaccination News: Corpus of Indonesian Newspaper and Appraisal Insights
The current study is intended to explore the language evaluation of vaccination of covid-19 news of post-pandemic era in the corpus of the Jakarta post as Indonesian newspapers through the study of Systemic Functional Linguistics, hereafter SFL, by considering interpersonal meaning. To view and evaluate a comprehensive purpose, the corpus and appraisal analysis are deployed. The study revealed that the journalist, as media representation, tended to reflect a positive value corroborating with desirable attitude and preferred to show a good judgment through the news to society but the functional meaning should be depended with the whole context. The result also emphasized that media which realized by journalist engaged the society in persuading vaccination of Covid-19 to normalize all of human’s life aspect either healthy, economic, or other factor after the disruption era although as functionally it convey with a negative attitude. The study has implication for journalist that attitude rules are required to reach an effective interpersonal discourse of target community perspective in reporting and persuading a vaccination of covid-19 for the new normal era.
Adel, A., & Reppen, R. (2008). Corpora and Discourse: The challenges of different Settings. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (3.5.7) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Azar, Ali & Azirah, H. (2019). The impact of attitude markers on enhancing evaluation in the review article genre. GEMA Online Journal of Language Studies 19(1). 135-73.
Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Bangga, L.A., & Iwa, L. (2019). Recontextualising NAPLAN: A functional analysis of evaluations in media texts. Indonesian journal of applied linguistics. 9(1). 128-137.
Biber, D. 1998. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
----------. 2006. University Language. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Connor, U. (2004). Intercultural rhetoric research: Beyond texts. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(4), 291–304.
Duenas, Pilar M. (2010). Attitude markers in business management research articles: A cross-cultural corpus-driven approach. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. 20(1). 50-72.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: the critical study of language. Essex: Longman Group.
Halliday, M.A.K. & Mathiessen, C. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (Third edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Hood, S. (2004). Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. University of Technology, Sydney.
Hunston, S. (1989). Evaluation in Experimental Research Articles. Diss. University of Birmingham.
-------------. (2010). Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York and London: Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies. 7(2). 173-92.
Khoo, C.S., (2012). Sentiment analysis of online news text: A case study of appraisal theory. Online Information Review, 36(6).
Lee, S.H. (2006). The use of interpersonal resources in argumentative/persuasive essays by east–Asian ESL and Australian tertiary students. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Sydney.
Liu, X. (2013). Evaluation in Chinese university EFL students’ English argumentative writing: An appraisal study. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching. 10(1). 40-53.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London and New York: Continuum.
Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. (2005). Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Martin, J. R. & Rose, D. (2007). Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.
Miller, D. (2004). “to meet our common challenge”: ENGAGEMENT strategies of alignment and alienation in current US international discourse. Textus, XVIII(1), 39-62.
Nayernia, A. & Farzaneh A. (2019). Attitude markers in book reviews: The case of applied linguistics discourse community. Linguistics Journal 13(1).
Oteíza, T. (2017). The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. The Routledge Handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics. New York and London: Routledge.
Read J., Hope D. and Carroll J. (2007). Annotating expressions of appraisal in English. In Proceedings of the Linguistic Annotation Workshop, ACL 2007, pp. 93-100, available at: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1642074 (accessed 12 June 2011).
Swales, J.M. (2002). Integrated and fragmented worlds: EAP materials and corpus linguistics. In j. Flowerder (ed.) Academic discourse. London: Longman.
Swain, E. (2010). Getting engaged: dialogistic positioning in novice academic discussion writing.” thresholds and potentialities of systemic functional linguistics: multilingual, multimodal and other specialised discourses. (ed). Elizabeth Swain. Trieste: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. 291-317.
Taki, S. & Fatemeh J. (2012). Engagement and stance in academic writing: A study of English and Persian research articles. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences 3(1).
Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Vian, O. 2008. Appraisal system in Brazilian Portuguese: Resources for graduation. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication 29: 825–9.
Wei, Y., Michael W., & Yi Zhang. (2015). An analysis of current research on the appraisal theory. Linguistics and Literature Studies. 3(5). 235-239.
White, P. R. R. (2004). Subjectivity, evaluation and point of view in media discourse. In C. Coffin, A. Hewings, & K. L. O’Halloran (Eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp. 230–246). London: The Open University Press.
Copyright (c) 2021 Yogi Setia Samsi, Iwa Lukmana, Dadang Sudana
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
By submitting the manuscript of the article, the authors agree with this policy with no specific document sign-off required.
The authors certify that:
- if the manuscript is co-authored, they are authorized by their co-authors to enter into these arrangements.
- the work described has not been formally published before in a registered ISSN or ISBN media, except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture, review, or thesis.
- it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere,
- its publication has been approved by all the author(s) and by the responsible authorities – tacitly or explicitly – of the institutes where the work has been carried out.
- they secure the right to reproduce any material that has already been published or copyrighted elsewhere (it does not infringe the rights of others).
- they agree to Ethical Lingua license and copyright agreement.
All articles published by Ethical Lingua are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License and Copyright Agreement
- Authors retain copyright and other proprietary rights related to the article.
- Authors retain the right and are permitted to use the substance of the article in own future works, including lectures and books.
- Authors grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in Ethical Lingua.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in Ethical Lingua.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post or self-archive their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.