Believe Me or I'll Loose: A Study of Assertiveness in A Debate Setting

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 (Fisher 2001). Many educators have long advocated the teaching of critical thinking skills such as reasoning (argumentation) and problem solving.

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, debating 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 debating. Of course, to help develop 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.

Moreover, debating as a public speaking activity, is the act of public communication, which involves 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. 2007:299). Of course, the speaker might need a variety of ways to deliver an argument in debating in order to show their assertiveness. This is in line with Mc Gregor (2001:2) that since an argument functions as the heart of critical thinking, it 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. Also, 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). In other words, the speaker is expected to be assertive in presenting arguments.

Moreover, regards with the strategy of argument delivery, this study explores systemic functional analysis, particularly, mood and modality analysis. This analysis is then used to investigate the representation of argument and the assertiveness of arguments in debating. Particularly, how the speaker employs some language resources that will work most effectively to sway the reader to our way of thinking (Feez & Joyce 1998:141). In other words, the speaker has a whole menu of different kinds of language to choose from when they deliver arguments, although of course they do not use all the items in every argument.

Therefore Martin & Rose (2007: 138), Feez & Joyce (1998: 141), Anderson & Anderson (1997), and Derewianka (1990: 76-78) suggest the following linguistic features that the speaker might use in delivering an argument. They are (1) the use of words that show the author's attitude (modality, such as should, must, ...); (2) the use of nominalizations that aim 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 that makes 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.

Based on the background above, it is the aim of the study to employ mood and modality analysis suggested by Halliday & Matthiessen (2004) and Eggins & Slade (1997) to investigate the representation of arguments and the level of assertiveness in Indonesian senior high school debating.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The subjects of this study are volunteers who are members of debating club in a private senior high school in Bandung, Indonesia. They have been familiar with debating and debating competition for more or less one year.

Moreover, the procedures of data collections employed in this study are observation through recording of descriptive data (Marshall, et al. 2006) and discourse analysis (Travers, 2001:4). First, the observation was intended to see the way using language in debating. The type of observation applied on this study is non-participant observation in which the researcher plays role as complete observer (Fraenkel & Wallen, 1993:384). By making use of the observation, it is expected that the language competence of senior high school debaters when expressing their arguments may be figured out obviously through recording. The second is the discourse analysis. Here, the text of debate is transcribed from the video into written text in a broad 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.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The Representation of Arguments and Assertiveness of Arguments in Senior High School Debating

This section exposes how high school debaters deliver their arguments seen from mood and modality systems. It includes mood type, mood adjunct (conjunctive adjunct), mood metaphor, modality type, modality value, orientation and manifestation of modality, and modality metaphor.

Mood System

Firstly, there are five types of clauses to be analyzed in debating: declarative, wh-interrogative, imperative, elliptical clause, and non-finite.

There is a big variety of mood choices used by speakers in debating. As regards the delivery of the 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 debate around 1-6%.

The 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 other words, they show their assertiveness through declaratives.

Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team has the highest percentage (22%) of using declarative in delivering her argument. However, the difference is not significant because the other speakers are around 11-21%. It means that the speakers are not significantly different in using declarative in their arguments.

In debating, 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 (Sather, 1999: 9). In line with this, the speaker mostly uses declaratives 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 are 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 debating: elaboration, extension, and enhancement.

Conjunctive adjunct or conjunction or connective plays important role in an argument since it is closely related to cohesiveness (Halliday & Hassan, 1985; Halliday & Mathiessen, 2004). Furthermore, in debating which emphasizes on critical thinking, a speaker is expected to construct argument systematically and to organize the information into meaningful clusters of units, which is called "information-organisation skills" (Lipman, 2003).

As the result shows that this present study confirms the role of conjunction in arguments. Overall, 309 items occurred in all speakers in the debating. The most common used is extension with 166 occurrences (54%). Meanwhile, enhancement was employed 127 occurrences (41%), and elaboration was employed 16 occurrences (5%).

With regard to types of conjunctive mood, additive of the extension type was the most common employed by all speakers, which is 123 items (40%). The other types were spread over the debate round 1-32%.

The analysis of conjunctive adjunct tells the structure of logical relation (Eggins & Slade, 1997; Martin & Rose, 2007: 138). This shows that all speakers convey their arguments through elaboration, extension, and enhancement. In this debating, the argument is largely hold together by extending relations, which is 54% of the debating; they are addition (123 items), adversative relation (24 items), and variation (19 items), as presented on Table 2. 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, and then are used 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 debating (Quinn, 2005). This finding shows that the speaker's ability in elaborating is still low.

In debating, Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team has the highest percentage of using conjunction (25%). Meanwhile, the other speakers are around 11-20%. This indicates that Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team is extremely well to create cohesion in her arguments since conjunctive adjunct acts to connect messages in the discourse (Martin & Rose, 2007: 143). This fact further says that a great majority of conjunction employed by Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team shows her assertiveness and critical thinking through cohesive arguments in debating.

As the third 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.

In debating, the speakers have a variety of ways to express their opinion. They can employ various speech functions which are metaphorically realized in various mood. Overall, 38 items occurred in all speakers in the debating. Speech function was mostly metaphorically realized in declarative mood by all speakers with 22 occurrences (58%), followed by interrogative mood with 10 occurrences (26%), and imperative mood with 6 occurrences (16%).

Like Zhixiang's study ( 2006), 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 does 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 debating, commands and questions are mostly realized in declarative mood (58%). This indicates that the speakers prefer using declarative mood to realize metaphorically 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 audience's understanding and support. In addition, it is found that debaters sometimes replace declarative mood with imperative mood for the sake of emphasis. This strategy shows that they are confidently certain towards what they believe, meaning to say they are assertive and critical. This is in line with Lipman (2003: 56).

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. Moreover, this makes the debating sounds 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 debating 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.

The result shows 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 debating 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 (Sather, 1999; Quinn, 2005).

Modality System

The representation of arguments and the assertiveness of arguments are also shown through modality system. Therefore, the next section discusses modality analysis that includes modality type, modality value, orientation and manifestation 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.

In debating, a speaker's attitude is shown through the use of modality in delivering an argument (Anderson & Anderson, 1997). The study found 156 items occurred in all speakers in the debating. Modalization-probability is the most common in all speakers with 124 occurrences (77%), followed by modulation-inclination with 17 occurrences (10%), modulation-obligation with 16 occurrences (10%), and modalization-usuality with 5 occurrences (3%).

As the dominant modality type, the probability indicates that the speakers explicitly or implicitly qualify 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 inferred that the speakers mostly use probability to express their attitude towards, or opinion about the truth of a proposition expressed by a clause. In this debate, as shown in Table 5 below, the probability is expressed through the use of modal finites (55%), mood adjunct (4%), mental verbs (3%), and nominalization (3%) to express the speaker's degree of force or certainty concerning the claim.

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: whether he ought to say, ‘This must be the vase', This may be the case', or ‘This cannot be the case'; whether to say ‘Certainly so and so', Probably so and so', or ‘Possibly so and so'. By qualifying 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.

In terms of the percentage of using modality by the speakers, this study found Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team has the highest percentage of using modality with 53 occurrences (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. This finding confirms the theory of debating proposed by Sather (1999) and Quinn (2005).

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.

Overall, there are 162 occurrences of modality value used by the speakers. The result shows median probability (would, will, think) the most common used by the speakers with 73 occurrences (45%). The second modality value that mostly employed in the debate is high probability (know, believe, realize, see) with 41 occurrences (25%). The next is low inclination (can) with 17 occurrences (11%), followed by median obligation (is/are to, should, are supposed to) with 12 occurrences (7%), low probability (possibility, maybe) with 10 occurrences (6%), median usuality (usually) with 5 occurrences (3%), and high obligation (obligation, force) with 4 occurrences (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 that most speakers in the debate convey their opinion with median certainty since epistemic interpretations have to do with knowledge and understanding regarding the level of certainty of a proposition's truth (Griffiths, 2006: 111). In the debating, 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%.

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.

Like in mood system, a speaker needs a variety of using modality in expressing his/her opinion in debating. In line with this, the speaker can employ orientation and manifestation of modality. This present study confirms this point. The result shows, overall, there are 264 devices that occurred in all speakers. Explicitly subjective modality is the most common in all speakers with 92 occurrences (35%). The second type that mostly employed by the speakers is implicitly objective modality with 85 occurrences (32%), implicitly subjective modality with 81 occurrences (31%), and explicit objective modality with 6 occurrences (2%).

In this debating, 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). Also, implicit subjective modality is shown through finite modals (would, will, can, should, have to) and explicit objective modality is expressed through nominalization (it's obligation, it's possibility).

As previously mentioned, the dominant orientation and manifestation of modality is explicit 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.

From the explanation above, it is inevitably that this present study reveal the use of explicit subjective modality makes the speakers become more assertive in delivering their arguments.

In debating, as the most dominant participant that uses explicit subjective modality, Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team shows her assertiveness prominently through some mental verbs (we know that..., we believe that..., we realize that...). Especially, 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 (Sather, 1999; Quinn, 2005).

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.

Overall, 60 items occurred in all speakers in the debating. It is inevitable that explicitly subjective of modality metaphor is the most common in all speakers with 54 occurrences (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 debating, the speakers 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, likelihood, 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.

Overall, 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.

The Analysis of Level Assertiveness of Debaters

This section will analyze the level of assertiveness of the speakers by using mood and modality analysis. There are five elements that would be considered in meazuring the level of the assertiveness among the six speakers, they are the total of declarative mood, conjunctive adjunct, high value of modality, explicit subjective modality metaphor, and explicit subjective modality.

In debating, Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team has the greatest number of total high value of modality among other speakers, which are 19 items. She also employed the greatest number of total explicitly subjective of modality metaphor and total explicit subjective of modality among other speakers, which are 21 items and 30 items, respectively. She also employed high number of declarative mood with 89 items and total of conjunctive adjunct with 62 items.

Speaker #1 of Negative Team employed 60 declarative moods, 42 conjunctive adjuncts, 16 explicitly subjective of modality, 5 high value of modality, and 4 explicit subjective of modality metaphor.

Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team employed the greatest number of total declarative mood among other speakers, which are 96 declaratives. Meanwhile, the other speakers are around 49-89 items. Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team also employed the greatest number of total conjunctive adjunct among other speakers, which are 76 conjunction, while the others are around 34-62 items. She has medium number of total high value of modality with only 11 items, explicitly subjective of modality metaphor with 9 items, and explicit subjective of modality with 15 items.

Meanwhile, Speaker #2 of Negative Team employed 61 declarative moods, 38 conjunctive adjuncts, 11 explicit subjective of modality, 8 explicitly subjective of modality metaphor, and 4 high value of modality.

Speaker #3 of Affirmative Team employed 49 declarative moods, 34 conjunctive adjuncts, 7 explicit subjective of modality, 4 explicitly subjective of modality metaphor, and 2 high value of modality.

As the last speaker, Speaker #3 of Negative Team employed high number of declarative moods with 75 items, followed by 57 conjunctive adjuncts, 13 explicit subjective of modality, 8 explicitly subjective of modality metaphor, and 4 high value of modality.

Overall, Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team employed the greatest number of mood and modality devices that used to measure assertiveness that is 221 items, while the others are around 96-207. This indicates that Speaker #1 of Affirmative Team is the most assertive speaker in delivering her arguments in the debate. The second place is Speaker #2 of Affirmative Team with 207 items, followed by Speaker #3 of Negative Team with 157 items, Speaker #1 of Negative Team with 127 items, Speaker #2 of Negative Team with 122 items, and the last is Speaker #3 of Affirmative Team with 96 items.

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

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 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 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 and the assertiveness of arguments in debating. 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.

REFERENCES

Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. (1997a). Text Types in English 1. Australia: Macmillan.

Anderson, M., & Anderson, K. (1997b). Text Types in English 2. Australia: Macmillan.

Christie, F & Derewianka, B. (2008). School Discourse. London: Continuum.

Eggins, S & 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 ofTransitivity 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. & 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. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Melbourne, University of Melbourne.

Griffiths, P. (2006). An Introduction to English Semantics and Pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

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

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

Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. (2004). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnorld .

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1995). Interpersonal Meaning, Persuasion, and Public Discourse: Packing Semiotic Punch. Australian Journal of Linguistics 15 (1995), 33-67.

Martin, J. R, & 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.

Sather, T. (1999). PROS and CONS: A Debater's Handbook . Oxon: Routledge.

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.

Source : articlebase.com

Artikel Terkait: