an attitudinal study on 2020 us presidential debates

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING QUY NHON UNIVERSITY LÊ THỊ MỸ HUỆ AN ATTITUDINAL STUDY ON 2020 US PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES Field: English Linguistics Code: 8220201 Supervisor: VÕ DUY ĐỨC, Ph.D BINH DINH, 2021 BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC QUY NHƠN LÊ THỊ MỸ HUỆ NGUYÊN CỨU YẾU TỐ THÁI ĐỘ TRONG TRANH LUẬN TỔNG THỐNG HOA KỲ NĂM 2020 Chuyên ngành: Ngôn Ngữ Anh Mã số: 8220201 Người hướng dẫn: TS VÕ DUY ĐỨC BÌNH ĐỊNH, 2021 i STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I hereby declare that I am the sole author of the thesis “An Attitudinal study on 2020 US Presidential Debates” I have not used any sources other than those listed in the bibliography and identified as references I further declare that this thesis has not been submitted for the award of any other degree or diploma in any university or other institution Quy Nhơn, September 2021 Lê Thị Mỹ Huệ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Without the help and support of many people, I would not have been able to complete this research I would like to express my sincere gratitude and respect to all of them First and foremost, I want to express my thanks to the most significant person in my life, Dr Vo Duy Duc, my supervisor, for his professional guidance and consistent encouragement I am grateful for his willingness to be my supervisor in his field of expertise, Appraisal Theory Thanks to his materials, his hearted guidance from the very first day of my journey to the last chapter of this thesis, his detailed feedbacks on every piece of my paper, my thesis was finally successfully accomplished My special thanks also go to all the lecturers who have given me knowledge during the last two years of my study Finally, my heartfelt appreciation goes to my close friends and my family who are always beside me and give me spiritual support in studying iii ABSTRACT The study attempts to investigate the use of Attitudinal resources, including Affect, Judgement and Appreciation in the first US presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden with the employment of the Appraisal Theory by Martin and White (2005) It was carried out through mixed approaches - quantitative and qualitative Attitudinal studies based on Appraisal theory has gained much attention from many researchers at home and abroad; however, it has been found that there is no related research on the field of debate The examination shows that both Donald Trump and Joe Biden employed Attitudinal resources in debate It was found that the candidates tend to use more Affect resources in their debate than the other two Attitudinal categories, Appreciation and Judgement Although the two candidates have a similar tendency in Attitudinal resources, they are different in the distribution of Attitude sub-types The study gives implications for teaching and learning English and constitutes a base for further exploration of evaluative language in the field of debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates iv TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii TABLE CONTENT iv LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS vii LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES ix LIST OF CHARTS x CHAPTER INTRODUCTION 1.1.RATIONALE 1.2 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 1.2.1 Aims 1.2.2 Objectives 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS 1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY 1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY 1.7 SUMMARY CHAPTER LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 2.1.1 Appraisal theory 2.1.2 Attitude 2.1.3 Engagement 23 2.1.4 Graduation 25 2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW 27 an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates v 2.3 SUMMARY 29 CHAPTER RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES 30 3.1 RESEARCH METHODS 30 3.2 DATA COLLECTION 30 3.3 DATA ANALYSIS 31 3.4 RESEARCH PROCEDURES 31 3.5 Reliability and Validity in the research 32 3.6 SUMMARY 32 CHAPTER FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS 32 4.1 GENERAL FEATURES OF THE FIST DEBATE OF DONALD TRUMP AND JOE BIDEN 33 4.2 Affect 35 4.2.1 Dis/Inclination 36 4.2.2 Un/Happiness 40 4.2.3 Dis/Satisfaction 42 4.2.4 In/Security 43 4.3 JUDGEMENT 45 4.3.1 Social Esteem 47 4.3.2 Social Sanction 50 4.3.3 Explicit and Implicit Judgement in the first debate 53 4.4 APPRECIATION 56 4.4.1 Reaction 57 4.4.2 Composition 60 4.4.3 Valuation 61 4.4.4 Positive and Negative Appreciation in Donald Trump and Joe Biden 63 4.5 SUMMARY 66 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 67 an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates 67 CHAPTER CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The purpose of this chapter is to bring the thesis to a finish The paper first derives critical inferences from the findings, then provides pertinent implications, and lastly examines the current study's limitations and gives some ideas for future research based on the collected and evaluated data 5.1 CONCLUSIONS An appraisal is divided into three domains, and one of them is Attitude which contains three kinds, namely Affect, Judgment, and Appreciation Each sub-system of Attitude is then sub-classified into many interrelated sets of Appraisal values It can be seen from the findings that all of the importance of Attitude was found in the first 2020 US Presidential debate In general, there were more similarities than dissimilarities discovered in the research Although there were still some discrepancies, yet they were not significant First of all, in terms of Affect, the finding concluded that most of the sub-types of Affect were discovered in the debate by Donald Trump and Joe Biden Interestingly, the Affect resources utilized in the first debate display the same ranking pattern of frequency, from the highest to the lowest, as follows: Dis/Inclination, Dis/Satisfaction, Un/Happiness/ In/Security In the discussion between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, they expressed their desire and commitment to things that would happen in the future, which led to the realization that the majority of resources were positive, while negative resources were much less As a result, those Affect resources were primarily used to desire the candidates' feelings As regards Judgment, the resources of this value were found not to be widespread as the others Generally, Donald Trump and Joe Biden view the an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates 68 issues markedly positively Positive comments, it is apparent, can boost selfconfidence and elevate each candidate's position in conveying political understanding and bringing incredible things to residents and the United States Additionally, the findings indicate that Donald Trump and Joe Biden tend to evaluate human behaviour explicitly via lexical items containing Judgement values To successfully reach that goal, Explicit Judgments were preferable to Implicit to directly transfer the meaning to audiences and citizens and limit the misunderstanding Concerning Appreciation, in the first debate by Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Valuation ranked first, followed by Reaction, and Composition took up the lowest position For this sub-system of Attitude, the findings show that Donald Trump and Joe Biden are similar in that positive Appreciation is more than negative The Appreciation resources were preferable to Judgment, which led to the simple Appreciations feature, catching the citizens' high interest The Appreciation resources were made concrete by applying the lexical means shared by Donald Trump and Joe Biden, such as the best/ great/ nice, and so on 5.2 IMPLICATIONS By drawing on Appraisal Theory, the analysis of the attitudinal resources in the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden may be of paramount significance and importance to learners of English in terms of orientation in language study and practice The study will offer language learners an excellent insight to get involved in the evaluation and using the evaluative linguistic resources In other words, this thesis helps learners enrich their knowledge of attitudinal resources to express judgements and attitudes toward issues or events in an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates 69 comment sections in general and debate ones in particular Additionally, this study is practical for English learners because they can apply the language of evaluation for both classroom academic language and English for daily communication purposes, which is helpful to produce an exciting and vivid conversation In short, teachers and learners of language can use the findings in this thesis in their teaching, learning and using linguistics to express assessments with an argumentative and informative attitude 5.3 LIMITATIONS Throughout the research process, the researcher is acutely aware of the limits of the study An appraisal is the language of evaluation It involves three main sub-systems that operate simultaneously: Attitude, Engagement, and Graduation, a full description of all of them could not be done Once having identified such limitations above, the researcher hopes to continue working on those issues, or at least, to approach further studies conducted by other researchers 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH During the procedure of the study, the researcher is deeply conscious of the limitations of this research An appraisal is the language of evaluation, involving three simultaneous focal sub-systems: Attitude, Engagement and Graduation Within the limit of the M.A thesis, a full description of all of them could not be done Therefore, there remain certain appealing areas that can be developed for further research and studies, as followed: Graduation resources in the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden Engagement resources in the debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates 70 REFERENCES Altikriti, S (2016) Persuasive Speech Acts in Barack Obama’s Inaugural Speeches (2009, 2013) and The Last State of the Union Address (2016), International Journal of Linguistics, 8(2), 48 Bell, A (1991) The language of news media Oxford: Blackwell Bhatia, K V (2004) Worlds of written discourse London: Continuum Do Huynh My Lien (2015) A comparative study of interpersonal meaning realized through Attitude values in showbiz news in English and Vietnamese online newspapers M.A thesis, Quynhon Eggins, S (2004) Introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.) London: Bloomsbury Publishing Halliday, M.A.K (1994) An Introduction to Functional Grammar London: Edward Arnold Halliday, M A K., & Matthiessen, c (2004) An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.) London: Edward Arnold Hood, S (2004) Appraisal research: taking a stance in academic writing Ph.D Thesis Sydney: University of technology Hood, S., Forey, G (2005) Introducing a conference paper: Getting interpersonal with your audience Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 4, 291–306 Iedema, R., Feez, S., & White, P R R (1994) Media Literacy (Write it right literacy in industrial research project - Stage 2) Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged School Program Liu, L., & Stevenson, M (2013) A cross-cultural analysis of stance in disaster news reports Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, 36(2), an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates 71 Liu, X (2013) Evaluation in Chinese University EFL Students‟ English Argumentative Writing : An APPRAISAL Study, Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 10( 1) Liu, X, & Thompson, P (2009) Attitude in students‟ argumentative writing contrastive perspective Language studies working papers Martin, J.R., & Rose, D (2007) Working with discourse : Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.) London : Continuum Martin, J.R (1992) English text: System and Structure Amsterdam: Benjamins Martin, J R (1996) Types of stuctures: deconstructing notions of constituency in clause and text In E H Hovy & D R Scott (Eds.), Computational and conversational discourse: Burning issues- an interdisciplinary account (pp 39-66) Heidelberg: Springer Martin, J R (2000) Close reading: functional linguistics as a tool for critical discourse analysis In L Unsworth (Ed.), Research language in schools and communities: functional linguistic perspectives (pp 275302) London: Cassell Martin, J R., & Rose, D (2003) Working with discourse: meaning beyond the clause LonDon: Continuum Martin, J R., & David Rose (2003) Working with Discourse—meaning beyond the clause London: Continuum Martin, J R & White, P R R (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English New York: Palgrave Macmillan Nguyen, T.T.H (2014) A Comparative Study of Interpersonal Meaning in Hotel Brochures Written in English and Vietnamese- Appraisal Approach, M.A Thesis, Quy Nhon University an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates 72 Nguyen, T.T.H et al (2014) The use of Expansion resources in the English and Vietnamese political editorials about North Korea in the light of Appraisal theory, Science Journal at HCMC University of Education in 2014 No.60 Nguyen, T.T.H (2016a) An Appraisal Study of Social Attitudes in News Reports towards President Obama' s Visit to Vietnam, VNU Journal of Science: Foreign Studies, Vol 32, No.4, 21-29 Nguyen Thi Thu Hien (2016) An Appraisal Study of Social Attitudes in News Reports towards President Obama's Visit to Vietnam VNU Journal of Science: Foreign Studies, 32(4), 21-29 Ngo, T, & Unsworth, I (2015) Reworking the appraisal framework in ESL research: refining attitude resources Functional Linguistics, 2(1) Pascual, N., & Unger, L (2010) Appraisal in the research genres: An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers Revista Signos, 43(73), 261-280 Taiwo, R (2009) Legitimization and Coercion in Political Discourse: A Case Study Tran Thi Thuy Tien (2017) A Study on the Attitudinal Resorerces in Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton's Speeches in the US Presidential Election 2016, Unpublished Master's Thesis Quy Nhon Uiversity Vo Duy Duc (2011) Styłe, structure and ideology in English and Vietnamese business hard news reporting: a comparative study (Doctoral thesis), The University of Adelaide, Australia Retrieved from http://hdl.handle net:2440/71002 Vo Duy Duc (2017) Appraisal – an approach to discourse analysis: Inquiry into Langunges and Cultures, 1(1), 13-24 an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates 73 Vo Thi Ngoc Hien.(2014) Attitude in Victory Speeches of Barack Obama and George Walker Bush , Unpublished Master's Thesis Quy Nhon Uiversity Wang Zhenhua, 2004 Study of Attitude in Hard News, Foreign Language Education, Vol.25, No.5, 31-36 White, P (2001) An introductory tour through Appraisal theory (word processor version) http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal (accessed 08/29/12) White, P R R (2004) Subjectivity, evaluation and point of view in media discourse In C Coffin, A Hewings & K O'Halloran (Eds.), Applying English Grammar London: Hodder Arnold WEBSITE https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis/analysis-first-round-of-biden-vs-trump-aninconclusivedebate/1997237?fbclid=IwAR0lAwhmNlpgbwEJqx9JIQ7LgVzjMoY aGwGqD0JaDTkAR6_aAZWmyv_U10Y https://www.c-span.org/debates/?debate=first https://theconversation.com/the-first-us-presidential-debate-was-pure-chaosheres-what-our-experts-thought-147178 https://www.academia.edu/9949580/The_Language_of_Evaluation_Appraisal _in_English an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesan.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates