luận văn thạc sĩ 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 e 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 e 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 e 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 e 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 e luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.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 luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates e luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.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 luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates e luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates vi 5.1 CONCLUSIONS 67 5.2 IMPLICATIONS 68 5.3 LIMITATIONS 69 5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH 69 REFERENCES 70 APPENDIX luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates e luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates vii LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Irrealis affect (Martin and White, 2005, p.48) 12 Table 2.2 Affect – Un/happiness (Martin and White, 2005:49) 13 Table 2.3 Affect – In/security (Martin and White, 2005, p.50) 14 Table 2.4 Affect – Dis/satisfaction (Martin and White, 2005, p.51) 14 Table 2.5 Judgements of esteem and sanction (Martin and White, 2005:53) 16 Table 2.6 Types of appreciation (Martin and White, 2005:56) 20 Table 2.7 Sub-types of appreciation (Martin and White: 57) 22 Table 2.8 Points of Differences Borders (Martin and White,2005, p.57-60) 22 Table 2.9 Clauses for Clearing Differences (Martin and White,2005,p.58-59) 23 Table 4.1 ARs in Donald Trump‟s and Joe Biden‟s debate 34 Table 4.2 Sub-types of Judgment in between Donald Trump and Joe Biden 46 Table 4.3 Explicit and Implicit Judgement resources in debate 54 luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates e luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 An overview of appraisal resources Figure 2.2 An Overview of Attitude (Martin and White, 2005) 10 Figure 2.3 Judgement and Appreciation as Institutionalised Affect Figure 2.4 Engagement Sub-categories (Martin & White, 2005) 25 luan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debatesluan.van.thac.si.an.attitudinal.study.on.2020.us.presidential.debates e 11