Engagement Strategies in the USU English Debate Forum: An Appraisal Theory Perspective

Faninsky Aryanti La Ajina Hasibuan; Deliana Deliana; Nurlela Nurlela; Rusdi Noor Rosa

doi:10.24036/ld.v19i2.134434

Engagement Strategies in the USU English Debate Forum: An Appraisal Theory Perspective

Faninsky Aryanti La Ajina Hasibuan⁽¹⁾, Deliana Deliana⁽²⁾, Nurlela Nurlela⁽³⁾, Rusdi Noor Rosa⁽⁴⁾,
(1) Universitas Sumatera Utara

Indonesia
(2) Universitas Sumatera Utara

Indonesia
(3) Universitas Sumatera Utara

Indonesia
(4) Universitas Sumatera Utara

Indonesia

Corresponding Author
Copyright (c) 2025 Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24036/ld.v19i2.134434

Full Text:

Language : en

Abstract

Previous studies on engagement have a primary focus on textual discourse or written communication analysis rather than on interactive, spoken communication. This leaves a room for further exploration into how engagement functions dynamically, such as in debates. This study aims to find out the engagement strategies used in the USU English Debate Forum 2023 through the lens of Martin and White’s (2005) appraisal theory of engagement. Using a qualitative content analysis, this study categorizes debate discourse into monoglossic and heteroglossic engagement systems to analyze how the debaters construct meaning, position themselves in relation to their audience, and employ linguistic features to sustain engagement. The data were collected using observation and documentation methods and were analyzed using an interactive model of data analysis. The findings indicate that heteroglossic engagement overwhelmingly dominates the debate discourse, accounting for 83.3% of the engagement strategies used. Among the heteroglossic features, dialogic contraction strategies such as Deny (21.17%) and Counter (16.47%) were frequently employed, highlighting the competitive nature of debate discourse. Dialogic expansion, particularly Entertainment (32.94%), also played a significant role, allowing the debaters to introduce assessments of probability and possibility. The results suggest that the debaters strategically navigate linguistic resources to challenge opposing arguments, reinforce their stance, and engage with alternative perspectives. This study contributes to the understanding of engagement strategies in academic debates, offering implications for debate training and rhetorical education.

Keywords

appraisal theory; engagement; debates; spoken discourse

References

Adi, S. S., Unsiah, F., & Lestari, R. N. (2019). Language learning strategies used by Indonesian vocational high school English debate group. International Journal of English Linguistics, Literature, and Education (IJELLE), 1(2), 51–59. https://doi.org/10.32585/ijelle.v1i2.536

Almutairi, B. A. A. (2019). Significant patterns of appraisal in online debates. International Journal of Linguistics, 11(4), 27-69. https://doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v11i4.15040

AlRubaie, R. S., Shuqair, K. M., & AlhajiB, A. (2024). Use of debate strategies to increase the effectiveness of a 1st-year conversation course at the college of basic education in Kuwait. International Journal of Higher Education, 13(6), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.5430/ijhe.v13n6p22

Asih, F. E., Novita, D., & Ardhana, I. A. (2022). Students’ integrated science process skills and argumentation in basic natural science lecture. Jurnal Pendidikan dan Pengajaran, 55(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpp.v55i1.35979

Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. University of Texas Press.

Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23(2), 177-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(97)90023-0

Berracheche, A. (2020). Appraisal and party positioning in parliamentary debates: A usage-based critical discourse analysis. International Journal of English Linguistics, 10(6), 322-334. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v10n6p322

Broda-Bahm, K., Kempf, D., & Driscoll, W. (2004). Argument and audience argument and audience: Presenting debates in public settings. International Debate Education Association.

Coffin, C. (2004). Arguing about how the world is or how the world should be: The role of argument in IELTS tests. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 3(3), 229–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2003.11.002

Coffin, C., & Donohue, J. P. (2014). A language as social semiotic-based approach to teaching and learning in higher education. In L. T. Wong & W. Martin (Eds.), Academic language in higher education (pp. 45–68). Routledge.

el Majidi, A., Janssen, D., & de Graaff, R. (2021). The effects of in-class debates on argumentation skills in second language education. System, 101, 102576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102576

Fayyadh, H. M. (2014). A discourse analysis of the linguistic strategies in the Debate between Moses and Pharaoh. Anbar University Journal of Languages & Literature, 6(1), 46-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.37654/aujll.2014.92390

Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.

Grice, H. P. (1989). Studies in the way of words. Harvard University Press.

Gunawan, B., Setiawan, B., & Rohmadi, M. (2017). Education characteristics of students in debate learning SMA Negeri 1 Karanganyar. Lingua Didaktika: Jurnal Bahasa dan Pembelajaran Bahasa, 11(1), 84-94. https://doi.org/10.24036/ld.v11i1.7704

Halliday, M. A. K. (1973). Explorations in the functions of language. Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1999). Language and social semiotics: The social interpretation of language and meaning. Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2004). An introduction to functional grammar (3rd ed.). Edward Arnold.

Halomoan, H. S. (2024). Linguistic strategies in political discourse: Hedges and boosters in the 2024 US presidential debate. English Language Literature & Culture, 9(5), 159-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ellc.20240905.12

Hood, S. (2010). Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. Palgrave Macmillan.

Hood, S., & Martin, J. R. (2007). Invoking attitude: The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In R. Hasan, C. M. I. M. Matthiessen, & J. Webster. (Eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective (pp. 739-764). Equinox.

Huang, A. (2019). The dialogical nature of language use in interactive listening: Revisiting meaning in context. Language Awareness, 29(1), 21–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658416.2019.1686509

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365

Jureddi, D. N., & Brahmaiah, N. (2016). Barriers to effective communication. Journal of English Language and Literature, 3(2), 114-115. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780080546629-56

Kabli, H. M. (2020). The effect of the positive and the negative evidences in learning English ‘to’ with manner-of-motion to goal constructions by L1 Saudi Arabic speakers. English Language Teaching, 13(6), 20-33. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v13n6p20

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Sage.

Lee, S. H. (2008). Attitude in undergraduate persuasive essays. Prospect, 23(3), 43–58. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/aeipt.178536

Majhi, S., Jal, C., & Maharana, B. (2016). Content analysis of Journal articles on Wiki in Science Direct Database. Library Philosophy and Practice (e-journal), 1331. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/libphilprac/1331

Mardiana. (2018) The use of appraisal and debate structure in English debate competition of senior high school students. English Education Journal, 8(3), 403-410. https://doi.org/10.15294/eej.v8i3.25139

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage.

Nodoushan, S. (2006). Research in the language classroom: The state of the art. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 2(2), 148-165. http://dx.doi.org/10.26634/jet.3.2.735

Prayogi, M. S., & Laili, E. N. (2022). Donald Trump’s persuasion techniques in the U.S. presidential debate 2016. Teaching English as Foreign Language, Literature and Linguistics, 2(1), 65–84. https://doi.org/10.33752/teflics.v2i1.2653

Roseman, I. J. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions: Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition and Emotion, 10(3), 241-278. https://doi.org/10.1080/026999396380240

Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage.

Tarigan, R. M., & Lubis, Y. (2024). Qualitative findings on the impact of debate techniques on English language speaking competence. Journal of Educational Development, 12(2), 84-97. https://journal.unnes.ac.id/journals/jed/article/view/4939

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press.

Turk, M., Toraman Turk, S, Muftuoglu, A. C., Karakaya, O., & Karakaya, K. (2024). Students’ expectations and experiences about engagement strategies in online courses: A mixed methods study. Online Learning, 28(2), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.24059/olj.v28i2.3937

Van Eemeren, F. H., & Grootendorst, R. (2004). A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge University Press.

Walton, D. (2007). Media argumentation: Dialectics, persuasion, and rhetoric. Cambridge University Press.

White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011

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: Functional and corpus approaches (pp. 229–246). Arnold.

White, P. R. R. (2012). Exploring the axiological workings of ‘reporter voice’ news stories – attribution and attitudinal positioning. Discourse, Context & Media, 1(2–3), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2012.10.004

Ziliwu, E. (2020). Appraisal of engagement in Les Brown speech’s Enough is Enough. LingPoet: Journal of Linguistics and Literary Research, 1(1), 6-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.32734/lingpoet.v1i1.4691