Analyzing the types of modalities contained in the debate text

Oct 13, 2025 by magicalceylontours.com 112 views

Introduction

The general election is a crucial moment in democracy, and the debate of presidential candidates is one way to understand the vision and mission of the candidates. In the 2019 general election, the debate of presidential candidates was characterized by various types of modalities that reflect the attitudes and approaches of each candidate. This research focuses on the analysis of the modalities contained in the debate text using the Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory (SFL) developed by M.A.K Halliday.

Background

The debate of presidential candidates is an essential aspect of the general election, as it provides an opportunity for candidates to express their vision, mission, and policies to the public. In the 2019 general election, two prominent candidates, Joko Widodo (Jokowi) and Prabowo Subianto, participated in the debate. The debate was a crucial moment for the candidates to showcase their leadership skills, policies, and vision for the country.

Research Objectives

This study aims to analyze the modalities contained in the debate text of the 2019 general election. The research objectives are:

Analyzing the types of modalities contained in the debate text: This objective aims to identify the different types of modalities used by the candidates during the debate.
Analyzing the type and value of modalities in the debate: This objective aims to understand the type and value of modalities used by the candidates, including the level of modalization and modulation.
Investigating the reasons for the modality function used in the debate: This objective aims to understand the reasons behind the use of modalities by the candidates during the debate.

Methodology

This study uses a qualitative approach to analyze the modalities contained in the debate text. The data analyzed consists of 183 clauses taken from the 5th Ronde Presidential Candidate debate transcript. The analysis is based on the Systemic Functional Linguistics Theory (SFL) developed by M.A.K Halliday.

Results

The results of the analysis show that Joko Widodo (Jokowi) dominated the use of modernized modalization modality; probability. This indicates that Jokowi provides more information as an expression of attitude towards the statement he made. Meanwhile, Prabowo Subianto was found to have 80 types of modalities dominated by modulation; must. This reflects the existence of an imperative demand and personal consideration in the supply or request.

Discussion

The analysis shows that Joko Widodo is dominated by the level of modalization value; probability with a total of 56 modalities (54.3%). This indicates that Jokowi often uses the word "will" which functions as a proposition or information that supports his promises and future plans for Indonesia, especially in economic and anti-corruption issues. Conversely, Prabowo Subianto showed dominance on modulation modulation; necessity with 38 (47.5%) expression. This shows that Prabowo tends to ask others to do something, both through permission questions, direction, or giving advice in various topics of discussion.

Conclusion

The results of this study indicate that the modality system used by Prabowo Subianto is more able to convince Indonesian citizens compared to Joko Widodo. This certainly provides an important insight about how modalities can affect public perception in the political and communication context. This knowledge can be used to develop more effective communication strategies in the future, both in the context of political debates and in public communication in general.

Implications

The findings of this study have several implications for the field of linguistics, communication, and politics. Firstly, the study highlights the importance of modality in shaping public perception and opinion. Secondly, the study shows that the use of modalities can be a crucial factor in determining the success of a candidate in a political debate. Finally, the study provides insights into the language style and communication strategies used by the candidates, which can be useful for future research and application.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the study is based on a qualitative approach, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Secondly, the study only analyzed the debate text of the 2019 general election, which may not be representative of other debates or elections. Finally, the study only focused on the modalities used by the candidates, which may not be the only factor influencing public perception and opinion.

Future Research Directions

This study provides several directions for future research. Firstly, future studies can investigate the use of modalities in other contexts, such as business or education. Secondly, future studies can analyze the language style and communication strategies used by other candidates or politicians. Finally, future studies can investigate the impact of modalities on public perception and opinion in different cultures and contexts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this study provides insights into the use of modalities in the debate of presidential candidates in the 2019 general election. The study highlights the importance of modality in shaping public perception and opinion, and shows that the use of modalities can be a crucial factor in determining the success of a candidate in a political debate. The study also provides insights into the language style and communication strategies used by the candidates, which can be useful for future research and application.

Introduction

In our previous article, we discussed the importance of modality in the debate of presidential candidates in the 2019 general election. Modality refers to the way in which language is used to express possibility, necessity, and obligation. In this article, we will answer some frequently asked questions about modality in the context of the 2019 general election.

Q: What is modality in language?

A: Modality is a linguistic concept that refers to the way in which language is used to express possibility, necessity, and obligation. It is a way of expressing the speaker's attitude or opinion towards a statement or proposition.

Q: How is modality used in the debate of presidential candidates?

A: Modality is used in the debate of presidential candidates to express the candidate's attitude or opinion towards a statement or proposition. For example, a candidate may use modal verbs such as "will" or "must" to express their commitment to a particular policy or action.

Q: What are the different types of modality?

A: There are two main types of modality: modalization and modulation. Modalization refers to the way in which language is used to express possibility or necessity, while modulation refers to the way in which language is used to express obligation or permission.

Q: How did Joko Widodo (Jokowi) and Prabowo Subianto use modality in the debate?

A: According to our analysis, Joko Widodo (Jokowi) dominated the use of modernized modalization modality; probability, while Prabowo Subianto was found to have 80 types of modalities dominated by modulation; must. This reflects the existence of an imperative demand and personal consideration in the supply or request.

Q: What does the use of modality reveal about the candidates' language style and communication strategies?

A: The use of modality reveals that Joko Widodo (Jokowi) tends to prioritize promises in an effort to meet the expectations of the Indonesian people, while Prabowo Subianto issued more statements in an imperative tone, directing to officials and leaders to play an active role in change. Jokowi's language style is more formal and educative, while Prabowo often uses emotional expressions that are full of enthusiasm.

Q: What are the implications of the study for the field of linguistics, communication, and politics?

A: The study highlights the importance of modality in shaping public perception and opinion. It also shows that the use of modalities can be a crucial factor in determining the success of a candidate in a political debate. Finally, the study provides insights into the language style and communication strategies used by the candidates, which can be useful for future research and application.

Q: What are the limitations of the study?

A: The study has several limitations. Firstly, the study is based on a qualitative approach, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Secondly, the study only analyzed the debate text of the 2019 general election, which may not be representative of other debates or elections. Finally, the study only focused on the modalities used by the candidates, which may not be the only factor influencing public perception and opinion.

Q: What are the future research directions?

A: This study provides several directions for future research. Firstly, future studies can investigate the use of modalities in other contexts, such as business or education. Secondly, future studies can analyze the language style and communication strategies used by other candidates or politicians. Finally, future studies can investigate the impact of modalities on public perception and opinion in different cultures and contexts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this Q&A article provides insights into the use of modality in the debate of presidential candidates in the 2019 general election. The study highlights the importance of modality in shaping public perception and opinion, and shows that the use of modalities can be a crucial factor in determining the success of a candidate in a political debate.