Language is central in the development and implementation of the law. Because laws are constructed using language, the processes of the law are mediated through language (Gibbons, 1999). Anesa (2011) explains that language can also be used as a criterion for evaluating witnesses, as well as for determining the credibility of narratives. This study analyzed the significantly distinct evaluative items from the testimonies of three direct witnesses in the Maguindanao massacre case. The testimonies of the three direct witnesses consisting of 17,905 words served as the study corpus. Using the lens of appraisal theory (Martin & White, 2005), the behavior of the witnesses, based on the perspective of the judge, was examined through the evaluative language used in the document. These evaluative items were categorized based on the values under the semantic area of judgment- social esteem (capacity, tenacity, normality) and social sanction (veracity and propriety). The findings of the study revealed that social esteem evaluative lexes were more prevalent than social sanction evaluative lexes. Words that mirror social esteem, specifically tenacity, were utilized to admire the behavior of the witnesses and criticize the defendant, while words that reflect social sanction evaluated the legality of the actions of the defendant. The study shows how the use of evaluative items reflects the verdict of the court on the case, underscores how evaluative meanings can be constructed through language in a court case, and provides a collection of evaluative words that serves as valuable information for the lay people to realize the importance of language in the law.
Keywords: Appraisal theory, evaluative language, judgment, Maguindanao massacreAnesa, P. (2011). Courtroom discourses: An analysis of the Westerfield jury trial [Doctoral dissertation, Universita ‘Degli Studi Di Verona, Verona]. Department of Foreign Languages and Literatures Universita de Verona. https://www.dlls.univr.it/ documenti/AllegatiOA/allegatooa_8226.pdf
Anthony, L. (2004). AntConc: A learner and classroom friendly, multi-platform corpus analysis toolkit. In L. Anthony, S. Fujita, & Y. Harada (Eds.), Proceedings of IWLeL 2004: An interactive workshop on language e-learning (pp. 7-13). Waseda University.
Ball, C.E. (2017). Swaying the jury: The effect of expert witness testimony on jury verdicts in rape trials [Senior capstone thesis, Arcadia University]. Scholarworks@ Arcadia. https://scholarworks.arcadia.edu/senior_theses/29
Bartley, L. (2018). Forensic linguistics gives victims and the wrongfully convicted the voices they deserve. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/forensiclinguistics-gives- victims-and-the-wrongfully-convicted-the-voices-theydeserve-101660
Bartley, L. V. (2017). Transitivity, no stone left unturned: Introducing flexibility and granularity into the framework for the analysis of courtroom discourse [Doctoral dissertation, Universidad de Granada]. Universidad de Granada. http://hdl.handle. net/10481/48043
Bock, Z. (2007). A discourse analysis of selected truth and reconciliation commission testimonies: Appraisal and genre [Doctoral dissertation, University of the Western Cape]. University of the Western Cape Theses and Dissertations Repository. http://etd.uwc.ac.za/xmlui/bitstream/handle/ 11394/3631/Bock_PHD_2007. pdf?sequence =1
Catoto, J. (2017). On courtroom questioning: A forensic linguistic analysis. Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 22(11), 65-97. https://doi.org/10.9790/0837- 2211086597
Ceballos, C. & Sosas, R. (2018). On court proceedings: A forensic linguistic analysis on maxim violation. Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS), 3(2), 17-31. https://ddoi. org/10.24200/jonus.vol3iss2pp17-31
Dai, X & Zhou, J. (2019). Analysis of criminal court discourse on Steven Avery case from the perspective of appraisal theory. In 4th International Conference on Contemporary Education, Social Sciences and Humanities (ICCESSH 2019) (pp. 1917-1922). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/iccessh-19.2019.411 Deuna, I.F. (2016). Exploring the language of evaluation in a Philippine drug trial. [Unpublished thesis]. University of Santo Tomas.
Fellbaum, C. (2012, November 5). WordNet. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1285
Gales, T., & Solan, L.M. (2017, December 18). Witness cross-examinations in non-stranger assault crimes: An appraisal analysis. Language and Law, 4(2), 108-139.
Gibbons, J. (1999). Language and the law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 156- 173. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190599190081
Harvey, L. (2012). Researching the real world. Quality Research International. www. qualityresearchinternational.com/methodology
Heffer, C. (2008). Judgement in court: Evaluating participants in courtroom discourse. In K. Kredens & S. Gozdz-Roszkowski (Eds.), Language and the law: International outlooks (Vol. 16, pp. 145-179). Peter Lang. https://www.semanticscholar.org/ paper/Judgement-in-court%3A-evaluating-participants-in-Heffer/6e9a4d1d66e6a6 b2a2f6887ab21c2beadad5b0c9.
Hurt, M. & Grant, T. (2018). Pledging to harm: A linguistic appraisal analysis of judgment comparing realized and non-realized violent fantasies. Discourse & Society, 30(2), 154-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518816195
Jordan, S.N. (2002). Forensic linguistics: The linguistic analyst and expert witness of language evidence in criminal trials [Master’s thesis, Biola University]. Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC). https://files.eric.ed.gov/ fulltext/ED472652.pdf
Law Teacher (2019, August 6). Importance of a witness. https://www.lawteacher.net/freelaw-essays/administrative-law/importance-of-a-witness-law-essays.php?vref=1
Lintao, R. (2018). Investigating the evaluative language in Philippine and Chinese news reports on the South China Sea disputes. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 9(6), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.alls.v.9n.6p.66
Martin, J. & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: meaning beyond the clause. Bloomsbury Academic. Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910
McAuliffe, K. (2012). Language and law in the European Union: The multilingual jurisprudence of the ECJ [Abstract]. In L. Solan & P. Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 209 – 212). Oxford University Press.
Miller, G.A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM Archive, 38(11), 39 – 41. https://doi.org/10.1145/219717.219748
Oteíza, T. (2017). The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. In T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (1st ed., pp. 457-472). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315413891.ch28
Pascual M. & Unger L. (2010). Appraisal in the research genres: An analysis of grant proposals by Argentinean researchers. Revista Signos, 43(73), 261-280. http:// dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-09342010000200004.
Roszkowski, S.G. & Pontrandolfo, G. (2014). Exploring the local grammar of evaluation: the case of adjectival patterns in American and Italian judicial discourse. Research in Language, 12(1), 86-88. https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2014-0014
Sarangi, S. (2003). Evaluating evaluative language. Text & Talk, 23(2), 165-170.
Shi, G. (2018). An analysis of attitude in Chinese courtroom discourse. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics, 54, 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2018-0005