Editorials are widely recognized as a space where newspapers express their views and shape public opinion. While much attention has been given to the persuasive function of editorials, relatively little scholarly work has explored how evaluative language is used to build affiliation between writers and readers. This study addresses that gap by examining how The Jakarta Post constructs ideological affiliation through evaluative languages (attitudes), coupling patterns, and affiliation strategies. Drawing on Appraisal Theory within Systemic Functional Linguistics, the study explores how attitudes are constructed and combined with ideational content to position readers. The data were five editorial texts which were selected using a constructed week sampling method over a one-month period to ensure variety and balance. The findings show that appreciation is the most common type of attitude, which often appears in negative forms to criticize policies and institutional performance. Judgment is often used in the investigated editorials, especially when evaluating public figures. In contrast, affect appears less frequently, but it still plays an important role in conveying shared emotional concerns. These attitudes are usually presented through couplings with ideational elements such as actors, events, or policies. This combination makes the evaluations more persuasive. Two dominant coupling patterns were identified, namely NEG + INDONESIA which is used to criticize government performance and policy and POS + INDONESIA which highlights national values or collective goals. To foster alignment with readers, the editorials employ affiliation strategies such as conceding and overriding (a divisive strategy) and repetition (a solidary strategy) which help guide readers toward shared viewpoints or editorial stances. The findings shed light on a clearer understanding of how evaluative language in editorials builds ideological affiliation. The study offers theoretical insights into appraisal in Indonesian media discourse and practical contributions by highlighting how evaluative language shapes reader perspectives and supports media literacy development.
Komarawan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.