Exploring the language of evaluation in the Maguindanao massacre case

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.