Appraisal Outline.docx

Appraisal Outline.docx

《Appraisal Outline.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Appraisal Outline.docx（45页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

AppraisalOutline

Anintroductorytourthroughappraisaltheory

[Warning:

IfyouarereadingthesenotesintheMicrosoftWordversion（ratherthanontheWeb）andyouarereadingthiswarning,thismeansyouhavesetyourdisplayoptionstoshowhiddentext.ThiswillmeanthatcertainextraneousitemstodowithformattingandthedisplayofthenotesonWebwillshowup–forexample,"SplitIt"and"Divclass="MyQuote".Togetridofthese,youwillneedtoturnoff"Hiddentextdisplay".YoudothisbygoingtotheToolsmenuandthentheOptionssub-menu.Oncethere,youwillbeprovidedwithanumberofsettingyoucanchange.Youwillseeanoption,"HiddenText"whichshouldbeintheNon-printingcharacterssection.Untickthisboxandtheextraneousitemsshoulddisappear.Sowillthiswarning]

Introduction

Appraisaltheoryisconcernedisconcernedwiththelinguisticresourcesforbywhichatexts/speakerscometoexpress,negotiateandnaturaliseparticularinter-subjectiveandultimatelyideologicalpositions.Withinthisbroadscope,thetheoryisconcernedmoreparticularlywiththelanguageofevaluation,attitudeandemotion,andwithasetofresourceswhichexplicitlypositionatext’sproposalsandpropositionsinterpersonally.Thatis,itisconcernedwiththosemeaningswhichvarythetermsofthespeaker’sengagementwiththeirutterances,whichvarywhatisatstakeinterpersonallybothinindividualutterancesandasthetextsunfoldscumulatively.

Thepaperisintendedtoprovideanoverviewofappraisaltheorybywayofanintroduction.Itthereforeomitssomeofthedetailandsomeofthemoreproblematicareasoftheanalysis.Aswell,itexcludesanyextendedexemplificationofappraisaltheoryinactioninauthentictextanalysis.Moredetailcanbeobtainedontheappraisalwebsite（inthe"IntroductoryCourseinAppraisalAnalysis"andin,forexample,Iedema,Feez,andWhite1994orWhite1998（availableasane-mailattachmentfromPeterWhiteatp.r.white@bham.ac.uk）.

SomeofthekeyreferncesinAppraisalinclude（inchronologicalorder）:

Iedemaetal.1994,Martin1995a,Martin1995b,ChristieandMartin1997,Martin1997,Coffin1997,EgginsandSlade1997（especiallychapter4）,White1998,Martin2000,Coffin2000,White2000,Körner2001,RotheryandStenglininpress,andaspecialeditionofthejournalTexttoappearin2002.

ThefollowingsetofnotesreliesprimarilyuponIedemaetal.1994,ChristieandMartin1997,Martin2000,White1998andWhitetoappearfromwhichmostofthematerialistaken.

Itmustbenotedthatappraisaltheoryisverymuchanon-goingresearchproject–manyproblemsarestilltobesolvedandmanylexicogrammaticalandsemanticissueshaveyettobeaddressed.Therearenumerousregistersanddiscoursedomainstowhichthetheoryhasnotyetbeenapplied.（Pastexperienceindicatesthatanalysesofnewdiscoursedomainstypicallyleadtosignificantextensionstoandelaborationsoftheappraisalframeworksinceeachdomainwilltypicallyoperatewithatleastsomeuniquesemanticfeatures.）Thecommunityofresearchersusingthetheoryinsomeway,however,continuestogrowandthereforeweanticipatecontinuingbreakthroughsinthemappingofthissemanticdomain.

Appraisaltheorydividesevaluativeresourcesintothreebroadsemanticdomains:

Splitit

SubtypesofAppraisal

Attitude

Valuesbywhichspeakerspassjudgementsandassociateemotional/affectualresponseswithparticipantsandprocesses（seeunderlineditems）

Well,I'vebeenlisteningtothetwoguyswhoareheroes[valuejudgement]andIadmire[affect]themboth.

PopGroupRepublica–super-schlockstinkersonlyaPepsiexecutivecouldeverlove

Engagement

Resourcesforpositioningthespeaker’s/author’svoicewithrespecttothevariouspropositionsandproposalsconveyedbyatext;meaningsbywhichspeakerseitheracknowledgeorignorethediversityofview-pointsputatriskbytheirutterancesandnegotiateaninterpersonalspacefortheirownpositionswithinthatdiversity.

Forexample:

∙modalsofprobability-perhaps,itmay…,Ithink…,surely

∙realityphase-itseems,

∙attribution（hearsay/projection）-hisalleged…,informedsourcesreport…,scientistshavefoundevidencesuggestingthat,

∙proclamation-Infact,Iamcompelledtoconclude…,Itistrue,wedohaveasmallblackandwhitecat

∙expectation-predictably,ofcourse,

∙counter-expectation-amazingly

etc

Graduation

Valuesbywhich

（1）speakersgraduate（raiseorlower）theinterpersonalimpact,forceorvolumeoftheirutterances,and

（2）bywhichtheygraduate（blurorsharpen）thefocusoftheirsemanticcategorisations.

1.（force）slightly,somewhat,very,completely

2.（focus）Iwasfeelingkind’vwoozy,theyeffectivelysignedhisdeathwarrant;atruefriend,purefolly

Forexample

[ABCrediointerview]

MITCHELL:

Thereisanargument,though,isthere[attribution],thebankshavebeenabit[graduation:

force]greedy[attitude]Imean,theprofitsarehighandgoodonthem[attitude],they'reentitledtohavehighprofits,butatthesametimethefeesareborderingon[graduation:

focus]theunreasonable[attitude]now.

PRIMEMINISTERMrHoward:

Well,there'salotof[graduation:

force]anger[attitude:

affect]aboutmany[engagement:

force]ofthefeesandthisisreallywhy,Isayagain,[engagement:

proclamation]themorecompetitionwecanhavethebetter[attitude].Andthere'snodoubtthat[engagement:

probability]homeloaninterestrates,inparticular,arelowernowbecauseofcompetition.

Splitit

TheoriginsofappraisaltheoryandtheSFLmodelofTenor

Appraisaltheoryis,ofcourse,locatedwithintheframeworkofSystemicFunctionalLinguistics.Theprimaryimpetusforitsdevelopmenthascomefromworkconductedinthe80sand90sfortheWriteItRightprojectoftheNSWDisadvantagedSchoolsProgram.UnderWriteItRight,researchersexploredtheliteracyrequirementsofthediscoursesofscience,technology,themedia,history,Englishliteraturestudies,geographyandthevisualarts.Muchofwhatispresentedherecomesdirectlyfromthatresearch（seeforexampleIedema,Feez,andWhite1994,andChristieandMartin1997,RotheryandSenglininpress）.

Predictably,issuestodowiththesemanticsoftheinterpersonalprovedtobecentralthevariousWriteItRightprojects.Forexample,acrossallthediscoursedomainsitprovednecessarytoexploreinwhatcontexts,bywhatlinguisticmeansandtowhatrhetoricalendswriterspassvaluejudgements,attributetheirpropositionstooutsidesourcesormodalisetheirutterances.

Asindicatedabove,theresearchersstartingpointwasthemodelofTenorandtheinterpersonalprovidedbytheestablishedsystemicliterature.Thatliteratureprovidedarelativelydetailedaccountofthelexicogrammaroftheinterpersonalwhichincludes,forexample,accountsof

∙speechfunctionsandtheinformationversusgoods-&-servicesdichotomy,

∙theinterpersonalfunctionalityofSubjectandFinite,

∙polarityandmodality,andinterpersonalmetaphor

∙commentadjuncts

attitudinalepithets

Additionally,workbyPoyntoninparticular（Poynton1985,Poynton19901985,1990）,hadprovidedamodeloftheinterpersonalwithrespecttosocialcontext,thataspectofcontextofsituationwhichistermedTenor,andwhichisconcernedwiththeconstitutionofsocialrolesandrelationshipsandthenegotiationoftheserolesandrelationshipsbyspeakers.Underthismodel,threedimensionsareidentifiedbywhichsocialrelationshipsmaybeorganised–power/status,contactandaffect.Acertainamountofworkhasbeencarriedouttoexplorethelexicogrammaticalreflexesbywhichpower,contactandaffectarerealised.Thustheprinciplesofreciprocity,proliferationandcontractionhavebeenidentifiedbywhich,

∙equalaccesstogrammaticalresourcesreflectsequalpower/status（reciprocity）

∙thegreaterthedegreeofsocialinteraction/contactbetweeninteractants,thegreaterthearrayoflinguisticchoicesavailable（proliferation）

∙thegreaterthedegreeofsocialinteraction/contactbetweeninteractantsthemorelikelythatreduced,shortenedandellipticalexpressionformswillbetakenup（contraction）

Similarly,variouscorrelationsbetweenchoicesfromtheinterpersonallexicogrammarandtheseTenorvariableshavebeenobserved.Thusaconsistentpreferenceforhighvaluesofmodalsofobligation（youmust/should,it’snecessarythatetc）andforhighvaluesofprobability（definitely,I’mcertainthatetc）arelinkedwiththemorepowerfulspeakerinanunequalstatusrelationship.Incontrast,apreferenceformodalvaluesofinclination（I’mkeen,I’mwillingetc）andforlowvaluesofprobability（perhaps,may,Iguess…）arelinkedwiththelesspowerfulspeakerinanunequalstatusrelationship.Likewise,theuseofreducedexpressionforms,colloquiallexisandadiversityofformsofpersonaladdressareassociatedwithcontextsofhigherinvolvement/contactbetweeninteractants.Heightenedaffectiveinvolvement,similarly,hasitsownsetofindicators–thepresenceofexclamation,repetition,intensificationandattitudinallexis,andsoon.（SeeMartin1992:

523-535）

Whiletheseinsightsareofobviousrelevancetokeyquestionswithintheinterpersonalsemantics,theyneverthelesswerenotformulatedtoanswerthetypesofnewquestionsarisingfromtheRightitWriteresearch.Aneedsoonemergedfornewlinguisticaccountswithwhichcould,forexample,

∙explaincertainclearpatternsbywhichso-called‘objective’textswithinthemediaandhistoryfavouredcertainvaluesofattitudewhiledisfavouringorexcludingothers

∙explainsimilarcorrelationsbetweencertaingroupsoftextsandparticularvalueso