Appraisal Outline.docx

1、Appraisal OutlineAn introductory tour through appraisal theoryWarning: If you are reading these notes in the Microsoft Word version (rather than on the Web) and you are reading this warning, this means you have set your display options to show hidden text. This will mean that certain extraneous item

2、s to do with formatting and the display of the notes on Web will show up for example, SplitIt and Div class=MyQuote. To get rid of these, you will need to turn off Hidden text display. You do this by going to the Tools menu and then the Options sub-menu. Once there, you will be provided with a numbe

3、r of setting you can change. You will see an option, Hidden Text which should be in the Non-printing characters section. Untick this box and the extraneous items should disappear. So will this warningIntroductionAppraisal theory is concerned is concerned with the linguistic resources for by which a

4、texts/speakers come to express, negotiate and naturalise particular inter-subjective and ultimately ideological positions. Within this broad scope, the theory is concerned more particularly with the language of evaluation, attitude and emotion, and with a set of resources which explicitly position a

5、 texts proposals and propositions interpersonally. That is, it is concerned with those meanings which vary the terms of the speakers engagement with their utterances, which vary what is at stake interpersonally both in individual utterances and as the texts unfolds cumulatively.The paper is intended

6、 to provide an overview of appraisal theory by way of an introduction. It therefore omits some of the detail and some of the more problematic areas of the analysis. As well, it excludes any extended exemplification of appraisal theory in action in authentic text analysis. More detail can be obtained

7、 on the appraisal website ( in the Introductory Course in Appraisal Analysis and in, for example, Iedema, Feez, and White 1994 or White 1998 (available as an e-mail attachment from Peter White at p.r.whitebham.ac.uk). Some of the key refernces in Appraisal include (in chronological order): Iedema et

8、 al. 1994, Martin 1995a, Martin 1995b, Christie and Martin 1997, Martin 1997, Coffin 1997, Eggins and Slade 1997 (especially chapter 4), White 1998, Martin 2000, Coffin 2000, White 2000, Krner 2001, Rothery and Stenglin in press, and a special edition of the journal Text to appear in 2002.The follow

9、ing set of notes relies primarily upon Iedema et al. 1994, Christie and Martin 1997, Martin 2000, White 1998and White to appear from which most of the material is taken.It must be noted that appraisal theory is very much an on-going research project many problems are still to be solved and many lexi

10、cogrammatical and semantic issues have yet to be addressed. There are numerous registers and discourse domains to which the theory has not yet been applied. (Past experience indicates that analyses of new discourse domains typically lead to significant extensions to and elaborations of the appraisal

11、 framework since each domain will typically operate with at least some unique semantic features.) The community of researchers using the theory in some way, however, continues to grow and therefore we anticipate continuing breakthroughs in the mapping of this semantic domain. Appraisal theory divide

12、s evaluative resources into three broad semantic domains:SplititSubtypes of AppraisalAttitudeValues by which speakers pass judgements and associate emotional/affectual responses with participants and processes (see underlined items)Well, Ive been listening to the two guys who are heroes value judgem

13、ent and I admire affect them both.Pop Group Republica super-schlock stinkers only a Pepsi executive could ever loveEngagement Resources for positioning the speakers/authors voice with respect to the various propositions and proposals conveyed by a text; meanings by which speakers either acknowledge

14、or ignore the diversity of view-points put at risk by their utterances and negotiate an interpersonal space for their own positions within that diversity.For example: modals of probability - perhaps, it may, I think, surely reality phase - it seems, attribution (hearsay/projection) - his alleged , i

15、nformed sources report , scientists have found evidence suggesting that, proclamation - In fact, I am compelled to conclude , It is true, we do have a small black and white cat expectation - predictably, of course, counter-expectation - amazingly etc GraduationValues by which (1) speakers graduate (

16、raise or lower) the interpersonal impact, force or volume of their utterances, and (2) by which they graduate (blur or sharpen) the focus of their semantic categorisations.1. (force ) slightly, somewhat, very, completely2. (focus) I was feeling kindv woozy, they effectively signed his death warrant;

17、 a true friend, pure follyFor exampleABC redio interviewMITCHELL:There is an argument, though, is there attribution, the banks have been a bit graduation: force greedy attitude I mean, the profits are high and good on them attitude, theyre entitled to have high profits, but at the same time the fees

18、 are bordering on graduation: focus the unreasonable attitude now.PRIME MINISTER Mr Howard:Well, theres a lot of graduation: force anger attitude: affect about many engagement: force of the fees and this is really why, I say again, engagement: proclamation the more competition we can have the better

19、 attitude. And theres no doubt that engagement: probability home loan interest rates, in particular, are lower now because of competition.SplititThe origins of appraisal theory and the SFL model of TenorAppraisal theory is, of course, located within the framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics.

20、The primary impetus for its development has come from work conducted in the 80s and 90s for the Write It Right project of the NSW Disadvantaged Schools Program. Under Write It Right, researchers explored the literacy requirements of the discourses of science, technology, the media, history, English

21、literature studies, geography and the visual arts. Much of what is presented here comes directly from that research (see for example Iedema, Feez, and White 1994, and Christie and Martin 1997, Rothery and Senglin in press). Predictably, issues to do with the semantics of the interpersonal proved to

22、be central the various Write It Right projects. For example, across all the discourse domains it proved necessary to explore in what contexts, by what linguistic means and to what rhetorical ends writers pass value judgements, attribute their propositions to outside sources or modalise their utteran

23、ces. As indicated above, the researchers starting point was the model of Tenor and the interpersonal provided by the established systemic literature. That literature provided a relatively detailed account of the lexicogrammar of the interpersonal which includes, for example, accounts of speech funct

24、ions and the information versus goods-&-services dichotomy, the interpersonal functionality of Subject and Finite, polarity and modality, and interpersonal metaphor comment adjunctsattitudinal epithetsAdditionally, work by Poynton in particular (Poynton 1985, Poynton 19901985, 1990), had provided a

25、model of the interpersonal with respect to social context, that aspect of context of situation which is termed Tenor, and which is concerned with the constitution of social roles and relationships and the negotiation of these roles and relationships by speakers. Under this model, three dimensions ar

26、e identified by which social relationships may be organised power/status, contact and affect. A certain amount of work has been carried out to explore the lexicogrammatical reflexes by which power, contact and affect are realised. Thus the principles of reciprocity, proliferation and contraction hav

27、e been identified by which, equal access to grammatical resources reflects equal power/status (reciprocity) the greater the degree of social interaction/contact between interactants, the greater the array of linguistic choices available (proliferation) the greater the degree of social interaction/co

28、ntact between interactants the more likely that reduced, shortened and elliptical expression forms will be taken up (contraction)Similarly, various correlations between choices from the interpersonal lexicogrammar and these Tenor variables have been observed. Thus a consistent preference for high va

29、lues of modals of obligation (you must/should, its necessary that etc) and for high values of probability (definitely, Im certain that etc) are linked with the more powerful speaker in an unequal status relationship. In contrast, a preference for modal values of inclination ( Im keen, Im willing etc

30、) and for low values of probability (perhaps, may, I guess) are linked with the less powerful speaker in an unequal status relationship. Likewise, the use of reduced expression forms, colloquial lexis and a diversity of forms of personal address are associated with contexts of higher involvement/con

31、tact between interactants. Heightened affective involvement, similarly, has its own set of indicators the presence of exclamation, repetition, intensification and attitudinal lexis, and so on. (See Martin 1992: 523-535)While these insights are of obvious relevance to key questions within the interpe

32、rsonal semantics, they nevertheless were not formulated to answer the types of new questions arising from the Right it Write research. A need soon emerged for new linguistic accounts with which could, for example, explain certain clear patterns by which so-called objective texts within the media and history favoured certain values of attitude while disfavouring or excluding others explain similar correlations between certain groups of texts and particular values o