Appraisal: An Overview Introduction: the origins of the Appraisal framework This set of notes explores the Appraisal framework,

a particular approach to exploring, describing and explaining the way language is used to evaluate, to adopt stances, to construct textual personas and to manage interpersonal positionings and relationships. Thus it explores how speakers and writers pass judgements on people generally, other writers/speakers and their utterances, material objects, happenings and states of affairs and thereby form alliances with those who share these views and distance themselves from those who don't. It explores how attitudes, judgements and emotive responses are explicitly presented in texts and how they may be more indirectly implied, presupposed or assumed. As well, it explores how the expression of such attitudes and judgements is, in many instances, carefully managed so as to take into account the ever-present possibility of challenge or contradiction from those who hold differing views. The Appraisal framework has emerged over a period of almost 15 as a result of work conducted by a group of researchers lead by Professor James Martin of the University of Sydney. Work in developing the Appraisal framework is now being carried out by researchers based at various centres both in Australia and now internationally. The University of Birmingham in the UK, for example, has a research group devoted to developing our understanding of the language of evaluation and stance. Some of the key publications in Appraisal include (in chronological order): Iedema, Feez, and White 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 edited by Jim Martin and Mary Macken to appear in 2002. The following 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. Below are just a few illustrative example of the type of questions which an understanding of the linguistic resources of Appraisal enables us to investigate:

the linguistic basis of differences in a writer/speaker's `style' by which they may present themselves as, for example, more or less deferential, dominating, authoritative, inexpert, cautious, conciliatory, aloof, engaged, emotion. impersonal, and so on, how the different uses of evaluative language by speakers/writers act to construct different authorial voices and textual personas, how different genres and text types may conventionally employ different evaluative and otherwise rhetorical strategies, the underlying, often covert value systems which shape and are disseminated by a speaker/writer's utterances, the different assumptions which speakers/writers make about the value and belief systems of their respective intended audiences, how different modes of story-telling can be characterised by their different uses of the resources of evaluation, the communicative strategies by which some discourses (for example those of the media and science) construct supposedly `objective' or impersonal modes of textuality. 1

What we mean by `appraisal' and `evaluative' language. The term `Appraisal' is used as a cover-all term to encompass all evaluative uses of language, including those by which speakers/writers adopt particular value positions or stances and by which they negotiate these stances with either actual or potential respondents. According, Appraisal - the evaluative use of language - is seen to perform the following functions. 1. Attitudinal positioning. Here we are concerned with might be thought of as `praising' and `blaming', with meanings by which writers/speakers indicate either a positive or negative assessment of people, places, things, happenings and states of affairs. Some obvious examples of attitudinal positioning are provided by the following extracts. The first is from a radio interview with the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, in 1999 on the subject of the high charges then being imposed by banks on their customers. The second is from a newspaper comment piece defending the behaviour of one of the contestants/characters in the `reality TV' series/documentary, Big Brother which ran in the UK in 2000. The third is from a newspaper article feature lauding the merits of that icon of 1960s motoring, the E-type Jaguar. (Attitudinal elements are underlined). 1. There is an argument, though, is there, the banks have been a bit greedy I mean, the profits are high and good on them, they're entitled to have high profits, but at the same time the fees are bordering on the unreasonable now. 2. No doubt the men want to sleep with her but they also respect, like and trust her. She is upfront and gutsy. If Mel were a man, I'd have a crush on her... I would adore her as a friend. 3. It [the E-type Jaguar] is a masterpiece of styling whose proportions are dramatic yet perfectly judged and well-mannered; its crisp details are in complete harmony with the broader outlines of the gorgeous general arrangement, and, symbolically, it evokes with exquisite eloquence all the ideas of speed, glamour and romance associated with travel. You can just feel air and bodies rushing and swooning all over that lascivious shape. Never, ever, has that creaking old trope about form and function had a better character witness. (The Independent, Weekend Review: p.1 27/01/2001) 2. Dialogistic positioning. It is customary, perhaps, to think of verbal communication, especially in its written form, as primarily a matter of self expression, as the means by which we, as communicators, externalise our inner thoughts and provide information we possess to those who lack it. If we subscribe to this view, we are likely to seek to explain the structures and forms of language solely in terms of the way they facilitate this function of `self expression'. Many linguists1 hold, however, that this view is too narrow or even that it is `wrong' to the extent that it sees `self expression' as the primary communicative determiner. In contrast, these linguists see verbal communication as primarily a process of interaction between the various participants who enact the communication process. Thus they argue that utterances, even in monologic, written texts, do not operate in isolation but are always conditioned to some degree by the verbal give-and-take, action-and-reaction of communicative interaction. They argue that all utterances to some degree take into account or respond to prior utterances, and, to some degree, anticipate or acknowledge likely responses, reactions and objections from actual or potential dialogic partners. Thus many utterances, even in monologic written texts, will contain elements which play a `responsive' and/or `anticipatory' role. Similarly,

many writers, will include elements by which they explicitly represent themselves as responding to prior utterances and/or as anticipating likely possible responses. This is a subtle and complex area of the language, much argued over by linguists, and we will return to it in detail in later sections. Let me, however, by way of brief introduction at least demonstrate how utterances can be, or can present themselves as being, `responsive' and/or `anticipatory', and hence as `dialogistic, in this way. Here is a very obvious and overt example of what we might term `dialogic anticipation' by the 2nd Century Greek historian Polybius (or at least by his translator). Some of my readers, I know, will be wondering why I have postponed until the moment my study of the Roman constitution and thus interupted the flow of the narrative. (cited in Crismore 1989: 9) This, of course, is `dialogic' in this sense in that the writer presents himself as imaging how his readers will be reacting at this very point of the text and presents himself as responding to what he believes would be their voiced objections or questions had they been there, in the room with him, engaged in a face-to-face conversation. But this `dialogic' aspect can be rather more subtle. Consider the use of the phrase `there is an argument, is there' in the previously cited extract. (The extract is from a radio interview in which the interviewer quizzes the Australian Prime Minister about the behaviour of the Australian banks in raising interest rates at a time when they have been making record profits. The Prime Minister, John Howard, is of a conservative/right-wing persuasion and therefore in favour of the `free markets'. He can therefor be expected to be generally supportive of, and reluctant to criticise, such economic `powerhouses' as the banks.) There is an argument, though, is there, the banks have been a bit greedy I mean, the profits are high and good on them, they're entitled to have high profits, but at the same time the fees are bordering on the unreasonable now. There is, of course, a backwards looking `dialogistic' aspect to the use of this phrase. The interviewer presents himself as `simply' taking up the words of some other, non-specified prior group of speakers. He represents himself as conveying `community concerns' rather than his own, individual views. By why distance himself in this way? Well, by such a device he indicates that this is a contested, debated assessment of the bank's behaviour - he acknowledges that this it is but one of a number of views currently in play in society. He thereby indicates that he anticipates that at least some elements in society will object to, and challenge such a suggestion. Presumably, the most immediate, likely source of such a challenge or objection is the pro-business, conservative Prime Minister with whom he is currently conversing, but there are other likely, if less immediate objectors and challengers - the banks themselves and their supporters. In this way, the interviewer looks ahead to likely responses to his criticism of the banks, indicating both an expectation that objections and challenges will occur and a willingness to engage with these objections and rejections. By representing the proposition as `arguable' in this way, he represents himself as not personally committed to this position and hence signals a preparedness to enter into debate on the issue. In this sense, he engages in dialogistic anticipation. This is an area of meaning which has typically been explored in the linguistics literature under such headings as modality, evidentiality, hedging, boosting and meta-discursivity.2 For now, we can say by way of introduction that these dialogistic resources involve meanings which are `negotiatory' in that they are concerned with managing or negotiating interpersonal relations between the 3

speaker/writer and actual or potential respondents. They are brought into play when the speaker/writer judges that some degree of difference or disagreement is likely or at least possible with his/her actual or possible communicative partners. They operate primarily by acknowledging that that there are alternatives to the current proposition, that there are positions which are divergent to greater or lesser degrees currently in play in the speech community. They do this, typically, by explicitly revealing the subjective basis of the current proposition as based in some individual opinion, assessment, interpretation or perspective. 3. Intertextual positioning. Under `intertextual positioning', we are concerned with uses of language by which writers/speakers adopt evaluative positions towards what they represent as the views and statements of other speakers and writers, towards the propositions they represent as deriving from outside sources. At its most basic, intertextual positioning is brought into play when a writer/speaker chooses to quote or reference the words or thoughts of another. Strictly speaking, intertextual positioning is a sub-type of dialogistic positioning. Such attributions can be seen as dialogistic from several perspectives. If the person quoted is actually present in the current communicative situation (for example as a participant in a group conversation or as the recipient of a letter in which the attribution is made) then the speaker/writer clearly engages with them interactively by quoting them. But even when the quoted source is not so obviously an interactive participant, they, or at least their socio-semiotic position, is nevertheless engaged with dialogistically by being included in the current text and thereby being evaluated in some way. Here the dialogistic position is essentially retrospective. The speaker/writer represents themselves as referring back to what has been said or thought previously. But such intertextuality is also prospective in that attributions can act to position the speaker/writer's current utterances with respect to anticipated responses from actual or potential interlocutors. For example, by a formulation such as `a few minor critics have claimed that Vermeer employed a camera obscured', the speaker/writer indicates to actual or potential respondents that they, the speaker/writer, are not strongly committed to the proposition and thereby indicates a readiness to acknowledge and engage with alternative position. The prospective dialogism of such attribution will be taken up in much more detail in a later section and for the moment my observations will be confined to introducing some of the key issues concerning the way a speaker/writer indicates what evaluative stance they take towards attributed material. When a speaker/writer cites the words of thoughts of another, at the very least they indicate that these attributed elements are in some way relevant to his/her current communicative purposes. Thus the most basic mode evaluative stance to intertextual material is one of implied `relevance'. Once an attributed proposition has been included (and hence evaluated as `relevant') it can the be further evaluated as `endorsed' or `disendorsed'. The endorsed utterance is one which the writer either directly in indirectly indicates support for, or agreement with. The endorsed utterance is represented as true, reliable, convincing or at least worthy of consideration. Thus, He punctures the romantic myth that the mafia started as Robin Hood-style groups of men protecting the poor. He shows that the mafia began in the 19th century as armed bands protecting the interests of the absentee landlords who owned most of Sicily. He also demonstrates how the 4

mafia has forged links with Italy's ruling Christian Democrat party since the war, and how the state has fought to destroy the criminal organisation despite the terror campaign that assassinated antimafia judges, such as Giovanni Falcone. (From the Cobuild Bank of English) Here the use of the quoting verbs `show' and `demonstrate' signals endorsement for the attributed author's observations about the Mafia. Thus the writer represents themselves as sharing responsibility for the proposition with the quoted source. Similarly, Elsewhere, he espoused the thesis, convincingly propounded also by other Marxists, that Marx evolved from his Eurocentric perspective of the 1850s towards a stance of anti-colonialism and of rejection of the unqualified idea that the capitalist destruction of pre-capitalist agrarian structures was necessary and inevitable. (Cobuild: UKBooks) Under disendorsement, writers/speakers distances themselves from the utterance, indicating that they take no responsibility for its reliability. This is commonly done by the use of a quoting verb such as `to claim' and `allege'. Thus, Tickner said regardless of the result, the royal commission was a waste of money and he would proceed with a separate inquiry into the issue headed by Justice Jane Matthews. His attack came as the Aboriginal women involved in the demanded a female minister examine the religious beliefs they claim are inherent in their fight against a bridge to the island near Goolwa in South Australia. (Bank of English: OzNews) Here, of course, the journalist distances him/herself from - or `disendorses' - the proposition put by the Aborigional women that they have religious reasons to oppose the building of the bridge. Similarly, Even in jail there are many rumours circulating about Tyson. One is that he has converted to Islam and will be known as Malik Abdul Aziz. Another rumour is that he is engaged to a childhood sweetheart and he is regularly allowed to have sex with the girl about to become Mrs Tyson-or Mrs Aziz. He reportedly said, We're keeping the date of the wedding secret. I don't want people to know her name (UKMags) One quite common and interesting mechanism for more indirectly indicating dis-endorsement is to characterise the utterance as unexpected or surprising. Surprisingly, McGuinness is especially scathing about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. (Dissent: p.6, Number 4, Summer 2000/2001) Disendorsement can, however, go beyond such `distancing' to the point of absolute rejection or denial of the attributed proposition. Thus, More recent evaluation in the field convinces me that the ANU team are seriously in error: the age of the burial is considerably less than 62,000 years. In this context, the claim that "this more than trebles the date for humanity's first arrival on the continent" is sheer nonsense. (The Australian, Opinion Pages, 10/01/2001) Conclusion This introduction was intended to provide a very broad-brush overview of the type of linguistic issues covered by the Appraisal issue. It has outlined the two core concerns of Appraisal: how 5

speakers/writers adopt and indicate positive or negative attitudes and how they negotiate these attitudinal and other types of positionings with actual or potential dialogic partners. In following sections these and related issues will be taken up in more detail. Martin Reference List Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogical Imagination, M. Holquist, (ed.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist, (trans.), Austin, University of Texas Press. Chafe, W.L. & J. Nichols, (eds), 1986. Evidentialty: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Norwood, N.J., Ablex. Christie, F. & Martin, J.R. (eds) 1997. Genres and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, London, Cassell. Coffin, C. 1997. 'Constructing and Giving Value to the Past: an Investigation into Second School History', in Genre and Institutions - Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Christie, F. & Martin, J.R. (eds), London, Cassell. Coffin, C. 2000. 'Unpublished Ph.D Thesis'. University of New South Wales. Crismore, A. 1989. Talking With Readers: Metadiscourse As Rhetorical Act (American University Studies Series XIV : Education, Peter Lang Publishing. Eggins, S. & Slade, D. 1997. Analysing Casual Conversation, London, Cassell. Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press. Fuller, G. 1995. 'Engaging Cultures: Negotiating Discourse in Popular Science'. University of Sydney, Sydney. Hyland, K. 1996. 'Writing Without Conviction: Hedging in Science Research Articles', Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433-54. Iedema, R., S. Feez, and P.R.R. White. 1994. Media Literacy, Sydney, Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of School Education. Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Russian Language Project. Harvard: Dept of Slavic Languages and Literature. Krner, H. 2001. 'Unpublished Ph.D Thesis'. University of Sydney. Lemke, J.L. 1992. 'Interpersonal Meaning in Discourse: Value Orientations', in Advances in Systemic Linguistics. Recent Theory and Practice, Davies, M. & Ravelli, L. (eds), London, Pinter Publishers. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Cambridge, UK., Cambridge University Press. Markkanen, R. & Schrder, H. (eds) 1997. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, The Hague, Walter De Gruyter & Co. Martin, J.R. 1995a. 'Interpersonal Meaning, Persuasion, and Public Discourse: Packing Semiotic Punch', Australian Journal of Linguistics 15: 3-67. --- 1995b. 'Reading Positions/Positioning Readers: JUDGEMENT in English', Prospect: a Journal of Australian TESOL 10 (2): 27-37. 6

--- 1997. 'Analysing Genre: Functional Parameters', in Genres and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Christie, F. & Martin, J.R. (eds), London, Cassell: 3-39. --- 2000. 'Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English', in Evaluation in Text, Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds), Oxford, Oxford University Press. Meyer, P.G. 1997. 'Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strenghtening the Argument by Weakening the Claim', in Hedging and Discouse - Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, Markkannen, R. & Schrder, H. (eds), Berline & New York, Walter de Gruyter. Myers, G. 1989. 'The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles', Applied Linguistics 10: 1-35. Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press. Rothery, J. & Stenglin, M. in press. 'Interpreting Literature: The Role of APPRAISAL', in Researching Language in Schools and Functional Linguistic Perspectives., Unsworth, L. (ed.), London, Cassell. Voloshinov, V.N. 1995. Marixism and the Philosophy of Language, Bakhtinian Thought - an Introductory Reader, S. Dentith, L. Matejka & I.R. Titunik, (trans), London, Routledge. White, P.R.R. 1998. 'Telling Media Tales: the News Story As Rhetoric'. unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney. --- 2000. 'Dialogue and Inter-Subjectivity: Reinterpreting the Semantics of Modality and Hedging', in Working With Dialog, Coulthard, M., Cotterill, J., & Rock, F. (eds), Neimeyer. White, P.R.R. to appear. 'Attitude and Arguability: Appraisal and the Linguistics of Solidarity', Text Special Edition on Appraisal.

1 The major influences for this dialogistic approach are Bakhtin (for example Bakhtin 1981), Voloshinov (for example Voloshinov 1995), and various researchers who have been influenced by the Bakhtinan/Voloshinovian approach - for example Fairclough 1992, Lemke 1992and Fuller 1995

2 For modality, see for example, Palmer 1986and Lyons 1977), for evidentiality see Chafe and Nichols 1986), for hedging Jakobson 1957, Myers 1989, Markkanen and Schrder 1997 and Meyer 1997), for `boosters' (Hyland 1996) and for `metadiscursivity', see (Crismore 1989).

1. Attitude/Affect Introduction In the previous section, I set out a framework for exploring evaluative language which identified two primary modes of evaluative positioning - the attitudinal and the dialogistic. In this section will look in more detail at attitudinal positioning. The discussion will proceed under the following headings.

The three different sub-types of attitudinal positioning - emotional, ethical and aesthetic. Attitudinal targets - the significance of who or what is singled out as the subject of attitudinal evaluation. Explicit versus implicit attitude - differences between utterances where an attitudinal assessment is directly and overtly indicated and those utterances in which the attitude is only indirectly or implicitly conveyed. Asserted versus presupposed attitude - the difference between utterances in which the attitudinal evaluation is asserted in a way in which it can be directly questioned or challenged and utterances in which it is presumed, presupposed or taken as given. Evaluative responsibility - determining who takes responsibility for the evaluation

Attitudinal positioning - the linguistic fundamentals In considering Attitude, we are concerned with those utterances which can be interpreted as indicating that some person, thing, situation, action, event or state of affairs is to be viewed either positively or negatively. That is to say, we classify as attitudinal any utterance which either conveys a negative or positive assessment or which can be interpreted as inviting the reader to supply their own negative or positive assessments. There are various ways in which attitude can be conveyed or invoked, some of which make for easier analysis and others for less easy analysis. The most straightforward cases involve the use of individual words or phrases which overtly indicate the attitudinal position being taken by the writer or speaker. In the following, for example, it is a relatively straightforward matter to identify the individual words which convey the writer's positive attitude towards the newly elected US President Bush and his just delivered inaugural speech. (See underlining) The new president's speech was elegant and well-woven, sounding a panoply of themes without seeming scattered. A man not known for his silver tongue, he delivered it with an uncharacteristic grace. (New York Post, Jan 21 2001 - Comment) The situation, however, if often rather more complex. For a start, the indication of attitudinal position is often conveyed not by single words but by phrases or by the interaction of multiple elements of the utterance. Consider, for example, the following. George W. Bush delivered his inaugural speech as the United States President who collected 537,000 fewer votes than his opponent. Without the intervention of a partisan, right-wing Supreme Court to ensure the election of a Republican, Mr Bush would now be a forgotten loser. The Observer considers his election an affront to the democratic principle with incalculable consequences for America and the world. Mr Bush's inaugural attempt to assert his brand of one-nation, compassionate conservatism is bluster and hogwash. He has acted from the moment Al Gore conceded as if he had won a wholehearted mandate. 8

But the Bush cabinet is neither centrist nor compassionate. In home affairs, it is brutalist and reactionary - for tax cuts overtly biased towards the rich, against the protection of consumers, workers and the environment. In overseas affairs, Mr Bush has appointed Cold War warriors from his father's era who do not appreciate the nuances of a transformed international environment. (The Observer, Jan 21, 2001 - leader page) Certainly there are intances of individual words conveying a clear attitudinal meaning - for example, `partisan', `compassionate', `hogwash', `brutalist' and `reactionary'. But at numerous points it is not individual words but word combinations with convey Attitude - for example, `his election [is] an affront to the democratic principle' and `Cold War warriors who do not appreciate the nuances of a transformed international environment.' As a consequence, it is better to see Attitude as a feature or property, not of individual words (though individual words may be `attitudinal), but of complete utterances, of stretches of language which present a complete proposition or proposal. The extract above points us to an additional, related complication - the fact that Attitude can be implicit or invoked, rather than explicitly indicated. Consider for example, George W. Bush delivered his inaugural speech as the United States President who collected 537,000 fewer votes than his opponent. On the face of it, this may present itself as a simple statement of fact. Certainly the utterance contains no explicit indication of attitude, no individual word of phrase which can be said to indicate a positive or negative assessment. Yet, at least in this context, the proposition presented certainly can be interpreted as indicating something negative about the new President, as indicating that there is something wrong, illegitimate, dishonest or perverse about his election victory. This potential depends, of course, on what is often termed `reading position'- it depends on the reader's views of the democratic process generally, of the US electoral system specifically, and probably on the reader's party-political leanings and views of the personal qualities of the US Presidential candidates. Nevertheless, at least for some readers (presumably not George Bush supporters) the utterance does convey, or at least trigger, a negative attitudinal response and this is a response which it is reasonable to assume was intended and expected by the Observer leader writer. (The evidence for this lies, of course, in what follows after in the article.) This, then, is an example of what can be termed `implicit' or `evoked' Attitude, which stands in contrast to `explicit' or `inscribed' Attitude. Here the `evocation' of a negative assessment rests on the apparent contradiction or incongruity of someone being elected for high office in a democratic system when they received some half a million fewer votes than their defeated opponent. Such `implicit' Attitude must be seen as only potentially a feature of such an utterance since, as we have seen, it depends on the reader bringing particular sets of beliefs and expectations to the process of interpretation. Thus a Bush supporter or an expert in the complexities of democratic electoral systems may resist seeing anything negative in this depiction of events. Such evocations of Attitude don't, of course, occur in textual isolation. The reader is typically guided to some attitudinal interpretation by other parts of the text, most typically by instances of explicit Attitude. Consider, for example, the following proposition. [The Australian Aborigines] were nomads who in 40,000 years left no permanent settlements. Out of any textual context, such an utterance is, perhaps, neutral attitudinally, or at least it is openended as far as its attitudinal significance. Ecologically minded readers might see the proposition as conveying a positive assessment since it shows the Aborigines minimising their impact on the natural 9

world. Alternatively, those readers possessed of a pro-development ideology might read it as conveying a negative assessment. Of course, in context, there is no ambiguity about the type of attitudinal response it is intended to trigger. The Aussies are being asked to tear out their hearts over the plight of the poor old Abos. They are asked to believe that, before the white man stole their land, Australia was a paradise inhabited by gentle, trusting, children of nature living on the fat of the land. In fact, the Aboriginals were treacherous and brutal. They had acquired none of the skills or the arts of civilisation. They were nomads who in 40,000 years left no permanent settlements. (The Sun [UK], January 1988) To summarise, then, in analysing Attitude, we conclude that attitudinal meanings are better seen as carried by utterances, by complete propositions than by individual words, although in some instances it IS possible to point to individual lexical items as carrying attitudinal assessment. The unit of analysis, then, is the proposition or proposal, or a sequence of interconnected propositions or proposals, analysed in the context of the larger text in which they operate. We also distinguish between explicit and implicit Attitude. Under explicit Attitude we can point to overtly evaluative/attitudinal words or combinations of words, that is to say words and phrases which unproblematically carry a positive or negative sense. In contrast, under implicit Attitude, it is not easy to identify instances of evaluative/attitudinal wordings in the utterance under consideration. Rather, the writer/speaker relies on the audience/respondent interpreting the happening or state of affairs therein presented in evaluative terms. The writer/speaker relies on the reader/listener seeing the state of events described as right or wrong, strange or normal, attractive or distasteful, heartwarming or upsetting, and so on. The three sub-types of Attitude: Affect, Judgment and Appreciation. As indicated briefly before, it is useful to sub-divide attitudinal meanings into three sub categories. (The reasons for the sub-division will emerge as we proceed through the following sections.) These sub-types are: Affect (emotion): evaluation by means of the writer/speaker indicating how they are emotionally disposed to the person, thing, happening or state of affairs. For example, `I love jazz'; `This new proposal by the government terrifies me'. Judgement (ethics): normative assessments of human behaviour typically making reference to rules or conventions of behaviour . For example, `He corruptly agreed to accept money from those bidding for the contract'; `Our new classmate seems rather eccentric'. Appreciation (aesthetics): assessments of the form, appearance, composition, impact, significance etc of human artefacts, natural objects as well as human individuals (but not of human behaviour) by reference to aesthetics and other systems of social value. Affect Under Affect, we are concerned with emotions, with positive and negative emotional responses and dispositions. Affectual positioning may be indicated,

through verbs of emotion (Mental Processes) such as to love/to hate, to frighten/to reassure, to interest/to bore, to enrage/to placate - (Your offer pleases me, I hate chocolate.) through adverbs (typically Circumstances of Manner) such as happily/sadly (Sadly the government has decided to abandon its commitment to the comprehensive school system.)

10

through adjectives of emotion happy/sad, worried/confident, angry/pleased, keen/uninterested - (I'm sad you've decided to do that, I'm happy she's joining the group, She's proud of her achievements, he's frightened of spiders, etc), through nominalisation (the turning of verbs and adjectives into nouns) joy/despair, confidence/insecurity ( His fear was obvious to all, I was overcome with joy)

We see Affect at work in the following extracts. (See underlining) 1. COULD you please tell me why Virginia Wade has been chosen once again to be a commentator at Wimbledon. As a keen viewer of this marvellous tournament I find that she spoils my day with her constant waffling, unlike Anne Jones whom I do enjoy. Even though Virginia was once a top player, she will never achieve the distinction of being a top commentator. 2. I HAVE been to Norway and found its people charming. That's why their unbelievably selfish, almost ghoulish declaration to hunt the minke whale from 1993 left me so astounded. 3. No doubt the men want to sleep with her but they also respect, like and trust her. She is upfront and gutsy. If Mel were a man, I'd have a crush on her... I would adore her as a friend. Authorial (1st-person) versus non-Authorial (2nd & 3rd person) Affect Such instances involve the writer/speaker indicating how they have responded emotionally to the person, thing, happening or situation being evaluated. Obviously they thereby take responsibility for that attitudinal value assessment. The most obvious rhetorical function of such a use of Affect is to indicate an attitudinal position towards person or thing or situation which triggers the emotion. Phenomena which trigger positive emotions are, presumably, to be viewed positively and phenomena which trigger negative emotions are, equally presumably, to be viewed negatively. We are, thus, presumably intended to take a positive view or Anne Jones' commentatorial style by dint of the letter writer of extract 1 having `enjoyed' it, a negative view of the Norwegians by dint of the writer of extract 2 being astounded by their plans to hunt whales and a positive view of `Mel' by dint of the writer of extract 3 wanting to `adore' her as a friend. But the rhetorical functionality of such meanings is rather more complicated than this. Such emotional assessments reside, of course, entirely in the individual subjectivity of the speaker/writer. It is an entirely personalised and individualised mode of evaluation and various rhetorical consequences follow from this. Through such `authorial Affect', the speaker/writer strongly foregrounds his/her subjective presence in the communicative process. Through this revelation of emotional response he/she seeks to establish an interpersonal rapport with the reader in the sense that, for the evaluation to carry any rhetorical weight, the reader must see this personalised response as in some way relevant, significant, valid, justified or at least understandable. Thus by the use of such Affect, the writer bids to establish an interpersonal bond with the reader to the extent that the reader agrees with, understands or at least sympathises with that emotional reaction. This functionality can be illustrated by the following extract from a newspaper feature article in which the author describes her own experiences as the adoptive mother of an Australian Aboriginal baby. (affect values are in underlined). As an adoptive family we have had pain and trauma, tears and anger, and sometimes despair. There has also been love and laughter and support from friends and extended family. My children have added richness to my life and taught me much about myself. (Sydney Morning Herald 4/6/97.) 11

By appraising events in such emotional/affectual terms, the speaker/writer invites her audience to share that emotional response, or at least to see that response as appropriate and well motivated, or at least as understandable. When that invitation is accepted, then, solidarity or sympathy between speaker and listener will be enhanced. Once such an empathetic connection has been established, then there is the possibility that the listener will be more open to the broader ideological aspects of the speaker's position. When the invitation to share the emotional response is not taken up - when the affectual value is seen as inappropriate, or bizarre or dysfunctional etc then solidarity or sympathy will most probably be diminished and the chance of axiological concord diminished. We can see this strategy at work in the extract above. The article appeared at a time when Australian Aborigines were calling for a public apology and financial compensation for the Australian government's previous policy of forcibly removing aboriginal children from their families and placing them with adoptive white parents. The policy had been described as a form of cultural genocide. A position generally supportive of the Aboriginal perspective had been widely adopted by the media and the political left and centre. The world view of the author of the extract was obviously at odds with this position, at least to the extent that for her the experience of raising two Aboriginal children had nothing to do with genocide and had not been grounds for shame and guilt. Her inclusion of Affect values of the type cited above can be seen as part of a strategy by which she was at least able to negotiate some space for her alternative, divergent social perspective. Her construing the issue in terms of basic human emotional responses could be expected to establish, at least in some readers, a sense of sympathy, a sense of common experiences and hence to enhance the possibility that her overall position in the article might be seen by readers as legitimate and well motivated. What this means, then, is that values of Affect may operate with multiple evaluative targets. The speaker/writer may direct their evaluation, in the form of an emotional response, at some external entity or situation or they may, in a sense, direct the evaluation at themselves through demonstrating emotions which are likely to be seen as appropriate, or just, or at least sympathyevoking. The two processes, of course, are interconnected - the writer/speaker can emotionally evaluate some third party while simultaneously presenting themselves for evaluation via that emotion. Non-authorial (2nd and 3rd person) Affect In such instances, then, the writer is the source of the emotion by which the evaluation is conveyed and hence takes some responsibility for that evaluation. But we also need to consider instances where it is not the author's emotions which are described but those of other human individuals or groups. We saw such an instance in a previous extract. No doubt the men want to sleep with her but they also respect, like and trust her. Here we have an instance where, on the face of it, the writer is not evaluating at all, at least not with respect to the contestant Mel. The writer presents herself as merely reporting on the emotional reactions of `the men' - she is not taking responsibility (at least not directly) for any positive (or negative) assessment which might be suggested or invoked by such a reporting of emotions. The positive evaluation of `Mel' is thus presented here as being external, or non-authorial. It is, in a sense, an attributed evaluation, responsibility of which has been transferred to an external source, in this case `the men'. Tellingly, however, the fact that these men are said to view the young woman, Mel, favourably (they are said to respect, like and trust her) contributes to the writer's general purpose of presenting her to the reader in a positive light. 12

How does this type of non-authorial affectual Attitude operate rhetorically? Is it simply the case that the attributed evaluator acts as a surrogate, so to speak, for the author. That is to say, the author indicates a positive assessment by having some reported source respond with positive emotions to the phenomenon under consideration (for example, the men trusting Mel in the above example), or, alternatively, the author indicates a negative assessment by having some reported source respond with a negative emotion. Obviously, things are rather more complicated than this. It depends, of course, on the degree to which the source of the reported Affectual value is presented as reliable or reasonable in his/her emotional responses, and upon the degree to which the attributed emotional reaction can be interpreted as endorsed by, or in keeping with, the text's overall evaluative position. In the above instance the emotional positiveness of the men is consistent with the positiveness of the article as a whole. And there is nothing in the article to suggest that the men are untoward, perverse, unwarranted or unrepresentative in their positive regard for the young woman. They are then, at least in the article's own terms, reliable witnesses as to Mel's emotive qualities. But of course, we can well imagine (and will encounter in later text analyses) instances where some emotional response (either positive or negative) is not endorsed by the text or is likely to be viewed as in some way unwarranted, excessive, inappropriate or perverse. In such instances it cannot be that the reported sources of emotion act simply as evaluative `surrogates' for the author, as indirect means for the writer to advance his or her own attitudinal position There is, as indicated above, an additional level of evaluation going on in such evaluative formulations. In the above extract, the reporting of the men's positive emotions towards Mel served to evaluate Mel, the target of this emotional reaction. But equally, this reporting of emotion can act to evaluate the men themselves. As individuals who `like', `trust' and `respect' Mel, the men themselves are positively evaluated. This functionality follows from the special social value which associates with emotion. As already indicated previously, as a society, we are quick to judge emotions, to see certain emotional responses as praiseworthy and others as blameworthy. Thus to hate is typically `bad' while `loving' is typically (though not always) `good'. Thus anger is `bad', unless it is of the righteous type (against some perceived injustice, for example), in which case it is `good'. Once again, the inclusion of Affect in a text has the potential to position the reader attitudinally. When the writer attributes some emotion to a social actor (the `men' in the text extract above, for example), we can expect this to provoke either a sympathetic or unsympathetic response in the reader/listener towards this social actor. If the reader endorses the emotional response, sees it as praiseworthy, justified or at least understandable, then they are more likely to be positively disposed to that social actor generally. And of course the obverse applies equally well. If the reader sees the reported emotions of the social actor as destructive, perverse, unwarranted or incomprehensible, then they are more likely to be negatively disposed to that actor generally. In this context, I mention in passing the well established fact that social actors in many types of discourse (especially Public discourses such as those media) don't function simply as isolated individuals. As has been widely discussed in, for example, the Critical Discourse Analysis literature, they often stand in for, or represent, generalised social types or groupings - for example, embattled teachers, the homeless, asylum seekers, victims of crime, drug addicts, business leaders, scientists, and so on. A reader who sympathises with the emotional response attributed to a given social type is thus predisposed to legitimate the social position that social type represents. We can see this dynamic at work in the following extract, taken from a letter to the editor of the Australian newspaper by an Australian of Vietnamese background. She was writing at a time when racism had become a hot media topic following the recent rise of an anti-Asian, anti-

13

immigration and covertly racist political movement under the leadership of the independent parliamentarian, Pauline Hanson. LAST week, Pauline Hanson attacked Footscray, labelling it an ethnic enclave that makes her feel like a foreigner in her own country. Has Pauline Hanson been to Footscray? Is she aware of its proud tradition of struggle and hard work? Does she know about the waves of immigrants who have worked in its quarries, factories, workshops and businesses? Immigrants who have been part of the backbone of Australia's labour force and thankful for the opportunity to work and start a new life in this country. (The Australian, 4/6/97) Here the writer is obviously concerned to negotiate intersubjective space for a social position sympathetic to the interests of immigrant Australians, in opposition to that advanced by Pauline Hanson and her followers. Accordingly the immigrants of one of Australia's most multicultural areas, the Melbourne municipality of Footscray, are evaluated positively through emotional responses attributed to them. Thus, they are declared to be `proud' of their hard work and struggle and to be ` thankful' for their opportunities in their new home. The writer establishes a stance towards a particular social grouping via the affectual values she attributes to representatives of that grouping, affectual values which she anticipates will be endorsed and approved of by at least some of her intended readers. Text Analysis Exercise I've provided a text below and invite you to identify instances of authorial Affect and non-authorial Affect . I've firstly set out the text in its entirety for a quick read through and then broken it down into manageable chunks for the purposes of analysis. After each chunk, I've provided my analysis of Affect values. I invite you to have a go at analysing each chunk then comparing your analysis with what I came up with. Once you've completed the analysis, you might consider how this could assist you in exploring the following types of question.

Are there instances where non-authorial Affect is not consistent with the overall evaluative purposes of the text (for example, a negative emotional reaction at odds with the position of the text as a whole) If so, how do these function within the text? How does the writer use Affect to position us attitudinally with respect to Eminem and with respect to Eminem's supporters/fans? Do you see her use of Affect as rhetorically effective or coherent? How does the text's use of Affect position the reader attitudinally with respect to the writer. Is this positioning consistent and rhetorically effective. To what degree is the non-authorial Affect consistent or inconsistent with the overall evaluative purposes of the text?

Analysis Text: Eminem's Mum [The Mail on Sunday - Feb 4, 2001] [Small headline] As the white rapper bring his shocking show to Britain, the surprising truth from the woman who knows him best - his "badass mom". 14

[picture caption] A troubled man: Debbie says her son's vitriol is an act. [Large head] I think Eminem is filthy - and I'm his mum [kicker] FOUL-mouthed rap sensation Eminem - real name Marshall Mathers - has horrified parents with his graphic lyrics, many aimed at his own mother Debbie MathersBriggs. But this is what she thinks of him... WHEN my son Marshall - that's his name, not Eminem - first got into rap as a teenager he would wake me at Sam to ask me what words rhymed with what. I bought him a dictionary and it all went downhill from there. Because of what Marshall has written, to his fans I am the most hated person on this planet. I've been spat on by kids in the supermarket. Yet I do know him, probably better than anyone, and I want to try and explain to his British fans - and all the parents who I know are horrified by the lyrics to his songs - what makes my son tick. As he starts his concert tour of Britain on Thursday I want people to understand that the hate-filled rapper on stage is Eminem and not my boy Marshall. Basically, no one should take anything he says seriously - he doesn't mean it. He doesn't hate women or homosexuals and he's not violent. He is making money out of negative issues because he could not make it as a rap star any other way. When he first started to write filthy lyrics I asked him why. His answer was the more foul he was the more people loved him. He didn't make money out of nice things. If he wrote a song about how much he loved his mother and little brother, he'd be laughed at. THE Marshall I know rarely curses - he's a little itty-bitty thing who wouldn't stand a chance in a fight. That's not to say I am condoning his behaviour - if I had my way I would have his albums censored. Children under a certain age should not listen to such filthy lyrics. But despite what he has done, he is still my son. Marshall remains very angry with me and I still don't know why. I love him so much that if he asked me to jump in front of a train for him, I would. He has hurt me terribly and, in a way, I blame myself: I was an over-protective mother who gave him everything he wanted and more. I once asked him why he was so angry with me. He said it was because he didn't have a dad. I tried to explain to him that I left his father because he was abusive and if we hadn't gone, he would have hated me even more. I asked him why he blamed me and he just stormed out. As usual, he would not give me a straight answer. Until just two years ago, when he became famous, he lived with me. I always say that if he hated me so much why did he live with me until two months short of his 26th birthday? And that's another thing - he even lies about his age. He's actually 28 but he keeps knocking years off. We fell out initially because I wanted to leave Detroit and go back to Missouri. He didn't want me to go and turned all his anger on me. It was the beginning of the end and I blame his wife Kim. She bullies Marshall yet he has gone back to her time and again because of their daughter Hailie. He loves Hailie so much and wants to be a proper father to her unlike his own dad.

15

Despite what Marshall says, we lived in nice neighbourhoods not slums. But he was picked on because he was always a tiny thing. When he was eight, after a series of beatings, he fell into a coma. The doctors did not think he would live but I prayed and prayed until he pulled through. He had to re-learn how to do simple things like speak and eat and one of the side effects from the head injury, I believe, were his behavioural problems. Obviously I became over protective. I was single, he was my only son. Years later, he abused me because he changed schools so many times, blaming me. Yet the truth is whenever he had a problem at school, he came home and demanded to move. And I gave in to him. Marshall was 13 when I became pregnant with his half brother Nathan. He was delighted. I have always loved kids and fostered four; the house was always full of waifs and strays. One of those troubled souls was Kim Scott, who moved in with us when she was 12. Marshall was about 15 and she lied about her age saying she was the same. They got together and that was it. Chaos reigned. Until then Marshall was a normal, happy boy. She changed him, she wound him up, and they had the most terrible rows. I had to break up the cursing between them. The girl thrives on confrontation. But Marshall was never violent towards her. He may rap about raping and murdering her but he has never laid a finger on her. When they had a row he took it out on his car, he would come screaming home and punch the car. I've never seen a vehicle with so many dents in it. Another thing that deeply traumatised him as a youth was the death of his uncle Ronnie, my brother. The two were just six weeks apart and were more like brothers, they did everything together. But when they were about 16, Marshall got into rap and Ronnie liked Bon Jovi. They fell out and didn't speak for two years. When Ronnie killed himself, Marshall was devastated. MARSHALL has accused me of being addicted to prescription pills. Well, back in 1990 I was run over by a drunk driver. I had to eat baby food as I couldn't swallow and during that time I was on medication. It wasn't pill popping and, whatever he says, I brought Marshall up in an alcohol, drug and smoke-free home. He sings about smoking crack and heroin. I honestly don't know what he does now, but he certainly drinks and he has introduced Nathan, who is just 15, to Bacardi. Nathan told me and I am very angry with Marshall for doing that. Nathan looks up to Marshall. It's hard now he is known as Eminem's brother. At one point Nathan wanted to live full-time with Marshall, who threatened to apply for custody. Now the only time Marshall phones it is to speak to Nathan; he doesn't have time for me. Right up until he was 26 I took care of his finances - he didn't have a bank account - and his car insurance. There was a mess up over a car repayment and he went berserk and blamed me. We had a terse conversation recently when he said he'd have me put in jail for fraud. But one day he has got to wake up and smell the coffee. I am gullible and loving. As a child Marshall was never spanked and I never raised my voice to him. The real problem is not that he had a hard time but that he resents I sheltered him so much from the real world. When he got a job as a chef, who taught him to cook? Me. When he fell out with his friends, who resolved it? Me. I am guilty of loving my son too much. There is nothing I can do now to stop him belittling me. But one day he will be my Marshall again. When he grows up. 16

Analysis Text: analysis version [Small headline] As the white rapper brings his shocking show to Britain, the surprising truth from the woman who knows him best - his ' badass mom'. [picture caption] A troubled man: Debbie says her son's vitriol is an act [Large head] I think Eminem is filthy - and I'm his mum [kicker] FOUL-mouthed rap sensation Eminem - real name Marshall Mathers - has horrified parents with his graphic lyrics, many aimed at his own mother Debbie MathersBriggs. But this is what she thinks of him... [Analysis follows over page] As the white rapper 1A his shocking show to Britain, brings 1A.. `Shocking' can certainly be seen as referencing an emotional reaction. But we notice interestingly that the emotion has been disconnected from any specific `emoter' there is no-one who is actually presented as being `shocked'. Rather, the quality of being `shocking' is represented as being an intrinsic quality of `the show'. Accordingly, for reasons which will be explored at greater length subsequently, we do not classify such formulations as examples of Affect (though they are closely related). They are actually classed as examples of Appreciation, the mode of evaluation by which we assess the aesthetic properties of things, states of affairs, texts, performances etc. Here, as indicated above, the aesthetic qualities of Eminem's `show' is being evaluated.

the surprising1B truth from the woman who 1B. This is similar to the previous instance. knows him best - his ' badass mom'. Although there is a reference to an emotional reaction, the emotion has been disconnected from any human emoter and is represented as an intrinsic quality of the abstract noun `truth'. This accordingly would not be analysed as an example of Affect (but of Appreciation) A troubled2A man: 2A. negative Affect (non-authorial: as Epithet) Here we do have an emoter - the `man', Eminem, who is said to be generally in the 17

emotional state of being troubled. Debbie says her son's vitriol2B is an act 2B negative Affect (non-authorial: as Noun). The emoter is `her son' (Eminem) 3A Although we might feel that a strong emotional feeling underlies such a term, this is NOT Affect, since it's not actually referring to a particular response by some human emoter. This, as we will see, is actually and example of a Judgement value - it indicates an ethical or normative assessment of Eminem (by his mother)

I think Eminem is filthy3A - and I'm his mum

FOUL-mouthed rap sensation Eminem - real 4A non-authorial negative Affect name Marshall Mathers has horrified4Aparents with his graphic lyrics, many aimed at his own mother Debbie MathersBriggs. But this is what she thinks of him... WHEN my son Marshall - that's his name, not Eminem - first got into rap as a teenager he would wake me at 5am to ask me what words rhymed with what. I bought him a dictionary and it all went downhill from there. Because of what Marshall has written, to his fans I am the most hated person on this planet. I've been spat on by kids in the supermarket. Yet I do know him, probably better than anyone, and I want to try and explain to his British fans and all the parents who I know are horrified by the lyrics to his songs - what makes my son tick. WHEN my son Marshall - that's his name, not [No Affect] Eminem - first got into rap as a teenager he would wake me at 5am to ask me what words rhymed with what. I bought him a dictionary and it all went downhill from there. Because of what Marshall has written, to his fans I am the most hated5A person on this 5A. Non-authorial negative Affect. Although planet. the emoter is not specified this can be retrieved from the context - generally some supposedly very large grouping of Eminem's fans do the `hating'. I've been spat supermarket. on5B by kids in the 5B. Could be taken as a behavioural indicator or sign of (non-authorial) negative Affect , similar to the famous biblical phrase, `Jesus wept'. 18

Yet I do know him, probably better than anyone, and I want to try and explain to his British fans - and all the parents who I know are horrified6A by the lyrics to his songs - 6A. non-authorial negative Affect what makes my son tick. As he starts his concert tour of Britain on Thursday I want people to understand that the hate-filled rapper on stage is Eminem and not my boy Marshall. Basically, no one should take anything he says seriously - he doesn't mean it. He doesn't hate women or homosexuals and he's not violent. He is making money out of negative issues because he could not make it as a rap star any other way. When he first started to write filthy lyrics I asked him why. His answer was the more foul he was the more people loved him. He didn't make money out of nice things. If he wrote a song about how much he loved his mother and little brother, he'd be laughed at. As he starts his concert tour of Britain on Thursday I want people to understand that the hate-filled7A rapper on stage is Eminem 7A. This is an interesting case. It certainly and not my boy Marshall. seems to be describing something about the emotions of Eminem. And yet, here, `hatefilled' seems to do more than that - it attributes some fixed quality to Eminem rather than simply describing his emotional response to some phenomenon. And to describe someone as `hate-filled' in this way is, of course, to pass, necessarily, a negative moral or ethical judgement on that person. In our culture, it is always `wrong' to be `hate-filled'. Now values of Affect do often indicate some moral/ethical position. To say, `Eminem hates everyone' would usually act to indicate a negative ethical/normative assessment of Eminem. But this association between the Affectual value `hate' and the negative ethical/normative assessment is not as fixed as in the case of `hate-filled'. Thus to say, `Mary hates injustice' is to use the Affectual value `hate' to imply a positive ethical assessment of Mary. Accordingly, I would probably analyse `hate-filled' as Judgement (an assessment of human behaviour by reference to social norms) rather than as Affect Basically, no one should take anything he says seriously - he doesn't mean it. He doesn'thate8A women or homosexuals and 19

he's not violent.

8A. non-Authorial negative Affect

He is making money out of negative issues [No Affect] because he could not make it as a rap star any other way. When he first started to write filthy lyrics I asked him why. His answer was the more foul he was the more people loved9A him. He didn't make 9A. non-Authorial positive Affect money out of nice things. If he wrote a song about how much heloved10A his mother and little brother, 10A. non-Authorial positive Affect he'd be laughed at10B. 10B. Somewhat arguable. Could possibly treated as a behavioural indicator/sign of nonAuthorial negative Affect

THE Marshall I know rarely curses - he's a little itty-bitty thing who wouldn't stand a chance in a fight. That's not to say I am condoning his behaviour - if I had my way I would have his albums censored. Children under a certain age should not listen to such filthy lyrics. But despite what he has done, he is still my son. [No Affect] Marshall remains very angry with me and I still don't know why. I love him so much that if he asked me to jump in front of a train for him, I would. He has hurt me terribly and, in a way, I blame myself: I was an over-protective mother who gave him everything he wanted and more. I once asked him why he was so angry with me. He said it was because he didn't have a dad. Marshall remains very angry with me and I non-authorial neg Affect still don't know why. I love him so much that if he asked me to Authorial positive Affect jump in front of a train for him, I would. He has hurt me terribly and, in a way, `Hurt' of course can indicate either physical or emotional pain - here, I think emotional, hence Authorial negative Affect We might see such a formulation as implying that the writer has negative emotions towards herself. However, `to blame' does not directly reference an emotional disposition/reaction (though it may do this by implication). Rather, by `blaming' speakers/writers indicate they hold someone responsible for some wrongdoing. Thus `to blame' indicates that a 20

I blame myself:

Judgement is being made. I was an over-protective mother who gave non-authorial Affect him everything he wanted and more. I once asked him why he was so angry with non-authorial negative Affect me. He said it was because he didn't have a dad. I tried to explain to him that I left his father because he was abusive and if we hadn't gone, he would have hated me even more. I asked him why he blamed me and he just stormed out. As usual, he would not give me a straight answer. Until just two years ago, when he became famous, he lived with me. I always say that if he hated me so much why did he live with me until two months short of his 26th birthday? And that's another thing - he even lies about his age. He's actually 28 but he keeps knocking years off. I tried to explain to him that I left his father non-authorial neg Affect because he was abusive and if we hadn't gone, he would have hated me even more. I asked him why he blamed me and he possible sign/indicator of non-authorial neg juststormed out. As usual, he would not give Affect (anger) me a straight answer. Until just two years ago, when he became famous, he lived with me. I always say that if he hated me so much why non-authorial neg Affect did he live with me until two months short of his 26th birthday? And that's another thing he even lies about his age. He's actually 28 but he keeps knocking years off. We fell out initially because I wanted to leave Detroit and go back to Missouri. He didn't want me to go and turned all his anger on me. It was the beginning of the end and I blame his wife Kim. She bullies Marshall yet he has gone back to her time and again because of their daughter Hailie. He loves Hailie so much and wants to be a proper father to her unlike his own dad. Despite what Marshall says, we lived in nice neighbourhoods not slums. But he was picked on because he was always a tiny thing. When he was eight, after a series of beatings, he fell into a coma. The doctors did not think he would live but I prayed and prayed until he pulled through. We fell out initially because I wanted to authorial Affect leave Detroit and go back to Missouri. He didn't want me to go and turned all his anger on me. non-authorial Affect non-authorial negative Affect

21

It was the beginning of the end and I blame his wife Kim. She bullies Marshall yet he has gone back to her time and again because of their daughter Hailie. He loves Hailie so much non-authorial positive Affect

and wants to be a proper father to her unlike non-authorial positive Affect his own dad. Despite what Marshall says, we lived in nice [No Affect] neighbourhoods not slums. But he was picked on because he was always a tiny thing. When he was eight, after a series of beatings, he fell into a coma. The doctors did not think he would live but I prayed and prayed until he pulled through. He had to re-learn how to do simple things like speak and eat and one of the side effects from the head injury, I believe, were his behavioural problems. Obviously I became over protective. I was single, he was my only son. Years later, he abused me because he changed schools so many times, blaming me. Yet the truth is whenever he had a problem at school, he came home and demanded to move. And I gave in to him. [No Affect] Marshall was 13 when I became pregnant with his half brother Nathan. He was delighted. I have always loved kids and fostered four; the house was always full of waifs and strays. One of those troubled souls was Kim Scott, who moved in with us when she was 12. Marshall was about 15 and she lied about her age saying she was the same. They got together and that was it. Chaos reigned. Until then Marshall was a normal, happy boy. She changed him, she wound him up, and they had the most terrible rows. Marshall was 13 when I became pregnant with his half brother Nathan. He was delighted. non-authorial positive Affect

I have always loved kids and fostered authorial positive Affect four;the house was always full of waifs and strays One of those troubled souls was Kim Scott, non-authorial negative Affect who moved in with us when she was 12. Marshall was about 15 and she lied about her age saying she was the same. They got

22

together and that was it. Chaos reigned. Until then Marshall was a normal, happy boy. non-authorial positive Affect She changed him, she wound him up, Possibly non-authorial Affect if we construe `wound up' as meaning `got him angry'. Possible indicator/sign of negative affect (sign of anger) non-authorial

and they had the most terrible rows.

I had to break up the cursing between them. The girl thrives on confrontation. But Marshall was never violent towards her. He may rap about raping and murdering her but he has never laid a finger on her. When they had a row he took it out on his car, he would come screaming home and punch the car. I've never seen a vehicle with so many dents in it. I had to break up the cursing between them. possible indicator/sign of anger, hence nonauthorial negative affect The girl thrives on confrontation. But Marshall was never violent towards her. He may rap about raping and murdering her but he has never laid a finger on her. When they had a row he took it out on his as above car, he would come screaming home and punch possible sign of anger - hence non-authorial the car. I've never seen a vehicle with so negative Affect many dents in it. Another thing that deeply traumatised him as a youth was the death of his uncle Ronnie, my brother. The two were just six weeks apart and were more like brothers, they did everything together. But when they were about 16, Marshall got into rap and Ronnie liked Bon Jovi. They fell out and didn't speak for two years. When Ronnie killed himself, Marshall was devastated. Another thing that deeply traumatised him non-authorial negative Affect as a youth was the death of his uncle Ronnie, my brother. The two were just six weeks apart and were more like brothers, they did everything together. But when they were about 16, Marshall got into rap and Ronnie liked Bon Jovi. They fell out and didn't speak for two years. When Ronnie killed himself, Marshall

23

wasdevastated.

non-authorial negative Affect

MARSHALL has accused me of being addicted to prescription pills. Well, back in 1990 I was run over by a drunk driver. I had to eat baby food as I couldn't swallow and during that time I was on medication. It wasn't pill popping and, whatever he says, I brought Marshall up in an alcohol, drug and smoke-free home. [No Affect] He sings about smoking crack and heroin. I honestly don't know what he does now, but he certainly drinks and he has introduced Nathan, who is just 15, to Bacardi. Nathan told me and I am very angry with Marshall for doing that. Nathan looks up to Marshall. It's hard now he is known as Eminem's brother. At one point Nathan wanted to live full-time with Marshall, who threatened to apply for custody. Now the only time Marshall phones it is to speak to Nathan; he doesn't have time for me. He sings about smoking crack and heroin. I honestly don't know what he does now, but he certainly drinks and he has introduced Nathan, who is just 15, to Bacardi. Nathan told me and I am very angry with authorial negative Affect Marshall for doing that. Nathan looks up to Marshall. It's hard now he is known as Eminem's brother. At one point Nathan wanted to live full-time with Marshall, who threatened to apply for custody. Now the only time Marshall phones it is to speak to Nathan; he doesn't have time for me. Right up until he was 26 I took care of his finances - he didn't have a bank account - and his car insurance. There was a mess up over a car repayment and he went berserk and blamed me. We had a terse conversation recently when he said he'd have me put in jail for fraud. But one day he has got to wake up and smell the coffee. Right up until he was 26 I took care of his finances - he didn't have a bank account and his car insurance. There was a mess up over a car repayment and he went berserk and blamed me. non-authorial negative Affect We had a terse conversation recently when he said he'd have me put in jail for fraud. But one day he has got to wake up and smell the coffee. `terse' is a possible value of Affect, though it is presented as a quality of the `conversation' rather than the emotional state of those involved in the conversation

24

I am gullible and loving. As a child Marshall was never spanked and I never raised my voice to him. The real problem is not that he had a hard time but that he resents I sheltered him so much from the real world. When he got a job as a chef, who taught him to cook? Me. When he fell out with his friends, who resolved it? Me. I am guilty of loving my son too much. There is nothing I can do now to stop him belittling me. But one day he will be my Marshall again. When he grows up. I am gullible and loving. `Loving' here is an interesting case. At one level it obviously makes some reference to the writer's emotions. And yet, of course, there is no actual reference to a specific emotional response on her part. Rather she speaks of a general quality she possesses and that quality (of being loving) is one which is typically associated with a positive ethical assessment. Thus to describe someone as `a loving mother' is judge their behaviour in normative terms. I would therefore probably classify `loving' as more a value of Judgement than of Affect (though it is, obviously, one which is based in emotion.)

As a child Marshall was never spanked and I never raised my voice to him. possible sign of authorial Affect The real problem is not that he had a hard time but that he resents I sheltered him so much non-authorial negative Affect from the real world. When he got a job as a chef, who taught him to cook? Me. When he fell out with his friends, who resolved it? Me. I am guilty of loving my son too much. authorial Affect (positive emotion, but negative self-evaluation of writer as emoter)

There is nothing I can do now to stop him belittling me. But one day he will be my Marshall again. When he grows up Text Analysis: some discussion From such an analysis, it quickly becomes apparent that values of Affect play a key role in this writer's evaluative strategy, particularly values to do with anger, hate, and love. In order to more

25

easily see how these values are mobilised in the text, I provide below a further analysis which focuses on the key Affectual values. The analysis, 1. sets out just those phrases or clauses in which one of these key values occurred, 2. indicates which of the following more general emotional categories the values fall into (Fear & Distress, Hate & Contempt, Anger, Love & Happiness), 3. indicates who is the source of the emotion (the 'emoter') and 4. indicates who is target or the trigger of the emotion Emoter A troubled2A man: Debbie says her son's vitriol2B is an act Distress Anger Eminem Eminem parents Eminem Target

FOUL-mouthed rap sensation Eminem - real Fear name Marshall Mathers 4A has horrified parents . I am the most hated5A person on this planet. Hate I've been spat supermarket. on5B by kids in the Hate

people generally Author kids Author

all the parents who I know are horrified6Aby Fear the lyrics to his songs He doesn't hate8A women or homosexuals Hate

parents

lyrics

Eminem

women etc

His answer was the more foul he was the Love more people loved9A him. If he wrote a song about how much Love heloved10A his mother and little brother, he'd be laughed at10B. Marshall remains very angry with me I love him so much He has hurt me terribly Contempt Anger Love Distress

people generally Eminem

Eminem

mother etc

people generally Eminem Eninem Author Author Eminem Author Eminem Eminem Author

I once asked him why he was so angry with Anger me. he would have hated me even more Hate

Eminem

Author

26

and he just stormed out. if he hated me so much turned all his anger on me. He loves Hailie so much He was delighted. I have always loved kids and fostered four One of those troubled souls was Kim Scott

Anger Hate Anger Love Happiness Love Distress

Eminem Eminem Eminem Eminem Eminem Author girlfriend Eminem Eminem Eminem/ girlfriend Eminem/ girlfriend Eminem/ girlfriend Eminem Eminem

Author Author Author daughter brother children

Until then Marshall was a normal, happy boy. Happiness She changed him, she wound him up, and they had the most terrible rows. Anger Anger

girlfriend

I had to break up the cursing between them. Anger

When they had a row he took it out on his Anger car, he would come screaming home Anger

girlfriend

Another thing that deeply traumatised him Distress as a youth was the death of his uncle Ronnie, my brother. When Ronnie killed wasdevastated. himself, Marshall Distress

Eminem

Nathan told me and I am very angry with Anger Marshall for doing that. There was a mess up over a car repayment Anger and he went berserk and blamed me. he resents I sheltered him so much from the Anger real world. I am guilty of loving my son too much. Love

Author

Eminem

Eminem

Author

Eminem

Author

Author

Eminem

My purpose here is not to provide a detailed analysis of the text but to provide a few hints as to the sorts of insights which such an Attitudinal analysis may provide. We, might, for example, be interested in exploring the author's apparent communicative purposes and the Attitudinal choices 27

by these have been pursued. To me, they are intriguing. Here, of course, we have entered the strange, netherworld of celebrity and pop-stardom US style where, as in this case, mothers feel the need to defend themselves before the world (and take legal action) against accusations levelled at them by their children. (The article appeared at a time when the author, Debbie Mathers-Briggs, was suing her son for 6.8 million over some of his lyrics in which he suggested his mother used marijuana, or more strictly that "My mom smokes more dope than I do".) Our analysis reveals the author to be working with the following attitudinal profiles:

the author (the mother) is hated by "everyone" as a result of her son's words/action, but she, the mother, loves children (including 'waifs and strays') and more particularly goes on loving her son regardless. Eminem (the son) doesn't really hate (despite his lyrics) but only wants to be loved. He used to love children/his brother and he now loves his daughter. He has been greatly distressed by the death of his uncle. He is now permanently angry, with his partner and more particularly his mother

The author's strategy then, with respect to arousing our sympathy and winning our support for her own position, is to declare herself universally hated and unstintingly loving. Her strategy with respect to her son is somewhat more complicated. She purports, at one level, to be defending her son and explaining his actions - as a 'good mother should'. Thus she reports on his prior-to loving nature, his distress at his uncle's death etc. And yet, of course, given the amount of words documenting her son's 'unmotivated' anger, this is a very strange sort of defence, a defence which fades very rapidly into accusation and recrimination. This is damming with fading praise and even louder damnation. We notice, as well, how self-centric the article is with respect to textual organisation, and especially with respect to the opening and closing stages. The author begins by documenting the hatred currently being directed against her and ends by declaring the resilience of her love for her vitriolic son. The system of Affect in greater detail The notes to this point have outlined the system of Affect in broad outline. The Appraisal framework provides for an analysis of this set of meanings in greater detail and with a greater delicacy of analysis. That is to say, it provides a much more fine-grained set of sub-categories of types of Affect to enable more detailed analysis of Affectual choices. Sections exploring this more delicate level of analysis will be added here later. For now you may like to look at the summary of these categories provided in the Appraisal Outline on the appraisal web site at (www.grammatics.com/appraisal) or you may like to consult either Martin 1997 or Martin 2000 where a full discussion is provided. Reference List Martin, J.R. 1997. 'Analysing Genre: Functional Parameters', in Genres and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Christie, F. & Martin, J.R. (eds), London, Cassell: 3-39. --- 2000. 'Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English', in Evaluation in Text, Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds), Oxford, Oxford University Press.

28

2. Attitude/Judgement Judgement: assessing human behaviour Explicit Judgement Following the work cited in the Overview Section as the source of these materials (see, for example, Iedema, Feez, and White 1994, Martin 1995 or Martin 2000), the term `Judgement' has been chosen to reference attitudinal evaluation in which human behaviour is negatively or positively assessed by reference to some set of social norms. Where Judgement is explicitly indicated (see earlier discussion) we encounter terms such as corrupt, virtuously, dishonest, murderous, tyrant, bully, hero, betray, obstinate, indefatigable, abuse, defraud, courageously, skilled, genius, dunce, stupidity, foolishly, eccentric, maverick. Here the rather general term, `Judgement' has been taken from common parlance and given a more specialised or technical meaning. In a sense, then, we have made a specialist or technical term - `Judgement' - out of a term which didn't have a particularly precise meaning in everyday, vernacular language. So that there's no confusion, I'll use capital letters when I'm using JUDGEMENT, as a technical, linguistic term. I'm doing this for convenience and clarity, so that it's clear when I'm using the term within the specific linguistic framework . Under JUDGEMENT, we're concerned with language which criticises or praises, which condemns or applauds the behaviour - the actions, deeds, sayings, beliefs, motivations etc - of human individuals and groups. Perhaps the most obvious examples of JUDGEMENT involve assessments by reference to systems of legality/illegality, morality/immorality or politeness/impoliteness - that is to say, there is an assessment that rules of behaviour, more or less explicitly codified in the culture, have either been upheld or breached. That is to say, such JUDGEMENTS involve an assertion that some set of religious, moral or legal rules or regulations are at issue. They involve assessments of morality or legality. Here, for example, we find such terms as immoral, virtuous, lewd, sinful, lascivious, innocent, unjust, fair-minded, law-abiding, murderous, cruel, brutal, compassionate, caring, dishonest, honest, deceptive and fraudulent. Such assessments, obviously, can carry a heavy weight socially. Other values of JUDGEMENT involve evaluations by which the person judged will be lowered or raised in the esteem of their community, but which do not have the same legal, religious or moral implications as the first set. Here we have assessments of normality (eccentric, maverick, 29

conventional, traditional etc), of competence (skilled, genius, knowledgeable, stupid, dunce, brilliant, incompetent, powerful, feeble) and of psychological disposition (brave, cowardly, determined, obstinate, zealous, stubborn, committed, lazy etc). These values arguably do not carry quite the same social weight as the first set - negative values of this set will see you lowered in the estimation of society but won't typically see you in trouble with the law or with your priest. Judgement and reader/respondent positioning It is vital to stress JUDGEMENT, as a system of attitudinal positioning, is, by definition, shaped by the particular cultural and ideological situation in which it operates. The way people make Judgements about morality, legality, capacity, normality etc will always be determined by the culture in which they live and by their own individual experiences, expectations, assumptions and beliefs. So there's always the possibility that the same event will receive different JUDGEMENTS, according to the ideological position of the person making those JUDGEMENTS. (Are strikes necessary, sometimes heroic bids by workers to protect their rights and their families' standard of living, or irresponsible, bloody-minded attempts by workers to get more than they deserve? Was the Gulf War an entirely moral exercises in defending a weak nation (Kuwait) against the avarice of a tyrannical regime, or a cynical exercise in protecting US economic interests in the oil- rich Middle East?) For similar reasons, the way particular words in actual texts will be interpreted may also depend on the social and ideological position of the reader. Accordingly, it's important to note that the listings ofJUDGEMENT terms I supplied above were only meant to provide a rough guide to some of the core JUDGEMENT meanings. They listings were not meant to indicate that a specific word will always have the same JUDGEMENT value. The actual meaning of a word, its specific JUDGEMENT value, will often be determined by where it occurs in the text and by what other JUDGEMENTS have been made previously in the text. Take, for example, the word militant . From a left-wing, union oriented perspective, the term has obvious positive connotations - to be militant is to have a praiseworthy determination to pursue the interests of the working class. From a right-wing, management perspective, of course, militancy is a negative value, connoting a hard-line, obstinate determination to frustrate management initiatives wherever possible. Consider likewise the word mean. In most contexts this word is related semantically to cruel or unkind and would indicate a negative JUDGEMENT. Thus, we might say to a child, `Don't be mean to your little sister - let her play with the train set.' However, listening to one of those postmatch post-mortems so favoured by television sports programs, I heard one of the panel of sports experts using the term in a clearly positive sense. He said, `You know, what I like so much about Abblett [a star Australian rules football player] is that he's a really mean forward - he doesn't give anything away, his opponents don't get any easy kicks.' Here the commentator's use of mean (derived from mean in the sense of stingy or parsimonious) indicated a positive assessment of the player's dependability, of his resolve to play in what the commentator saw as a laudably aggressive manner. As one further illustration, consider the term `Top-Gun' (derived from a celebrated Hollywood move starring Tom Cruise. In the following report by the Sun of US and British missile attack on Iraq it indicates positive assessment of the competence of allied pilots. Brit jets join Bush's blitz Allied jets bombed Iraqi capital Baghdad last night - in one of George W Bush's first acts as US President.

30

British Tornado pilots joined in with US Top Guns to attack missile and communications HQs. (The Sun, page 1, Feb 17, 2001) Yet it is used with a clearly negative connotation in the following report of a tragic accident in which US airforce planes, flying too low at an Italian ski resort, crashed into a ski lift, resulting in a number of fatalities as the ski car plunged to the earth. Italian PM: Plane Was Far Too Low The U.S. Marine jet that severed a ski lift cable, plunging 20 people to their deaths, violated Italian air safety regulations with its "earth-shaving flight" across a snowy hillside, the prime minister of this angry nation said Wednesday. The defense minister said the American pilot should be prosecuted, several influential lawmakers said U.S. bases in Italy should be closed, and Italian and American investigators started looking into the accident near Trento, about 90 miles east of Milan. "This is not about a low-level flight, but a terrible act, a nearly earth-shaving flight, beyond any limit allowed by the rules and laws," Premier Romano Prodi told reporters. Witnesses said the Marine EA-6B Prowler swooped through the valley just above the treetops on Tuesday. Its tail severed two, fist-sized, steel cables, sending a gondola full of European skiers and the operator to their deaths. Startled by an unusually loud boom, 66-year-old Carla Naia looked up and saw the jet "coming at me at an incredible speed." "I've seen lots of planes and I've often cursed them," the Cavalese resident said. "But this one seemed completely out of control, far lower and faster than the others." Residents of this valley have long complained about low-flying jets out of Aviano Air Base at the foot of the Italian Alps. "We are fed up," said Mauro Gilmozi, the mayor of this picturesque town of 3,600. "This 'Top Gun' stuff has got to stop." Here, rather than indicating a positive assessment of competence, the term negatively evaluates the pilot's behaviour as foolhardy and reckless. Judgement - in brief To summarise then, JUDGEMENT involves positive or negative assessments of human behaviour by reference to a system of social norms. Thus for an utterance to act to indicate a JUDGEMENT value it must, either directly or indirectly, reflect on the behaviour or performance of some human individual or grouping. Negative values of Judgement typically involve a sense of guilt or of dysfunctionality. Implicit versus Explicit Judgement As I indicated earlier, the analysis of JUDGEMENT is complicated by the need to distinguish between what can be termed `inscribed' (or explicit) JUDGEMENT and what we terms `tokens' of Judgement(implicit). Under the inscribed/explicit category, the evaluation is explicitly presented by means of a lexical item carrying the JUDGEMENT value, thus, skilfully, corruptly, lazily etc. It is possible, as I have already indicated, for JUDGEMENT values to be evoked rather than inscribed by what we call `tokens' of JUDGEMENT. Under these tokens, JUDGEMENT values are triggered by what 31

can be viewed as simply 'facts', apparently unevaluated descriptions of some event or state of affairs. The point is that these apparently 'factual' or informational meanings nevertheless have the capacity in the culture to evoke JUDGEMENTAL responses (depending upon the reader's social/cultural/ideological reading position). Thus a commentator may inscribe a JUDGEMENT value of negative capacity by accusing the government of `incompetence' or, alternatively, evoke the same value by means of a token such as `the government did not lay the foundations for long term growth'. There is, of course, nothing explicitly evaluative about such an observation but it nonetheless has the potential to evoke evaluations of incompetence in readers who share a particular view of economics and the role of government. Similarly, a reporter might explicitly evaluate the behaviour of, for example, a Californian suicide cult as `bizarre' or `aberrant' or they might evoke such appraisals by means of tokens such as `They referred to themselves as "angels"' or `They filled the mansion with computers and cheap plastic furniture.' Such tokens, of course, assume shared social norms. They rely upon conventionalised connections between actions and evaluations. As such, they are highly subject to reader position - each reader will interpret a text's tokens of judgement according to their own cultural and ideological positioning. They are also subject to influence by the co-text, and an important strategy in the establishment of interpersonal positioning in a text is to stage inscribed and evoked evaluation in such a way that the reader shares the writer's interpretations of the text's tokens. In some instances, the ethical evaluation evoked by some 'factual' description (a token) will have become so naturalised or taken-for-granted in a given cultural situation that it is likely to be regarded as explicit (inscribed) rather than as implicit (evoked). JUDGEMENT. Consider, for example, They ordered a pizza and then shot the deliveryman in the head at point-blank range. Now the moral evaluation associated with such an action is so firmly established in our culture as to be virtually automatic. Nevertheless, it is still useful to distinguish between token (implicitJUDGEMENT) and inscription (explicit JUDGEMENT) in these contexts. The writer always has the choice between the token, the description couched essentially in experiential or 'factual' terms (`They shot the man in the head at point-blank range') and a description couched in the explicitly evaluative terms of explicit/inscribed Judgement (`They murdered him, heinously, callously and in cold-blood.') Since the choice is always available it remains meaningful and significant and should not be overlooked in the analysis, however `automatic' the connection between the factual description and the JUDGEMENTvalue it implies. Provoked Judgement It is necessary, however, to acknowledge that the distinction is not always so clear cut between the explicit and implicit Evaluation. Consider, for example, the following 1. He entered the room. The class rudely talked amongst themselves. 2. Although he had entered, the whole room kept on talking. In (1) one we have an unproblematically explicit inscription of a value of JUDGEMENT - through the word 'rudely' which necessarily indicates a negative assessment of those who were talking. But what about (2)?. Here there is no word or wording which, of itself, indicates a positive or negative assessment. And yet there is still something vaguely accusatory or critical about the wording specifically the use of the wordings 'although' and perhaps 'whole room' and 'kept on'. As I've said, none of these formulations could be said, of themselves, to convey a negative or positive assessment - they are not 'attitudinal' in the sense of the term I'm using here. But they are, 32

nevertheless, evaluative. Thus the term 'although' indicates an assessment by which the happening described in the second clause ('the whole room kept on chattering') is represented as in some way unexpected, abnormal or untoward. Similarly, 'kept on' involves an assessment that the 'talking' went on longer than was expected or was acceptable - that we might have expected it to have stopped before this. The wording, 'whole room' involves a sense of intensification, a sense of that the writer/speaker is somehow more invested or involved in the utterance than is always the case. We thus have evaluations of counter-expectation and intensity. What does this mean for our analysis of JUDGEMENT. Do we see this as inscribed (explicit) JUDGEMENT or as evoked (implicit) JUDGEMENT. Well actually, we see it as somewhere in between. Although the utterance contains no values of explicit JUDGEMENT (or of any other type ofATTITUDE), it does employ evaluative language and these wordings act to direct us towards a Judgemental response. Accordingly, we say that in such an utterance, an inference of a JUDGEMENT value is provoked in the reader/writer (as opposed to evoked.) Thus JUDGEMENT may be inscribed (explicit), provoked (implicit) or evoked (implicit).

Figure 1: modes of judgement Affect and provoked Judgement It is worth noting that values of AFFECT (discussed previously) often have a potential to 'provoke' Judgement in this way. This is because social assessments so often attach to values of AFFECT emotional responses are frequently viewed as `good' or `bad', as `appropriate' or `inappropriate. Thus to state, `He hates the weak and the vulnerable' is to provoke a JUDGEMENT of (im)propriety, since the culture strongly associates such a moral evaluation with such an AFFECTUAL stance. To state, `He adores his children' is likely to provoke a positive JUDGEMENT for the same reasons. Text analysis exercise: Crocodile tears Identify points in the text where some value of Judgement is, at least potentially, activated. Where possible indicate if the JUDGEMENT is, 1. inscribed (an explicitly JUDGMENTAL wording), 2. provoked (no explicit JUDGEMENT wordings but other evaluating elements direct the reader to a JUDGEMENT) or 3. evoked (a purely 'factual' description which, nonetheless, is likely to lead to some inference of good/bad, praiseworthy/blameworthy, appropriate/inappropriate behaviour)

33

The text is an newspaper commentary piece by Norman Tebbit, a former minister in Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government and now columnist for the conservative Daily Mail newspaper. (Tebbit was among those injured in an IRA attack on the Tory Party conference in 1984.) The article concerns an announcement by Corus, the former British Steel, that it is to cut-back more of its operations and to sack more workers. It is noteworthy that Tebbit is not noted for taking a pro-union or pro-worker position. While a minister in the Thatcher government, he was involved in that government's highly controversial campaign to close coal mines and to challenge the work-place power of the unions. (My analysis is provided below for purposes of comparison) NORMAN TEBBIT (with dinkus of Tebbit) Mail on Sunday Feb 4 2001, p 29 Crocodile tears for the men of steel THE closures and cut-backs at steelmaker Corus are a tragedy. My heart is with the steelworkers shopfloor and boardroom alike. Anyone who has seen white-hot liquid steel pouring out of vats or heard red-hot metal screaming as it is rolled, hammered and cut into shape, knows steelmaking is more than just a job. It has been at the heart of industry for over a century. No blame should fall on today's workforce. They have given their all as loyal, productive, flexible workers. Nor should it be heaped on the management which turned the high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation into one of the world's finest steel makers. There is too much steel being made. Changing technologies and new materials mean less steel in products like cars. Steelworks are closing all over America. They are in trouble in Europe, some surviving only on covert subsidy and the collapse of the euro. Joining the euro would only lock us into that problem - not solve it. Daft Government regulations and mad new taxes such as the Climate Control Levy, which penalises manufacturing by taxing energy, do not help. But when more of a product is being made than used something has to give. The Prime Minister is not just angry. He is scared. Labour is in trouble in Wales. Families which voted Labour for generations are deserting him. When Trade Secretary Stephen Byers says Corus should have consulted him he knows that, bound hand and foot by our masters in Brussels, he could have done nothing to help. What he wanted was a delay - of about three months until after election day. Byers' temper tantrums were more about fear of losing his job than concern about steelworkers losing theirs. Text Analysis Crocodile tears for the men of steel Explicit (inscribed) Negative JUDGEMENT. To describe someone as weeping "crocodile tears" is to accuse them of insincerity and dissembling - a false show or sympathy or grief, akin to lying. THE closures and cut-backs at steelmaker Corus are a tragedy. Although describing something as a "tragedy" is clearly evaluative, it's not an example of JUDGEMENT because there is no direct assessment of some human behaviour as good/bad, praiseworthy/blameworthy etc. This, as we will see later, is an example of APPRECIATION since a 34

certain affectual property is attributed to the current situation of steelworks being closed. It isn'tAFFECT, in the sense of the term which operates here, because being 'tragic' is a quality of the situation - it doesn't directly describe some emotional response on the part of some human participant, though it does, of course, suggest that emotional responses are likely. It's important to realise that, in a sense, emotion can be seen as underlying all values of Attitude JUDGEMENT, APPRECIATION as well as, obviously, AFFECT . Thus if I employ positive JUDGEMENT and describe someone as "performing brilliantly", at the same time I imply that I have a positive feeling/emotion towards that person and their performance. The point, however, is that I choose to say, 'She performed brilliantly' (JUDGEMENT), rather than 'I loved her performance' (AFFECT). Now, it may be felt that there isn't a great deal of difference between the meanings of those two utterances. But there is still SOME difference. There's a difference in the way the writer's Attitude is construed and the Appraisal framework is designed to be able to capture these types of relatively subtle, but nevertheless significant, nuances in the way speakers/writers position themselves interpersonally. In saying "I was very distressed by what happened" (AFFECT), I directly locate my evaluation in my own, individual emotional response. In saying "What happened was a tragedy" (APPRECIATION), I background my own emotional response (though, of course, it's still there) and choose rather to present the evaluative response as a quality which is intrinsic to what I am evaluating. Thus, AFFECT represents the evaluation as a response by, or property of, some human evaluator/emoter, while bothJUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION represent the evaluation as property of the phenomenon being evaluated. My heart is with the steelworkers - shopfloor and boardroom alike. Positive AFFECT. An indication of a feeling of sympathy by the writer. Anyone who has seen white-hot liquid steel pouring out of vats or heard red-hot metal screaming as it is rolled, hammered and cut into shape, knows steelmaking is more than just a job. It has been at the heart of industry for over a century. Implicit (provoked) positive JUDGEMENT. Here there is plenty of language which could be seen as evaluative. It's mostly intensifying - eg white-hot, pouring, screaming, at the heart of. The point of all this does seem to be to indicate a positive regard for (a) the steel industry and/or (b), possibly steel workers. The closest the writer gets to making this evaluation explicit is with the phrase, "more than a job". But nowhere does the writer actually declare that the steel-making industry was 'vital' to the British economy (implied in "at the heart of industry") or that working in a steel plant requires strength and courage or that steel workers are committed, resilient or loyal (some or all of which may be implied by 'more than a job"). Accordingly, from my reading position, I see this as provoking a positive Judgement. No blame should fall on today's workforce. Explicit positive JUDGEMENT. Indicates that the 'workforce' are blameless. They have given their all as loyal, productive, flexible workers. Explicit (inscribed) positive JUDGEMENT. Nor should it [blame] be heaped on the management which turned the high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation into one of the world's finest steel makers. "Nor should blame be heaped" = explicit JUDGEMENT.

35

"high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation" This is an interesting case where the evaluation is complicated by the use of the somewhat abstract "British Steel Corporation" as the primary social actor. If the author had written something like, "In the old days, they produced high-cost, low-quality steel", this would have been a straightforward example of APPRECIATION - a negative assessment of a non-human phenomenon, steel, as "highcost" and "low quality". But here it is not the steel, but the old Corporation which is said to be "highcost" and "low-quality". Now, we might interpret this as suggesting that the people who worked for the old company were incompetent in that they produced a low-quality product - which would, of course, entail a value of negative JUDGEMENT. But this, however, is only the implication, an inference likely to be drawn. What is the direct, explicit evaluation at work here? On the face of it, it is not of human behaviour, at least not directly, but of this impersonalised or depersonalised entity, the old British Steel Corporation. Accordingly, I would analyse this as, in the first instance, explicit APPRECIATION, but might also record this as an instance of implicit (provoked) negative JUDGEMENT. (There is no reason why double codings of this type should not be made, where appropriate.) "one of the world's finest steel makers" = explicit positive JUDGEMENT. This is somewhat similar to the last case, at least to the extent that it is a company rather than individual or grouped that are being evaluated. But I believe the human element is still sufficiently present to treat this as explicit positive JUDGEMENT. The behaviour of the people who make up the company is being evaluated - these people are highly competent in what they do. 'The people who work the management turned the high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation into one of the world's finest steel makers" = implicit (provoked by "finest") JUDGEMENT. Here there is another layer of evaluation by which it is the management of the new company, rather than its workers, for example, which is singled out for a positive assessment. I see this JUDGEMENT as implicit (provoked), since it's an inference which is drawn from the observation that the management has changed the company from one which produced low-quality steel to one which produces high-quality steel. The distinction here, however, between implicit and explicit realisation is a fine one indeed and may depend on whether or not we see "the management" as being the same entity as 'the finest steel maker". There is too much steel being made. Changing technologies and new materials mean less steel in products like cars. Steelworks are closing all over America. They are in trouble in Europe, some surviving only on covert subsidy and the collapse of the euro. This is all largely "factual", description, though there are a number of elements which do convey some evaluation. Hence the amount of steel making going on is assessed negatively as being excessive/too much, and the situation for steel makers in Europe is negatively assessed as 'trouble'. There would seem to be some potential for this "excessive" amount of steel making to be taken as an implicit indication of incompetence by the steel makers - they might be seen as having blundered in setting the wrong production targets. Yet interestingly this potential inference is not strongly supported by the text which follows. In fact, evidence is provided which could be taken as suggesting the production over-runs were unavoidable or at least couldn't have been forseen by even the most competent managers. Thus we are informed that the problem is with "changing technologies" and a resultant need for less steel in cars. As well, we are told this is a world-wide problem - it's happening

36

in the US and Europe - so it certainly would be unreasonable to single out the British company and its managers for blame. "Covert subsidies". The term "covert" carries with it strong negative connotations - to act covertly is to is in some way to be dishonest or to dissemble, thus the following from the Cobuild Bank of English, Nationalist street demonstrations and deepening Unionist suspicions are intensifying the need for talks all round with everybody if the peace process is to continue. But the cause of lasting peace will not be helped if ministers fan hostility and suspicion with covert meetings followed by double talk. This negatively does not, however, always apply (also from the Bank of English), PC Seymour, 31, called for all policemen to be given covert body armour. They use body protection in the States," he said. `You need it all the time, not just for certain calls. You have to be prepared." From my reading position, however, the connotation of "subterfuge" and "deceit" is so strongly fixed that I would interpret this as indicating that the European's have been acting dishonourably/deceitfully in their use of such devices. I would therefore analysis this as explicit negative JUDGEMENT, though once again the dividing line between an explicit and an implicit realisation is a fine one. (That is to say, I take "covert" here to be inscribing the negative Judgement rather than to simply implying it.) Joining the euro would only lock us into that problem - not solve it. There's a vague potential here for a token of negative JUDGEMENT. If we were "locked into that problem", the we would be incapacitated, hence a potential negative assessment can arise. Similarly, anyone advocating joining the euro might, thus, by implication be guilty of recklessness or stupidity. There is, however, nothing explicitly JUDGEMENTAL here. Daft Government regulations and mad new taxes such as the Climate Control Levy, which penalises manufacturing by taxing energy, do not help. But when more of a product is being made than used something has to give. There is an interesting evaluative ambiguity here. Is it possible for regulations, of themselves, to be "daft", or for taxes to be "mad"? Or is it a matter of the formulation of those regulations and taxes by some human agent which is "daft" or "mad"? This sort of ambiguity will be discussed in more detail later. For now, I'll take it that here it is the Government itself which is the most obvious target for the accusation of daftness and madness and hence classify both these intances as explicit inscribed negative Judgement. "Penalises manufacturing". The process of "penalising" can be a perfectly legitimate exercise - "You have been penalised for driving while dangerously under the influence of alcohol." However here, of course, there is an implication of illegitimacy - the ideology informing the text and its evaluations is one in which constraints on manufacturing are generally seen as "a bad thing". Accordingly "penalising manufacturing" can be seen as a token, as an implicit negative Judgement of those who do the penalising - the government. The Prime Minister is not just angry. He is scared. "Angry"/ "Scared" = AFFECT & implicit (provoked) JUDGEMENT. "Angry" and "scared" are obvious examples of AFFECT, but here, however, there is an additional "provocation" going on. For a national

37

leader to be "scared" reflects badly on his ability to perform well. That the Prime Minister is "scared" provokes the JUDGEMENT that he is either incapacitated or even that he is cowardly. Labour is in trouble in Wales. Families which voted Labour for generations are deserting him. Implicit negative JUDGEMENT. By implication suggests that Labour is performing badly or even that it has been behaving dishonourable - why else would long-standing supporters desert. When Trade Secretary Stephen Byers says Corus should have consulted him he knows that, bound hand and foot by our masters in Brussels, he could have done nothing to help. "bound hand an foot" = explicit negative JUDGEMENT (incapacity). "masters" = almost explicit JUDGEMENT - those in Brussels are construed as powerful, as in control. There is, of course, a potential token of negative JUDGEMENT here. Presumably it is not right that people in Brussels should have such a capacity to control the people in the UK. "he could have done nothing to help" = implicit negative Judgement (incapacity) What he wanted was a delay - of about three months until after election day. Byers' temper tantrums were more about fear of losing his job than concern about steelworkers losing theirs. "temper tantrum" = explicit negative JUDGEMENT. To give way in this way to excess emotion is necessarily wrong in the culture. "fear" = AFFECT, possible provocation of negative JUDGEMENT - fear may be a sign of weakness or, here, a sign of an unsavoury self-preoccupation "more fear of losing his job than concern about steelworkers of losing theirs" = implicit (token) Judgement. Here the account gives rise to the inference that the minister is selfishly concerned for his own future and is uncaring of, or at least not sufficiently concerned about, the plight of the workers Text Analysis: some observations As previously, my purpose here is not to offer a detailed account of the text just analysed. My point, rather, is just to indicate the sorts of insights and lines of further investigation that this type of Appraisal analysis might give rise to. Such texts are often interesting from the perspective of (a) what sort of textual persona such commentators construct for themselves (b) the axiological or ideological perspective informing the text and which the author typically takes as "natural" and (c) the ideal reader which the text constructs for itself - that is to say, the particular set of assumptions, beliefs, values and expectations which the text assumes of its readers. The just completed analysis offers some interesting insights into these type of questions. This was a commentary piece written in response to news reports in which that the British Labour Government, and the industry minister in particular, had expressed outrage at the announcement of closures by Corus, and distress and concern for the workers likely to lose their jobs. Tebbit, famous or notorious (depending on your reading position) for his arch-conservative views and previous opposition to the unions, here addresses himself to the announcement of closures and job losses and particularly to the government's reported anger. In order to do this, he employs values of ATTITUDEto construct for himself a particular persona and to position his readers in ways which I explore below 38

THE closures and cut-backs at steelmaker Corus are a tragedy. My heart is with [authorial Affect] the steelworkers - shopfloor and boardroom alike. 1. The opening value of explicit AFFECT: Potential rhetorical effects (depending on reader positioning) -> This is a man of feeling and empathy; he indicates an inclination towards solidarity with management, and perhaps surprisingly, with workers. Tellingly, by beginning the account in this way, he construes his own, individual emotional response as having some substantial degree of significance in the wider community. Anyone who has seen white-hot liquid steel pouring out of vats or heard red-hot metal screaming as it is rolled, hammered and cut into shape, knows steelmaking is more than just a job.[Implicit/token of Judgement] It has been at the heart of industry for over a century. 2. Second step, a "factual' token of JUDGEMENT in favour of the workers. Potential rhetorical effects -> The positive view taken of the workers is not self-evident or given in that some evidence for, or explanation of, it needs to be provided. (Contrast this with the negative view of the Government.) The descriptive terms of the various tokens of JUDGEMENT are somewhat intriguing - a strange sort of heroism which, by implication, derives from working in what are depicted as dramatic and demanding working conditions. No blame should fall on today's workforce. [Explicit Judgement] 3. Once the evidential basis for the positive evaluation of workers (via the previous token) has been established, an explicit positive evaluation is provided; the author absolves the workers of blame. Possible rhetorical effects -> the author constructs himself as (or at least makes a bid to be seen as) possessed of substantial moral authority in the speech community in which he operates - he bids to oblige society (or at least his readers) to absolve the workers of blame. Tellingly, of course, his use of the negative, 'no blame should fall', invokes the positive, that 'blame SHOULD fall'. Hence the notion that the workers would be seen as blameworthy is referenced - that they are blameworthy is constructed as a viewpoint which could be held by some readers, but which is, nevertheless, rejected. They have given their all as loyal, productive, flexible workers. [Explicit Judgement] The workers behaviour is evaluated positively by means of a list of positive Judgements. Possible rhetorical effects -> The author assumes a particular moral framework of interconnect requirements by which workers may be evaluated positively and absolved of blame. (a) They should be emotionally and psychologically committed to their job - they must 'give their all" and be 'loyal". (b) They must be "productive", which, on the face of it, is a curious requirement since all workers do produce things, at least to some degree. Underlying it, of course, is the assumption that some workers are not 'productive enough' with the implication that here, at Corus, is a 'reformed' group of workers who produce more than other "less productive" and hence more blameworthy workers. (c) They must be "flexible". Meaning ambiguous/unclear - perhaps workers must be happy to have their working conditions and terms of employed changed, or perhaps they must be prepared and able to rapidly change what they do according, presumably, to the demands of their managers, the vagaries of international markets etc. Nor should it [blame] be heaped [Explicit Judgement]on the management which turned the highcost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation into one of the world's finest[Explicit Judgement] steel makers.

39

Author absolves management of blame, praises them. Possible rhetorical effects -> As previously, the author claims considerable moral authority. Interestingly, less work has gone into providing evidential support for the positive JUDGEMENT of management than was the case with workers. We are told only that, in the past the British Steel corporation produced "high-cost" and "low-quality" steel, while now it is a "fine" steel maker. We are not advised as to the precise terms from which its 'fineness" derives, nor provided with any evidence for this assessment. As a consequence, the positive assessment of the management is represented as more of a given, as more concensual among readers than the positive assessment of the workers. There is too much steel being made. Changing technologies and new materials mean less steel in products like cars. Steelworks are closing all over America. Rhetorical effects -> The action of the global economy is represented as something which is remote from the actions of individual economies. No-one is to blame for the negative affects which follow from, for example, "changing technologies" They are in trouble in Europe, some surviving only on covert [Explicit Judgement] subsidy and the collapse of the euro. Explicit JUDGEMENT of European industry policy. Rhetorical effects -> That European industry policies are to be viewed negatively, that they amount to some form of subterfuge, Joining the euro would only lock us into that problem - not solve it. [potential token of negative Judgement] Similar rhetorical effects to previous - similar assumptions about negative evaluation of Europe. Daft Government [Explicit Judgement] regulations and mad [Explicit Judgement] new taxes such as the Climate Control Levy1, which penalises manufacturing by taxing energy, do not help. But when more of a product is being made than used something has to give. " Explicit negative JUDGEMENT of the Government for introducing regulations by which manufacturers pay according to the amount of energy they use in a bid to lower emissions of greenhouse gasses. Rhetorical effects -> The pro-business, anti-environmental ideology underlying such an evaluation is construed as commonsensical and a given, since the proposition that such regulations are "daft" and "mad" is presupposed. The reader is thereby construed as holding these views. The author also assumes considerable social standing by dint of being able to offer such negative assessments of the Government in such a bald, unsubstantiated manner. The Prime Minister is not just angry. [non-authorial Affect] He is scared. [non-authorial Affect] Non-authorial Affect. Rhetorical consequences -> The authorial represents himself as being in the privileged position of having access to the Prime Minister's "true" feelings, without needing to supply substantiation - part of his bid for "prophetic" status in the speech community. When Trade Secretary Stephen Byers says Corus should have consulted him he knows that, bound hand and foot [Explicit Judgement] by our masters [implicit Judgement] in Brussels, he could have done nothing to help. [Implicit Judgement] Similar to previous. The author claims access to privileged knowledge - he knows the "true" thoughts of the Trade Secretary who, interestingly, is represented as knowing that he is 'bound hand and 40

foot". The writer assumes that the reader views the current arrangement vis--vis the EU as one of domination by "them" over us (hence "masters in Brussels) What he wanted was a delay - of about three months until after election day. Byers' temper tantrums [Explicit Judgement] were more about fear of losing his job than concern about steelworkers losing theirs.[Implicit Judgement] Explicit negative JUDGEMENT directed against the Minister; presupposition that the Minister's anger is a "temper tantrum"; negative AFFECT attributed to Minister. Potential Rhetorical effects -> Once again the author claims the authority to see into the heart of the Minister; once again a negative view of the government is assumed of the reader in that negative JUDGEMENTS provides without substantiation or qualification.. Potential The system of Judgement in greater detail The notes to this point have outlined the system of JUDGEMENT in relatively broad outline. The Appraisal framework provides for an analysis of this set of meanings in greater detail and with a greater delicacy of analysis. That is to say, it provides a more fine-grained set of sub-categories of types of JUDGEMENT to enable more detailed analysis of JUDGEMENT choices. Sections exploring this more delicate level of analysis will be added here later. For now you may like to look at the summary of these categories provided in the Appraisal Outline on the appraisal web site at (www.grammatics.com/appraisal) or you may like to consult Iedema et al, Martin 1997 or Martin 2000 where a full discussion is provided. Reference List Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. 1985. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a SocioSemiotic Perspective, Geelong, Victoria Australia, Deakin University Press. Iedema, R., S. Feez, and P.R.R. White. 1994. Media Literacy, Sydney, Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of School Education. Martin, J.R. 1995. 'Reading Positions/Positioning Readers: JUDGEMENT in English', Prospect: a Journal of Australian TESOL 10 (2): 27-37. --- 2000. 'Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English', in Evaluattion in Text, Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds), Oxford, Oxford University Press.

1 The name of this tax is, in fact, the "Climate Change Levy".

41

3. Attitude/Appreciation Overview The final subcategory of Attitude is termed, APPRECIATION. As indicate previously, we categorise as APPRECIATION those evaluations which are concerned with positive and negative assessments of objects, artefacts1, processes and states of affairs rather than with human behaviour. In some instances, however, human participants may also be `APPRECIATED' - in cases where the assessment does not directly focus on the correctness or incorrectness of their behaviour. The most obvious values of APPRECIATION are concerned with what is traditionally known as aesthetics, with positive or negative assessments of the form, appearance, construction, presentation or impact of objects and entities. Appreciation and the other categories of Attitude We have looked so far looked in some detail at two sub-types of Attitude: AFFECT and JUDGEMENT. As we have seen, AFFECT is concerned with emotional states and responses, while JUDGEMENT is concerned with normative assessments of human behaviour. Thus under AFFECT, the evaluation is explicitly that of some human subject, the individual or group which is represented as making this or that emotional response or being in this or that emotional state. AFFECT, therefore is very explicitly subjective. When the AFFECTUAL values are those for which the author takes responsibility (the author's own emotional responses and states) they have the effect of strongly personalising the text, of foregrounding the individual role of the author and his/her evaluative position in producing and shaping that text. In contrast, JUDGEMENT is not so explicitly located in the consciousness or subjectivity of a specified human participant since JUDGEMENT values are presented as qualities of the phenomenon being evaluated rather than of the person doing the evaluating. Thus 42

the AFFECTIVE value of `loving' in `Everyone loves Fred' is a quality or property attributed to `everyone' (the emoter/appraiser) while the JUDGEMENT value of `genius' in `Fred is a genius' is a quality attributed to Fred (the appraised). As a consequence, values of JUDGEMENT, at least in relative terms, may be somewhat less personalising, at least to the extent that they don't require that the appraiser be actually represented in the text. APPRECIATION shares with JUDGEMENT this property of being oriented towards the `appraised' rather than the subjective `appraiser'. Values of APPRECIATION are properties which attach to the phenomenon under evaluation rather than the human subject doing the evaluation. Thus a value of APPRECIATION such as `beautiful' in `a beautiful sunset' is represented as residing in the `sunset' rather than in the person doing the evaluation. Such values involve a manoeuvre by which the subjective, individual, contingent evaluative response by the appraiser is transferred from that appraiser and represented as a property which is possessed of the evaluated entity. The evaluation is thus to some degree `objectified' and values of APPRECIATION share with JUDGEMENT the property of being less directly personalising, at least relative to values of AFFECT. Thus is it is more directly personalising to declare `I just adore that new movie Crouching Tiger, it really thrilled me' than to declare `The new year has provided a masterpiece in the shape of Ang Lee's martial arts epic.' This, of course, is not to overlook that all values of JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION necessarily indicate the subjective involvement of some human participant - it is just that, with JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION, that subjective involvement may be implied rather than directly represented. Distinguishing Appreciation from Judgement The instances of APPRECIATION which can, perhaps, be most easily distinguished from JUDGEMENT values are those involving aesthetic evaluation of physical objects or material circumstances/state of affairs - for example, `a beautiful sunset', `an ugly scar', `a striking vista', `the sleek lines of the E-type Jaguar', `the squat, constricted form of the Morris Minor'. Such assessments clearly do not reference human behaviour, at least not directly. They don't involve assessments of right and wrong or correct and incorrect. While negative values of JUDGEMENT attribute some sense of `blame' to the human participant who is thereby evaluated, this is not the case with negative values of APPRECIATION. To `blame' a Morris Minor for being `squat' would, in most contexts be incongruous (unless, of course, we are seeking to humanise or personify the car for our own argumentative or poetic purposes). This follows naturally from the fact that JUDGEMENT assumes the involvement of human consciousness, volition or intentionality. Accordingly, values of JUDGEMENT (at least in their adjectival form) can be slotted into the collocational frames of the type `It was corrupt of the Minister to accept these payments'; `It was dishonest of you not to tell her. `It was brave of Mary to stand her ground'; `It was clever of you to hide your wallet in the vegetables'; `It was eccentric of you to wear that hat.' (Collocational frame = It was Judgement-Value of Judged to Verbal Process). This is not possible of values of APPRECIATION. Thus the following would be incongruous - It wasbeautiful of the sunset to light up the sky like that. / It was ugly of the scar to gape like that. Aesthetic evaluation of humans. Aesthetic evaluation is not, however, confined to inanimate objects and states of affairs. It may equally apply to human subjects. Thus we may describe human individuals as `beautiful', `handsome', `ugly', `lopsided', `gangly', `striking' and so on. Such evaluations do not represent instances of JUDGEMENT because they do not involve assessments of behaviour - they don't involve normative assessments of right and wrong, correct or incorrect. Being `beautiful' or `ugly' in this 43

physical sense is not a question of morality. Accordingly, such terms can't be slotted into the collocational frames outlined above. It would be incongruous to state, `It was beautiful of her to have such blue eyes'; `It was striking of her to have such red hair'. (It is important to note, however, that in the right context a term such as `beautiful' can take on moral associations and hence can operate as a value of Judgement. Consider, for example, `She was always kind, considerate and forgiving - truly one of the mostbeautiful human spirits I ever encountered.') Types of Aesthetic Appreciation One subtype of aesthetic APPRECIATION is concerned with composition, structure or form, with the question of how well the parts of the entity under evaluation fit together. These are exemplified by such positive terms as harmonious, well-formed, balanced, unified, intricate and negative terms such as ill-formed, convoluted, confused, unbalanced, discordant, contorted. Another sub-type is concerned with presentation, with whether the entity under considering is pleasing or displeasing `to the senses', so to speak - for example, beautiful, lovely, splendid, breathtaking (positive); plain, ugly, drab (negative). The situation is complicated somewhat by a third sub-type where we are dealing with values which make reference to, or are derived from, values of AFFECT (emotion). Here we are concerned with utterances such as, A depressing sight met our eyes. It's an extremely boring building. It was a captivating performance. A terrifying burst of lightening rent the air. He's grown a deeply disturbing moustache. These represent a complication because here we encounter terms (depressing, boring, captivating etc) which in other contexts and in other grammatical arrangements would indicate Affect , rather than Appreciation. Thus the following examples of values of Affect, The sight of the all the dirty plates depressed me. That type of architecture bores me. She captivated me with her performance. The burst of lightening terrified me. I am disturbed by your moustache. So why do we, for example, classify `a depressing sight' or `a boring building' as APPRECIATION rather than AFFECT? Crucial here is the fact that the emotional reaction (depress, bore etc) has been detached from any human experiencer of the emotion and been attached to the evaluated entity as if it were some property which the entity objectively and intrinsically possesses. To say that `the building bores me' (AFFECT) is to offer an individualised evaluation which depends entirely on my own, singular state of mind or emotional disposition. It says as much about me, the evaluator, as it does about the building. To say that `the building is boring' (APPRECIATION) is to offer an evaluation of a different order. It is to attribute to the building a property which is represented as being a fixed characteristic of that building, a quality which operates generally and 44

which is not dependent on an individual or variable state of mind or emotional disposition. A connection remains, of course, with the individualised, contingent emotional response. It's just that the emotion has been generalised, objectified and detached from any individual subjecthood. There are various indicators that this is APPRECIATION rather than AFFECT. For example, the value is oriented to the `appraised' rather than the `appraiser' in the sense that there is no human subject who is represented here as acting as the source of the emotional response. The building is simply `boring' - there is no-one being bored. We saw before that this is a feature which separatesAPPRECIATION (and JUDGEMENT) from Affect. Similarly, such meanings are not available for the collocational frames outlined above. Thus it would be incongruous to state, `It was boring of thebuilding to feature mock Tudor stylings'. A further complication - a fine line between Appreciation and Judgement. In general then, JUDGEMENT is concerned with positive and negative evaluations of human behaviour while APPRECIATION is concerned, not with human behaviour, but with positive and negative evaluations of artefacts, states of affairs and entities (including humans when viewed as entities rather than volitional actors.). A further complication arises, however, in cases where the grammar is ambiguous as to whether it is human behaviour or an object/entity/state of affairs which is being assessed. Consider the sequence, 1. `The design team prepared brilliantly for what lay ahead 2. `They are brilliant planners.' 3. `It's a brilliant plan.' 4. `It's a brilliant outcome' 5. `The blue-prints for the building are brilliant' Now utterances 1 and 2, and utterance 5 would appear to be straightforward enough. Utterances 1 and 2 are clearly concerned with evaluating the design team's behaviour, with indicating a positive view of their competence in the activity of preparing and planning. Accordingly they involve values of JUDGEMENT. In contrast, utterance 5 is unproblematically an instance of APPRECIATION since it involves an evaluation of the properties of an object/entity - a ` blue-print'. (Such an APPRECIATION may reflect on the competence of the person or persons who made the object - in this case, a blue-print - but here the evaluation of behaviour is only an indirect one. The utterance first and foremost involves an aesthetic evaluation of the entity, not of the behaviour which produced it.). Utterances 3 and 4 are somewhat less clear cut. The problem is that terms such as `plan' and `outcome' seem to have something about them both of things/entities and of verbal processes or happenings. Grammatically they are nouns and hence thing-like. And yet they are abstract - their reference isn't to any concrete entity which can be touched or located. It is not surprising that terms such a `plan' are sometimes termed `nominalizations' or `verbal nouns'. (See, for example, Halliday and Hasan 1985.) They can be seen as verbal processes which have been represented as if they are things or entities. The verbal process of `planning' (a behaviour subject to JUDGEMENT) has been represented as if it a thing or entity (and hence subject to APPRECIATION). So what do we make of a terms such as `plan' in propositions such as `It's a brilliant plan'? Do we treat them as referencing human action/behaviour or as referencing some type of entity or thing? Similarly, do we see the 45

evaluation in `a brilliant plan' as assessing human behaviour (and hence as JUDGEMENT) or as assessing the intrinsic qualities of some object or artefact (and hence as APPRECIATION)? We might start by delaying answering the question and ask another question. We might ask why we are seeking to make such relatively fine distinctions. Is there anything significant here in terms of linguistic insights? Well, the point here is that there IS something at stake communicatively and rhetorically when we choose between saying (1) `The design team planned brilliantly for all eventualities' and (2) `It was a brilliant plan covering all eventualities' . The difference in communicative effect may be subtle but it is nonetheless real - otherwise why bother to choose one over the other. Utterance 1 presents a proposition about how the design-team performed. The utterance is directly about the social standing of human individuals as a result of their behaviour. In utterance 2, the human aspect is backgrounded to a significant degree. It is not the social standing of human individuals which is addressed but the properties of some abstract entity (the plan). Human individuals are thus less directly targeted for praise or blame. Utterance 2, therefore, objectifies the evaluation to some degree, turning attention away from the human individuals themselves (the design team) and their behaviour and focussing it on the product or outcome of that behaviour (the plan). The question, then, of whether `It's a brilliant plan' involves JUDGEMENT or APPRECIATION is worth pursuing. How do we go about answering it? Well, for a start, it's necessary to state that such cases involve borderline or fuzzy categories. Such cases involve evaluations which can be seen as ambiguous as to whether they assess human behaviour (JUDGEMENT) or the products of human behaviour (APPRECIATION). They would therefore represent a special sub-grouping of evaluations which are ambiguous as to what is put at stake in terms of attitudinal positioning and, in this, they stand apart from evaluations which are not ambiguous in this way. Secondly, we need to insist strongly upon the importance of the actual textual context in which such values occur. What has been stated earlier in a text may well guide us towards seeing a particular value as more about human behaviour (and hence involving JUDGEMENT) than about the aesthetic qualities of some entity (and hence involving APPRECIATION) or, of course, visa versa. Additionally, the guidance provided by the type of collocational framing we explored above may, possibly, provide some useful guidance. If the term is one which could fit into the slot usually occupied by a JUDGEMENTvalue, then this maybe an indicator that it is better analysed as JUDGEMENT. Consider for example, Last night a Government source hinted at more raids, saying: "This was not necessarily a one-off mission." In December, The Sun exclusively revealed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had offered a 10,000 bounty for every British jet downed. The cash bonus was part of an evil plan to capture pilots and parade them on television in front of the world. (The Sun, Feb 12, 2001: 2) Here I would analyse `evil' as carrying a Judgement value (indicating a negative assessment of human behaviour) on the grounds that (1) the notion of `evil' assumes volitional action by some human (or human-like) agency, (2) the utterances acts directly to criticise the behaviour of Saddam Hussein by reference to a system of morality and (3) evil readily fits into the Judgement collocational frame - `It was evil of Hussein to plan such an outcome' Text Analysis Exercise: Sophie's fashion faux pas 46

In early 2001, a media storm erupted around Sophie Wessex (formerly Sophie Rees-Jones), the wife to Edward, one of the sons of the Queen of England, Elizabeth Windsor. Sophie Wessex had been taped making disparaging comments about various prominent politicians and member of her own royal family by a reporter working under-cover as part of a 'sting' operation by one of the British tabloids. The reporter had posed as an Arab businessman interested in becoming a client of Sophie's PR company. The British tabloids were henceforth ruthless in their pursuit of Sophie who became 'fair-game', so to speak, for extensive criticism and even ridicule. Below you will find a media text which was published in this period. Here, Sophie's dress sense is called into question after she was spotted wearing a somewhat striking outfit at the annual Ascot race meeting. The text is interesting for our current purposes because it takes the form of a debate between two 'fashion experts'. Both debaters deal with the same outfit and yet come up with diametrically opposed assessments - one praises, the other condemns. It is interesting, therefore, to explore just what differences in evaluative stance enable the same object - an outfit - to be represented, thus, in such different evaluative terms. I invite you to work through the text identifying any instances of Affect, Judgement and Attitude? What at the key attitudinal differences between the two debaters' contribtion. I provide an analysis following. [Daily Mail (London) June 20, 2001: p. 3] Main Head: Was Sophie's choice the day 's fashion faux pas? Small Head: Bold and bright, the Countess's rainbow display at Royal Ascot THE start of Royal Ascot yesterday ensured a rainbow of fashionable colours on the racecourse. And most, it seemed, beamed out from the Countess of Wessex's striking outfit. Sophie arrived at the Berkshire course in a striped confection that ensured fashion rather than racing was the main talking point in the enclosures. While the Queen settled for restrained coffee and cream, and the Queen Mother her favourite lilac, Sophie's choice ensured maximum attention. Below, two writers give their verdict on the suitability of the suit designed to stand out in a crowd. YES Says D'Argy Smith. NO ONE ever accused Sophie Wessex of being a class fashion act. At her sartorial best, she was a pallid imitation of Princess Di. She's never had the body, the legs or the style imagination to look as stunning as Diana. But she usually passed muster well, at least, didn't offend. Yesterday at Ascot, however, she appeared to have taken leave of her fashion senses. Her suit of large horizontal bands of green, orange, pink and blue interspersed with bands of raffia was topped off with an English country wedding cream high hat, complete with wide brim and flower. You had to sigh at the awfulness of it all. What on earth was she thinking when she decided 'This suit is for me'?

47

And what sort of person would let her walk out of a store looking like that? Perhaps it's an act of rebellion that she is not prepared to lie low after her recent PR indiscretion. Who knows? But the colours certainly gave me a headache. Marcelle D'Argy Smith is a former editor of Cosmopolitan magazine NO Says Brenda Polan. SOPHIE'S Ascot outfit is quite the most light-hearted, cheerful twinning of skirt and jacket one can imagine. The four colours sugar pink, tangerine, lime and blue are exactly those that fashion loves this summer and the Neapolitan ice- cream effect ensured the suit was eye-catching enough for a royal who clearly wanted to attract some attention. What is even more remarkable is that, thanks to very clever cutting, Sophie's little suit makes her look curvily sexy, something she's never quite pulled off before. That's because it was made to measure by a rather clever couturiere. The suit bears all the hallmarks of Laura B, the Knightsbridge-based dressmaker. The resulting outfit is certainly more risque than usual for Sophie who has always demonstrated impeccably restrained, even subdued, good taste in her public persona. But judging by the pearl hat, the gloves and little bag, the Countess lost a little of her nerve at the last minute and decided on neutral accessories to tone down this most extraordinary outfit. Brenda Polan is the Mail's fashion commentator P.S. ZARA Phillips also turned heads yesterday in a lacy hat designed especially for her. She arrived with her boyfriend, National Hunt jockey Richard Johnson. Zara, 20, teamed her hat by designer Tara O'Callaghan with a sleek floral satin dress. Her confident smile said the girl who lives in jeans and riding boots enjoyed the chance for a little dressing up. Text Analysis Part 1 - introduction: journalist's introduction pos/neg; Target of Evaluation Was Sophie's choice the day 's fashion faux Judgement indicates - Sophie pas? incapacity on Sophie' part Bold and bright, the Countess's rainbow Appreciation - a positive + outfit display at Royal Ascot aesthetic quality of the

48

'rainbow display' 3. THE start of Royal Ascot yesterday ensured Appreciation social + clothing generally a rainbow of fashionable colours on the value attributed to racecourse. colours And most, it seemed, beamed out from the Appreciation Countess of Wessex's striking outfit. +/- could be either pos or neg, though striking more likely to be positive than negative outfit +/ (?-) (presumably, at least in fashion parlance, "confection" is positive - see footnote2) outfit or -

Sophie arrived at the Berkshire course in a possible Appreciation striped confection

that ensured fashion rather than racing was possible token (implicit) + the main talking point in the enclosures. Attitudinal indication Sophie directed at Sophie, but not clearly articulated While the Queen settled for restrained coffee Appreciation and cream, and the Queen Mother her favourite lilac, Sophie's choice ensured maximum attention.

+ Queen's colours

as above, possible token +/ of Judgement, Attitudinally ambivalent is it a good of bad thing to attract attention in this way?

Part 2 - Argument: Anti Target of Evaluation YES Says D'Argy Smith. NO ONE ever accused Sophie Wessex of Judgement indicates - Sophie being a class fashion act. her fashion incompetence At her sartorial best, she was a pallid inscribed Appreciation, if - Sophie imitation of Princess Di. we take this as a comment on her 49

appearance. token (implicitJudgement) if we take this as indicating that she lacked inspiration/imagination that she was a "copy-cat" (imitation as a form of fashion plagiarism) She's never had the body, the legs Appreciation - Sophie

or the style (1) imagination to look as (1) Judgement - she lack 1. - Sophie (2)stunning as Diana. the necessary intellectual resources (2) Appreciation 2. + Princess Di But she usually (1) passed muster well, 1. Appreciation at least, (2) didn't offend. 2. Affect Yesterday at Ascot, however, she appeared to Judgement have taken leave of her fashion senses. Her suit of large horizontal bands of green, orange, pink and blue interspersed with bands of raffia was topped off with an English country wedding cream high hat, complete with wide brim and flower. (possible token of Apprecation, depending on one's fashion sense/knowledge) 1. 2. + Sophie - Sophie + Sophie

You had to (1) sigh at the (2) awfulness of it 1. Affect all. 2. Appreciation

1. 2. - outfit

- outfit

What on earth was she thinking when she Judgement - reflects on - Sophie decided 'This suit is for me'? Sophie's intellectual capacity And what sort of person would let her walk Judgement - reflects on - Sophie's staff out of a store looking like that? the capacity of her "advisors" Perhaps it's an act of rebellion that she is not Judgement prepared to lie low after her recent PRindiscretion. Who knows? But the colours certainly gave Appreciation me a headache. Part 2 - Argument: :Pro - Sophie

- outfit

50

Target of Evaluation NO Says Brenda Polan. SOPHIE'S Ascot outfit is quite the most light- Appreciation + outfit hearted, cheerful twinning of skirt and jacket Here see an interesting use one can imagine. of terms which would normally be applied to human targets and would indicate their Affectual/emotional state. Thus "Mary is cheerful" would involve a value of Affect. Here, however, the terms have been rccontextualised so that they reference aesthetic qualities of the outfit, and hence act as Appreciation. The four colours sugar pink, tangerine, lime intriguing personalisation of + outfit and blue are exactly those that fashion loves "fashion" thus, this summer literally,Affect, but metaphoricallyAppreciation and the Neapolitan ice- cream effect ensured Appreciation the suit was eye-catching enough for a royal who clearly wanted to attract some attention. (wanting attract attention here seems to have taken on positive associations) What is even more remarkable is that, thanks to (1) very clever cutting, Sophie's little suit makes her look (2) curvily sexy, something she's never quite pulled off before. 1. Judgement - reflects on 1. + couturiere the capacity of her couturiere/tailor 2. Appreciation 2. + Sophie 3. - Sophie 3. Judgement + couturiere + outfit

That's because it was made to measure by a Judgement rather clever couturiere. The suit bears all the hallmarks of Laura B, the Knightsbridge-based dressmaker. The resulting outfit is more risquethan usual for Sophie certainly Appreciation

ambiguous as to +/outfit + Sophie

who has always demonstrated impeccably Judgement restrained, even subdued, good taste in her 51

public persona. But judging by the pearl hat, the gloves and (possible token of Sophie little bag, the Countess lost a little of her Judgement, perhaps nerveat the last minute negative in that it implies Sophie might have been more "courageous" or "confident" and decided on neutral accessories to tone Appreciation down this most extraordinary outfit. Discussion of text analysis Below I provide an abbreviated version of the two analyses for the purpose of easier comparison Text 1. Anti Text Judgement Appreciation, token (implicit)Judgement) Appreciation (1) Judgement (2) Appreciation 1. Appreciation 2. Affect Target - Sophie - Sophie Text 2. Pro Text Appreciation Affect, Appreciation Target + outfit + outfit + outfit

- Sophie 1. - Sophie 2. + Princess Di 1. + Sophie 2. + Sophie

Appreciation

+ outfit

1. Judgement 2. Appreciation 3. Judgement

+ couturiere + Sophie - Sophie + couturiere ambiguous as to +/outfit

Judgement (possible token of Apprecation, depending on one's fashion sense/knowledge) 1. Affect 2. Appreciation

- Sophie

Judgement Appreciation

1. - outfit 2. - outfit

Judgement

+ Sophie

Judgement - reflects on - Sophie Sophie's intellectual capacity Judgement - reflects on - Sophie's staff the capacity of her

(possible token of neg - Sophie Judgement),

Appreciation

+ outfit

52

"advisors" Judgement Appreciation - Sophie - outfit

Differences in rhetorical strategy and attitudinal positioning emerge are clearly revealed. We notice that text 1 (the anti text) barely concerns itself with the supposed subject of debate, Sophie's outfit. This is directly evaluated at just two points in the text. Rather the text operates largely as a JUDGEMENTAL attack on Sophie - on her fashion competence and, tellingly, even on her moral standing (she is a copy-cat, and a "pallid" one at that.). Some critical observations on Sophie's physical form are included for good measure. In contrast, text 2 (the pro text), DOES primarily concern itself with the outfit and is, accordingly, dominated by APPRECIATIONS. Intriguingly, the negative JUDGEMENTS of Sophie in the anti text are not countered by positive JUDGEMENTS of Sophie in the positive text . Rather, the positive JUDGEMENT in text 2 is largely confined to praise directed towards her couturire. Tellingly when Sophie IS JUDGED in the pro-text, it tends to be negatively. Now these texts may be, just perhaps, of some interest in their own right. I see them, however, as having a more certain critical linguistic significance when we consider what they might reveal about the ways in which the British media represents the British Royal family and the sorts of evaluations and criticisms which the media permits itself to direct against individual royal family members. At the time these texts were published, Sophie's positions was, for a Royal, a relatively unique one. She was generally agreed to be "in disgrace". Shored up the by the fact that the Queen was known to be most displeased by he daughter-in-law's behaviour, even the most adamantly pro-monarchy publications had roundly condemned the young woman. She, all the commentators agreed, had substantially "let the side down". It is interesting that in this context, the author of the anti text feels that she has a license to launch the type of character assassination upon Sophie which I outlined above. But even more interesting are the evaluative terms adopted by the pro text. Here it is not so much the currently-under-a-cloud Sophie who is vindicated and defended, but her dress maker. Any rehabilitation of Sophie's is clearly to be only a partial one. The system of Appreciation in greater detail The notes to this point have outlined the system of APPRECIATION in relatively broad outline. The Appraisal framework provides for an analysis of this set of meanings in greater detail and with a greater delicacy of analysis. That is to say, it provides a more fine-grained set of sub-categories of types of APPRECIATION to enable more detailed analysis of APPRECIATION choices. Sections exploring this more delicate level of analysis will be added here later. For now you may like to look at the summary of these categories provided in the Appraisal Outline on the appraisal web site at (www.grammatics.com/appraisal) or you may like to consult Martin 2000 where a full discussion is provided.

1 I use the term `artefact' in a very general sense to include not only material objects which result from human industry but also works of art, texts, buildings and so on.

53

2 A search of the Bank of English indicates that while 'confection' is typically positive in the register of fashion writing, may also be negative, particularly in film reviews. See Appendix: CorpusConfection for some illustrations.

4. Intertextual positioning Attribution and authorial endorsement This unit is concerned with the linguistic resources by which speakers/writers include, and adopt a stance towards, what they represent as the words, observations, beliefs and viewpoints of other speakers/writers. This is an area which has been widely covered in the literature under such headings as "attribution", "direct and indirect speech", 'intertextuality" and, following Bakhtin, "heteroglossia". At its most basic, this attribution or intertextual positioning is brought into play when a writer/speaker chooses to quote or reference the words or thoughts of another. By referencing the words of another, the writer, at the very least, indicates that these words are in some way relevant to his/her current communicative purposes. Thus the most basic intertextual evaluation is one of implied `relevance'. Endorsement Once an attributed proposition has been included (and hence evaluated as `relevant') it can the be further evaluated as `endorsed' or `disendorsed'. The endorsed utterance is one which the writer either directly in indirectly indicates support for, or agreement with. The endorsed utterance is represented as true or reliable or convincing. Thus, 54

He punctures the romantic myth that the mafia started as Robin Hood-style groups of men protecting the poor. He shows that the mafia began in the 19th century as armed bands protecting the interests of the absentee landlords who owned most of Sicily. He also demonstrates how the mafia has forged links with Italy's ruling Christian Democrat party since the war, and how the state has fought to destroy the criminal organisation despite the terror campaign that assassinated antimafia judges, such as Giovanni Falcone. (From the Cobuild Bank of English) Here the use of the quoting verbs `show' and `demonstrate' signals endorsement for the attributed author's observations about the Mafia. Similarly, Elsewhere, he espoused the thesis, convincingly propounded also by other Marxists, that Marx evolved from his Eurocentric perspective of the 1850s towards a stance of anti-colonialism and of rejection of the unqualified idea that the capitalist destruction of pre-capitalist agrarian structures was necessary and inevitable. (Cobuild: UKBooks) It is interesting to note that a speaker/writer may endorse (indicate that they support, hold-to-be true) a proposition while distancing themselves from the speaker/writer themselves. Consider, for example, The Government has finally conceded that they made a mistake. Here the term "concede" carries a number of connotations. Firstly, of course, it indicates that the Government only reluctantly came to offer up the proposition that "we made a mistake". "Concede" like "admit" implies that the attributed source has been "holding out on us" so to speak and has only now been compelled, somehow, to reveal the truth. And, secondly, of course, there is the implication that what is "conceded" is "the truth of the matter" - that is to say, the proposition framed in this way is represented as true. Accordingly a positive endorsement is not of the quoted source, but of their proposition or proposal. Disendorsement Under disendorsement, writers/speakers distances themselves from the utterance, indicating that they take no responsibility for its reliability. This is commonly done by the use of a quoting verb such as `to claim' and `allege'. Thus, Tickner said regardless of the result, the royal commission was a waste of money and he would proceed with a separate inquiry into the issue headed by Justice Jane Matthews. His attack came as the Aboriginal women involved in the demanded a female minister examine the religious beliefs they claim are inherent in their fight against a bridge to the island near Goolwa in South Australia. (OzNews) Here, of course, the journalist distances him/herself from - or `disendorses' - the proposition put by the Aboriginal women that they have religious reasons to oppose the building of the bridge. Similarly, Even in jail there are many rumours circulating about Tyson. One is that he has converted to Islam and will be known as Malik Abdul Aziz. Another rumour is that he is engaged to a childhood sweetheart and he is regularly allowed to have sex with the girl about to become Mrs Tyson-or Mrs Aziz. He reportedly said, We're keeping the date of the wedding secret. I don't want people to know her name (UKMags) 55

One quite common and interesting mechanism for more indirectly indicating dis-endorsement is to characterise the utterance as unexpected or surprising. Surprisingly, McGuinness is especially scathing about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. (Dissent: p.6, Number 4, Summer 2000/2001) Disendorsement can, however, go beyond such `distancing' to the point of absolute rejection or denial of the attributed proposition. Thus, More recent evaluation in the field convinces me that the ANU team are seriously in error: the age of the burial is considerably less than 62,000 years. In this context, the claim that "this more than trebles the date for humanity's first arrival on the continent" is sheer nonsense. (The Australian, Opinion Pages, 10/01/2001) Thus to summarise, the question here is one of whether the writer indicates support for, acceptance of, or agreement with the views or observations provided by the attributed material. To regularise our treatment somewhat, we can say that writers can either choose to remain neutral with respect to endorsement (neither endorsing or disendorsing) or they can choose to actively take a position (endorsing or disendorsing). I summarise the set of options for endorsement/disendorsement below. (See Figure 1 below).

Figure 1: Endorsement options Responsibility It may also be useful, in some analytical contexts, to consider these and related resources in terms of who is presented as taking responsibility for the utterance under consideration. Does, for example, the author,

take sole responsibility for the utterance (as will typically be the case for all unattributed material), does the author present him/herself as taking NO responsibility for the utterance (as will typically be the case with dis-endorsed attributed material) 56

or does the author indicate that he/she shares some responsibility for the utterance with the attributed sources (as typically the case with endorsed attributed material)?

Thus,

Figure 2: options for authorial responsibility Source specification. Another important issue relates to the nature of the source to whom the material is attributed. Here we are concerned with the nature and status of the social actor from whom/which the externally sourced statements are said to derived. Following closely the work on social actors by van Leeuwen ( 1996), we are interested in the following types of distinctions,

(personalisation) Is the source represented as human (personalised) or as non-human (impersonalised, for example, a report, study or experiment)? If it is personalised, is it present as a particular human (or group of humans), or as an institutional sources - eg "The Prime Minister stated that... (human) versus "The Government is of the opinion that ...." (institutional)? (identification) Is the source named identified (named) versus unidentified (unnamed, anonymous or generalised) - for example, "The Minister, Mr Byers said..." (named) versus "A prominent backbencher said..." (unnamed); "The Australian Congress of Environmental Scientists believes..." (identified) versus "Environmental scientists believe..." (unnamed); or "informed sources indicate... (anonymous) or "it is generally believed that...", "there is a consensus that..." (generalised)? (specification) Is the source a specific individual or group, or an example of a generic class eg "Staff at my son's school say they are unhappy with the new policy on class sizes" (specific) versus "Teachers say they are unhappy with the new policy on class sizes" (generic)?; "The members of my jazz band hold that Country and Western music ought to be outlawed" versus "Jazz musicians hold that Country and Western ought to be outlawed"; "40 percent of those interviewed for the survey believe that global warming is a real risk" (specific) versus "Australians believe that global warming is a real risk" (generic)

57

(Grouping) Is the source an individual or a grouping - eg "My next door neighbour believes..." versus "My next door neighbours believe..." or "40 percent of Australians believe.." or "Cricket followers believe..."? or "Australians believe.."? If the source is a grouping, is it (a) an aggregate (groups of participants treated as a statistic) eg "40 percent of Australians believe..", "the people surveyed believe...", (b) a collective (people gathered together on the basis of some shared quality or feature), eg - "climate experts believe...", "Australians believe..." or (c) an association (a grouping contingently brought together essentially because they share the view which is being attributed at this point in he text) - eg "Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition believe...", or 'politicians, bureaucrats and economists believe..."? (These associations will, of course, be made up of either individuals, or different types of groupings - thus "politicians, bureaucrats and economists" is an association of collectives.) (Status) Is the source associated with some level of status, authority or power in the current speech community? If so, would that status be high or low?

The type of sourcing employed by writer/speaker can be seen as having an impact on both the textual persona they construct for themselves and on the way they position their utterances with respect to likely responses from actual or potential respondents. Thus, following from what van Leeuwen (1996) has observed (and Bernstein 1970 and Bourdieu 1986 before him), to employ personalised, named individualised social actors as sources is to construct the speaker/writer as engaged concretely and directly with some specific-here-and-now, while to employ unnamed, generic and collectivised sources, for example, is to represent the author as in a position to distance him/herself from any specific reality, to generalise, abstract and universalise. Equally, of course, source type has an impact on dialogic positioning. Thus, by way of example, the writer/speaker may seek to suppress or challenge and disagreement by prospective respondents by the use of a high status or high authority source. The use of generic, large scale collectives may have a similar rhetorical functionality. These issues will be taken up in more detail in the next set of notes. Textual integration: insertion versus assimilation The final issue that concerns us is that of the degree to which the attributed material is integrated or assimilated into the text itself. That is to say, we are concerned with whether there is clear separation between the words of the attributed source and the words of the text itself or whether this distinction has been blurred. To put it another way, we are concerned with whether the writer purports to offer the reader the actual words of the attributed source or whether these have been reworked in some way, often with the result that the wording is more like that of the text than that of the original speaker/writer. At its most simple, this distinction separates direct quotation (where the attributed material is clearly separated from the rest of the text) and indirect quotation (where the words of the attributed are not so clearly demarcated and where there may be considerable paraphrasing.) Consider, for example, example 1. UNITS SPARK ANGER Approval political suicide by CATE BAILEY

58

A DECISION by Drummoyne Council to allow a new townhouse development at Abbotsford Point is political suicide, residents claim. Council sparked widespread community anger last month when it approved the Great North Rd. development, despite 400 objections to the proposal. Abbotsford Point resident Eva Flegman addressed council on December 17, telling councillors their decision would return to haunt them at the polls. "This development with eight dwellings on a relatively narrow block is inappropriate to Abbotsford," she said. "The density of this development is causing a great deal of anguish and distress within our community. "We are concerned not only about the loss of character but of the deterioration of amenities and services." (The Glebe and Inner Western Weekly 8/1/97: 1) example 2, Taliban officials in the Afghan capital, Kabul, have accused Russia of fanning the flames of regional tension. A foreign ministry statement released in Kabul accused Moscow of opposing positive developments and growth of central Asian countries. (Australian Associated Press 7/4/97) In example 2, there are stretches of direct quotation where the meanings are clearly those of the external source. But what do we make of A DECISION by Drummoyne Council to allow a new townhouse development at Abbotsford Point is political suicide, residents claim. Council sparked widespread community anger last month when it approved the Great North Rd. development, despite 400 objections to the proposal. Abbotsford Point resident Eva Flegman addressed council on December 17, telling councillors their decision would return to haunt them at the polls. How certain can we be that the quoted source actually said that approving the new development would be 'political suicide', or 'would return to haunt them in the polls'? Are these the actual words of the source or are the more likely to be the formulation or paraphrase of the journalist? We see a similar phenomenon in example 2. Once again, it is impossible to determine whether 'fanning the flames of regional tension' were the words of the quoted source of the journalist/editor. Thus we see here that through indirect speech of this type, the distance between external and the authorial voice is reduced. There is some degree of assimilation by the text of the attributed meanings. Such assimilation may be increased through the use of the various grammatical structures of attribution. Consider, for example, They referred to the Minister's cowardly decision to cross the floor.

59

Here the claim that the Minister made a cowardly decision is being attributed to an external source, and yet, the text also, to some degree, asserts that claim itself. Thus the distinction is blurred between what the authorial voice and the external voice asserts. This process by which there is a blurring of the distinction between the author's voice and that of the external source has, of course, been widely explored in the literature in considering the difference between what has been termed "Direct Speech", "Indirect Speech" and "Free Indirect Speech". (See, for example Simpson 1993 or Leech and Short 1981). This is one area where there are some marked differences between some registers and text types. Thus there are certain types of assimilation which occur in novelistic fiction which, for example, would seldom be found in hard-news reporting. Consider the following extract from Dickens' Little Dorrit. As a vast fire will fill the air to a great distance with its roar, so the sacred flame which the mighty Barnacles had fanned caused the air to resound more and more with the name of Merdle. It was deposited on every lip, and carried into every ear. There never was, there never had been, there never again should be, such a man as Mr Merdle. Nobody, as aforesaid, knew what he had done; but everybody knew him to be the greatest that had appeared. The proposition that 'there never was such a man as Mr Merdle" is, of course, attributed but substantially assimilated. The grammatical indicators of this are relatively subtle, as is often the case in such texts. Firstly, it is necessary to look back to the earlier text, to such propositions as "the sacred flame...caused the air to resound more and more with the name of Merdle" and "It was deposited on every lip, and carried on every ear" Such observation set up the possibility that subsequent utterances are material which had likewise "caused the air to resound" or has been "deposited on every lip". There is, however, one more concrete grammatical indicator of the proposition's attributed status - the use of pluperfect tense/aspect in "there never had been". Such a tense, of course, locates the saying of this utterance at a point prior to text-time, a point earlier than the "saying" or "telling" by which the authorial voice is constituted in the novel. The Appraisal framework does not as yet provide a fully systematicised account of these and other differences in the way in which attributions can be assimilated into a text. Thus it doesn't have any categories which would directly correspond to categories such as "indirect speech" and "free indirect speech". For now, Appraisal theory would employ the notion of greater or lesser degrees of assimilation to handle the differences in intertextual positioning which are typically at stake in a shift, for example, from indirect speech to free indirect speech. This is obviously and area warranting further investigation Overview of Attribution Below, I provide in diagrammatic form an overview of the some of the key options for variation in attribution. When options or systems are included in curly brackets, this indicates that choices from these options will be made simultaneously or accumulatively. Thus in the diagram below, the leftmost curly bracket indicates that when attributing, we must simultaneously make a choice as to endorsement AND a choice as to source type AND a choice as to textual integration. The square brackets indicate that the speaker/writer chooses between options, that is to say, just the one option must be taken up.)

60

Figure 3: Overview of intertextual positioning Text analysis application: Gridlock Below you will find what could be seen as a fairly run-of-the-mill news report. The text is worth analysing, however, for the following reasons. The report is written according to the conventions of 61

`objectivity' which operate in the broadsheet press. That is to say, the writers are relatively consistent in not offering their own opinions, value judgements and arguments, or at least they ensure that the value judgements they do offer are not very salient. Nevertheless, despite this `objectivity', the text clearly presents a point-of-view or argument - a criticism of the government for its poor performance in transport planning and management. In this exercise we'll explore this apparent paradox. I invite you to have a look through the text and, 1. to identify all utterances which can be seen as `attitudinal' - that is to say, involve AFFECT, JUDGEMENT or APPRECIATION. You might like to consider whether any JUDGEMENTS you identify are explicit (inscribed) or implicit ("factual" tokens which evoke, or factual tokens and non-attitudinal evaluations which provoke JUDGEMENT values). , 2. analyse the intertextual positioning employed by the writer - that is to say, explore how different modes of attribution are employed to enable the writers to present an argument while remaining within the conventions of journalistic objectivity (analyse the attribution in the text in terms of endorsement/disendorsement, authorial responsibility, source specification and textual integration) (The Government referred to in the text is the State Labor Government of New South Wales. Thus the Labor sources mentioned are from within the Government itself.) Gridlock, eight hours a day By ROBERT WAINWRIGHT and DAMIEN MURPHY (Sydney Morning Herald - 23/3/1998) Peak hours in Sydney have expanded from six to eight hours a day, forcing motorists on freeways and highways to crawl at 10 km/h - slower than the average jogger - a new study of the city's transport crisis has revealed. The congestion now eats up one-third of every weekday, and even extends into weekends. An Australian Bureau of Statistics study published this month shows that commuter use of public transport across Sydney has fallen by more than 13 per cent since 1991 while car use has jumped by 10 per cent. Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) forecasts conclude that on present trends, travel times on city roads will become six times slower by 2016. This bleak picture has emerged from a special two-part Herald investigation - which continues tomorrow - just weeks after the State Minister for Transport, Mr Scully, confirmed that the Government's long-awaited integrated public transport strategy had once again been delayed, this time to the end of the year. The latest plan will become the 13th published blueprint of how to fix the city's transport woes. None has been fully implemented. The Government now faces the prospect of an election fought on urban environmental issues, including traffic chaos and air quality. Labor Party sources acknowledge that in marginal western Sydney seats such as Badgerys Creek, Penrith and the Blue Mountains, the Government's response to public transport problems might hold the key to its re-election strategy. 62

"It is three years now and there is simply no excuse," a senior ALP figure conceded. "We need a transport strategy that goes beyond just roads and some pretty big and brave decisions are needed, and now." Transport engineers, strategists and planners say Sydney's transport crisis can be blamed directly on decades of ad hoc traffic planning and the focus of consecutive governments on the funding of new roads over public transport systems. NRMA studies show that peak hours on main thoroughfares such as Military and Parramatta roads have increased by 30 per cent over the past decade. ... Although the Government has set targets to reduce car use, groups such as the Total Environment Centre (TEC) and western Sydney councils say they are yet to be convinced that there are serious plans behind the political rhetoric. The Government has pledged answers by November but a recent Department of Transport (DoT) advertisement for interest in mass-transit studies concedes that "in-principle availability" of resources for "large and complex studies" will happen only over the next year.... But community lobby groups, councils and transport experts say there is already enough information to justify full-scale plans, and they continue to appeal for money to be spent on rail and bus services in new suburbs. Mr Les Macdonald, who recently resigned as chairman of the Public Transport Advisory Council, said he was cynical about the Government's intentions. "The Government's goals are a breakthrough but there is a distinct danger that this will be yet another very expensive public relations exercise. "Until you pool all the government funding for transport and put it under an independent body that makes sound decisions about public transport and roads then these goals will just be used as pork barrel exercise for election time." Professor John Black, of the University of NSW School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, agreed: "At present there are too many fingers in the pie. The lack of co-ordination that has existed historically continues, and if government is serious about transport reform, control of transportation modes, roads, planning and urban affairs should be vested in one single entity." Text: my analysis Key. Underlining = Italics = Purple = JUDGEMENT Green = APPRECIATION Pink = AFFECT attributed material implicit ATTITUDE

Attitude

Attribution/ Sourcing

Gridlock, eight hours a day

63

Peak hours in Sydney have expanded from six to eight hours a day, forcing motorists on freeways and highways (1) to crawl at 10 km/h - slower than the average jogger - a new study of the city's transport (2) crisis has revealed.

1. implicit/provoked endorsed: neg JUDGEMENT impersonal: indicates incapacity. specific: singular: 2. explicit neg +status: Appreciation (of the assimilation transport situation) notice, for Description as a whole example, that it's may act to imply not clear whether incompetence or the words such as wrong-doing on the "slower than an part of traffic- average jogger" authorities, those and "crisis" are responsible for from the report. transport planning, etc ? ambiguous. Is this a finding taken from the report? If so, the attribution is by a process of retrospection from the current utterance endorsed: impersonal: specific: singular: +status: assimilation

The congestion now eats up one-third of every neg Appreciation weekday, and even extends into weekends.

An Australian Bureau of Statistics study published this month shows that commuter use of public transport across Sydney has fallen by more than 13 per cent since 1991 while car use has jumped by 10 per cent.

Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) implicit Judgement - endorsed: forecastsconclude that on present trends, travel indicates incapacity impersonal: times on city roads will become six times slower by specific: 2016. singular: +status: assimilation This (1) bleak picture has emerged from a 1. neg Appreciation The bleak picture (2)special two-part Herald investigation - which 2. pos Appreciation emerges from the continues tomorrow investigation - very ambiguous as to whether these are the journalists' own findings or those of the 64

"investigation" just weeks after the State Minister for Transport, Mr implicit Judgement Scully, confirmed that the Government's long- incompetence by the awaited integrated public transport strategy had Government once again been delayed, this time to the end of the year. endorsed: personal: specific: singular: +status: assimilation

The latest plan will become the 13th published 1. neg Affect blueprint of how to fix the city's transport 2. implicit Judgement (1) woes(2) None has been fully implemented. - incompetence by Government The Government now faces the prospect of an election fought on urban environmental issues, including traffic chaos and air quality. Labor Party sources acknowledge that in marginal western Sydney seats such as Badgerys Creek, Penrith and the Blue Mountains, the Government's response to public transport problems might hold the key to its re-election strategy. endorsed: personal: unidentified specific: collective: +status: assimilation 1. explicit Judgement 2. explicit Judgement neg endorsed: personal: pos unidentified specific: singular: +status: insertion neg endorse neutral: personal: neg unidentified generic: association of collectives: +status: insertion endorsed: specific: collective: +status: assimilation

"It is three years now and there is simply (1) no excuse," a senior ALP figure conceded. "We need a transport strategy that goes beyond just roads and some pretty big and (2) brave decisions are needed, and now."

Transport engineers, strategists and planners saySydney's transport crisis can be (1) blamed directly on decades of (2) ad hoc traffic planning and the focus of consecutive governments on the funding of new roads over public transport systems.

1. explicit Judgement 2. explicit Judgement

NRMA studies show that peak hours on main thoroughfares such as Military and Parramatta roads have increased by 30 per cent over the past decade.

65

... Although the Government has set targets to reduce car use, groups such as the Total Environment Centre (TEC) and western Sydney councils say they are yet to be convinced that there are serious plans behind the political rhetoric explicit neg Judgement - indicates that the Government is not genuine endorse neutral: institutional: unidentified specific: collective: +status: assimilation endorsed: impersonal: specific: collective: +status: assimilation (partial insertion)

The Government has pledged answers by November but a recent Department of Transport (DoT) advertisement for interest in mass-transit studiesconcedes that "in-principle availability" of resources for "large and complex studies" will happen only over the next year. The advertisement, which calls for submissions by tomorrow, wants the studies to include strategic planning, technology, travel demand analysis and financial evaluation. But community lobby groups, councils and transport experts say there is already enough information to justify full-scale plans, and they continue to appeal for money to be spent on rail and bus services in new suburbs.

endorsement neutral: institional+ human: generic: association of collectives: +status: assimilation explicit neg Judgement - reflects on the veracity/ commitment of the Government endorsement neutral: personal: specific: singular: +status: assimilation insertion endorsement neutral: personal: specific: singular: +status: insertion

Mr Les Macdonald, who recently resigned as chairman of the Public Transport Advisory Council, said he was cynical about the Government's intentions. "The Government's goals are a breakthrough but there is a distinct danger that this will be yet another very expensive public relations exercise.

"Until you pool all the government funding for transport and put it under an independent body that makes (1) sound decisions about public transport and roads then these goals will just be used as (2)pork barrel exercise for election time."

explicit Judgement reflects on the ability of the transport body 2.explicit neg Judgement - indicates impropriety

Professor John Black, of the University of NSW Judgement School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 66

- endorsement neutral:

agreed: "At present there are too many fingers in incapacity the pie. The lack of co-ordination that has existed historically continues, and if government is serious about transport reform, control of transportation modes, roads, planning and urban affairs should be vested in one single entity." [Sydney Morning Herald Monday, 23/3/1998] A brief discussion of the evaluative positioning of the text

personal: specific: singular: +status: insertion

This analysis of attitudinal and intertextual positioning reveals the following patterns. The opening of the text (roughly the first half) confines itself to implicit JUDGEMENT which gives rise to the inference that the Government has been incompetent in its management of roads. Many of these early descriptions of the state of affairs on the road are explicitly evaluative in their use of intensifying metaphor - for example, "forcing motorists to a crawl" and "the congestion now eats up". They are not, however, explicitly Attitudinal (except in the case of a few exceptions to be discussed below). Tellingly these evocations and provocations of negative JUDGEMENT of the government are attributed, typically via impersonal sources (reports, studies, forecasts) which acquire relatively high authority by dint of their institutional connections (for example, to national traffic authorities). We note as well that almost all the attributions in the first half are authorially endorsed in some way and involve assimilation rather than insertion. Interestingly then, the authorial voice here takes responsibility, or at least shares some responsibility, for these "factual" evocations of Judgement and there is a ready blurring of the distinction between the journalists' wordings and the wordings of the attributed sources. In the second half of the report, there is a phase shift under which explicit JUDGEMENT is introduced into the text. Telling, all such JUDGEMENT is confined to material which attributed to some external source. There are several interesting features to be observed re these attributions. The use of several identified traffic experts would appear relatively unexceptional. But we notice (a) the use of anonymous sources from within the Government itself to criticise the Government (such sources clearly having more "credibility" than Opposition sources, for example) and (b) the construction of various "associations" (in van Leeuwen's terms) in which there is no specific identification of the sources of criticisms. Thus the proposition that "Sydney's transport crisis can be blamed directly on decades of ad hoc traffic planning" is sourced to the somewhat unlikely grouping of "transport engineers, strategists and planners". Later, "community lobby groups", "councils" and "transport experts" are assembled into another grouping for the purposes of criticising the Government. We notice as well that the attribution is unendorsed and inserted (rather than endorsed and assimilated) now that that explicit JUDGEMENT is to the fore. To summarise the pattern of evaluation development, we can say that,

the opening half involves the assimilation and endorsement of implied negative JUDGEMENT of the Government by specific, identified, high-authority, impersonal sources while the closing half involves the insertion and non-endorsement of explicit negative JUDGEMENT of the Government by sources which include identified, high status specific human individuals, and groupings of unidentified, high status, generic collectives.

67

Together, then, the two halves provide for an attitudinal and ultimately rhetorical progression in which the opening half sets out "facts" and the concluding half sets out evaluative conclusions which, prepared for in this way, seem to arise naturally, logically and justifiably. The "factuality" of the opening half is enhanced, as mentioned above, by the impersonal nature of the attributional sources employed. The weight of the attitudinal evaluations which emerge in the second half is enhanced by the use of the use of groupings, as discussed, which imply the criticisms come from a diverse range of authoritative sources. There are a couple of interesting exceptions to the rule that explicit (inscribed) Attitude should be confined to attributed material, specifically several instance of explicit APPRECIATION. Thus the "picture" which emerges from one of the cited reports is described by the authorial voice as "bleak", the newspaper's own investigation is said to "special" (admittedly such is so formulaic that it is likely to carry little evaluative weight) and the situation on the roads is said to be a "crisis". On the basis of this analysis, we are now in a position to say little more about the linguistic constitution of mass-media "objectivity", at least to the degree that it operates in this text, and perhaps to explain how this text manages to be both argumentative and "objective". We can see that this text is "objective" to the extent that the writers offer no explicit JUDGEMENTS on their own behalf - all such are confined to attributed material. We note as well, that such explicit JUDGEMENT is typically inserted rather than assimilated and is typically non-endorsed. There was one exceptions to this rule in that the contribution of the unnamed Government source was endorsed via the verbal process verb, "concede". The system of "objectivity" operating here does not, however, seem to preclude some use of explicit APPRECIATION in the authorial voice, nor the use of metaphor and intensification to construct descriptions which strongly imply or provoke negative JUDGEMENT. Similarly, there seem to be no constraints on the assimilation, and especially not on the endorsement, of such implied JUDGEMENT. We see, therefore that the constraints on evaluative positioning imposed by the conventions of "objectivity" working here are relatively minimal, being largely confined to limitations on authorial JUDGEMENT. Consequently, see that there are plenty of evaluative resources still available by which such a text can mount an argument. (For more on this question of attitudinal meanings and different journalistic styles or voices see Iedema et al. 1994 and White 1998) Reference List Bernstein, B. 1970. Class, Codes, and Control. Volume 1: Theoretical Studies Towards a Sociology of Language, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul. Bourdieu, P. 1986. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, Cambridge, Polity. Iedema, R., S. Feez, and P.R.R. White. 1994. Media Literacy, Sydney, Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of School Education. Leech, G.N. & Short, M. 1981. Style in Fiction, London, Longman. Simpson, P. 1993. Language, Ideology and Point of View, London, Routledge. van Leeuwen, T. 1996. 'The Representation of Social Actors', in Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, Caldas-Coulthard, C.R. & Coulthard, M. (eds), London, Routledge. White, P.R.R. 1998. 'Telling Media Tales: the News Story As Rhetoric'. unpublished Ph.D dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney.

68

5. Engagement and Dialogistic Positioning An outline of Engagement

69

In this set of notes we are concerned with the diverse range of resources by which speakers/writers adjust and negotiate the arguability of their utterances. Under the Appraisal framework, such resources are grouped under the heading of "Engagement". The category of Engagement includes values which have been analysed in the literature under headings such as attribution, modality, hearsay, concession, polarity, evidentiality, hedges, boosters and metadiscursives.1 As indicated above, these Engagement resources provide the means by which speakers/writers adjust and negotiate the arguability of their propositions and proposals. More particularly, they are the means by which any utterance, whether in single-party discourse (e.g. writing) or multi-party discourse (e.g. conversation), can be construed so as to reveal its inherent dialogistic potential - that is to say, its location and functionality with reference to past, present and future processes of communicative exchange. Thus by the use of these resources, the terms of the arguability of any utterance can be varied by adjusting the dialogistic status of the utterance, by varying the way in which it is positioned to engage with past, present or future communicative exchanges. Key Engagement resources include meaning which can be grouped together under the following headings, 1. Disclaim: includes Denial and Counter-Expection

Disclaim:Denial e.g. The action won't damage the trust between the President and his body guards Disclaim:Counter-Expectation e.g. Amazingly/Bizarrely, this damaged the trust between the President and his body guards. / Admittedly the secret-service agents aren't present when sensitive matters are discussed, but this action still resulted in mistrust.

2. Proclaim: includes Expectation and Pronouncement

Proclaim:Expectation e.g. The action will, of course, damage the trust between President and body guard. / Predictably, the action damaged the trust between President and body guard. Proclaim:Pronouncement e.g. I contend that the action will damage trust. / The facts of the matter are that the action damaged the trust between President and body guard. / The action undeniably damaged the trust.

3. Probabilise: includes Evidence, Likelihood and Hearsay

Probabilise:Evidence e.g. It seems that this damaged the trust / There is evidence which indicates that this has damaged the trust Probabilise:Likelihood e.g. This may damage the trust / This probably damaged the trust etc / Is this damaging the trust? Probablise:Hearsay e.g. I hear that this has damaged the trust / It's said that this action damaged the trust.

4. Attribute: e.g. The head of Clinton's security division says this will damage trust. As a number of security experts have indicated, this will damage the trust between President and body guard.)2 The notion of "Dialogism"

70

Now, I have said these are all meanings by which the speaker/writer can adjust the dialogic terms or status of an utterance. What do I mean by `dialogic terms' and in what ways do these resources achieve such a rhetorical outcome? This notion of `dialogism' is inspired by the now widely influential view of the communicative process as set out in the work of Bakhtin/Voloshinov. (Bakhtin 1981, Voloshinov 1995) The following quotation sums up this perspective. The actual reality of language-speech is not the abstract system of linguistic forms, not the isolated monologic utterance, and not the psychological act of its implementation, but the social event of verbal interaction implemented in an utterance or utterances. Thus, verbal interaction is the basic reality of language. Dialogue, in the narrow sense of the word, is of course only one of the forms - a very important form, to be sure - of verbal interaction. But dialogue can also be understood in a broader sense, meaning not only direct, face-to-face, vocalised verbal communication between persons, but also verbal communication of any type whatsoever. A book, i.e. a verbal performance in print, is also an element of verbal communication. ...[it] inevitably orients itself with respect to previous performances in the same sphere... Thus the printed verbal performance engages, as it were, in ideological colloquy of a large scale: it responds to something, affirms something, anticipates possible responses and objections, seeks support, and so on. (Voloshinov 1995: 139) My point then, is that the resources included within Engagement are all `dialogistic' in this sense they are all means by which speakers/writers represent themselves as engaging in a `dialogue' to the extent that they present themselves as taking up, acknowledging, responding to, challenging or rejecting actual or imagined prior utterances from other speakers/writers or as anticipating likely or possible responses from other speakers/writers. Or, to put it in other terms, they are dialogic in that, to different degrees and in different ways, they all acknowledge or invoke representations or points of view which are to some degree different from the representation/point of view currently being advanced by the text. It is with this alternative position, therefore, with which the speaker/writer presents themselves as engaged dialogically. I will now consider more specifically the terms of dialogistic positioning which associated with the different sub-choices within Engagement. Disclaim: deny Under `disclaim' (which includes Deny and Counter-Expect) we are concerned with resources by which some prior utterance or some alternative position is invoked so as to be rejected, replaced or dismissed as irrelevant or some way communicatively inactive. From a dialogistic perspective, we can see Denial (negation) as a resource for introducing the alternative positive position into the dialog, and hence acknowledging it and engaging with it, and then rejecting it. Thus in these interpersonal/dialogistic terms, the negative is not the simple logical opposite of the positive, since the negative carries with it the positive, while the positive does not reciprocally carry the negative.3 This aspect of the negative, though perhaps at odds with common-sense understandings, has been quite widely noted in the literature - see for example, Leech 1983: 1014, Pagano 1994 or Fairclough 1992: 121.) Consider, for example, the following extract from an advertisement placed in magazines by the British Heart Foundation. We all like something to grab hold of. But sometimes you can have too much of a good thing. And a man whose table diet consists of double cheeseburgers and chips can end up looking like a tub of 71

lard. There's nothing wrong with meat, bread and potatoes. But how about some lean meat, wholemeal bread and jacket potatoes? Here the denial, `There is nothing wrong with meat, bread and potatoes', is clearly dialogic in the sense that it invokes, and presents itself as responding to, claims/beliefs that `This IS something wrong with meat, bread and potatoes'. A prior and alternative position is thus clearly engaged with dialogistically. Disclaim: Counter-Expect Here we are concerned with formulations which represent the current proposition as replacing and supplanting a proposition which would have been expected in its place. Consider, for example, Surprisingly, McGuinness is especially scathing about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. (Dissent: p.6, Number 4, Summer 2000/2001) Here, the writer invokes the alternative proposition, that `McGuinness would not be scathing of the chattering classes' but indicates that it does not, after all, apply. The dialogism, therefore is with the alternative position (the unrealised expectation) which is rejected. In situations where a comment adjuncts such as `surprisingly', `amazingly', `bizarrely' are used, the actual or imagined communicative respondent is represented as sharing the unrealised expectation with the writer/speaker. In other instances, however, the expectation is more clearly presented as that of the imagined respondent, and not of the speaker/writer. Consider for example, They [Kevin and Ian Maxwell, sons of Robert Maxwell] have a lot to prove in the coming years. Now they will not only seek to make their own fortunes but to clear their father's besmirched name. They grew up to see him as the eternal outsider, the man who had fought Establishment prejudice and pettifogging bureaucracy to get where he was. Sure, he broke rules. Yes, he ducked and dived. Admittedly, he was badly behaved. But look at what he had achieved. From nothing, he had become a multinational businessman with an empire stretching across the world, the confidant of statesmen and just as famous himself. (From the Bank of English UKMags corpus) The extract (from The Times) is concerned with the notorious British businessman, newspaper magnate and former Labour MP, Robert Maxwell (now deceased) and his two sons, Kevin and Ian. In the extract, the writer seeks to explain, even justify, why the two sons might have continued to regard their father favourably, despite the negativity with which Maxwell had come to be viewed generally. (Maxwell had been found after his death to have secretly diverting millions of dollars from two of his companies and from employee pension funds in an effort to keep his business empire solvent.). Here, very obviously, the writer engages with an imagined dialogic partner or voice which is represented as the source of arguments that Maxwell `broke rules', `ducked and dived' and `behaved badly'. The point here, of course, is that, the obvious inferences these arguments give rise to (that Maxwell was a bad man) are represented as not holding, at least for the Maxwell sons. Through a dialogic interaction, certain views are referenced and then rejected. In this, therefore, we see just how dialogic a single-party written text of this type can become through the use of such counter-expectational resources.5 (For a further discussion of the dialogism of concessives, see Hunston 2000: 178-181. For further discussion of the similar functionality of comment adjuncts such as `amazingly' and concessives, see Thompson and Jianglin Zhou 2000) Counter-Expect includes both the comment adjuncts of the type discussed above (amazingly, surprisingly) and the wide array of formulations for realising what is usually termed `concession'. These formulations typically include some sense of `although', `however' or `but'. A related sense of 72

Counter-Expectation can also be found in many uses of only, just, even, already and still (For a more extended discussion see Martin 1995: 230-234.) Proclaim: Expect Under `proclaim' (which includes Expect and Pronounce) we are concerned with formulations which can be interpreted as heading off contradiction or challenge from potential dialogic respondents . They are meanings which increase the interpersonal cost of any such contradiction by adding additional support or motivation for the current proposition/proposal. Through values of Expect, the speaker/writer represents the current proposition/proposal as uncontentious within the current speech community, as a `given, as being in accord with what is generally known or expected. Consider by way of example the use of `of course' in the following. When, belatedly, their selectors chose Paul Adams, who would assuredly have won them the second Test in Johannesburg, their attack became `very good' in the opinion of Trevor Bailey, who has seen a few in his time. Bailey, of course, was that rarity, a cricketer who at his best was world-class with both bat and ball. (From the Bank of English OzNews corpus) Here the writer represents himself/herself as simply agreeing with the reader, as recounting a view (that Bailey was a cricketing rarity) which is already held by the dialogic partner and by people in generally. The location of the current proposition within a dialogistic exchange is thus employed to increase the cost of any subsequent challenging or rejecting of the proposition. Proclaim: Pronounce Under `Pronounce' we are concerned with formulations by which speakers/writers interpolate themselves directly into the text as the explicitly responsible source of the utterance. This `pronouncement' may take the form of an explicit interpolation of the speaker into the text (`I'd say this will lead to mistrust.'), an intensifying comment adjunct (`Really, this will lead to mistrust'), stress on the auxiliary (`This did lead to mistrust'), or through structures such as `It's a fact that...'. (See Fuller 1995: Chapter 4 for a discussion of `interpolation'.) Such formulations are dialogistically prospective. The author thereby increases the interpersonal cost of any rejection/doubting of their utterance in future communicative exchanges, rendering such a direct challenge to the author's dialogic position. Of course, through such a strategy, by confronting the possibility of rejection, the author integrates that possibility into the text and thereby acknowledges the dialogistic diversity of meaning making in socially diverse social contexts. Probabilise (Evidence, Likelihood and Hearsay) Under Probabilise, I include all resources by which the current proposition/proposal is represented as just one of a range of possible propositions/proposals. It includes,

evidential formulations such as it seems, apparently, the evidence suggests forms which represent the proposition/proposal as more or less likely (including modals of probability and related forms such as I think/I suppose, as well as certain `rhetorical' uses of questions), hearsay/quotatives such as I hear and It's said.

Such formulations have often been classified as `hedges' and have often been seen as indicating that that the speaker is uncertain or tentative. Within frameworks inspired by the concerns of formal logic, they are often interpreted by reference to notions of `truth-value' - they are seen as indicating 73

that the writer/speaker declines to commit to the truth of his/her proposition. (See, for example. Lyons 1977: 452) Such interpretations all operate within a framework by which the communicative process is seen as a form of self-expression, a process by which the speaker/writer's primary purpose is to convey their inner thoughts and beliefs to the outer world. Thus, if a speaker frames an utterance with a formulation such as `it seems to me', then this usage is seen as necessarily revealing some aspect of the speaker's current state of mind, some condition of the knowledge or beliefs they are seeking to communicate - presumably the speaker's uncertainty or lack of commitment to truth-value. From a dialogistic perspective, however, we come to see such resources rather differently. We see their functionality in terms of the dialogistic negotiation which all speakers/writers undertake. By the inclusion of an `it seems', a `probably' or an `I hear', the speaker actively represents the proposal/proposition as contingent, as located in some individual subjectivity, in some individual assessment of likelihood or of the available evidence. The utterance is thus construed as but one of a range of possible utterances, since different contingencies and different individual subjectivities may well result in different assessments of likelihood and the available evidence. Thus, by the use of values such as It seems..., probably..., I hear... to frame a proposition/proposal, the writer/speaker opens up the space for dialogistic alternation, for a potential response which in some way challenges or differs from the current utterance. In a sense, such forms acknowledge that such alternation is expected or at least possible and accordingly provide an interpersonally more favourable context for such alternation. Thus, as Hyland has observed ( 2000: 88) such formulations anticipate the affect that the current utterance is likely to have upon actual or potential interlocutors and, as Myers has observed ( 1989), reveal the writers/readers purposes in negotiating their claims with these interlocutors. By way of brief illustration of these points, consider the following extract from a linguistics text book on language learning/acquisition. Here the writer is arguing a case with respect to Genie (the young woman who, in a celebrated case, had been found to be almost entirely without language.) What can we say, then, in answer to the question as to whether Genie acquired language, and acquired it normally? The passage from Curtiss quoted above shows that she thinks Genie had acquired language, but hadn't acquired it fully. It seems to me that we can barely allow Genie into the category of those who have acquired language, and certainly we can't allow her into the category of those who have acquired it naturally and fully. (Cattell 2000l: 199) Here we find probabilising formulations (it seems to me, certainly) which are associated with assertions to which the writer is strongly committed - there is no sense of uncertainty, tentativeness, equivocation or lack of commitment. The formulations here operate with an obvious dialogic functionality - they serve to mark these propositions as points of contention in the current debate over language acquisition and hence as points at which a difference of opinion is expected from anticipated dialogic respondents. Attribution and extra-vocalisation Attribution has been considered at some length in the previous set of notes (Stage 4). Here we consider attribution in the context of dialogistic positioning and introduce an additional term, "extravocalisation". Within Engagement, we distinguish two broad categories of resources for negotiating dialogistic or inter-subjective positioning - what are termed "intra-vocalisation" and "extravocalisation". Under extra-vocalisation, we are concerned generally with what has previously been termed attribution, with resources which involve the inclusion in the text of some explicitly external voice (hence the term extra-vocalisation). This extra-vocalisation contrasts with resources in which 74

the voice involved in the dialogistic positioning is an internal voice, that is to say, the voice of the speaker or author or writer. All the resources considered earlier in this set of notes (for example, those of Proclaim, Disclaim, Probabilise etc) involve "intra-vocalisation" since the voice which proclaims or disclaims or probabilises is the internal voice of the speaker or writer. I will return to this distinction subsequently. For the moment I take up the question of the dialogistic functionality of extra-vocalisation (attribution) As already indicated, extra-vocalisation involves the quoting or referencing the statements or points of view of external sources. The rhetorical functionality here somewhat complex because it involves both dialogistic positioning and what can be termed `heteroglossic'6 positioning. Attribution is obviously `heteroglossic' in that it introduces an additional voice into the text - a text with attributions will necessarily be multi/diversely-voiced. Our concern here, however, is not so much with the relationship which the writer/speaker enters into with the quoted source (a relationship of heteroglossic positioning which was explored at length in the previous set of notes) but with the way that writers/speakers uses extra-vocalisation to position themselves dialogistically with respect to actual and potential communicative partners. Consider for example, the following, Christian Jacq, perhaps the world's most prominent Egyptologist, has argued compellingly that when it came to backroom intrigue and regional betrayal, the modern Middle East still has a lot to learn from ancient Egypt. Here we encounter a rhetorical manoeuvre which has two aspects. The first is heteroglossic - a second voice is introduced into the text and that voice is evaluated as highly authoritative and convincing. The second is dialogistic - the proposition that ancient Egypt was a place of intrigue and betrayal is associated with an individual subjectivity (that of the attributed source) and is thereby construed as contingent and hence arguable in the current dialogistic context. The degree of arguability that the writer allows, however, is rather limited as a consequence of the high expertise associated with the source. Thus the rhetorical effect of such a formulation is somewhat akin to that of the Pronouncements discussed previously. There are a number of factors which determine the dialogistic positioning which can result from a given extra-vocalisation. These include the degree of authority which is indicated of the source and the degree to which the writer/speaker endorses (or dis-endorses) the attributed material. Thus the following involve different dialogistic positionings.

As X, perhaps the world's leading authority on Y, has demonstrated, ... (high authority / authorially endorsed, the writer indicates they share responsibility with the source for the proposition/proposal) X says that... (neutral with respect to endorsement) Some Xs have claimed that...(dis-endorsed, author disavows responsibility for the proposition/proposal)

Dialogistic positioning and terms of arguability In the above, therefore, I have described the individual sub-systems of Engagement essentially as a list. In order, however, to be able to apply the system usefully to critical text analysis, we need more systematically to consider what consequences for the arguability of a given utterance result from choosing one Engagement option, and hence one mode of dialogistic positioning, over another. In order to do this, I will explore two parameters by which rhetorical effect and terms of arguability can vary across the Engagement options. The first parameter relates to what I term dialogistic 75

expansion/contraction and turns on the degree to which the text acts to engage with the diversity of view point (the heteroglossic diversity) activated by the current utterance - whether the text is opening up or closed down to this diversity. The second parameter relates to what I previously termed extra-vocaliations/intra-vocalisation (or externalisation/ internalisation), a distinction which turns, as already indicated, on whether the voice of the current proposition/proposal is represented as external or internal to the text, whether or not the voice is that of the author/speaker or that of some external source. I will discuss each of these parameters in turn. Dialogistic expansion and contraction (open/close) Engagement resources present the speaker/writer as dialogistically engaged. The nature of this engagement can differ according to whether the Engagement value employed presents the speaker as opening up the dialog to more or less divergent positions or as closing it down so as to suppress or at least limit such divergence. Resources grouped together under Disclaim are generally contracting or closing since, while they acknowledge alternative positions within the dialogistic context, they either reject or directly challenge these. In the case of Denial and Counter-Expect, alternative positions are closed down by being directly rejected or by being replaced. Through Expect and Pronounce, the space for dialogistic diversity is contracted by what amounts to a preemptive rhetorical action - the writer/speaker is presented as seeking to constrain possible dialogistic divergence by overtly and strongly indicating their personal investment in the current proposition/proposal. Under Disclaim, then, the terms of arguability are adjusted so that any challenge or questioning of the current utterance puts more at stake interpersonally. Any challenge necessitates a direct confrontation with the speaker writer and in the case of Expect, a confrontation with what is represented as `common-knowledge' or `public opinion'. In contrast, the resources of Prababilise (Evidence, Likelihood and Hearsay) act to expand or open the space for dialogic diversity and difference. By the use of such resources the speaker/writer indicates that the current assertion is but one of a number of possible alternative assertions and simultaneously indicates that these alternatives are, at least to some degree, anticipated and hence dialogistically authorised. Under Probabilise, the terms of arguability are thus adjusted so that any challenge to, or questioning of, the current utterance would puts less at stake interpersonally. Under Probabilise, the proposition/proposal is, in fact, overtly characterised as arguable or contentions and hence challenge, contradiction or alternation are explicitly authorised dialogistically. Formulations of Attribution will either expand or contract according to a range of variables, including the authoritativeness of the attributed source and the extent of authorial endorsement of the attributed proposition. An endorsement-neutral formulation such as `Some researchers argue...' will tend towards dialogistic expansion, since the proposition/proposal here is not afforded any enhanced argumentative force. It is represented as simply one view among many. In contrast, endorsed formulations (for example, `As X has so compellingly demonstrated) will tend to contract the scope for dialogistic diversity. Through such formulations, the writer not only indicates their personal investment in the current argument, but adds to the argumentative force by representing the current view as one which is not theirs alone but one which is shared with, for example, the wider community or with relevant experts. We can, then, make a broad distinction, then, between Engagement resources which contract the space for dialogistic diversity and difference (Denial, Counter-Expect, Expect, Pronounce and authorially-endorsed Attribution) and those which expand the space (Evidence, Likelihood, Hearsay and some values of endorsement-neutral Attribution). I represent this distinction below.

76

(Disclaim:Denial) McGuinness doesn't have anything positive to say about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. (Disclaim:Counter-Expect) Surprisingly, McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes', of which he has long been a member. Contracting dialogistic diversity (Proclaim:Expect) McGuinness is, of course, scathing about `the chattering classes' (Proclaim:Pronounce) You'll have to agree with me that McGuinness is especially scathing about `the chattering classes' (Extra-vocalise: authorially-endorsed) A number of leading media analysts have compellingly argued that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes' (Probabilise:Evidence) It seems that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes' Expanding dialogistic diversity (Probabilise:Likelihood) It's possible that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes' (Probabilise: Hearsay) I hear that McGuiness is scathing about `the chattering classes' (Extra-vocalise: endorsement neutral) Some writers hold that McGuinness is scathing about `the chattering classes'. In the above, I have represented the `dialogistic expansion' versus `dialogistic contraction' relationship as binary or taxonomic - Engagement formulations are represented as either one or the other. It is possible, however, to see the resources as lying along a cline between most contracting (Disclaim) and most expanding (endorsement-neutral Attribution).7

77

The rationale for this ordering is as follows. Disclaim:Deny: Under Denial, a specific dialogistic alternative (the contrary position) is directly rejected. Thus, while the alternative is referenced, it is given minimal dialogistic space - the formulations allows little scope for negotiation of alternative positions. Disclaim:Counter-Expect: Under Counter-Expect a particular expectation or inference is invoked. This expectation is not directly rejected, as is in the case with Denial, but, rather, is replaced by an alternative. Thus the expectation (in the above examples) that McGuinness would speak relatively favourably of the social grouping of which he is a member is not denied outright. It is simply replaced with the alternative, that he is `always criticising the chattering classes unfairly'. Accordingly, I conclude that with such an instance of Counter-Expect there is, relative to a Denial, more dialogistic scope for the alternative - the alternative is somewhat more arguable. Proclaim:Expect: Under Proclaim (and all the remaining Engagement options) alternative positions are no longer directed invoked, though they are anticipated. (We move from retrospective to prospective dialogistic positioning). With Proclaim:Expect formulations such as `of course' or `predictably', the speaker/writer indicates a high level of commitment to the proposition and by this, perhaps paradoxically, renders the utterance relative or contingent since it is thereby associated with a given individualised subjectivity (presumably the shared subjectivity of the writer, reader and possibly `people in general'). The apparent paradox here is similar to that observed by Halliday in association with high values of modality (e.g. `he must be corrupt', `he is definitely corrupt') where, by the indication of their conviction, the speaker/writer renders the utterance less absolute or less invariable than the bare assertion (`he is corrupt')8. The relativity or contingency of the utterance is the basis of its dialogism. As subjectively based, it opens up a certain limited space for dialogistic alternation - the possibly of dialogistic diversity is acknowledged. The high degree of the

78

writer/speakers conviction, however, and the fact that it is represented as being expected by `people in general' means that the scope for dialogic alternation is relatively minimal. Disclaim:Pronounce: Values of Pronounce have a similar `paradoxical' rhetorical functionality to values of Expect. By explicitly indicating their conviction, the writer/speaker renders the proposition relative or variable, but, of course, only minimally so. I would argue that Pronounce is somewhat more expansive dialogistically than Expect since here the argument is represented as based in the single subjectivity of the speaker/writer rather than in the more generalised subjectivity of speaker/writer plus reader plus `everyone'. Probabilise (Evidence, Likelihood, Hearsay): Formulations such as It seems, I think, perhaps, it's possible, I hear, It's said are unproblematically more expansive dialogistically than values of Proclaim. While Pronouncement formulations such as `we can but conclude', `I contend' `undeniably' actively confront, challenge and hence discourage dialogistic alternatives, the Probabilise values effectively invite them. They characterise the current proposition as `just my opinion with which you may well disagree'. (Complications which arise from the arguability of intensified options such as `it's certain', `definitely' and `I'm sure' will be discussed below.) Endorsement-neutral or Dis-endorsed Attributions: Attributions such as `X says...' (endorsement neutral) or `X claims...' (dis-endorsed) typically are the most dialogistically expansive of Engagement resources9. Here the speaker/writer explicitly distances themselves from the attributed source, indicating that they share no responsibility for the material being asserted. The asserted material is thus represented as simply the observation or view point of one individual among many. Such utterances are maximally arguable since they may be challenged or questioned without any direct confrontation of the authorial voice. The `undialogised' utterance - the dialogistic status of bare assertions It remains to consider the status of the bare assertion (e.g McGuinnes unfairly criticises the chattering classes) from this dialogistic perspective. Following Bakhtin, we observe that all communication operates in a social world dominated by heteroglossia, by a diversity of `voices' and socio-semiotic positions. Hence, when we speak, when we adopt a particular socio-semiotic position, our utterances necessarily interact with, or enter into a `dialog' with, all the various more or less divergent social positions activated by that utterance. Utterances which employ some value of Engagement acknowledge this `dialogic imperative' (Bakhtin 1981: 426) Those which do not, which employ the form of the bare assertion, ignore or deny this dialogic imperative and thereby suppress the basic heteroglossic nature of social reality. Accordingly, from this perspective, we do not see the bare assertion as in some way `neutral', `unmediated' or factual - as in some way being the communicative default. Rather we see them as adopting a particular socio-semiotic position, an `undialogized' (Bakhtin 1981: 427) stance by which the inherent dialogism of the communicative process is denied. Thus we see such `undialogized' language as rhetorically, interpersonally and socially charged, as entering into relationships of tension with whatever related set of alternative or contradictory utterances it brings into play. The degree of that tension will, of course, vary according to the social context. It is a function of the number and the social status of those alternative sociosemiotic realities under which the utterance at issue would be problematised. Consider, for example, the difference between an utterance such as `Australia was terra nullius, an empty land, when the first European settlers arrived' and `In the view of some historians/It seems/I think/It's my contention, Australia was an empty land when the first European settlers arrived.'. Under a commonsensical, truth-functional perspective we might view the difference simply as one between `factuality' and `assessment/opinion'. Under the dialogistic perspective we see the first utterance 79

(the bare assertion) as highly charged inter-subjectively since it denies or suppresses the significant heteroglossic diversity and difference within which it is situated and which it will inevitably activate Accordingly, we categorise the bare assertion as another option within the system of Engagement, an option by which particular dialogistic terms can be set for the current utterance, though of course in this instance, the dialogistic terms are those of denial or suppression. I therefore distinguish broadly between the monologism of bare assertion (I say they `monologise') and the dialogism of the all formulations I have discussed above (I say they `dialogise'). Dialogistic contraction and expansion - a more delicate level of analysis At this broad level of analysis, then, we associate different Engagement subsystems (for example, Disclaim versus Proclaim versus Probabilise versus Attribute) with different degrees of dialogistic contraction/expansion. It is possible, however, to see this parameter of variation operating more narrowly and at a more delicate level of analysis, as a cline of variation operating within, rather than between, the Engagement sub-systems. Within Likelihood, for example, it is possible to identify different levels of force or intensity - thus, `This is possibly a bad idea' (low), `This is probably a bad idea' (median) and `This is definitely a bad idea' (high). Clearly these different options within Likelihood vary from more dialogistically expansive (possibly) to more dialogistic contracting (`definitely). This optionality is available with many of the Engagement subsystems.

I note in passing, that the more contractive values of Likelihood (e.g. I'm certain this is a bad idea., This is definitely a bad idea, This must be a bad idea) seem quite close in the their rhetorical functionality to values of Pronounce generally. I would certainly not want to argue that there is any major difference here in terms of dialogistic contraction/expansion. The difference is a relatively subtle one - a meta-discursivity distinction turning on whether the speaker indicates that the speaker expressing an assessment of high likelihood or whether the speaker interpolate themselves explicitly into the text as committed `sayer'. Extra-vocalisation versus Intra-vocalisation The second parameter by which terms of arguability can be varied turns on the distinction between what I previously termed extra-vocalisation (externalisation) and and intra-vocalisation (internalisation). Under extra-vocalisation, responsibility for the arguability of the proposition/proposition is assigned to some external voice, typically some attributed source. This contrasts with internalising options (intra-vocalisation) where responsibility for arguability is text internal - it remains with the internal authorial voice. This distinction has been very widely examined in the literature in the context of, for example, considerations of the functionality of reported speech and of intertextuality/heteroglossia. In this regard, Hunston, for example, distinguishes between attribution (externalisation/extra-vocaliation) and averal (internalisation/intravocalisation). (Hunston 2000) For the most part this a relatively straightforward distinction between 80

material which the authorial voice offers on its own behalf ( This is probably a bad idea / This seems a bad idea. / I hold this to be an undeniably bad idea etc) and material which is attributed to an outside source (e.g. Larry has indicated that he sees this as a bad idea.) In such clear-cut cases (for example, Some of the agents see this is a bad idea [externalised] versus I think this is a bad idea [internalised]), the difference in arguability and dialogistic positioning is straightforward. As already indicated, this type of externalisation maximally expands the scope for dialogistic negotiation by introducing an additional, external voice to whom the writer/speaker assigns responsibility for the proposition/proposal. But as has also been indicated above, the distinction and the resultant rhetorical consequences are not always so clear cut. Thus in instances of authorially-endorsed extra-vocalisation (e.g. Larry has compellingly demonstrated that this is a bad idea.), the utterance can be seen as both extra and intra vocalised - it contains both externalising aspects (the attribution to a quoted source) and internalising aspects (the indication that the authorial voice endorses the proposition/proposal). Such formulations can thus bee seen as dialogistically multiple, so to speak - combining both extravocalisation and intra-vocalisation so that responsibility for the arguability of the proposition/proposal is ascribed to both the inner and the outer voice . Values of Hearsay (e.g. it's said.../ I hear...) share this multiple functionality to some degree. On the face of it, Hearsay formulations introduce an external, heteroglossic voice. And yet the fact that the speaker/writer declines to specify or identify the source of the externalised material indicates that they to some degree endorse the proposition/proposal there conveyed - they share some communicative responsibility for the proposition/proposal. The `I hear' formulation takes this one step further by grammatically internalising the extra-vocalisation. However, while authorially endorsed extra-vocalisations combine voices, Hearsay values tend more towards dialogistic ambiguity. The situation remains unclear as to whether responsibility for the utterance lies with the inner or outer voice. The relationship of various Engagement options to externalisation/internalisation is represented diagrammatically below.

This extra/intra distinction also operates more narrowly (at a level of greater delicacy) to distinguish between options within subsystems. Consider for example the difference in arguability terms between `it seems to me' and `it seems' - both terms within Probabilise:Evidence. The first (it seems to me) is maximally internalised. The `seeming' upon which the arguability of the utterance relies is unambiguously and solely associated with the authorial subjectivity. This is not so absolutely the case with `it seems'. In such a formulation the `seeming' is less clearly specified, it is more generalised or objectified - the `seeming' is not just a matter of inferences drawn by the 81

speaker/writer but, presumably or possibly, by the reader/listener or by the relevant speech community generally. Thus `it seems' - at least when contrasted with `it seems to me' - invokes at least some sense of `externalisation'. It references a dialogistic position which is to some degree separate and hence external from that of the speaker/writer. The same distinction can be seen to underlie the different rhetorical functionality of such pairs as `I think' and `It's probable'. Under the systemic functional framework, such formulations are seen as `grammatical metaphors' of modality (Halliday 1994: 354-9) with `I think' being characterised as the `subjective' and `It's probable' as the `objective' option. From the perspective I have been exploring here, I reconstrue the distinction as a matter of dialogistic positioning, and more specifically as one of different degrees of externalisation. I illustrate these relationships diagrammatically below.

Summary: The cline of extra versus intra vocalisation

More to Follow: power and solidarity For the moment that's where this introductory course ends. However, more material will appear hear shortly. The additional material will include a section in this set of notes exploring the application of the Engagement framework set out above to issues in critical text analysis. For example, I'll be demonstrating how Engagement can be applied to exploring the issue of the discursive construction of relations of power and solidarity, More to Follow: Graduation (Force & Focus) I will also be adding a new section on what in the Appraisal framework is termed Graduation - the set of resources by which the force or tone or intensity of an utterance may be raised or lowered or

82

by which the we vary to "focus" or preciseness of the semantic categories we employ in our communications. Reference List Bakhtin, M. 1981. The Dialogical Imagination, M. Holquist, (ed.), C. Emerson & M. Holquist, (trans.), Austin, University of Texas Press. Cattell, R. 2000. Children's Language - Concensus and Controversy, London & New York, Cassell. Chafe, W.L. & J. Nichols, (eds), 1986. Evidentialty: The Linguistic Coding of Epistemology, Norwood, N.J., Ablex. Crismore, A. 1989. Talking With Readers: Metadiscourse As Rhetorical Act (American University Studies Series XIV : Education, Peter Lang Publishing. Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and Social Change, Cambridge, UK, Polity Press. Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London, Edward Arnold. Hunston, S. 2000. 'Evaluation and the Planes of Discourse', in Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Huston, S. & Thompson, G. (eds), Oxford, Oxford University Press. Hyland, K. 1996. 'Writing Without Conviction: Hedging in Science Research Articles', Applied Linguistics 17 (4): 433-54. ---. 2000. Disciplinary Discourses - Social Interactions in Academic Writing, Edinburgh Gate, Pearson Education Limited. Jakobson, Roman. 1957. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Russian Language Project. Harvard: Dept of Slavic Languages and Literature. Krner, H. unpublished. 'Moving Between Two Worlds: The Construction of Inter-Discursivity in Legal Judgements', Workshop: Exploring Ingterpersonal Grammar - Systemic Functinal Workshop on Interpersonal and Ideational Grammar, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Nov. Leech, G. 1983. The Principles of Pragmatics, London & New York, Longman. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics, Cambridge, UK., Cambridge University Press. Markkanen, R. & Schrder, H. (eds) 1997. Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, The Hague, Walter De Gruyter & Co. Meyer, P.G. 1997. 'Hedging Strategies in Written Academic Discourse: Strenghtening the Argument by Weakening the Claim', in Hedging and Discouse - Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, Markkannen, R. & Schrder, H. (eds), Berline & New York, Walter de Gruyter. Myers, G. 1989. 'The Pragmatics of Politeness in Scientific Articles', Applied Linguistics 10: 1-35. Pagano, A. 1994. 'Negatives in Written Text', in Advances in Written Text Analysis, Coulthard, M. (ed.), London, Routledge. Palmer, F.R. 1986. Mood and Modality, Cambridge, UK, Cambridge University Press.

83

Thompson, G. & Jianglin Zhou 2000. 'Evaluation and Organization in Text: The Structuring Role of Evaluative Disjuncts', in Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. ( Oxford, Oxford University Press. Voloshinov, V.N. 1995. Marixism and the Philosophy of Language, Bakhtinian Thought - an Introductory Reader, S. Dentith, L. Matejka & I.R. Titunik, (trans), London, Routledge.

1 For modality, see for example, Palmer 1986and Lyons 1977), for evidentiality see Chafe and Nichols 1986), for hedging Jakobson 1957, Myers 1989, Markkanen and Schrder 1997 and Meyer 1997), for `boosters' (Hyland 1996) and for `metadiscursivity', see (Crismore 1989).

2 Engagement includes a greater range of resources than is typically included under headings such as modality and evidentiality (Chafe and Nichols 1986) and a narrower range than is typically included under the heading of meta-discourse (Crismore 1989). It is, perhaps, most noteworthy that Engagement includes resources of Denial (negation and Counter-Expectation/Concession) The reasons for this are set out in the following discussion.

3 I have noted one instance where the positive did acknowledge the negative. On a sign at the verge of a wide expanse of neatly mown lawn by a footpath in Toronto, Canada, the following `Please Walk On The Grass.'

4 Leech makes essentially this point when he states, `In fact, the [Co-operative Principle] will predict that negative sentences tend to be used precisely in situations when... [the speaker] wants to deny some proposition which has been put forward or entertained by someone in the context (probably the addressee).

5 There is an interesting additional layer of dialogism here which I haven't really attended to. What we have here, in fact, is the writer representing the position of the Maxwell sons as they represent the position of those who view their father negatively.

6 Once again following terminology from Bakhtin.

7 For the inspiration for this topological approach to dialogistic positioning I am indebted to Henrike Krner. See for example, Krner unpublished

8 As Halliday puts it , `you only say you are certain when you are not' 1994: 89

84

9 It is, of course, crucial to keep in mind that the functionality of the `X says' formulation (and related formulations) will typically vary significantly from context to context. Thus the writer may have indicated elsewhere in the text that the source X is highly regarded or is highly convincing or has a high status and hence any citation of X will carry with it a sense of authorial endorsement and hence result in a narrowing of the scope of dialogistic negotiability.

85