APPRAISAL framework: Evaluations in language

APPRAISAL-theory APPRAISAL resources (Martin & White, 2005)

The APPRAISAL framework (aka “APPRAISAL system”, “APPRAISAL theory”). Using the overarching
framework of systemic functional linguistics (SFL), Martin and White (2005) developed an elaborate system
allowing linguistic analysis of a text from the perspective of the evaluative properties of this text. The
APPRAISAL theory is concerned with a) how text producers (writers or speakers) construe particular
authorial identities for themselves, b) how authors align/disalign themselves with actual or potential
respondents, and c) how writers or speakers construct an ideal audience for their texts (Martin & White,
2005; Pankovskyi, 2013). Martin and White (2005) explain that the APPRAISAL framework is based on the
notion of stance: “appraisal is probably most closely related to the concept of stance” (p. 40), which
depends heavily on the idea that “whenever speakers (or writers) say anything, they encode their point of
view towards it” (p. 92).

The centrality of the concept of stance for the APPRAISAL framework is explained by the fact that the
evaluative language used for the formation of a stance comes directly from the author’s own attitude
which may be expressed either explicitly or implicitly. The APPRAISAL framework sees declarations of
attitude as “dialogically directed towards aligning the addressee into a community of shared values and
belief” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 95). Thus, declarations of attitude not only serve the purpose of stance
taking by communicating the author‘s own attitude, but are also oriented towards aligning the
listener/reader into an axiological community by offering to share the author’s attitude (Pankovskyi, 2013).
In other words, the APPRAISAL framework analyzes how the writer’s/speaker’s attitude is expressed and
how it is directed towards aligning the reader/listener into a community of shared values and belief. For
example, often, the author does not state overtly his/her position, but the APPRAISAL framework allows an
analyst still to discern it through the analysis of the author’s use of language of evaluation. The application
of the APPRAISAL framework may yield rich results in the sphere of journalism since overt stance or
judgement are often undesirable in this context. Nonetheless, the APPRAISAL framework may be useful in
showing that despite the intention to be as unbiased as possible, discourse is never completely deprived of
the author’s stance, even if this is not stated overtly.

The APPRAISAL framework has a ramified structure allowing it to recognize even slight expressions of
attitude. Three main resources of the framework are: ENGAGEMENT, ATTITUDE, and GRADUATION.

1) ENGAGEMENT is “directed towards identifying the particular dialogic positioning associated with given
meanings and towards describing what is at stake when one meaning rather than another is employed”
(Martin & White, 2005, p. 97). It consists of two distinct resources:

a) monoglossia – no references to other viewpoints (e.g. the sky is blue, the Earth goes round the sun, etc.)
and;

b) heteroglossia – references to other viewpoints (e.g. according to astronomers, the earth goes round the
sun, Astronomers, “The Earth goes round the sun.“; the astronomers are convinced that the earth goes
round the sun; the astronomers confirm that the earth goes round the sun, etc.).
2) ATTITUDE is “concerned with our feelings, including emotional reactions, judgements of behaviour and
evaluation of things” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 35). It consists, in turn, of three resources: AFFECT,
JUDGEMENT, and APPRECIATION.

a) AFFECT – resources for expressing emotional states and responses (e.g. shining with joy, nasty, sad,
positive (about a person), happy, etc.);

b) JUDGEMENT – resources for expressing norms (e.g. right, wrong, ethical, responsible, etc.) and;

c) APPRECIATION – resources for expressing tastes aesthetic likes/dislikes (e.g. beautiful, unattractive,
yummy, simple, etc.).

3) GRADUATION deals with “grading phenomena whereby feelings are amplified and categories blurred”
(Martin & White, 2005, p. 35). It is divided into two major resources: FORCE and FOCUS.

a) FORCE – resources used as “adjustments” of the degree of evaluations. It is subdivided into raise (e.g.
better, best, yes-yes, yes!, YES, really big, etc.) and lower (e.g. a little, a bit, somewhat, least bit, etc.);

b) FOCUS – resources used in the non-gradable context, it “has the effect of adjusting the strength of
boundaries between categories, constructing core and peripheral types of things” (Martin & White, 2005,
p. 37). It is subdivided into sharpen (e.g. award-winning, all alone, etc.) and soften (e.g. sort of, kind of,
somewhat like etc.).

In summary, the APPRAISAL framework is based on the concept of stance. The APPRAISAL framework is
oriented towards uncovering the author’s attitude and the way in which texts align with a potential or real
reader/listener. The framework has a ramified system of resources which is oriented towards lexico-
grammatical means. The orientation of the original APPRAISAL framework (discussed in this post) towards
lexico-grammar limits its possible applications since many modern texts consist not only of words, but also
of such elements as images and sounds (e.g. Web texts). However, in more recent research into evaluative
means in texts has extended the application of the framework to units of visual design (e.g. Economou,
2009) which makes the APPRAISAL framework one of the most sophisticated tools for the analysis of the
expression of covert attitude through the use of evaluative language.