Previous PageNext Page

Return to listing of notes in this Guide | Return to Appraisal Homepage

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 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 was beautiful 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 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 most beautiful 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 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 separates APPRECIATION (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 the building 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 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 JUDGEMENT value, 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

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'?

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 pas?

Judgement - indicates incapacity on Sophie' part

- Sophie

Bold and bright, the Countess's rainbow display at Royal Ascot

Appreciation - a positive aesthetic quality of the 'rainbow display'

+ outfit

3. THE start of Royal Ascot yesterday ensured a rainbow of fashionable colours on the racecourse.

Appreciation - social value attributed to colours

+ clothing generally

And most, it seemed, beamed out from the Countess of Wessex's striking outfit.

Appreciation

+/- could be either pos or neg, though striking more likely to be positive than negative
outfit

Sophie arrived at the Berkshire course in a striped confection

possible Appreciation

+/ (?-) (presumably, at least in fashion parlance, "confection" is positive - see footnote2)
outfit

that ensured fashion rather than racing was the main talking point in the enclosures.

possible token (implicit) Attitudinal indication directed at Sophie, but not clearly articulated

+ or -
Sophie

While the Queen settled for restrained coffee and cream, and the Queen Mother her favourite lilac,

Appreciation

+ Queen's colours

Sophie's choice ensured maximum attention.

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 being a class fashion act.

Judgement - indicates her fashion incompetence

- Sophie

At her sartorial best, she was a pallid imitation of Princess Di.

inscribed Appreciation, if we take this as a comment on her appearance.
token (implicit Judgement) if we take this as indicating that she lacked inspiration/imagination - that she was a "copy-cat" (imitation as a form of fashion plagiarism)

- Sophie

She's never had the body, the legs

Appreciation

- Sophie

or the style (1) imagination to look as (2) stunning as Diana.

(1) Judgement - she lack the necessary intellectual resources
(2) Appreciation

1. - Sophie


2. + Princess Di

But she usually (1) passed muster well,
at least, (2) didn't offend.

1. Appreciation
2. Affect

1. + Sophie
2. + Sophie

Yesterday at Ascot, however, she appeared to have taken leave of her fashion senses.

Judgement

- Sophie

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)

 

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

1. Affect
2. Appreciation

1. - outfit
2. - outfit

What on earth was she thinking when she decided 'This suit is for me'?

Judgement - reflects on Sophie's intellectual capacity

- Sophie

And what sort of person would let her walk out of a store looking like that?

Judgement - reflects on the capacity of her "advisors"

- Sophie's staff

Perhaps it's an act of rebellion that she is not prepared to lie low after her recent PR indiscretion.

Judgement

- Sophie

Who knows? But the colours certainly gave me a headache.

Appreciation

- outfit

Part 2 - Argument: :Pro

   

Target of Evaluation

NO Says Brenda Polan.

   

SOPHIE'S Ascot outfit is quite the most light-hearted, cheerful twinning of skirt and jacket one can imagine.

Appreciation
Here see an interesting use 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.

+ outfit

The four colours sugar pink, tangerine, lime and blue are exactly those that fashion loves this summer

intriguing personalisation of "fashion" thus, literally, Affect, but metaphorically Appreciation

+ outfit

and the Neapolitan ice- cream effect ensured the suit was eye-catching enough for a royal

Appreciation

+ outfit

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 the capacity of her couturiere/tailor
2. Appreciation

3. Judgement

1. + couturiere


2. + Sophie
3. - Sophie

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.

Judgement

+ couturiere

The resulting outfit is certainly more risque than usual for Sophie

Appreciation

ambiguous as to +/-
outfit

who has always demonstrated impeccably restrained, even subdued, good taste in her public persona.

Judgement

+ Sophie

But judging by the pearl hat, the gloves and little bag, the Countess lost a little of her nerve at the last minute

(possible token of Judgement, perhaps negative in that it implies Sophie might have been more "courageous" or "confident"

Sophie

and decided on neutral accessories to tone down this most extraordinary outfit.

Appreciation

+ 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

Target

 

Text 2. Pro Text

Target

Judgement

- Sophie

 

Appreciation

+ outfit

Appreciation,
token (implicit) Judgement)

- Sophie

 

Affect,
Appreciation

+ outfit

Appreciation

- Sophie

 

Appreciation

+ outfit

(1) Judgement
(2) Appreciation

1. - Sophie
2. + Princess Di

     

1. Appreciation
2. Affect

1. + Sophie
2. + Sophie

 

1. Judgement
2. Appreciation

3. Judgement

+ couturiere
+ Sophie
- Sophie

Judgement

- Sophie

 

Judgement

+ couturiere

(possible token of Apprecation, depending on one's fashion sense/knowledge)

   

Appreciation

ambiguous as to +/-
outfit

1. Affect
2. Appreciation

1. - outfit
2. - outfit

 

Judgement

+ Sophie

Judgement - reflects on Sophie's intellectual capacity

- Sophie

 

(possible token of neg Judgement),

- Sophie

Judgement - reflects on the capacity of her "advisors"

- Sophie's staff

 

Appreciation

+ outfit

Judgement

- Sophie

     

Appreciation

- 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 couturière. 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.languageofevaluation.info/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.


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: Corpus-Confection for some illustrations.

Previous PageTop Of PageNext Page

Return to listing of notes in this Guide | Return to Appraisal Homepage