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

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, Körner 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.

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).

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 linguists<sup>1</sup> 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 2^nd Century Greek historian Polybius (or at least by his translator).

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 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,

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,

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,

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,

One quite common and interesting mechanism for more indirectly indicating dis-endorsement is to characterise the utterance as unexpected or surprising.

Disendorsement can, however, go beyond such `distancing' to the point of absolute rejection or denial of the attributed proposition. Thus,

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 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.

Körner, 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. & Schröder, 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.

--- 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. & Schröder, 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 Schröder 1997 and Meyer 1997), for `boosters' (Hyland 1996) and for `metadiscursivity', see (Crismore 1989).

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