ATTITUDE AND EMAIL INTERACTION: A framework for exploring textual identity and negotiation in email interaction
1. Introduction
1.1 Overview
The set of papers under this title were originally Part II of a Module addressing questions related to the construction of textual identity and interpersonal roles and relationships in the unfolding of the discourse of two texts, concentrating on the language of evaluation. It was originally submitted for assessment under another title to the University of Birmingham in 2003, and its aim was to set out the main methodological issues attendant on the use of the Appraisal framework in the analysis of written contributions to an electronically-mediated discussion. This is an edited version of the original thesis chapters.
Two texts discussed below were used as illustration for an outline of the Appraisal framework (Martin 2000, 2000b, Martin and Rose 2003, Martin and White 2005, White 1998) and the discussion shows how these texts, as contributions to an ongoing 'written conversation', may be located as responding to previous contributions in an interactive context. The discussion expands on a notion of relative interactivity which was outlined in Part I of the original module, (section 3.6: "Dimension III"), and also introduces a discussion of Engagement, part of the Appraisal framework. In order to explore issues of interactivity in written group contexts, and the co-positioning of textual personae, the Appraisal framework, in particular the system of Attitude, is presented both as a means of investigating textual identity and evaluative positioning, and as functioning in the organisation of the text via its evaluative strategies. While the previous paper ("Mode and the construction of interactivity in an email list") focussed on elements of the material context of situation and aspects of the expression plane of discourse, the chapters in this paper explore the ways in which messages interact with other personae in the group, as projected by the evaluative moves and rhetorical strategies they employ in their posts.
A number of approaches to analysis based on Appraisal are used in the following discussion [note1]. The aim is to show how patterns of discourse organisation which contribute to the construction of textual identity may be highlighted in expository discourse units through investigation of their evaluative elements. 'Textual identity' is a label for a generalisation based on the contributions made by a poster(s) to the list. It can also be applied to any corpus of texts penned by one identity. Part of this textual identity, labelled evaluative disposition, is based on an analysis of preferred attitudes and orientations evident in a corpus of texts written by the same poster identity. While textual identity is treated both as a result of positioning and/or representation of self and others in texts over time (including the use of a generalised set of linguistic conventions), evaluative disposition refers specifically to the favoured and sometimes differentiated use of attitude resources of specific "poster identities" (henceforth 'posterID').
Each text or 'post' to the list is regarded as an instance of list/group practices, and each member who posts such messages to the list must choose the extent to which s/he adopts and reproduces list conventions. Textual identity can be partly attributed to how the writer creatively uses such conventions in order to interact with other members of the list. Conventional - and other - formatting for example serves as framing signals for content in order to enhance coherence. Discursive conventions at the level of 'content' are also implicated in the reproduction and creative re-use of group practices. In the discussion which follows, the focus is on the discourse semantic features of two texts as instances of group practices, while the main function of the discussion is to provide an illustration of how the appraisal framework has been applied to the analysis of a set of texts representative of the interactive context.
Such a discussion relies on system - an interrelated set of linguistic practices - as given, and examines typical realisations of attitude in the lexicogrammar which give rise to discourse semantic meanings in context. Thus, the perspective on the texts relies on the existence of both English language 'conventions' at the level of culture and list/group conventional practices, as well as on context of situation as 'thread'. While each text is considered an instance of group practices in action, the primary aim of the discussion which follows was to illustrate how attitude analysis may be used in further research in this domain.
This type of approach can be used for making observations regarding the context of situation, in particular the 'norms' of the discourse-using community in which they take part. Observations of recurrent patterns in a larger corpus of texts contribute to the specification of the "rhetorical organisation potential", or typical generic staging of these texts, and findings are presented in detail in Don 2007. An account of the possible interpretations of each rhetorical unit of text as an instantiation of a wider set of potential meanings was a particular challenge addressed in this study. Part of this accounting is inevitably intertextual in nature: all text-units are part of a larger set of texts, either as a class of similar texts, or as part of a chain of on-going textual events. In attempting to find a basis for analysing discourse as a 'chain of on-going textual events' (i.e. from a fundamentally dynamic perspective) the thesis of which this set of chapters is a part is concerned to identify interpersonal positioning strategies as an essential component. This perspective approaches each text as logogenetically developed (see for example, Halliday & Matthiessen 1999, Martin & Rose 2003), and as making meanings in co-textual configurations pointing both forwards (prospectively) and backwards (retrospectively). This type of approach becomes especially significant in overtly interactive contexts such the textual events comprising the email list under investigation. As Martin & Rose (op cit: 87) observe,
the positioning of participants is often ...covert, and can only be brought out by analysing their participation as a text develops.
What this means is that the default location of any text is heteroglossic space-time (Holquist 1990, Baxtin 1978 [note3]). So that, while interpersonal positioning moves can be located at specific junctures of a particular text, the relationships constructed between writers and their audience is cumulative in nature, and needs to be regarded as both a product of the whole text, and from the perspective of the text as a function of the abstract 'social space' in which it participates. However, as soon as this social space is invoked, its boundaries in space-time need to be delimited for analytical purposes, since meanings need to reference the synoptic perspective as well, a perspective which takes into account the 'class of similar sets of texts', including those not part of the immediate context of interaction.
A related difficulty for this type of investigation concerns the nature of the framework introduced here, a framework which aims to uncover patterns of interpersonal evaluative positioning in texts. Appraisal analysis is conceived of as a typology, as a covariate system of choices (Lemke 1985), yet it depends almost entirely on discourse semantic features of text - on interpretive probabilities. This means that boundaries between categories are almost impossible to assign any absolute form-function relationship, unless appeal is made to both co-text and context of situation and culture. Intertextuality is effectively the key, and assigning category membership to formal elements - especially in terms of attitudinal and positioning strategies - using the Appraisal framework depends very much on reference to intertextual knowledge: the analyst needs to take the role of ethnographer and the reading position of participant-observer. The Appraisal framework presented here is therefore augmented by reference to that part of heteroglossic space which is engendered by intertextuality, something which the framework itself does not attempt.
The nature of the difficulties referred to here is addressed by Martin & Rose 2003):
Grammatical analysis is concerned with distinguishing between and accounting for all types of figures and their elements, and a lot of time can be spent on classifying more delicate or borderline categories. Discourse analysis on the other hand is concerned more with relationships between figures and their elements as a text unfolds. Grammatical categories underpin the analysis of discourse, but are not its primary goal. (pp. 81-82)
In this thesis, semantic categories underpin the analysis of the discourse, but the primary goal is to identify patterns of linguistic interaction which constitute some of the unmarked (or 'normative') social practices of the written speech community under investigation. These generalised social practices are seen as taking part in a two-way realisation relationship with texts themselves (and the various units of analysis on which each analysis may focus), and so analysis of whole texts, the units which comprise them, and their rhetorical organisation must form the basis of the research. However, at the other end of the spectrum - the wider contexts in the language-using culture, its institutions, and the conventionalised interpretation of particular formal elements - research would involve large corpus studies of a wide variety of texts. This is an area of future research into the validity of analyses using the Appraisal framework. One possible avenue for pursuing this type of research is suggested by the results of corpus analysis on the nature of 'semantic prosody' (e.g. Louw 1993, Hunston 2001).
Tacit group norms are the product of ongoing social practices which structure the abstract social space in which interaction takes place. Each text can be viewed as an attempt to negotiate legitimate positions within this social space, and to contest the norms in some cases by naming and defining the nature of the social space, and the roles of the actors who take part. In this sense, interpersonal positioning strategies create the abstract social space in which legitimate interaction may take place.
This thesis takes the position that the 'value of evaluation' (Hunston 1989, 2000) can be equated with the social value accorded to various positioning strategies such as naming practices and reference, or having specialised orders of discourse (big 'D' discourses Lemke 1995) recognised as legitimate means of representing 'reality' within the social space. This includes the power to position the self as having the power to define social space. As Chouliaraki & Fairclough put it, "..the network of orders of discourse is not a simple positioning device but a resource in interaction which can be drawn upon more or less creatively in ways which themselves depend on positioning within that network." (1999: 58).
At the same time, the means of evaluating persons, actions/events and things negatively or positively within these practices is, as hinted at above, field specific to a large extent:
"valuation is especially tied up with field, since the criteria for valuing a text/process are for the most part institutionally specific" (Martin & Rose op cit: 64).
Within the list in this study, those with knowledge and institutionally recognised status within the field of psychology were more confident of engaging in valuation and taking positions with repsect to previous contributions. In the context of the mailing list as a written speech community of practice, and in the context of the immediate field of discourse represented by the dynamic relations between contribution and response, the question becomes what positioning strategies are being used by each participant in their texts. Furthermore, how do positioning moves function as strategies for signalling affiliation (dis/alignments of solidarity according to contact/familiarity, axiology/value system, status/power) or construct the Addresser/writer/poster's relationship to the persons, groups, events, and ideas represented in the text as it unfolds in discourse time, and how are these legitimised?
Consider the case where a post is responded to negatively, or when positions are rejected (challenged) in any response. My approach regards these junctures as indicators of some form of boundary, or norm maintaining event. Each text (or part thereof) acts as both a response to what has already gone before, and indicates any orientation to expected responses (interactive prospection) - in this way contributing to the legitimate reproduction of positions, roles, and relationships in this mode. Responses of any type orient to the previous contribution(s) in a variety of ways, and these orientations to response are organised at several layers within the post, serving to frame the response and underscore the meanings they make. The organisation of responses - the phasing, or periodicity and prosodies of their arguments - both enact and challenge group norms. Moreover, the responses which contributions actually engender can serve as a means for investigating whether certain styles of discourse can predict further responses. These questions motivated the research for this thesis, and the initial methodology is partially addressed in the course of these chapters.
The two texts used in this discussion are edited posts, written by two different poster identities whose personal evaluative styles were felt to differ in their use of lexicogrammatical resources. In general, editing of any posts in this thesis is only done to remove extraneous text - for example, reproduced posts that are not the focus of analysis, sections of the header, especially full names and email addresses, sig files that are long or which include addresses or company names, and so on. Some texts have also been sentence-numbered for ease of reference, and the fonts, line-wrapping and other features have sometimes been changed so that the texts are easier to read.
Here the two posts used were chosen more or less at random, and mainly for length and similarity of formatting (for example, less quoting of other posters, and a less obviously interactive dialogic text (the [b] "relevance-in" style (c.f. Module 2, Part 1: section 3.5: dimension II. i. [b]; and below section 5), and so the topics discussed, and therefore arguments made, are not obviously similar. Both posts are, however, ostensibly discussing the nature of email interaction itself, if from different perspectives, and so something of the nature of their differences in approach may be gleaned through a comparison of the attitudinal values evident in each text, since in effect they each share the same field.
The motivation for choosing these two texts is also related to the motivation for choosing to look at the interaction of an email list in particular, as distinct from any other text-type or contextual configuration: the whole of the context can be regarded as available to observation, since the archives represent the extent of the co-text at its widest limits. Possible interpretations can be checked against actual responses, and the on-going textual events and the negotiations over norms amongst the participants are all recorded as one logogenetic product.
From my experience as a participant-observer in this community, it appears that many contributions are engendered by a need to be recognised, or a need to have one's voice validated by others in the community - to 'manage one's image' as Goffman (1959, 1967) might put it. In other words, no matter what the ostensible topic or field of discussion might be, each contribution is concerned to construct an identity or persona via alignment with sets of values and/or affiliation with other participants. This tends to put all interpersonal meanings at risk in such an environment, and contributions appear to be the sites of contestation over legitimate behaviour and expectations, sites where ideological assumptions are always in play. From this perspective, the two texts chosen represent useful examples of the nature of this contestation, but for the same reason, they pose challenges for the Appraisal analyst.
Text1 was originally 29 sentences long, while text2 was derived from a post comprising 38 sentences altogether, but whose 'body' was felt to be complete after sentence 34, since the poster 'signed off' using a closing remark, followed by a postscript (c.f. appendix ). In terms of generic structuring and rhetorical staging, this allows a comparison of the texts as complete units. At the same time, it also allows an investigation of the ways in which appraisal analysis can be revealing of how staging takes place in both texts: the choice of the texts using the 'relevance-in' style was done advisedly in order to provide such an opportunity since these posts are comprised of sustained expository discourse.
In determining the unit sentence, orthographic signalling such as fullstops and capitalisation took precedence over independent clauses, and therefore the terms 'clause' and 'clause complex' will be reserved for particular classes of sentence. Reference to the texts will be made to text1 and text2 (reproduced in appendix), sometimes followed by the clause complex (sentence) number. For example, reference to text2, sentence 24 is in the form 2:24.
In the excerpt which follows (Ex.1.1), sentences 1:1 to 1:12 of text1 are reproduced, and values of Attitude have been tagged. These sentences realise the first orthographically-signalled paragraph in the text. The use of colour to highlight different types of Attitude enables any regularities, or clustering of evaluative positioning to be observed. The framework itself will be presented in detail in section 3 below, but some idea of the nature of the text and its use of evaluative positioning in a type of meta-evaluative field can be gained by the first paragraph reproduced here.
Briefly stated, the system of Attitude is concerned to identify all types of evaluative assessments, either negative or positive, which may appear in texts. The framework recognises three sub-types of Attitude: Affect (concerned with assessments based on emotional responses), Judgement (concerned with assessments of human behaviour and social norms), and Appreciation (concerned with assessments of objects, events and artefacts in terms of aesthetic and social value). The framework also makes a distinction between those Attitudes which are inscribed or made explicitly, and those which may be implied, or activated in the text by other means (invoked). In addition, each subtype of Attitude recognises a variety of sub-categorisations. These appear in the excerpted analyses below, and will be used in later discussions of the two texts. Analysis is not complete when instances of Attitude are all coded, however. This represents the first step, after which the analysis is expanded to take note of the targets and sources of the Attitudes and their realisations from a discourse organisation perspective. All of the issues touched on above, will be taken up again in further detail in Sections 3 and 4 below, while findings based on analysis of a wider set of texts in presented elsewhere [note2]
Types of attitude:
Red = Affect
Blue = Judgement
Green = Appreciation
Purple = double coded, or provoked/evoked Judgements
1The concept of "task," has a rich history here[appreciation: valuation]. 2Not only is there a common sense meaning of task as the job to be done,[appreciation: valuation] but it is a technical term in Bion's group psychology. [appreciation: valuation: evoked via reference to valued discourse] 3I have been one to see task as analogy -- harking back to its roots in "tax" or an onerous tribute to be paid[appreciation: reaction: negative] [via contrast with next clause?]. 4In Bion, it has more positive [appreciation: valuation: positive]connotations, and being a work group in accomplishment of a task is not only healthy [appreciation: valuation: positive] but morally good[judgement: propriety: positive]. 5It is hard to mesh all this.[appreciation: composition: complexity: positive][judgement: capacity: negative?] 6I set out to work at the warehouse this morning. 7I will have a task, I suppose, [modalization: probability]or various ones. 8I must [modulation: obligation] unload some trucks. 9I must [modulation: obligation] aid the company in any legit way to help it make a profit[judgement: propriety: positive: provoked: via series of obligations + legit way]. 10I must [modulation: obligation] fit myself into the sometimes odd[appreciation: reaction: quality: negative] social scheme there[judgement: tenacity: positive: provoked: via graduation and repetition]. 11My goal, however, [counter-expect: retro]for this day is to have as pleasant and as delightful [appreciation: reaction: quality]a day as I can [modalization: ability][judgement: tenacity: provoked: via Appreciation of his identified goal] -- to tell no lies, hurt no one on purpose, and be a good citizen [judgement: propriety]while squeezing the best out of whatever situation I may encounter.[judgement: tenacity: positive: provoked - from sentence 6 on] 12Out of this fluid [appreciation: complexity]plan for the day, one that will most likely[modalization: probability] materialize, which activities constitute 'tasks.'[rhetorical question]
This example shows one pattern immediately: a lack of red - no values of Affect are apparent in this section of the text. Moreover, Judgement (evaluation of human behaviour), is always made in the environment of Appreciation (evaluation of 'objects' - see below section 3). So that, it would appear that this writer is concerned to evaluate without the use of any inscribed Affect, and that Judgement is perhaps justified by reference to Appreciation of states of affairs and products of human endeavour.
Going one step further than merely identifying instances of attitude involves an examination of what the targets of these evaluations are - who or what is being evaluated, and investigating how this figures in the development of the role relationships being construed in the text overall - and hence the ideological alignments that seem to be legitimated in this way. The ways in which appraisal analysis may be used to investigate positioning and persona in this way is extended in Chapters 4 and 5 of the thesis (Don 2007). In the excerpt above, while the overall target of the evaluation is the "nature of task", the writer uses examples from his own worklife to make positive Judgements about himself. Moreover, both texts rely to a large extent on invoked or implied appraisal - values of Attitude that contrast with attitudes which are made explicitly, or inscribed in the text. Purple highlighting used to draw attention to invoked instances of attitude is also used to draw attention to instances of 'ambiguous' evaluation - propositions whose exact targets or evaluative positioning with respect to those targets, cannot be determined with certainty through lexicogrammatical features alone. The topic of invoked or implied appraisal will be addressed again below in section 3.3.3, but briefly stated, Appraisal values can be invoked in two ways: through either provoked or evoked Appraisal. These depend on either Engagement values (section 2.3) in the immediate co-text to 'provoke' an attitude, or local value systems 'evoked' by experiential meanings.
In Example 1.1 above, the colour patterning suggests that this paragraph is composed of two broad rhetorical text units, or phases (Gregory 1985), with the transition phase occurring at 1:5 - at which point the evaluative function of It is hard to mesh all this remains ambiguous. In this clause there appears to be some evaluation being made, but the exact position of the Addresser in relation to all this is not clear.
This type of ambiguity in positioning can be regarded as a textual strategy (akin to the use of ideational and interpersonal metaphor), in which propositions with either ambiguous or implied evaluative positions are marked in co-text, and may act to 'articulate', or provide transition points in the development of the text's organisation. By using the term 'strategy', I do not imply that these are necessarily conscious acts on the part of the writer, but that such moves realise strategies for text organisation that are 'picked up', or responded to on the part of the reader.
Because a reader may need to, unconsciously perhaps, spend more time processing such a proposition due to its very ambiguity, I suggest that these types of clauses in which evaluative positioning is unclear act as 'speed bumps' in the development of the text's organisation. Macken-Horarik takes such a view one step further:
...within texts, it's implicitly evaluative meanings that are most coercive of the reader simply because they appear to pass beneath the threshold of conscious awareness. (2003: 314)
One observation that analysis has provided is that both provoked and evoked Appraisal appear in both texts at regular intervals, and generally in the penultimate sentence of each paragraph (their proposed function in the rhetorical organisation of texts in general, and this e-list interaction in particular is set out below in sections 1.4 and 4 below, and expanded in Don 2007). The colour-coding of the two texts also allows a visual comparison of the preferred attitudinal values used by each writer. The most conspicuous difference seems to be in the appearance of values of Affect. Example 1.2 below gives an idea of how the patterning apparent in the first paragraph of text2 differs from that used in text1 above.
2I'm glad [affect: happiness]you answered Roy's question because it is obvious [modalization: probability]that I need information.[judgement: capacity: negative: evoked?] 3I do feel 'under the microscope'[affect: insecurity: provoked?] as any new member is going to feel, and be, in any group (not just the Web). [judgement: normality]4In my expectation to be targeted, I had anticipated [affect: disinclination: via the following expectations of negative emotions directed at herself]\\ curiosity,[affect: inclination] fear,[affect: disinclination] jealousy,[affect: insecurity] among others, but [counter-expect]not [neg-pol]suspicion,[affect: insecurity] and particularly [graduation: focus]of my identity.... this is, in my experience, unique [graduation: focus]to the Web.[judgement: normality: negative] 5As for stating your suspicions or doubts, I value honesty [affect: satisfaction]in communication and would rather [modulation: inclination]hear your fear, suspicion or doubt [affect: insecurity]directly [graduation: focus]than to hear their echoes in all [graduation: force]of our exchanges or in the poverty [appreciation: composition: negative]of our exchange.[judgement: propriety: provoked: via positive evaluation of honesty and negative evaluation of exchange otherwise] 6I usually[modalization: usuality] find that exchanges between two people are largely[graduation: focus] superficial [appreciation: composition: negative]until they risk the truth [judgement: tenacity]of their feelings and thoughts toward each other. 7Roy got the brunt of my indignation [affect: dissatisfaction]because he was trying to be honest about his perceptions of me.[judgement: veracity]
Whereas text1 as a whole reveals the use of Affect in only two (significant) positions - in the middle and at the end of the text (c.f whole text in Appendix), the writer of text2 has employed values of Affect throughout. Example 1.2 above demonstrates this contrast immediately, and shows how Appraisal analysis can reveal stylistic differences in the type, and amount of evaluation used, as well as the dispersion of such values in textual organisation. This may be done with single texts, but more revealingly, in collections of texts representative of specific writers or groups of writers. In sections 3 and 4 below, such values and patterns of Appraisal in the two texts will be discussed in more detail.
In these 2 short excerpts it can be seen, however, that the opening paragraph of text2 does have some similarity with that of text1, since it also appears to be comprised of two broad rhetorical units, whose juncture is marked by the transition from values of Judgement and Affect, to values which also include Appreciation (highlighted in green). This transition, at sentence 2:5, also includes a token of provoked negative [judgement: propriety]. The nature of provoked Appraisal means that negative Judgement, or threat of sanction, can target unnamed individuals and use no inscribed evaluative positioning of behaviour (Judgement) at any specific point in the proposition under focus. I have treated such interpersonal junctures in texts as signaling a phase shift (Gregory, 1985), and these instances of marked or ambiguous evaluative acts are often accompanied by other markers of prospection and/or encapsulation. A short survey on the use of these signals in mapping text organisation is presented in Don 2007. Meanwhile, further examination of the texts from which the above examples were taken is discussed below in section 3.3.3 on provoked and evoked Appraisal.
Analysed texts to which references are made in the course of this module, appear in the Appendices as Text1- Simon, and Text2 - Sarah (appendix1). Tables which summarise the Attitudinal values identified in the two texts are also included in the Appendix as Table 1- SIMON, and Table 2 - SARAH (appendix2).
I am suggesting that positioning strategies are very much dependent on accumulated values in co-text, and on the organisation and development of Appraisal in any text. Section 3.3.3 below therefore introduces an extended discussion on provoked and evoked Appraisal which depend to a large degree on the 'texture' of the text and accumulated co-textual references. Prior to this, however, it seems important to note that the construction of textual personae which is both at stake in texts of this type, and which may be revealed by Appraisal analysis, is not merely a matter of the appearance of certain attitudinal positions as discrete, countable, tokens in a corpus of texts, and similar in flavour to the work done by Biber (1988 inter alia), but that their location in the unfolding of the discourse is an integral part of the realisation of interpersonal meanings, and hence registerial tenor. In systemics, interpersonal meanings are regarded as realising tenor, but because Appraisal, as part of interpersonal discourse semantics, appears to depend on related meanings that are made at the level of the textual metafunction (collocation, ellipsis, conjunction, repetition, theme-rheme development) both systems of meaning-making need to be acknowledged as contributing to the development of poster-audience roles and relationships via positioning.
In the two texts which have been analysed for values of both inscribed and invoked Appraisal, it is evident that values of invoked Appraisal -- both evoked and provoked -- tend to appear at specific junctures in the text, most obviously in the last or second last clause complex of orthographically-signalled paragraphs in these two texts. Other examples of this style of expository text showing similar patterns suggest that paragraphs may have some loose internal organisation that is activated by interdependent evaluative statements. One aspect of such an organisation is that transition units may be signalled by implied rather than explicit evaluation, that is, they can be regarded as using 'strategies' through which the interpretation of evaluative positioning is less easily made.
On the other hand, as Hunston & Sinclair (2000: 80) point out, the placement, or actual 'structural position' of language units in any text often overrides their constituency in determining whether the unit is regarded as (negatively or positively) evaluative. Yet another way of regarding the organisation of example 1.2 above would be to see it as setting out a situation, and a set of problems in that situation ('problems' including a negative evaluation of the situation), with sentence 2:7 representing a response to the problems. The solution in the case of this text, is yet to be introduced.
Hoey (1991 [1983]: pp. 9-15) suggests that paragraphs are chained or linked together by means of cohesive ties - especially those which signal that an idea is complete - but that internal organisation of paragraphs is not regular. Without wishing to claim that there is any recurrent constituent patterns which hold for any paragraphs or for any genre, evaluative positions revealed by Appraisal analysis may be as important as thematic structure, cohesive ties and matching relations, for tracing the means by which writers organise their texts - especially in persuasive, argumentative, or identity-managing texts such as the ones found in this email list. This thesis contends that rhetorical text units are semantic, (as distinct from structural units that might be revealed by analysis confined to the level of lexicogrammar, and the sentence), and may override any orthographic means by which such utterance boundaries are signalled. This is seen as analogous to the nature of moves and move complexes outlined by Ventola (1988) for spoken interactive texts based on service encounters, and the notion of exchange complexes discussed by Hoey (1993), in which he proposes that the 'interactive development' of a text be linked to its Theme-Rheme development. In this approach, transactions (in the sense of the IRF framework of Sinclair & Coulthard) are classed as an unordered sequence of exchange complexes. The sequencing of exchange complexes in this model, he suggests, could be mapped on to the identification of 'stages of dialogue' in his Problem-Response framework in which negative evaluation of a response does not signal an exchange boundary so much as a Re-Initiation in the sequence.
Francis (1994) offers another finding which enables support for the organisational function of evaluative elements as revealed by Appraisal analysis in texts of this type. She points out that 'labelling discourse' has "a clear topic-shifting and topic-linking function" and that retrospective labels in particular, have the ability to present the argument up to that point as 'fact', since the "head noun of a retrospective label is always presented as the given information in its clause" (ibid: 86). This suggests the possibility of a link between the nature of provoked Appraisal and the use of retrospective discourse labels, especially those that occur in paragraph intial positions, or hyper-thematic sentences.
The idea of rhetorical text units as used here also has much in common with that oulined by Gregory (1985), and by Cloran (1993). In Gregory's approach, transitions are regarded as variable rhetorical units which mark textual boundaries between other rhetorical units which Gregory calls phases, and these are signalled by linguistic features that are marked in co-text. For email interactive texts the problem of deciding on the boundaries of an exchange (or 'interactive unit') are multiplied, and therefore the concept of the move and the move complex which theoretically would comprise units in any exchange - or even exchange complex - can be highlighted by looking at the nature of the evaluative positioning taking place in the co-text: its appearance and distribution. The nature of this evaluative positioning is in turn dependent on textual meanings, i.e. the wave-like phasing of text-units in coherent texts. This thesis takes the position that the Appraisal framework, a sub-system concerned with interpersonal meanings, must also refer to the nature of co-textual organisation (logogenetic development) in order to categorise these meanings, and ultimately must also make reference to a text's intertextual location: the institutionalised genres and orders of discourse to which each text refers. The framework as a tool for analysis is thus more concerned with the instantiation of evaluative meanings in individual texts, while it is also dependent on wider social systems of meaning developed within genres and institutions over time (a sub-set of phylogenetic development).
Notions of move and exchange complex, together with the idea of a dialogic orientation of Addressers to a projected/constructed audience (the interactive prospection to responses or 'Ideal Reader') therefore form the tools for proposing the rhetorical organisation potential of this context of interaction in this work. The positioning strategies in which Appraisal values play a part, means that targets and sources of evaluation are part of positioning moves and strategies in a text's organisation. The concept of 'position' itself cannot be specified except in relation to some other position. Hence reference is made to co-positioning strategies, and an abstract hierarchy of roles, relationships and positions, in turn based on a notion of registerial tenor. Thus, targets of evaluation may of themselves act to construe dis/alignment of the writer with other values associated with these targets. Sources of Appraisal are similarly significant in construing the type of dialogic space enacted between appraiser and appraised. Section 3.6 below discusses the sources and targets of the attitude values identified in the texts as illustration.
This means that Appraisal values, seen only from a synoptic perspective, or treated as a set of discrete items across texts, are only able to reveal a writer's or an institution's favoured means of representing the world in statistical terms. It is possible to extend these statistical profiles in terms of periodicity as well if instances of appraisal are tracked across a text's development. It is likely, for example, that two texts, or the corpora of two writers, will use quite similar types and proportions of attitude values overall, whereas differences in alignment and positioning with respect to addressees and ideal readers may become obvious when targets and sources of these attitudes are factored in. Moreover, differences in the ways in which readership is projected is also a matter of the deployment of engagement resources. Engagement is discussed below in section 2.3.
Strategies for positioning the self in relation to others, and others' ideas, are regarded as constructing the abstract 'social space' in which social actors may 'behave'. At the same time, many of the social practices referred to in discussions onlist are undertaken in the material world, separate from list social practices. These "material world practices", however, are used as identity markers, justification for textual identity, and positioning of the self in the context of the email list group as well. The argument in text1, for example, through the overt use of analogy, compares and relates 'real world' practices to the practices of the email list and its members. While text2 also uses analogy with real world social practices, it rarely refers to them explicitly, and so the identity of the writer of text2 remains a 'textual identity' only, and its positioning strategies relate mainly to the abstract social space of the written speech community itself. When, however, it does refer to the actual material world of the writer (2:20; 2:35-2:35a), these are marked in co-text and contribute towards the organisation of the text as well. The writer of text1on the other hand, makes explicit use of reference to his 'real world' activities, drawing parallels with it and the argument he is making regarding the online world.
As outlined previously, the value of analysing written interactive texts in contexts such as an email discussion list as I am doing here, also lies in the opportunity it affords for checking actual 'overt', i.e. written responses (c.f. section 5 below) to previous utterances. By doing this, it is possible to observe the evaluative moves by which writers structure their texts, and the interpersonal positioning strategies they realise. If such evaluative units are selected at specific types of Transitional Relevance Places (TRPs), or what have already been determined as move complex boundaries in previously posted messages, it would provide an indication that the nature of the positioning strategies evident in any contribution can predict types and/or content of responses (see also Ravelli 1995: 202).
It is the purpose of the remainder of this module to present the methodology which will inform the research and results presented in the final chapters of the thesis.The Appraisal framework is introduced in the following sections as capable of revealing some of the textual patterns at the discourse semantic level. This framework, it is suggested, can be used as an effective tool for tracing text organisation via evaluative positioning moves. In turn, such evidence of textual patterning across a corpus of texts - whether from a particular mode of interaction (register), genre, or from the works of one specific writer - can be used to show what regularities are evident in either specific corpora, or in cross-corpora comparisons. Also, as suggested in Part I, this framework provides tools which are useful for the description of the context of interaction of email lists such as the one used in this study - for example, the degree of interactivity evident in these texts. The introduction to this framework will be illustrated by detailed discussion of examples from the two chosen texts in order to demonstrate on what basis some of the more extensive analysis reported in the thesis will be conducted. The Appraisal framework is a means of categorising evaluative moves and the strategies they comprise by reference to textual and experiential meanings as well as those of the interpersonal: this is because the framework is conceived as super-ordinate to the lexicogrammar and refers to discourse semantic entities.
Within Appraisal, the subsystem GRADUATION describes a means by which the evaluator (usually the 'Addresser', poster, or writer in email modes, but often attributed to other sources) can intensify/ measure, and/or amplify ATTITUDINAL or ENGAGEMENT values. GRADUATION is therefore considered to operate across Appraisal categories. The two main dimensions of GRADUATION as set out in White (1998) are those of FOCUS and FORCE.
FOCUS describes the degree to which a quality can be said to 'sharpen or soften' evaluative attitudes, and are sometimes glossed as 'hedges'. Under Focus, according to White (op cit): "scaling operates in contexts which are not gradable …or where the communicative objective is not to grade ..the lowering and raising of intensity is realised through the semantics of category membership …through the sharpening or softening of semantic focus" (III.5(b)). In the two texts analysed here, there was one useful example of FOCUS, where a writer either 'concentrates' or sharpens the intensity of the qualities introduced, (e.g. *this was central to his argument), or softens the attitude (e.g. *he sort of gave up). Focus can also be described as the degree to which a value is represented as peripheral or central to some 'core meaning'. The writer hedges the negative Judgement of Tenacity levelled at other groups with the phrase in some sort of objective sense in 1.24, while in sentence 1.26, although this is not strictly an example of either Focus or Force used to Graduate an obvious Attitude, it may signal that an Attitude is thereby being made: one of the base analogies of science that defies definition.
FORCE, on the other hand, is a means of scaling Attitudes through various linguistic means such as grading ("In some families"; " with a minimum of negative feelings and consequences." 2:11), numbering (*there are several things wrong here), repeating (*it was terrible, terrible), citing quality ("these radical shifts and changes" 2:11), or using metaphor (*he was up to his ears in debt), for example. Force may be realised by separate lexical operators (very, to some degree, a bit, etc), or it may involve intensification in the grade or scale introduced within a lexical item expressing ATTITUDE, for example, like versus love versus adore. Martin & Rose (op cit: 38-43) offer a number of examples of how sets of 'graders' might be activated in context. In the analyses which I have attempted here, values of GRADUATION were tagged in the text itself, but since their main function is to contribute to the signification and scaling of ATTITUDE, very few of these appear in the tables. This was because the occurrence and patterning of Attitudinal values was the focus of the study, rather than the scaling of these Attitudes. The occurrence of GRADUATION in a text, however, can sometimes function as an indicator that some form of evaluation is being expressed, much in the same way that negative polarity can alert the analyst to an evaluative position that is acknowledged through its negation.
Engagement provides a means of highlighting how Addressers can indicate, readers may interpret, and interpreters identify, signals as to the state of the relationship constructed between Addresser and Addressee and/or Overhearers at any one point in the discourse. It is construed as operating via two inter-related but independent typologies outlined in the sections below: from one perspective, the dialogistic (or 'heteroglossic', versus 'monoglossic': Martin & White 2005, White 2003) which either contracts or expands dialogic 'space'; teamed with, from the other perspective, intra-vocalised versus extra-vocalised (or 'attributed') voicing.
The first of these axes is concerned with the degree to which the Addresser or writer makes reference to, and/or assumes alignment with extra-textual 'voices' and texts. Such reference I see as related to the concept of intertextuality. Distinction here is between monoglossic utterances, those which report on reality with no reference to any other opinion or voices as informing what is being reported, and, at the other end of the scale, heteroglossic utterances. In this sense, the utterances of a so-called monoglossic text, or section of text, in extremis, may show very little use of attitudinal resources, or they will be expressed as 'averred, non-sourced assessments', whose opinions or value judgements need not be supported, accounted for or modalized, not even by an authorial "I" (or 'by me', 'mine', etc) as Subject location. The appearance of any pronominal referencing the self would serve to indicate that at least one voice is foregrounded, and this would thereby be less monoglossic than an utterance in which no 'voices' or sources were acknowledged at all. In the tables which detail the Attitudinal values identified in the two texts, such monoglossic utterances have been tagged as 'averred: non-sourced' (after Hunston, 2000, c.f. below).
Briefly, the heterogloss-monogloss distinction attends to whether the proposition or utterance is represented as in any way contingent on subjective positioning (dialogised), or whether it asserts a proposition as 'fact', unmodalized and non-evaluative (undialogised). Within the dialogised or heteroglossic dimension, Engagement is concerned to note whether the dialogistic space is expanded or contracted by the means of representations used to frame the proposition. The abstract concept of space is used here to reference dimensions already in use in construing interpersonal meanings, such as contact/familiarity (along a cline of 'involved' <--> 'distant') and status/power (along a cline of 'equal' <--> 'unequal'). From the perspective of voicing, the categories 'expand' and 'contract' overlap with those of intra-vocalised and extra-vocalised. Under vocalisation, categories are oriented to tracing the source of the responsibility for the arguability of the utterance - when intra-vocalised these are seen as located in the subjectivity of the writer/Addresser, and when extra-vocalised the source of the proposition is located elsewhere. This issue is expanded further below.
Uner Engagement, certain 'locutions' are seen as functioning in relation to these axes to construe values of an ‘instructional’ nature in relation to the unfolding of the discourse and its interpersonal meanings: they may set up values for the interpretation of what follows, or the re-interpretation of what has gone before. They may acknowledge differences of opinion via concessions, the quoting of outside attributions, or the use of interdiscursivity. These opinions may, in turn, be positioned as laudable or laughable, for example, in the context of other values indexed in the same discursive frame.
Stubbs (1996: 211) makes a similar observation about the use of modality in text organisation: "Markers of commitment and detachment are instructions to interpret utterances in more or less rigorous ways." Sinclair (1993 inter alia) refers to a level of discourse known as the interactive plane, an organisational level of discourse that is textual in function. This plane of discourse 'prospects' the nature of the textual organisation, enabling a reader to 'predict' what is to come. Martin & Rose (op cit: 83) refer to 'expectancy' in textual organisation, and link this term with the function of various types of conjunction. This idea of 'speaker' orientation towards the readers and their expected interpretations is extended under Engagement, and discussed briefly below. The notion of interactive prospection introduced in section 1 above refers to all those indicators in a text which signal that the writer is aware of the possibility of a response, and thus refers to both textual and interpersonal prospections. It is this concern to map the voice, or interpersonal stance of writers in relation to their implied interlocutors which perhaps distinguishes the goals of appraisal analysis as a tool for revealing evaluative strategies in texts.
Hunston (2000: 188-192) outlines a framework which covers a considerable part of the semantic territory dealt with by the Engagement system and accordingly it is necessary to at least briefly outline the similarities and differences between the two approaches and thereby to explain what rhetorical phenomena the Engagement framework is specifically equipped to deal with. In Hunston's framework "the distinction between the self and other as source has been given priority over the grammatically distinguished averral and attribution" (op cit: 190). Each of these frameworks has a slightly different focus and provenance. For example, as will be discussed in more detail below, the Engagement framework is entered from a dialogistic perspective, and so its first distinction is between heterogloss and monogloss, where heteroglossic propositions are those which indicate co-positioning of interlocutors in any way. Hunston's framework is more concerned to trace the source of the proposition in either the self as writer, or some traceable 'other'. Both of these options are dependent on more or less explicit reference to sources in the co-text, so that if the source of a proposition is determined to be 'self', it is also either averred or explicitly attributed to the self. Averral in turn, may be sourced or non-sourced. The differences in perspective mean that there is no possibility of any one-to-one mapping of Hunston's framework onto the categories of Engagement, although the categories overlap since each has similar concerns. For example, many of what Hunston classes as sourced averral statements would be distinguished under Engagement as a variety of categories, depending on whether they acted to expand the negotiatory space and indicate the contingency of the statement, or whether they acted to close down any negotiation - unless Addressees were prepared to call the veracity of the statements into question. At the same time, and in a similar vein, Engagement is concerned to note whether the voice is primarily self or other - who does the writer represent as taking responsibility for the arguability of the proposition.
For example, for one of the propositions Hunston cites (op cit:192) "Gibraltar is a ... by all accounts not very prepossessing colony," under Engagement the underlined section would be treated as acting to expand dialogic space by means of [attribute: acknowledge]. The voicing of the proposition in this case is regarded as extra-vocalised, as 'hearsay': acknowledge. In Hunston's framework, on the other hand, the responsibility for this type of statement is located in the 'self as default', as averral, and sourced in an implied consensus. Even without the reference to the extra-vocalised 'source' of the assessment regarding 'Gibraltar', in a bare assertion such as Gibraltar is a not very prepossessing colony the negative in this clause also covers its arguability, and thereby acts dialogistically to contract the negotiatory space at the same time. Under Engagement, the function of the negative also operates to construe the subjectivity of the Addresser at work, and so would be classed as intra-vocalised in this case, whereas in Hunston's framework it would then be classed as averred: non-sourced.
Under Engagement, adverbs of 'concurrence', many of which are modal adjuncts (Halliday 1994: 82-83) such as naturally and obviously, are treated as signalling intra-vocalisation: concur. In the case of modal adjuncts such as certainly and undoubtedly, their function is much less certain, and may act to signal intra-vocalisation: pronounce, depending on co-text. In Hunston's framework these lexical items may act to signal sourced averral similar to the example cited above, and thus responsibility for the 'assessment' they frame is treated as originating in the 'self', while the 'basis' for the assessment is sourced elsewhere.
Engagement treats interpersonal metaphors of modality (standing in for modals of probability such as perhaps, probably, maybe, etc) such as I think, it seems to me, I wonder, I suppose, and so on, as 'framing' the evaluation in any projected statements, and tend to signal what it terms as [intra-vocalisation: entertain], again dependent on their co-textual function (cf. below Tables 2.1 and 2.2). For Engagement such locutions act to signal that the proposition is grounded in the subjecthood of the speaker/writer and that, therefore, the proposition is being represented as contingent - as just one of a possible range of positions which might be taken. The text in this way allows for or 'entertains' these dialogic alternatives. In Hunston's framework, these would be classed as attributed: sourced: self: emphasized. Projecting clauses in this sense, tend to identify the attributed source of the statements in both frameworks. In general then, the two frameworks, while concerned to address the representation of the social space in which interaction occurs, regard its construction from slightly different vantage points.
Hoey (2001) also maintains that written discourse is itself based on an interaction between the writer and the imagined reader, and that texts can be effectively analysed by regarding them as contributions to an ongoing dialogue. The fact that email-list interaction allows actual responses to be made may mean that these types of textual-interpersonal meanings, or orientation to audience members, are particularly evident in these types of texts. It is suggested that these interactive prospections contribute towards the degree of interactivity or 'involvement' evident in texts created in this mode, and at the same time, operate to signal textual staging via interpersonal prosody, or overlapping 'fields' (Young et al 1970). I see this as analogous to the notion of a 'rhetorical text unit' as I am using it here, and to Gregory's (1985) notion of phase.
In summary, units of analysis realising provoked Appraisal are variable, and while values of Attitude may be located in discrete lexical items or phrases. It is also generally the case that overall values of Attitude derive their meanings cumulatively from their relationship to other Appraisal values, such as Engagement, as well as the interpersonal and experiential meanings in larger discursive units such as paragraphs and even texts as a whole. In accounting for the dynamics of this email list's interaction, and in proposing a rhetorical organisation potential that will characterise the patterns of interaction in this community of practice, a large part of analysis of attitude will depend upon findings of analysis under Engagement, particularly those areas which are implicated in provoking attitude readings. The rest of this section is therefore concerned with how Engagement figures in the analysis of attitude.
The following tables represent a summary of the main resources for construing dialogistic, or heteroglossic positions in texts, firstly viewed from the perspective of whether the utterance acts to contract or expand the dialogic space between the Addresser and the intended recipients, and in the second table, from the perspective of the internal or external voicing of the text. The categories are illustrated with examples from the corpus of texts used in the analysis. Each excerpt is followed by the text file tag. Those appearing in square brackets are taken from texts other than the two which are the focus of this module. The letters within the brackets refer to the thread name (e.g.'wvn'), followed by the post number in terms of its chronological appearance onlist, then the post in the thread, and finally the sentence number. Lexical items deemed the 'trigger', or node item of the engagement have been underlined.
1. Disclaim:
Deny: e.g.
An open system is not defined by public archives and open subscription, it is defined by how a family responds to its new babies and external influences.(2:17)Counter: e.g.
..Roy, as father or older brother, was assigning roles for the purpose of helping my older siblings feel safer, important and loved, but his Diane child saw the false security in that approach..(2:21); Maybe it is our job to survive, but it is hard to see why that would be all important..(1:15)
2. Proclaim:
Concur: e.g.
I'm glad you answered Roy's question because it is obvious that I need information (2:2)
Pronounce: e.g.
I believe that I have treated people here with respect and on occasion have demanded the same.. (2:32) I proclaim TRIPLE BULLSHIT!![wvn60.23:1]
Endorse: e.g.
I know there are people here who fear me, they have reason to, I am not safe. (2:33)
1. Entertain:
e.g. I wonder if "task" is not a bit like the physicist's "force" or Susan's "power."(1:25); Maybe it is our job to survive, but it is hard to see why that would be all important..(1:15)
2. Attribute:
Attribute/Acknowledge: e.g.
In Bion, it[task] has more positive connotations, and being a work group in accomplishment of a task is not only healthy but morally good. (1:4)
Attribute/Distance: e.g.
anyone who claims I'm cold, formal, and avoiding affect... is a fucking jerk. [jvs170.29:20] É her husband, John Goydan of Bridgewater, claimed the pair had planned a real tryst this weekend at a New Hampshire bed and breakfast. [gen96.4.4]
Table 2.2:
Deny: e.g.
I do not state or imply that ND is a dysfunctional family but in many ways it is a closed system - this was my first observation from the comfort of my former observerhood.. (2:14) ..why shouldn't wide-talkers handle *their* feelings of constraint.. [wvn27.5:7] ..in reality there is *no confidentiality on the net*[sftA1:2]
Counter: e.g.
I have forgotten most of my Systems Theory but I remembered enough to understand why there were fears among the group of its eventual self-absorption or withering demise.(2:16) ..it makes room for the non-specialist, yet it also ceases to be as effective..[wvn37.9:20]
Concur: e.g.
*Everyone, naturally, knows how to behave in these circumstances
Entertain: e.g.
Maybe it is our job to survive, but it is hard to see why that would be all important..(1:15); I wonder if "task" is not a bit like the physicist's "force" or Susan's "power." (1:25); We must converse in writing, I suppose (1:14)
Endorse: e.g.
In my first post I attempted to do four things: 1. to respond to Eileen's plea for the group to wake up from its complacency - one of her posts stated so clearly to me her desire to shock herself and the group out of their sleep - (2:24) Though we represented different camps -- and our sigs showed it! -- I felt we reached some common ground in those discussions.[sft59.22:11] I even assumed that it had been a by-invitation-only group before the Tracy trauma until Simon set me straight. (2:15)
Acknowledge: e.g.
Attending a seminar would be viewed suspiciously [by my company] as a waste of valuable company time while being part of the collection in the diner across the street is considered a promotion earned by keeping ones nose to the grindstone..(1:20)
Distance: e.g.
"Gator" was coined (by?) [someone] to compare certain subscribers to the urban-legend alligators that dwell in New York City sewers and allegedly crawl out of the drain in one's toilet or bathtub [jvs18.5:8] anyone who claims I'm cold, formal, and avoiding affect... is a fucking jerk. [jvs170.29:20]
adapted from Martin and White (2005)
In the following utterance for example:
Not only is there a common sense meaning of task as the job to be done, but it is a technical term in Bion's group psychology (1.2),
Not only signals a textual prospection (as distinct from interpersonal prospection which is concerned with orientation to Respondees), via the negative, acknowledging the dual definitions of the topic, 'task', before the writer does so: in this case, the signal functions at an 'interactive' or discourse-organising level to alert readers that there are two items of information to follow, while at the same time acknowledges the lack of a single viewpoint for the benefit of readers . The function of not here frames and denies the only meaning of task. An alternative rendering of this information without the signal might be: There is a common sense meaning of task as [--], and there is [--] meaning as well. The connection with textual metafunctionality and the arrangement of Given and New is, of course, relevant in this expression as well. Here, Not only is semantically charged with the possibility of another meaning of task, while at the same time, it functions dialogistically to shut down the viewpoint in which the 'common sense meaning' might be the only one, contracting the heteroglossic space via an unmodalized monologistic statement - [disclaim: deny]. The grammatical structure uses Not only to introduce a dependent clause with the process and subject in marked position, while in the proposed counter-example, There is introduces a clause which is independent of any additional or co-ordinated (paratactic) clause which might follow. The construction not only... but also is conventionally two-part, linked to an expected counter.
Within this monoglossic statement, however, is the extra-vocalised proposition regarding the meaning of task that is attributed to common sense : 'the job to be done'. The typology extra/intra-vocalisation notes the source of the proposition - for example, when intra-vocalised, there is some indication of subjectivity, representing propositions as contingent and therefore negotiable, and hence 'dialogistic'. Therefore, for the first clause of the cited utterance above (Ex 2.1), there are two propositions, one un-dialogised (monoglossic), the other dialogised and extra-vocalised: that 1) there is a common sense meaning of task, and that 2) common sense defines task as the job to be done. This second embedded proposition would be classed as acting to expand the dialogic space by means of [attribute: acknowledge].
Also in the cited utterance (Ex 2.1:1:2) above, there are two intertextual referents: common sense meaning and Bion's group psychology. To the extent that the utterance refers to voices outside the text in this way, it can be classed as constructing a somewhat heteroglossic space. However, these assessments on the nature of task are undialogised as far as the Engagement system is concerned: they are neither graduated nor 'hedged' by the writer. This means that even though the clause complex acknowledges outside voices, thus sourcing responsibility for these 'meanings of task' in extra-textual entities (Bion is later used in sentence 1:4 as an extra-vocalised source of a proposition), the fact that it is a technical term in Bion's group psychology is presented as non-negotiable, as fact, and as not available for argument. We, the audience, are not given any other information - at least within the confines of this clause complex - as to the relative validity of the proposition, nor is Bion's group psychology made authority for any attributed proposition here.
In order to highlight the difference, the statement could be re-written as:
*It would seem that not only is there a common sense meaning of task as the job to be done, but it is a technical term in Bion's group psychology
In the made-up counter-example above, the complex has been modalized with an (objective explicit) interpersonal grammatical metaphor (c.f. Halliday 1994: 355) which is used to indicate the degree of probability for the proposition, while at the same time, its interpersonal function indexes a writer who more or less takes responsibility for the probability of this proposition, and it is therefore intra-vocalised (entertain), and at the same time, dialogistically expansive. The fact that it is, as Halliday terms it, an 'objective explicit' grammatical metaphor, serves to narrow the negotiatory space more than, for example a 'subjective explicit' interpersonal metaphor, such as I've heard that, might do. Strangely, given Halliday's categorisation of this as 'subjective' via the reference to the self, the frame I've heard that.. would be classified as extra-vocalised (hearsay: attributed to an unspecified source: acknowledge) in the Engagement model. The relative degree of dialogistic expansion in this case would be achieved by means of the unspecified source of what has been heard, and that the writer must locate the validity of the hearsay in him/herself, thus representing the proposition as contingent on the validity of what the writer has 'heard': the source of the proposition.
On the other hand, for the frame It would seem that.. the writer would be representing the framed proposition as more generally held to be the case, certainly able to be 'entertained', even though the source of the proposition itself is intra-vocalised. A more 'contractive' negotiatory space therefore, construes the propositions and proposals made, as relatively non-negotiable.
In other systems, such indicators might also be classed as 'hedges' or 'politeness'. For example, in We must converse in writing, I suppose.(1:14), the writer uses a modal of obligation directed at an inclusive we (the group - all people/readers onlist); and in the same message, he also signals that this may not be the only position regarding this necessity. He steps back from asserting that we must converse in writing by acknowledging himself as the source of such an assessment, via an interpersonal metaphor (standing in for a modal of probability) as comment adjunct framing the whole proposition: I suppose.
This also means that within utterances of an overtly extra-vocalised (heteroglossic) nature, monologistic utterances - or 'bare assertions' presenting non-modalized non-contentious (with respect to in-group) orientations to propositions - could also be made via direct quotation and other attributions. This does not mean that the overall 'message' (i.e. of the clause to use Hasan's definition - see for example 1996: 117) is monologistic, since it is overtly extra-vocalised, but that the framed proposition may act to introduce such bare assertions. Indeed, this is generally the function of extra-vocalisation, in that it removes responsibility from the writer as the source of authoritative non-negotiatory positioning. In the email list on which this study is based, overt extra-vocalisation, i.e. quoting of outside sources (as well as the use of quoting parts of previous messages to simulate interaction), is often used as a means for bringing evaluative commentary into the discussions.
In texts from this context of situation, where norms of interaction are dependent to a large degree on assumed knowledge, the power of intertextual reference in constructing the audience cannot be under-estimated. An example of this can be seen in the opening clause of Text1 "The concept of task has a rich history here", which also functions to acknowledge the diversity of voices in the projected audience. The interactants (that is to say the other list members who had previously been discussing the 'concept of task') are objectivated (cf. Van Leeuwen 1996, and discussion in Module 1) via a representation of them as a location or space circumstantial to the process: here. Through this construction, the writer acknowledges that he is not the first to discuss this concept onlist, and in this manner, his opening clause functions as both setting and theme for the text, as well as retrospectively and inter-textually alluding to other members of the group who have made contributions to discussions of this concept in the past. Again, although this would function intertextually to open the heteroglossic space for the reading of the text, via allusion to the idea that the writer's opinions are just one of many on the topic, under Engagement, such a statement is monologistic to the extent that it makes an unmodalized bare assertion that such is the case. Furthermore, some cases of intertextual reference dependent on assumed knowledge and past experience group discussion, or history, can be seen to function to contract dialogic space for those who may be new to the group or unfamiliar with such historical references. This topic is addressed again below in section 4.1.1.
The Engagement framework does not specifically address this aspect of positioning which relies on intertextual reference - including reference to other interactants, or to specialised terms relating to orders of discourse outside, or inside the list discussion - what is normally addressed under Field. This is partly because Appraisal is located within the interpersonal and it is concerned with the arguability of clauses, and hence their relative negotiability. However, naming, personal pronoun use, and other aspects of interpellation and referring practices are located at the juncture of the interpersonal and the ideational. Accordingly, this thesis takes into account findings related to the use of list-specific intertextual referents to mark list boundaries and norms - referents which act to construe the audience and Addressees as privy (or not) to particular sets of knowledge, and as included or dis-affiliated via such naming and referring practices.
Values of Engagement are therefore implicated in construing the perceived relationship between any writer and their audience, as well as contributing to what Sinclair (1993), Hunston (2000) call the 'interactive plane', relating to the structural staging of any text. In the accompanying analysis of two example texts, values of Engagement were noted only in passing and are not demonstrated fully - although instances of extra-vocalisation are noted in the tabulated analysis. However, from the foregoing discussion it is evident that investigating textual patterns in terms of their Engagement values can provide means of understanding the interrelated aspects of the discourse organisation as well as construction of identity and positioning in email interaction. Analysis of a wider range of texts in the final chapters makes further use of Engagement in order to investigate the positioning moves, construction of stance, and rhetorical staging of these texts as a means of characterising relative interactivity and involvement. These strategies in turn, contribute to the construction of tenor in these texts, and to what I have been calling the norms of interaction of this discourse community (c.f. Part 1: section 3.6.III). The Engagement framework can be used therefore, in order to account for dynamic patterns of interaction - as well as the possible reader interpretation of texts, as revealed in the types of overt responses (replies) they engender.
In the following section, the subtypes of Attitude will be introduced in more detail, in the context of illustrative examples from the two focus texts in this study. ====
[note1] Module 2 is comprised of 2 Parts: I and II. "Attitude and email interaction" reproduced here represents Part II. Part I is a discussion focussed on features of the context related to mode, e.g. channel and medium, material context of situation, elements of formatting common to email list behaviour and so on. It can be accessed here.
[note2] The thesis using this framework (also known as "Module 3") was in preparation at the time this web-version was first published on the internet (20/9/05). It is now available in PDF form on this site
[note3] "Moreover, we somehow make sense of every phenomenon, that is, we include it not only in the sphere of temporal-spatial existence, but also in the meaning sphere. This making sense includes an element of evaluation. But the question of the form of being of this sphere, and the question of the character and form of the interpreting evaluations, are purely philosophical (but not of course, metaphysical) questions which we cannot discuss here. The following is of import to us: whatever these meanings, in order to enter our experience (our social experience) they must receive some temporal-spatial expression, that is, take on a semiotic form which we can hear and see (a hieroglyph, a mathematical formula, a verbal linguistic expression, a drawing, etc). Even the most abstract thinking is impossible without such temporal-spatial expression. Consequently, entry into the sphere of meanings can only be achieved through the gates of chronotopoi." (Bakhtin 1978: pp.527-528).