ATTITUDE AND EMAIL INTERACTION: some possibilities for exploration
In this section my aim is to demonstrate by means of a close analysis of the two posts in this study, how Appraisal analysis can be used in order to investigate the discourse organisation of any text, and in particular, those texts which are persuasive, argumentative, or expository such as the two used here. To do this, I look at the realisations of semantically-related targets of Appraisal in the texts. These are generally found in sets or clusters which I contend are significant in identifying the stages of text development. In the following discussion, most of the values taken into account are those of Attitude, but values of Graduation and Engagement also interact with these in order to invoke values of Attitude, which I proposed earlier may act to signal transitional junctures in rhetorical text organisation. Thus, one of the features of text organisation in these texts that I wish to suggest, and which was introduced in section 1 above (c.f. also Appendix B1), is related to the clustering of Appraisal values themselves, and their cumulative or prosodic nature. This means that in places where the writer makes evaluations which are in any way ambiguous (able to be double-coded), reliant on shared values (evoked), or provoked via cohesive strategies in the local co-text, some sort of boundary condition is signalled. In terms of Bolivar's (2001) triadic unit of discourse structure, which comprises a Lead, a Follow and a Valuate structure, this boundary or final phase would realise the Valuate turn.
In Text1 (refer appendix1 and appendix2), the first string of semantically-related targets of attitudinal values relate to the main topic of the post which was introduced in a previous post, and quoted as a framing opening move for the text: the nature of 'task' (see also section 5 ). In this first section alone, there are 5 targets of attitudinal values that specifically mention or relate to the nature of 'task', and then this is followed by an Attitude directed at the notion of 'being in a workgroup'. A type of 'boundary target' is introduced here with a comment on the difficulty of 'meshing all this': a task in itself (1:5). Because the source of this statement is not specified, it is also difficult to assign an attitudinal value for this 'difficulty': if it is difficult for the Addresser 'to mesh all this', the evaluation may be a token of his own negative Capacity (cf. sections 1.3.1 & 3.3.3 above). The target, however, is not human behaviour in itself, but a 'task'. The lexical item 'difficult' is also different in meaning when applied to a human target: It was difficult of him to do that. Therefore 1:5 has been double-coded as both Judgement and Appreciation.
As noted earlier (3.3.3), I am regarding instances of ambiguous attitude as potential markers of boundaries between phases or rhetorical stages. In appendix B1, these doubly-coded attitudes are grouped with those of invoked appraisal (in purple) since they seem to have similar rhetorical functions in context. When calculating type-token ratios for any text (as was done in Table 3.5) each identified instance of Attitude is taken into account as if it were a discrete item: any ambiguity in construal of attitudinal value is not regarded in this sense as merely summative (in which case such double-coding would give a halved value for statistical purposes) but multiplicative. This is because sites of textual/semantic ambiguity and contradiction are assumed to occur in textually strategic locations - and thus to have significance for the rhetorical staging at the discourse semantic level of text organisation.
In the following sections, lexical items semantically related to 'work' and 'task' that figure as the 'topic' of the text are traced. These items are interrelated through both identity chaining and in their function as targets of attitude.
In the section which follows sentence 1:5, the writer deals with being in a work group/working in a group. In this section of the text, targets of Attitude relate to the writer's workday and the demands it makes of him. Here he appraises the nature of going to work, or doing a job - which, in the larger scheme of his text, he compares to the nature of 'being in a workgroup or performing a task', which in turn is the theme or topic of the text as a whole.
The last longer section of the text switches to discussing and evaluating the email list as a group and the nature of its task as he sees it. What appears as a small side-track in his discussion - in the form of appraisal sourced to his company, and targeted at 'attending a seminar' versus 'discussing work in a diner' - is actually apropos the discussion of the list as a work group. This is especially relevant intertextually since the metaphor of the diner to describe list activity is common on this list, and was mentioned in the quoted material to which the writer is ostensibly responding (c.f. section 5). In this sense, the reference to the diner is also intra-textual as well as inter-textual (within the list as community), and in addition, extra-textual (making reference to the material world of the writer, not shared by his present interlocutors). These references to entities both inside and outside the text, are taken as signalling potential transition phases in the texture of these texts, and are at the same time significant in the construction of textual identity and its relationship to Addressees - especially within these types of 'communities of practice'. The means by which such entities are positively or negatively evaluated is of fundamental importance in the construal of contact, solidarity and dis/affiliation with both members of the group and those who are constructed thereby as 'outsiders'.
One of the role relationships characterising the tenor constructed in text1 for example, is that of unequal Status, with the Addressee cast as 'welcome outsider'. The writer positions himself as having Authority in the context of the mailing list: he speaks to the Addressee on behalf of other listmembers, and takes the overall position of Primary Knower (Berry 1981), using what could be construed as an extended K1 move in the post as a series of exchange complexes, or a transaction as suggested by Hoey (1993). His positioning strategies, and this overall role relationship are exemplified by such things as use of references only available to long-time listmembers such as the metaphor of the diner mentioned above, the reference to valued texts such as Bion, a proliferation of 'inclusive-we' in subject position which also tends to mark involved Contact, the explicit naming of other listmembers, and the opening move which refers to the "rich history here". In particular, the use of extra-textual material world exemplars appears to be a strategy for making the argument less abstract and more 'world-reflecting', and thus more authoritative in terms of the expertise the writer claims via his experience of the 'real' workplace, or the field of the argument. (see also section 5).
The function of ambiguity of attitude in text organisation, and the use of strategies of ambiguity in realising positioning moves is illustrated in the final statement of the pre-closing sequence. The text's overall argument is encapsulated by the final evaluation made in the argument itself: Éthereby suggesting discussion of task can never be on task (1:27). The actual form of this evaluative move signals that a boundary condition is enacted: its position at the end of an orthographically-signalled paragraph may also have some function in this respect, but the nature of its attitudinal form enhances the status of the move on the interactive plane, as giving a final value to what appears to be the entity 'discussion of task'. The phrase '[being] on task' is seen as inscribing positive attitudinal value, but in the context of this text, 'being on task' has also been construed as a positively evaluated condition. Because the target of the Appraisal is an entity, as a nominalisation in the abstract: discussion of task; the attitude is construed as Appreciation, rather than Judgement, but it seems to function as a positive Judgement of the group's behaviour nevertheless. This is related to the reference to we in the same clause complex, as well as to the accumulated positive values implied by the phrase being on task in the whole of the previous discussion. Therefore the target of this evaluation may be our discussion of task, and thus function as a Judgement of what we do.
The counter-expectationality of this clause is set up via a long paragraph in which few values of inscribed Attitude are evident, and in which the writer reports, via a number of extra-vocalised notions, various possibilities as to the nature of task. This engenders a provoked Judgement of [normality: positive] of the discussion of task as being 'never on task', via the variety of somewhat conflicting opinions on the matter that he has just brought to notice, and setting-up in the text as a whole, positive values of [judgement: tenacity] accorded to those who undertake tasks - those who are on task. The use of suggests here serves to modalize and intra-vocalise the asserted negative conclusion of the last statement, which, at the same time functions dialogically to open the negotiatory space regarding the discussion of task, producing a type of contradictory frisson. Teasing apart the contradictory and paradoxical nature of this statement is further complicated by noting that the actual target of evaluation here is not discussion of task per se, but that of being on task itself. This meta-appraisal strategy allows the writer to make statements about norms on the list, to even evoke Judgements of propriety regarding list members' behaviour without making them explicit. This underlines for me, the writer's self-positioning in this text as Authority via expertise.
The rhetorical functionality of this statement in co-text may be illustrated by considering that, if it had appeared at the beginning of the text, the reader would have expected a persuasive argument to follow, giving reasons for the assertion that discussion of task can never be on task. Furthermore, if it had appeared at the beginning of the text's development, it would have been impossible to frame the assertion with thereby suggesting, which signals that the statement which follows is a concluding one, an encapsulation of an argument, in which the positive value of being on task has already been established, or at least, needs no more defending.
The 'non-conclusion' coming after the long consideration on the nature of task, is summed up for readers in the following "Oh well" (1:28) which effectively marks a phase boundary, underlined, of course, by the previous carriage return. The use of this discourse particle is interesting In its own right, contributing to the degree of relative interactivity constructed in these written texts, and here it involves use of one of the strategies of what I have called "mode bleeding" (see Module 2, Part I, section 3.5). The function of such grammatically moodless comments at the end or beginning of paragraphs is both interpersonally and textually motivated (c.f. Module 2, Part I, section 2.2, and Module 3). In one sense it functions interpersonally to construe a relationship with the audience in relation to his argument, and thus could be seen as a form of Engagement, while its main function here is also text-organisational, signalling a phase shift. Again, this serves as an example of what I see as the inter-relationship of the textual and interpersonal meanings of a text.
At the close of the previous, pre-closing sequence which was discussed above, phase shift was signalled in several ways. Subjects of the clauses had all been third parties (apart from one we), mostly references to 'task', with the use of 'universal present tense'. In the final closing paragraph, however, modal responsibility shifts to "I" and involves one of the only two expressions of Affect in the text. Here the writer orients to the future: given what has been discussed, 'what he can do' is to continue with everyday life with Appreciation, and Tenacity. The value of Affect is one of Inclination, again, orienting to the future.
The last target of evaluation of text1, concerned with 'what I can do', relates again to the writer's intention of carrying out his work with the 'right attitude'. This is not stated explicitly, however, and appears as a type of coda for the rest of the post, signalled by the interpersonal comment and reframe "Oh well"(1:28), as discussed above, after which the final evaluation and positioning of himself occurs:
I can still resolve to enjoy the day and squeeze the most out of the hours providence has provided. (1:29).
The intention to 'carry on' is encoded via the process 'resolve [to do s.t.]', which indicates an attitude of [affect: inclination], but in the context of this utterance, I have also interpreted it as a token of Judgement [tenacity: positive], which is 'provoked' by the scattered values of modality and Appreciation evident in this phase, especially since the emotional value of resolve is extremely low compared with its associated values of stick-to-it-ivity (c.f. above section 3.4.1). This orientation to the future is also a feature of pre-closing sequences, as will be discussed in more detail in Module 3.
Because, as pointed out earlier, text1 seems concerned with matters of Tenacity as well as those of Propriety, I now take a brief look at those values in the text before discussing similar attitudinal orientations evident in text2. Targets of these attitudes serve to create a series of attitudinal prosodies in the text, and contribute to its cohesion and texture.
Firstly, on examining the values of Propriety in Text1, it seems that at least one of them is contestable - it is in the form of what may be a rhetorical question (1:15: "Maybe it is our job to survive,"), throwing the actual value of the proposition - negative or positive - into question, especially in the light of the following counter-expectational diminishing of its 'importance'(1.15: "but it is hard to see why that would be all-important.").
Instances of [engagement: entertain] exemplified by the first modalized statement of sentence 1:15 sometimes appear to signal a counter to come, as in this case. These tend to function both at the level of tenor as a strategy of concession which acknowledge the views of an unstated other before offering the writer's own view on such an attitude 'out there', and at the same time as a type of textual frame in the unfolding of the discourse argument. It remains to be investigated in detail whether these strategies are prevalent in the discourse of the wider corpus.
Of the rest of the identified values of Propriety in text1, 3 are made through extra-vocalised sources of authority (1:4, 1:27) and another as a generalisation (1:24). Those in 1:27 are conditional Judgements, - in this case, they are framed by 'if' - which signals that these are forms of what I am calling 'veiled directive': negative or positive appraisal of human behaviour which has not yet actually occurred. The behaviour will be judged according to the conditions specified. Another two Judgements of propriety are apparently sourced to the writer (1:9, 1:11), since he appears to take responsibility for the arguability of the clause:
Ex. 4.2:
I must aid the company in any legit way to help it make a profit (1:9)
Ex. 4.3:
My goal ... for this day is ... to tell no lies, hurt no one on purpose,
and be a good citizen...( 1:11)
but even here the values of Propriety are either evoked by an assumed value system - even though the tokens legit and good could be said to inscribe positive Judgement - or provoked through their association with modality and other associated positive values. This narrows the responsibility the writer takes for the values of [judgement: propriety] he expresses in the text, and indicates that the writer in this text at least, has adopted a strategy of judging human morality in a circumspect manner.
Values of [judgement: tenacity] identified in the text fall more naturally into a pattern: the first (1:11) is a provoked value of tenacity made through a description of the way he spends his workdays, construed via a means of graduation in the way his goals for a workday are listed. The next two are the evaluations made by his company management concerning the appropriate way to spend company time productively - this involves a contrast between the negative attitude it holds for the attending of seminars, versus the positive attitude it holds for talking in the diner across the street(1:20).
Because the email list activities have often been likened to talking in a diner, and because this metaphor has been activated by the quotation as frame to this text, such an expression of positive attitude linked to list activities as task, functions as a bridging phase for the sustained series of [judgement: tenacity] values which follow. The targets and sources of the Appraisal are in contrast to the rest of the text, and so this section could be seen as a phase which uses real-world, extra-textual examples to make the evaluation, especially in the light of the boundary or transitional phase realised by the moodless clause 1:18a. In the section which follows sentence 1:20, targets of Appraisal change to that of the group list activities, all construed as positive. The one negative value in this section is targeted at other similar groups who 'do not achieve as much as our group does'. And, as pointed out above, the final stage, or rhetorical unit of the text, summarises this orientation to the nature of task as a function of values of tenacity, by resolving to make the most of the day (1:29), and closing with a future action which takes him to work (1:30). The one negative value in this section is targeted at other similar groups who 'do not achieve as much as our group does'(1:24).
In text2, the main topic identified by the targets of Appraisal, is similarly focussed on the nature of groups, and by implication, the nature of the email list group in which the writer participates. This group is specifically referred to in several places, but some of the attitudinal values towards the actions of this group are expressed via identifying it with 'disrupted families', and the negative values implied in relation to their actions. Despite there being a relatively large proportion of Affectual values identified in this text, still the highest proportion of Attitudinal values overall is that of Judgement.
As was commented upon earlier, many values of Judgement are implied (evoked or provoked) rather than inscribed in any text, via values of Appreciation, or more commonly, Affect. An implied Judgement of negative capacity was identified in (2:18) for example, in which the writer expresses surprise that no one identified a new member as a possible source of list activity. Commonly, values of Affect may act to concurrently invoke values of Judgement.
In the first half of the text the argument is dependent on a series of attitudes negatively evaluating the actions of the email group. The first part of this argument relates the targets of evaluation to groups in general, and the nature of communication within groups. In this section, the theme of 'honest communication' is explicitly valorised, and it becomes a recurrent theme throughout the text. For example, at the end of the first section/beginning of the second (2:8) the target of Appraisal which is introduced is the 'new group member' to any group, which is then likened to a new baby in a family. The theme of families and their reactions to new babies is then taken up as a target for evaluative statements in this phase of the text, which coincides with the second paragraph/passage of the post. Near the end of this passage the writer declares that she does not evaluate this email list as a 'dysfunctional family', although, via this form of Engagement [disclaim: deny], the suggestion that it might be seen as such is made explicitly for the first time (2:14). The use of negatives to imply the positive, and to construct the audience as having such a shared view is well-documented (e.g. Pagano 1994), and in this case it is used to construct the audience as entertaining such a proposition. Module 3, Chapter 3 surveys the function of negatives in these texts to construe audience attitudes in this way.
In this last section of the second paragraph/passage in text2 an overall negative assessment is made of the actions of members of the email list who have treated the writer, a new member, as an intruder. Certain members are singled out for positive evaluation however, and these are members who engage in 'honest communication'. In this manner, her earlier affectual declaration (2:5) that she "values honesty in communication" is underlined and exemplified. It also works towards a provoked Judgement of veracity here, both negative and positive depending on who has displayed this honesty in the context of the interaction.
Already it can be seen that the two texts differ in the ostensible targets of appraisal that function cohesively. At the same time, the 'impled' targets of the appraisal for both texts I argue is that of the list('group') members themselves, and that in this way, these two texts position readers differently which in turn constructs two very different textual identities.
As was done with text1, the nature of the targets and sources of the most favoured attitudinal values employed in text2 will be briefly commented upon in order to demonstrate the differences in strategies adopted by each writer in constructing their positions, and hence their arguments.
Earlier I noted that values of [affect: insecurity] were prevalent in this text, as well as those of [judgement: capacity]. In the first two expressions of [affect: insecurity] noted in the text, both the group and the writer are assessed as the target of the Insecurity of the other, after which the group is evaluated as Insecure about honest communication (2:5). This becomes a trope of the rest of the text, and is only brought out again in the final closing sequence where those who are willing to be honest are positively evaluated in a complicated rhetorical move complex (2:30 - 2:34) which is dependent on the previous values set up during the development of the text overall.
The next instance of a value of [affect: insecurity] is said to be directed towards the new baby by 'disrupted family' members (2:12). Group members in general are then said to be Insecure about the group's stability (2:16), and the writer then claims to be Insecure about the group's non-actions (2:18). Lastly there is a declared Insecurity about the self in relation to the writer's lack of knowledge about the workings of the net (2:23). In terms of list jargon, these targets would seem to show a textual persona suffering from 'projection' of her own negative Affect (insecurity) towards the group in which she is participating. Already this in contrast to the attitudes towards the group as represented in text1.
Values of [judgement: capacity: negative] in the text are related in some degree to this insecurity linked to the writer's declarations of ignorance about the net and email groups. One of the consistent attitudinal stances throughout this text is the attempt to valorise 'honesty' in communication via a series of attitudinal statements about those who she sees as having been 'honest' and those who are appraised as insecure in this regard. The writer's argument centres on the valorisation of honesty over capacity, and such capacity as linked with 'innocence' rather than 'skill'.
For example, one of the writer's opening moves in this post is to declare that she 'obviously needs information' (2:2), in effect setting herself up as ignorant of protocol and knowledge. A value of [judgement: capacity: positive] is then targeted at new members who are capable of refreshing the group (2:9): obviously those ignorant of list protocol as well. New babies follow as targets, evaluated positively by no traceable source, due to their ability to force changes. The last positive evaluation of capacity in this section is targeted at those families who 'feel mutual love' in their ability to change without negative consequences when a new baby arrives. This is linked to the final negative evaluation of the email group in this section (2:14) which is done via [capacity: negative: denied] - the writer sets up a negative assessment which is denied, thus claiming, not that she positively evaluates the list-as-group's capacity to function, but that she does not say that it isn't capable!(2:14)
As noted earlier, the use of negation, what Tottie (cited in Pagano 1994) calls 'implicit denial', is significant in determining attitude and stance in these texts. Under Engagement, negation falls into the category [disclaim: deny], and often serves to close down or contract the negotiatory space by implying that what is held as true or as consensual knowledge on the part of hearers and Addressees, is not the case. In one sense, this could be construed as the writer/poster appearing to claim that s/he can read the interlocutor's mind. In another sense, and in the view which is being adopted here, the writer/poster is able to position the Addressee(s) as having the opinion or viewpoint which is negated.
In the example presented above, the writer constructs the
Addressees/Overhearers as viewing her as making a negative assessment of them:
the group. She implies that they have this idea about her attitude, by denying
that she has such an attitude - or at least, she denies 'stating or implying'
such a thing. The actual value of [judgement: negative propriety] is not fully
realised until the end of the paragraph when it is provoked through a series
of descriptive and evaluative contrasts (2:15). By this means, she is able to
construct a negative attitude for her audience - without explicitly saying so.
One of the main uses for the Appraisal framework is in revealing ways in which
the Addressees and/or Overhearers are constructed in texts, especially in the
context of this type of interactive mode. In this text the collectivised group
members are negatively evaluated in this way. In contrast, the actual nominated
Addressees are generally positively evaluated.
The final closing move complex concentrates these values:
I know there are people here who fear me, they have reason to, I am not safe. I am as dangerous as anyone here who is willing to be honest. (2:33 - 2:34)
As with text1, all three attitudinal categories, Affect, Appreciation, and Judgement are represented in the final pre-closing sequence. There is also a final provoked (and possibly evoked) negative appraisal of the 'people here who fear me'. Those who fear her are represented as in fact fearing to be honest. The final sentence here sets up a double value of provoked propriety, both positive and negative directed respectively at two different groups (those willing to be honest and those who are not), as well as setting up a condition. It is thus a fitting closing move in that it marks an intense clustering of interpersonal positioning dependent on the encapsulation of a string of co-textual referents, and the use of indirect ambiguously construed appraisal.
The rest of the Judgement values of Capacity in Text2 seem to deal with the writer's own assessment of herself. For the most part they are positive assessments and evaluations. One exception is when she claims an inability to follow up her inclinations to talk about many subjects because she must finish her work, so that the negative Capacity is construed positively through a parallel value of positive Tenacity (2:20). This statement occurs at the beginning of a passage at the point where the writer changes her orientation from a discussion of theoretical issues - families, systems theory, group dynamics - to the topic of her own impressions. This evaluation is analysed as provoked [judgement: capacity: negative] via a token of (evoked) [judgement: tenacity: positive], which once more serves to demonstrate the discourse organisational significance of these types of implicit and double-coded values of Attitude.
The other exception is the occasion where she repeats in explicit terms or inscribed [judgement: capacity: negative] her 'ignorance' of email and net matters: "I am ignorant of the Bionic approach to group dynamic and I am ignorant of List operations and jargon"(2:22). On the other hand, seen in the context of the writer's following but, these two initial clause groups in the utterance may be said to serve as [engagement: proclamation] to set up the context for the alternative positive self evaluation: "but [counter-expect]I am not ignorant to life" (2:22).
In the next section, both texts are briefly discussed as contributions to an interactive context. The quoted "framing moves" used by each to set up the topic of the texts are examined to demonstrate how they are used by writers to re-contextualise contributions, and how each text can be viewed as a coherent repsonse to previous contributions.
Next: Section 5: 5. The Construction of an Interactive Context
Back: Section 3: 3.5. Using Attitude in Textual Analysis
Appendix 1: Text1 and Text 2: Appraisal Tagged
Appendix 2: Text1 and Text2: Attitude Tables