APPRAISAL framework: Evaluations

in language
BLOGONLINGUISTICS ♦ NOVEMBER 10, 2013 ♦ 7 COMMENTS

APPRAISAL resources (Martin & White, 2005)

Today I would like to speak about the APPRAISAL framework (aka “APPRAISAL
system”, “APPRAISAL theory”). Using the overarching framework of systemic
functional linguistics (SFL), Martin and White (2005) developed an elaborate
system allowing linguistic analysis of a text from the perspective of the evaluative
properties of this text. The APPRAISAL theory is concerned with a) how text
producers (writers or speakers) construe particular authorial identities for
themselves, b) how authors align/disalign themselves with actual or potential
respondents, and c) how writers or speakers construct an ideal audience for their
texts (Martin & White, 2005; Pankovskyi, 2013). Martin and White (2005) explain
that the APPRAISAL framework is based on the notion of stance: “appraisal is
probably most closely related to the concept of stance” (p. 40), which depends
heavily on the idea that “whenever speakers (or writers) say anything, they encode
their point of view towards it” (p. 92).
The centrality of the concept of stance for the APPRAISAL framework is explained
by the fact that the evaluative language used for the formation of a stance comes
directly from the author’s own attitude which may be expressed either explicitly or
implicitly. The APPRAISAL framework sees declarations of attitude as
“dialogically directed towards aligning the addressee into a community of shared
values and belief” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 95). Thus, declarations of attitude not
only serve the purpose of stance taking by communicating the author‘s own attitude,
but are also oriented towards aligning the listener/reader into an axiological
community by offering to share the author’s attitude (Pankovskyi, 2013). In other
words, the APPRAISAL framework analyzes how the writer’s/speaker’s attitude is
expressed and how it is directed towards aligning the reader/listener into a
community of shared values and belief. For example, often, the author does not state
overtly his/her position, but the APPRAISAL framework allows an analyst still to
discern it through the analysis of the author’s use of language of evaluation. The
application of the APPRAISAL framework may yield rich results in the sphere of
journalism since overt stance or judgement are often undesirable in this context.
Nonetheless, the APPRAISAL framework may be useful in showing that despite the
intention to be as unbiased as possible, discourse is never completely deprived of the
author’s stance, even if this is not stated overtly.
The APPRAISAL framework has a ramified structure allowing it to recognize even
slight expressions of attitude. Three main resources of the framework are:
ENGAGEMENT, ATTITUDE, and GRADUATION.
1) ENGAGEMENT is “directed towards identifying the particular dialogic
positioning associated with given meanings and towards describing what is at stake
when one meaning rather than another is employed” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 97).
It consists of two distinct resources:
a) monoglossia – no references to other viewpoints (e.g. the sky is blue, the Earth
goes round the sun, etc.) and;
b) heteroglossia – references to other viewpoints (e.g. according to astronomers, the
earth goes round the sun, Astronomers, “The Earth goes round the sun.“; the
astronomers are convinced that the earth goes round the sun; the astronomers
confirm that the earth goes round the sun, etc.).
2) ATTITUDE is “concerned with our feelings, including emotional reactions,
judgements of behaviour and evaluation of things” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 35).
It consists, in turn, of three resources: AFFECT, JUDGEMENT, and
APPRECIATION.
a) AFFECT – resources for expressing emotional states and responses (e.g. shining
with joy, nasty, sad, positive (about a person), happy, etc.);
b) JUDGEMENT – resources for expressing norms (e.g. right, wrong, ethical,
responsible, etc.) and;
c) APPRECIATION – resources for expressing tastes aesthetic likes/dislikes (e.g.
beautiful, unattractive, yummy, simple, etc.).
3) GRADUATION deals with “grading phenomena whereby feelings are amplified
and categories blurred” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 35). It is divided into two major
resources: FORCE and FOCUS.
a) FORCE – resources used as “adjustments” of the degree of evaluations. It is
subdivided into raise (e.g. better, best, yes-yes, yes!, YES, really big, etc.)
and lower (e.g. a little, a bit, somewhat, least bit, etc.);
b) FOCUS – resources used in the non-gradable context, it “has the effect of
adjusting the strength of boundaries between categories, constructing core and
peripheral types of things” (Martin & White, 2005, p. 37). It is subdivided
into sharpen (e.g. award-winning, all alone, etc.) and soften (e.g. sort of, kind of,
somewhat like etc.).
In summary, the APPRAISAL framework is based on the concept of stance. The
APPRAISAL framework is oriented towards uncovering the author’s attitude and
the way in which texts align with a potential or real reader/listener. The framework
has a ramified system of resources which is oriented towards lexico-grammatical
means. The orientation of the original APPRAISAL framework (discussed in this
post) towards lexico-grammar limits its possible applications since many modern
texts consist not only of words, but also of such elements as images and sounds (e.g.
Web texts). However, in more recent research into evaluative means in texts has
extended the application of the framework to units of visual design (e.g. Economou,
2009) which makes the APPRAISAL framework one of the most sophisticated tools
for the analysis of the expression of covert attitude through the use of evaluative
language.
References
Economou, D. (2009). Photos in the news: Appraisal analysis of visual semiosis and
verbal-visual intersemiosis. PhD dissertation, University of Sydney, Department of
Linguistics, NSW, Australia.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in
English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.