mod2.2.3

Module Two

Part II: ATTITUDE AND EMAIL INTERACTION: A framework for exploring textual identity and negotiation in email

interaction

1. Introduction

1.1 OverviewPart II of this module addresses questions relating to the construction of textual identity and interpersonal roles and relationships in the unfolding of the discourse of two texts, through an investigation of the language of evaluation. The analysis shows how these texts, as contributions to an ongoing 'written conversation', may be located as responding to previous contributions in an interactive context. Dimension III of relative interactivity outlined in Part I, section 3.6, is extended though a discussion of Engagement, part of the Appraisal framework. In order to explore these issues, the Appraisal framework, focussing on the system of Attitude, is presented both as a means of investigating textual identity through analysis of evaluative positioning, and as functioning in the development of the text and its involvement strategies.

1.2 Individual texts as representative of social practice.A number of approaches based on Appraisal analysis are used in the discussion comprising Part II. These are used to reveal patterns of discourse organisation which contribute to the construction of textual identity. The Appraisal framework offers a set of categories which can be employed to do this. The results of analysis using Appraisal is also able to offer insights into the nature of the context of situation - as well as the norms of the discourse-using community in which they take part. One of the challenges of analysis addressed by this module lies in accounting for the possible interpretations of each unit of text as an instantiation of a wider set of potential meanings. 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. This thesis is concerned to identify interpersonal positioning strategies as the basis for analysing discourse as a

Module Two: Part II - 1 -

'chain of on-going textual events': in other words, from a fundamentally dynamic perspective. 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 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". This means that the default location of any text is heteroglossic space-time (Holquist 1990, Baxtin 19781). Furthermore, 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 concerns the nature of the framework introduced in this module, 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 - especially in terms of attitudinal and positioning strategies - to forms using the Appraisal framework depends very

11"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." (ibid pp.527-528).


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 space1 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 (op cit):

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 ('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 forms - 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 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).

1.2.1 Textual identity as a function of social spaceTacit 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 this social space and the roles of the actors who take part (cf. Module 1). In this sense, interpersonal positioning strategies create the abstract social space in which legitimate interaction may take place.

1 The notion of 'heteroglossic space' will be discussed in more detail in the section on Engagement, 2.3 below.


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 (Module 1), 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).

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, what positioning strategies are being used by each participant in their texts? How do positioning moves as strategies for signalling affiliation (dis/alignments of solidarity according to contact/familiarity, axiology/value system, status/power) construct the Addresser's relationship to the persons, groups, events, and ideas represented in the text as it unfolds in discourse time, and how are these legitimised? In particular, how are affiliations constructed or rejected in relation to the ongoing nature and status of the 'exchange'? For example, when any post is responded to negatively, or when positions are rejected (challenged) in any response, this is regarded as an indicator of some form of boundary, or norm maintenance. In the light of this, how does each text (or part thereof) act as both a response to what has already gone before, and indicate any orientation to expected responses (interactive prospection) - in this way contributing to the legitimate reproduction of positions, roles, and relationships in this mode? Furthermore, what responses do contributions actually engender, and can the nature of the positioning strategies evident in any contribution predict responses to any degree? These questions are addressed in the course of the thesis, and this module discusses two texts - and their location in the dynamic unfolding of a written conversation - as examples of how Appraisal analysis can provide a useful framework with which to answer them.


1.3 The textsThe texts in this study are edited posts1, written by two

different posters whose personal evaluative styles were felt to use the resources of the lexicogrammar differently. 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.

For this module, 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. above 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 still be gleaned from an analysis of the attitudinal values evident in each text.

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

1 See Appendix One: "Glossary of terms" for discussion of some CMC-related terms used throughout this thesis.


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 B). In terms of generic structuring and rhetorical staging, this allows a comparison of the texts as complete structured 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. In determining the unit sentence, orthographic signalling such as fullstops and capitalisation takes 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 B), sometimes followed by the clause complex (sentence) number. For example, reference to text2, sentence 24 is in the form 2:24.

1.3.1 Appraising the two texts: first paragraphsIn the excerpt which follows (Ex.1.1), sentences 1:1 to 1:12 of text1 are reproduced from Appendix B1, in which values of Attitude have been analysed. 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. 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 detail in Sections 3 and 4 below.

Types of attitude:Red = AffectBlue = JudgementGreen = AppreciationPurple = double coded, provoked/evoked Judgements

Example 1.11The concept of "task," has a rich history here[appreciation: valuation]. 2Not only [graduation]is there acommon 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 [graduation: force]healthy 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. Going one step further 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 the ideological alignments that seem to be legitimated in this way.

In the excerpt above, and in both texts reproduced in full in Appendix B1, the colour purple denotes invoked or implied appraisal - a value of Attitude that contrasts with attitudes which are made explicitly, or inscribed in the text. Purple highlighting 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. 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 (see below 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 which the analysis reveals suggests that this paragraph is actually composed of two broad rhetorical text units, or phases (Gregory 1985). This observation is to some extent linked to the function of sentence 1:5: It is hard to mesh all this in co-text. The labelling of this clause has been highlighted in purple since there appears to be some evaluation being made, but the exact position of the Addresser in relation to all this is ambiguous.

My hypothesis is that 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 Addresser, 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). 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.

Example 1.22I'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] 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 pove rty [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 reveals the use of Affect in only two (significant) positions - in the middle and at the end of the text (see Appendix B1), 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.1 In sections 3 and 4, the values and patterns of Appraisal in the two texts will be examined in more detail.

Already 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. A more detailed examination of these examples is discussed below in section 3.3.3 on provoked and evoked Appraisal.

1.4 Appraisal and text organisational patternsThe previous discussion is intended to suggest 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 introduces an extended discussion on provoked and evoked Appraisal, but in the meantime, I want to point out that the construction of textual personae which I contend 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,

1 It is intended that, in Module 3, the data produced from the analysis of a corpus of email texts will be discussed for this purpose. As outlined in Module 1, this corpus comprises 5 texts written by three different posters, as well as the edited posts of three threads or 'conversations', as well as a variety of other posts taken from other threads and mailing lists.


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 Addresser-audience roles and relationships via positioning.

As described above, Appendix B1 reproduces the two texts which have been analysed for values of both inscribed and invoked Appraisal, and it is evident that values of invoked Appraisal – both evoked and provoked (c.f. 3.3.3 below) – 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 texts1. Such patterning may provide a means for examining paragraphs as having some loose internal organisation that is activated by interdependent evaluative statements. What I find most interesting about this organisation, however, is that transition units are perhaps 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 this case, 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, I would suggest that evaluative positions revealed in Appraisal analysis are 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

1 Appraisal analysis of other samples of 'argumentative' texts from the selected corpus, using the extended expository style evident in the 'relevance-in' style have shown similar results.


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 that of exchange complexes put forward 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 useful perspective with which to cross-reference the findings 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 a clear link between the nature of provoked Appraisal and the use of retrospective discourse labels.

More particularly, the idea of rhetorical text units is related to that described 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 exchange complex, I believe needs to be enhanced by looking at the nature of the evaluative positioning taking place. The nature of this evaluative positioning is in turn dependent on textual meanings as outlined earlier, and this thesis takes the position that the Appraisal framework which is concerned to articulate the interpersonal meanings of propositions, must also refer to the nature of the co-textual organisation, and ultimately to its intertextual location: the institutionalised genres and orders of discourse to which each text refers. Therefore, the 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' referred to above) form the tools for proposing the rhetorical organisation potential of this context of interaction in Module Three.


The positioning strategies in which Appraisal values play a part, means that the targets and sources of evaluation are also part of the positioning moves and strategies in a text's organisation. This relates to the concept of 'position' itself, which cannot be specified except in relation to some other position. Hence this thesis makes reference to co-positioning strategies, and an abstract hierarchy of roles, relationships and positions, as outlined in Module One. Thus, targets of evaluation act to construe dis/alignment of the Addresser 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.

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 the favoured means of representing the world in statistical terms - and perhaps in terms of periodicity as well. It is quite possible, for example, that two texts, or the texts of two writers, will use quite similar types and proportions of Appraisal values overall. But in addition, the strategies for positioning the self in relation to others, and others' ideas, is 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 (cf. Module 1), 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.1

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 (discussed in 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 1 2:35-2:35a comprises the sign-off sequence, which in this case includes a post-script as well: hence 35a.


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). In Module Three, results of this type of investigation will be reported. It is the purpose of this module to present the methodology which will inform the research and results presented in Module Three.

The Appraisal framework is introduced below 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 of this module, 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 Module Three will be conducted. It is acknowledged that 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.


2. An outline of the Appraisal framework: Graduation and Engagement

2.1 IntroductionThis section forms a necessarily brief outline of the framework, starting with GRADUATION, followed by some implications of the system of ENGAGEMENT and its usefulness as a tool in analysing the interaction of mailing list discussion and exchange. Section 3 will then present the system of ATTITUDE in more detail, before the final sections in which the application of the model to the analysis of the two texts is considered in relation to its use in Module 3. The framework outlined here, has been drawn mainly from White (1998, 2003), Martin (2000a, 2000b), Martin & Rose (2003) and Martin & White (forthcoming).

2.2 GraduationWithin Appraisal, the subsystem GRADUATION describes a means by which the evaluator (usually what I refer to as the 'Addresser' in email modes, but often attributed to other sources) can intensify/measure, and/or amplify ATTITUDE 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.

2.2.1 Focus

FOCUS describes the degree to which a quality can be said to 'sharpen or soften' evaluative attitudes, and is sometimes glossed as 'hedges'. Under Focus, according to White: "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" (1998: III.5(b)). In the two texts analysed here, there was one useful example of FOCUS, where a writer either 'concentrates' or sharpens the boundary between categories or the qualities introduced, (e.g. *this was very much the theme of his argument), or softens the Attitude (e.g. *he sort of gave up).1 Focus can also be described as the

1 As described above, references to the texts will take the form (2:4) (as an example referring to Text2, sentence 4); made-up examples are *asterisked; and items interpreted as provoking Appraisal values italicised in the context of plain text, or underlined in the context of italics. Refer to appendix B: Text1 & 2.


degree to which a value is represented as peripheral or central to some 'core meaning'. In 1:24, the writer hedges the negative Judgement of Tenacity levelled at other groups with the phrase in some sort of objective sense.

2.2.2 ForceFORCE, 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 use here, values of GRADUATION are sometimes 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 in appendix D. This was because the occurrence and patterning of Attitudinal values was the focus of this analysis, rather than their scaling. 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.

2.3 EngagementIn this section I introduce the ENGAGEMENT framework as part of Appraisal. 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 inter-related typologies outlined in Table 2.1 and 2.2 below: from one perspective, the dialogistic (or 'heteroglossic', versus 'monoglossic': Martin & White in preparation, White 2003) which either contracts or expands dialogic 'space'; teamed with, from the other perspective, intra-vocalised versus extra-vocalised (or 'attributed') voicing. 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') (c.f. Appendix 2: Interpersonal Discourse Semantic Network). 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.

Under Engagement, certain 'locutions' function in relation to these categories to construe values of an ‘instructional’ or prospective 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, or Attitudes - whether those of self or Other - may in turn be meta-positioned as laudable or laughable, for example, in the context of other values indexed in the same local unit of analysis. Values of Engagement work at the particulate level, but may also contribute to the organisation of the text as a dynamic unfolding of interpersonal meanings. So at one level they act as framing devices for the propositions to which they refer, and at the same time act to construct the abstract dialogic space, by indicating relevance to the ongoing interaction.

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 Addresser 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 'rhetorical text unit' as I am using it here, and to Gregory's (1985) notion of phase.

As indicated earlier, 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 Module Three will depend upon findings of analysis under Engagement. The rest of this section is therefore concerned with discussing in some detail the nature of analyses made under this framework.

2.3.1 Heteroglossic and monoglossic utterances and textsAs indicated earlier, the first of the two perspectives introduced above, the dialogistic, is concerned with the degree to which the Addresser makes reference to, and/or assumes alignment with potential reader positions. Distinction here is between monoglossic (undialogised) utterances, those which report on reality with no acknowledgement of any other potential opinion or 'voices' disputing what is being reported, and heteroglossic (dialogised) utterances. In this sense, as discussed in the previous section, the utterances of a so-called monoglossic text, or section of text, will be expressed as 'averred, non-sourced assessments' (Hunston 2000), whose opinions or value judgements need not be supported, accounted for or modalized. For example, any reference to a potential demurring opinion would indicate that at least one voice is foregrounded and that the proposition was open to some negotiation. In the tables which detail the Attitudinal values identified in the two texts (appendix D), such monoglossic utterances have been tagged as 'averred: non-sourced' (after Hunston, 2000: 190). In other words, the propositions are attributed to no single person or group in particular, but operate on assertions which are presumed to be self-evident. On the other hand, all


instances of evaluation or Engagement would indicate the subjectivity of the writer and his/her orientation towards potential response - and hence interpersonal meanings.

Heteroglossic (or dialogised) utterances either act to 'contract' (or narrow) the negotiatory space, or to 'expand' (or widen) it. They can also be of two broad types. In the first instance, they cite, or directly quote the words of others, what I am elsewhere referring to as extra-vocalisation. In the second instance they introduce a number of internal voices and positions via devices of 'intra-vocalisation' indicating the subjectivity of the writer. In order to account for the patterns of evaluation in any text, and the positioning strategies engendered by them, the sources of Attitude therefore need to be taken into account. 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 this thesis1.

Table 2.1:

Engagement from the perspective expansion - contraction

Dialogic contraction:

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)

1 Reference to texts other than the two which are the focus of this study, are identified by a label and numbering code. For example "wvn60.23:1" refers to the 60th post in which the "wide versus narrow" thread was embedded, and the 23rd post deemed to have maintained the topic. The last number refers to the numbered sentences for that post/text. See also section 5 below, and Appendix E for a reproduction of the "a last bouquet" thread in which text1 appears as post [alb103.43/27-vi] or [JSD6] - the 6th (vi) in the "just say delete" sub-thread.


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: I know there are people here who fear me, they have reason to, I am not safe. (2:33)

Dialogic expansion:

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)

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) … 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:

Engagement from the perspective intra /extra-vocalisation

Intra-vocalisation (internal voice the primary source):

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

Pronounce: e.g. *I contend that everyone should know how to behave in these circumstances; I believe that I have treated people here with respect and on occasion have demanded the same.. (2:32) this obviously is quite an advance over a PhD (sft36.13:7b)

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)

Extra-vocalisation (external voice the primary source)

Endorse: 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 (in preparation)

2.3.2 A closer look at Engagement: examples from the textsIn the following utterance for example:

Ex 2.1


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 readers1. 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 1 This relates to what Ravelli 1995 terms a dynamic perspective.


nature of task are undialogised as far as the Engagement system is concerned: they are neither graduated nor 'hedged' by the Addresser. 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

Ex 2.2 *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 counter-example above1, 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 an Addresser 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'

1 Examples which are not 'attested', i.e. made-up counter examples, are marked with an asterisk (*).


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 utterance/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 (or proposals) - could also be made via direct quotation and other attributions. This does not mean that the overall 'message' 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 Addresser 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.

2.3.3 Intertextuality and dialogic expansionIn 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 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, as outlined in Module 1. 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. It is intended that these areas will be further addressed in Module Three.

2.3.4 Summary: Engagement and the construction of relative interactivity Values of Engagement are therefore implicated in construing the perceived relationship between any Addresser 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 are noted only in passing and are not demonstrated fully, although instances of extra-vocalisation are noted in the tabulated analysis (appendix D). However, from the foregoing discussion it is evident that investigating textual patterns in terms of their Engagement values can provide means of understanding the inter-related aspects of the discourse structure as well as construction of identity and positioning in email interaction. Analysis of a wider range of texts in Module Three will make greater 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). It is also intended that the Engagement framework be applied in order to account for dynamic patterns of interaction, and the possible reader interpretation of texts, as revealed in types of overt responses (replies).


3. Attitude and the Appraisal Framework

3.1 Introduction: overview of the Attitude systemAt the next level of delicacy, ATTITUDE is subdivided into three subsystems: AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION. While AFFECT is concerned with values to do with feelings and emotions, JUDGEMENT describes attitudes towards human behaviour and actions. Thus, both these subsystems are concerned with describing the evaluation of human targets and agents, although it is common for affectual values to be expressed towards non-human targets. Non-human agents of these types of Appraisal values might be considered marked, and thus may rarely be found outside metaphor and poetics. APPRECIATION, on the other hand, is concerned with values which describe objects and the attributes of 'things', or beings construed as things. Each of these subsystems is discussed in turn below.

3.2 AffectWithin AFFECT the main secondary entry conditions which Martin (2000b) identifies are positive/negative; surge/predisposition and low/high intensity. In the analysis presented here I have not used the latter two unless it seemed particularly useful in analysing each ATTITUDE in context. The main values of [AFFECT: negative/positive] can be summarised as:

value example counter exampledisinclination/fear

(2:4) I had anticipated [..] fear

*I had anticipated a birthday present.

inclination/desire

(2:25) one of her posts stated […]her desire to shock herself

*one of her posts stated her thoughts on the matter

unhappiness/misery; antipathy

(2:26) My only regret since I have been here

*the only bruising I have received since being here [judgement: capacity: negative: evoked]

happiness/cheer; affection

(2:2) I'm glad you answered Roy's question

*It's natural you answered Roy's question [judgement: normality]

insecurity/disquiet; surprise

(2:33) I am not safe. *I am not a monster. [judgement: normality]

security/confidence; trust

(2:14) my first observation from the comfort of my

*my first observation from the vantage point of my


former observerhood former observerhood.dissatisfaction/ennui; displeasure

(2:6) Roy got the brunt of my indignation

*Roy got the gist of my explanation

satisfaction/interest; admiration

(2:5) I value honesty in communication

*She was honest in communicating [judgement: veracity]

Table 3.1

Not all of these values are realised in the two texts analysed here, but where possible, actual examples from the text have been given, together with made-up (*asterisked) counter examples for illustrative purposes.

3.2.1 Affect: Comment on some examples Because Affect refers to largely individually reported subjective emotion, as distinct from Judgement which deals with social sanction and esteem, sources of Affect are also considered as 'Appraisers'. When the Affect is reported as 'happening to myself', perhaps caused by some other person or action, as, for example, "I have been surprised that no-one identified..."(2:18), the Appraiser and the Appraised would seem to be one and the same, but in this type of situation, the cause of the emotional reaction is classed as the Appraised, or 'target' of the evaluation - that no-one identified…1 In this system it needs to be distinguished for purposes of analysis, that there is always a 'reporter' (or 'animator' in Goffman's 1974 terms) who may not appear in the text, but appraisal values of Affect are classed as originating in an 'emoter' as a source. In 2:18, for example, Appraiser and source are coterminous. All statements of any kind represent an 'assessment' of the state of the world, whether the assessor is explicitly named or not (for example via intra-vocalisation) and this way of classing the values of Affect locates them in the person who feels or manifests such emotional orientation, rather than the Addresser who reports their assessment of the origin of the Affect. In reporting such an assessment of the nature of someone else's "evaluative positioning", the Addresser 'avers' that such an emotion "occurred". Grammatically, responsibility for the proposition may be unsourced (even though understood as located in the Addresser), while the Attitude itself is sourced in the emoter. For example, in "*John looks happy", the emoter and hence the source of the Attitude is 'John', while the reporter is not mentioned in the text - although indicated (and dialogically expanded) by intra-

1 In grammatical terms this would be classed as a projected Mental process clause.


vocalisation in this case: looks. In this example, however, it is not clear what the emoter is actually evaluating, since the Addresser only reports on someone's apparent emotional state. In another counter-example "*John looks happy with his present" it is clear that John would be evaluating the target 'present' via [affect: happiness]. Without an inscribed target, such as 'present' in the example above, the positioning may be ambiguous, and the description of John's emotional state may inscribe Affect as a token of evoked Judgement - depending on the Addressee's understanding of the nature of John's happiness, and whether it is culturally appropriate to be happy in the context.

If, on the other hand, we consider an utterance such as "* I think John looks happy", John is still the source of the Attitude, but the proposition has been framed by a grammatical metaphor of probability, and the source of the assessment (the reporter) can be classed as 'self' or the Addresser. "I think" here, would also function under Engagement as acknowledging the subjective nature of the assessment which it frames. With Affect therefore, the subjectivity of the Evaluator is always either indicated or at issue (cf. Hunston 2000).

3.3 JudgementWithin the system of JUDGEMENT, the two main distinctions are those of social ESTEEM and social SANCTION. The most succinct gloss of the differences between these two areas of description is that given by Martin (2000a: 156):

Social esteem involves admiration and criticism, typically without legal implications; if you have difficulties in this area you may need a therapist. Social sanction on the other hand involves praise and condemnation, often with legal implications; if you have problems in this area you may need a lawyer.(my emphasis)

While it seems that people make judgements of social sanction without the implication that the so-judged will soon be involved in litigation, it does highlight the major differences between the two areas, sanction and esteem.

3.3.1 Social EsteemSocial esteem is subdivided into three types of judgement: NORMALITY, TENACITY and CAPACITY. Again, these subtypes can be described as being linked to values of modality, in which NORMALITY is to [MODALIZATION: USUALITY], as TENACITY is to [MODULATION: INCLINATION], and as CAPACITY is to [MODALIZATION: ABILITY].


These values are tabulated below together with examples from the text where possible.

3.3.2 Social sanctionSocial sanction is subdivided into VERACITY and PROPRIETY, and these may be usefully linked to values of [MODALIZATION: PROBABILITY], and [MODULATION: OBLIGATION] respectively (Halliday, 1994). In other words, VERACITY is most likely applied to the arguability of the target's sincerity, while PROPRIETY would be invoked in order to suggest that the target should comply with certain socially held values, norms or rules for moral action and behaviour.

SOCIAL ESTEEM

value example counter-examplenormality: negative (2:10) [babies.. force

realignment of [the family's]] habitual patterns

*babies cause distress to family members [affect: insecurity]

normality: positive (2:3) I feel as any new member is going to feel

*I feel upset [affect: insecurity]

tenacity: negative (1: 21) ND has often been taken to task for not sticking to its task.

*ND has often been taken to task for being exclusive.[judgement: propriety]

tenacity: positive (1:22) in many ways we are quite productive

*in many ways we are quite narrow-minded. [judgement: propriety: negative]

capacity: negative (2: 22) I am ignorant of List jargon

*I am pissed off with list jargon. [affect: dissatisfaction]

capacity: positive (2:9) They refresh the group dynamic.

*They observe the group dynamic.

SOCIAL SANCTIONvalue example counter-exampleveracity: negative * you were trying to fool meveracity: positive (2:7) he was trying to be

honest about his perceptions*he was trying to check his perceptions [judgement: tenacity]

propriety: negative (2: 28) [she] did not deserve this (i.e. 'I should not have done this': target of negative propriety is the self)

*[she] did not handle this well [judgement: capacity]

propriety: positive (2: 28) someone with her courtesy

*someone with her legs [appreciation: reaction:


evoked: neg. or POs dependent on co-text]

Table 3.2

3.3.2.1 Judgement: normality: Comment on some examplesValues of negative NORMALITY would be invoked if someone or group were judged to be strange or out of the ordinary, although this points to one of the problems with Judgements of Normality, especially in the context of many western subcultures, where 'out of the ordinary', even though 'negatively normal' would still constitute a positive evaluation in many cases. This highlights the fact that Appraisal theory is concerned with the operation of the discourse semantic level, and as such, evaluative meanings of positive or negative, are locally contingent, not universal. The following example: "I had anticipated curiosity,[affect] fear,[affect] jealousy,[affect] among others, but not suspicion,[affect + negative polarity] and particularlyof my identity... this is, in my experience, unique [graduation: focus]to the Web." (2:4), shows how such values of Attitude can vary with co-text. The word unique on its own might usually have a positive value of normality in an utterance such as "*She is a unique person." In this case, a positive evaluation is evoked via "negative" normality, and the usually positive attribute this ascribes to a person in western societies. But the negatively evaluative Judgement in the above example is implicitly provoked (as distinct from explicitly inscribed: see below 3.3.3) via a series of statements regarding the types of Affect the Addresser expected to find in her target, the email list group. These expected types of Affect are then contrasted with the (negative) value of Affect [insecurity] she ascribes to this target, and which she did not expect to find (but did), which 'behaviour' is linked to its being "unique to the Web".

3.3.2.2 Judgement: tenacity/capacityIn the case of TENACITY, values are inscribed in terms of the target's accomplishments, and any claim to have successfully done something or shown determination or willingness to sustain work towards some goal may invoke positive values of Tenacity for example.CAPACITY is concerned with values of ability, not permission, and as such, forms values linked with Judgements of skill in carrying out an action, or knowledge in relation to some activity, rather than a willingness to comply with any request or command, which in that case, would more likely fall under values of TENACITY.


3.3.3 Provoked and evoked JudgementsAs discussed previously, Judgement values are not necessarily inscribed in a text. That is to say, such evaluative judgements are not always explicitly made but may be, indeed are, usually invoked via a series of other values, such as Affect, which leads to the implication that the target may be judged according to the local norms of social interaction which in turn, sanction or value the described behaviour. Invoked Judgements may be either 'evoked', or 'provoked' (White, 1998), with the former arising implicitly via tokens realised by ideational or experiential value, which depend for their evaluative status on the assumed value system of the audience members - or that constructed as assumed. 'Provoked' Appraisal is usually construed via 'tokens' of Judgement - for example, more explicit values of Affect, Appreciation, Engagement and/or Graduation - such as counter-expectation, negation, intensification, and so on.

This thesis suggests that provoked Appraisal can be extended to include the effect of cumulative work done on the autonomous plane of discourse, where the provoked Judgement may arise implicitly via a string of explicitly inscribed values of Attitude in the text up to that point, as a cue or trigger, their status traceable to series of positioning moves in a move complex. These move complexes can be labelled strategies. The provoked Judgement is still usually signalled by values of Engagement and other indicators of interactive prospection which act to link previous values in the text in setting up a frame of relevance for the (provoked) move being made. These links are regarded as acting over several clauses or clause complexes via cohesive devices such as conjunction, and repetition (lexical cohesion, matching relations).

Evoked appraisal, on the other hand, is dependent for its evaluative status on assumed shared values and knowledge, and is realised in texts by experiential meanings which function as tokens of appraisal via activation of community norms. The boundary between these two categories and their identifying features is obviously not clearly defined. Some analysts, for example Jordan (2001), would regard evoked appraisal as 'description' rather than as 'assessment', and hence not be classed as appraisal. While Jordan's (op cit) perspective on text organisation is more concerned to outline the conjunctive macrostructures operating within stretches of text, here I am concerned to start at the level of patterns of semantics on the surface of discourse, and so such 'factual' descriptions of objects, events and people need to be accounted for as dependent on assumed shared values, or contact/familiarity.


An example of provoked Judgement can be seen in sentence 2:4 quoted earlier (c.f. 3.3.2.1). Here, the Addresser uses a series of values of Affect to set up a negative Judgement regarding the behaviour of the participants of the email list. At the same time, she signals, or prospects, a value of [judgement: negative normality] via counter-expectation ("I had anticipated curiosity, fear, jealousy, among others, but [counter-expect] not suspicion.."). As well, she signals that the Judgement may be contentious by the explicit insertion of an intra-vocalised reference to herself, in my experience (similar in function to modalization: probability). This in turn, functions to acknowledge the possibility of other assessments, and thus operates dialogistically to open the negotiating space for the declaration, and negative Judgement "..this is, in my experience, unique to the Web", where this refers to the behaviour of listmembers which she had not anticipated.

In section 1.3.1 above, excerpts of texts 1 and 2 (Ex 1.1 & 1.2) were presented as demonstrating a possible use for provoked, evoked, and 'ambiguous' Appraisal in determining, or at least signalling, phase boundaries in expository texts. For example, in the case of the proposed pivotal sentence 1:5, a question centres around whether it is hard for the Addresser to mesh all this, i.e. all of the thoughts about the nature of 'task', which is the theme of his discussion; or whether meshing all this is objectively hard. In the first case, the writer negatively appraises his own Capacity, and the positioning with respect to his interlocutors might be one of deference through an expression of lack of expertise in this field (c.f. Martin 1992: 530). In the second, more likely case, he evaluates the nature of all this as 'complex' - as difficult to comprehend in its entirety. In either case, the appraisal is evoked by the term 'difficult/hard (to do s.t.)', which may depend for its negative or positive value on community-held norms regarding 'difficulty'. In this case, the positioning strategy would act to call on equal status (in terms of expertise) with interlocutors. In terms of lexical association, something which is 'difficult/hard to do' is related to onerous tribute to be paid in sentence 1:3. This clause also acts on the autonomous plane of the discourse encapsulating all this, while at the same time, it orients to the complexity of the argument to come: on the interactive plane, all this is about to be expanded upon in other ways - as a series of personal examples of what 'task' might mean.

Turning now to an example from text2, one of the stretches of text which operate in this way is Sentence 2:5, reproduced here for convenience:

Ex 3.1:


As 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 [comparitor: negative] to hear their echoes in all [graduation: force] of our exchanges or in the poverty [appreciation: composition: negative] of our exchange.(2:5)

The token of Judgement of negative propriety in this clause complex is provoked by a value of [appreciation: composition: negative] since the target is not, grammatically-speaking, human behaviour, but represented via experiential metaphor, as a nominalisation: our exchange. The negative evaluation is realised as a nominalised possession of a possible future condition, rather than an actual 'exchange'. This feature of text2 is common to the style in this text overall (cf. Module 1) which represents the attributes of social actors as possessivated (van Leeuwen 1996) nominal groups. In this clause complex, the writer uses this way of realising attributes and processes to distance the activities of the unspecified Addressees she refers to, at the same time developing her positioning strategy through cohesive ties : your suspicion or doubts; your fear, suspicion, or doubt their echoes our exchanges; our exchangeThe provoked negative Judgement of the Addressees is interpretable in the co-text of the other values of appraisal in this clause complex: the negative Affect presupposed of the Addressees via nominalisation, and parallelism: fear, suspicion or doubt; and the positive Affect she feels towards honesty. The provoked Judgement also depends on repetition: matching relations of contrast - what she would rather hear in contrast to what will be the case if her preferences are not followed: a poverty in interaction. More particularly, it also depends on the evaluative positioning which has been made in the preceding sentences, and would not provoke a negative Judgement value without this context. In other words, the cumulative work which has been done by the writer on the autonomous plane of discourse is also very much implicated in tracing the provocation of implied Judgement.

The following sentence (2:6) I believe is also part of the transition between two phases in the text - or rather, the section represented by sentences 2:5 - 2:6 realises for this text a type of pivotal section in which the negative evaluation of the main targets is effected:

Ex 3.2: I 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. (2:6)

In this clause complex, the values of the previous sentence are repeated and exemplified: again, Appreciation is used to negatively evaluate exchanges between two people as superficial, under a condition realised by a value of positive [judgement: tenacity]. In both clause complexes, responsibility for the argument can be traced to the subjectivity of the writer. The argument is expressed, however, as an orientation to 'usuality' and 'normality' via habitual present tense (I usually find; exchanges…are superficial; they risk the truth), representing an attempt to define 'reality', and the conditions under which interaction will be positively evaluated. This type of strategy I term 'veiled directive' in Module 1, and it seems related to what Hunston (2000: 189) distinguishes as 'world-creating', in which the writer makes a recommendation, in contrast to 'world-reflecting' in which the writer merely reports on the state of the world as 'fact'. In this section of the text, the two perspectives are interrelated in a complex way, and the resultant ambiguity appears to be a feature of this writer's 'style'.

The final clause complex in the paragraph (2:7) realises a shift via contrast - through its use of a specified social actor (Roy), tense change, and a return to text which does not involve values of Appreciation. In this text, 2:7 functions in the role of example for the evaluative stance. To continue the terminology cited earlier, it shifts from being 'world-creating', to 'world-reflecting' in orientation, and seems to also more closely represent what Gregory (op cit) would term a transitional rhetorical unit. This is underlined by the sentence which follows it, the first in a new paragraph, one which changes orientation again:

Ex. 3.3: New members in any group are the lifeblood of the group...they are the new babies of that family.(2:8)

In summary, values of evoked (implicit) Judgement are made via the use of lexis which is of itself 'value-neutral', but which attaches to it some culturally-charged value. So that, a statement such as "she shot her father with his own gun", while using no attitudinal lexis, would need to be given a specific context for such an action to be viewed as positive in everyday social practice. Values of provoked Judgement, on the other hand, are usually set up via a series of inter-related statements, so that the realisation of Judgement may be spread over several sentences, or even the whole text via attitudinal lexis, markers of counter-expectation or proclamation (associated with values of Engagement), explicit


modality, and other values of Affect and Appreciation as mentioned above. This idea of tokens of Judgement being made though the use of 'culturally-charged' lexis, or values of Affect and Appreciation in order to pass Judgement - thus giving rise to ambiguity of evaluative stance - provides a means of accounting for strategies used by writers to emphasise or draw attention to significant areas of their arguments. It also provides a means for accounting for the variety of interpretations made by readers.

3.4 AppreciationThe final subsystem of Attitude is that of APPRECIATION, which is highlighted when evaluations of objects, products, events, or even the products of human behaviour are made, or when anything is judged in these terms. Such a distinction is useful when people are evaluated in terms of their appearance, rather than their behaviour, for example. However, as discussed below (3.4.1), Appreciation, and its differentiation from values of Judgement, forms one of the most fuzzy boundaries within the system of Attitude, and thus local grammars of evaluation may need to be applied in determining which analytic categories are most appropriate for each value. On the other hand, it may need to be accepted that, due to the inter-stratal tension which inevitably obtains between the lexicogrammatical and the semantic levels, such permeability of the category boundaries should be viewed as a useful means by which the framework can enhance the analysis of any text, by highlighting those areas where ambiguous readings of evaluative stance may be accounted for. The categories of [APPRECIATION: negative/positive] which I have concentrated on as the most prevalent are summarised and exemplified below:

value example counter-examplecomposition: negative (2:13) a disrupted family (2:14) ND is a

dysfunctional family [judgement: capacity: negative]

composition: positive (1:12) this fluid plan *this caring plan [judgement: capacity: positive: via inability of plans to be 'caring'] NB: this is one of the sliding points of this system and its inter-stratal tension - grammar semantics

reaction: negative (2: 20) I have boring reports

*The reports bored me [affect: dissatisfaction]

reaction: positive (1:11) My goal [..] is to *My goal is to be as


have as pleasant and as delightful a day as I can

cheerful as I can. [judgement: tenacity]

valuation: negative (2: 21) the false security in that approach

*the stupidity in your approach [judgement: capacity: negative]

valuation: positive (1:4) [task] has more positive connotations

*doing this task has moral obligations [judgement: propriety]

Table 3.3

3.4.1 Appreciation: Comment on some examplesAs noted above, ascribing values of Appreciation is sometimes associated with an indistinct boundary between someone's activities and their skill in performing them (which would therefore normally need to be described under values of Judgement), and the product of that skill as performance or 'thing'. The example which is frequently quoted involves a skilful batsmen in a cricket match, who can be judged as a 'brilliant batsman' or that 'he batted brilliantly' (i.e., [judgement: capacity: positive]), or whose performance can be described as a 'brilliant innings' (in which case, a value of [appreciation: reaction: impact: positive] is used as a token of provoked [judgement: capacity: positive]). The need for such a distinction only becomes obvious in context. When analysing texts, the main usefulness of these distinctions is in the search for patterns - patterns which help to trace the rhetorical organisation and development of any text as a semantic unit, and patterns which help to characterise the preferred and typical stylistic features of any writer or register. The means by which writers use values of Appreciation as tokens of Judgement is often that of experiential metaphor, that is, an activity which a social actor may undertake is construed as the product of that activity - which can then be evaluated - rather than the social actors themselves, or their actual behaviour as process. This is one means by which a writer might set up a textual persona, or style which appears 'objective' or non-judgemental.

This can be seen in the final paragraph/closing sequence (1:28 - 1:30) of text1 where the provoked Judgement of positive tenacity is not only related to the comment regarding the writer's 'resolve' to squeeze the most out of the hours providence has provided, but in effect summarises the evaluative positioning of the writer-as-self in the whole of the text, in which the concept of 'task' and its relationship to work towards goals is consistently positively evaluated, and with which the writer actively associates himself. In section 3.3.3 above, and 4.1 below, ambiguity between values of Appreciation and Judgement in another example from the text (1:5)


is associated with the identification of organisational junctures in the text.

3.4.1.1 Appreciation or Judgement?What needs addressing again at this point, and as outlined in section 1.2 above, one of the contentious areas associated with Appraisal analysis stems from its reliance on discourse semantic values, rather than those of the strictly lexicogrammatical: classes and functions of items are viewed as activated in co-text and context. When Addressers, their audience, and the analyst are acknowledged as part of that context, then it is obvious that each reading may entail a different set of meanings, dependent on situational variables. This is because context of culture, especially taken from a dialogic point of view, includes the text itself as well as all the possible alternatives which might have been selected to make its meanings in the situation and culture of which it is part. Hence one's reading position needs to be factored in to any analysis of a text's message, which speaks to my earlier contention that an ethnographic perspective, or participant-observer status is important in dealing with texts taken from a specific community of practice. There may be 'resistant' or 'compliant' reading positions, for example, and these may even produce different 'statuses' (Hunston 2000) for the evaluation in texts, which in turn would constrain evaluation as either Judgement or Appreciation. To make a complete Appraisal analysis of any text, it would not only need to be seen logogenetically as I am concentrating on here, but also from the perspective of the analyst's reading position (ontogenetically) and from the perspective of the development of various local genres (phylogenetically) as well. In order to look at these types of patterns which might substantiate various reading positions within a cultural genre, the use of large corpora and studies of phrases in context to reveal the nature of semantic prosodies (e.g. Louw 1993) appears promising, as mentioned above (1.2).

This is not to say that any reading of a text is possible, or that texts are subject to a radical polysemy, as Simpkins (1996) suggests. Certain attitudinal lexis, such as the item corrupt, no matter what the co-text, entails either negative or positive evaluation - unless the positioning strategies in the same co-text have worked very hard to introduce a socially marked value for this term. Other expressions of evaluative attitude may be less strictly negative or positive, and depend on co-textual signals to set up particular readings. While there may be multiple possible readings of stretches of text, these will therefore be constrained in systematic ways - which may need to make reference to factors


outside the text itself, in what Thibault (1999: 561) refers to as global intertextual resources. Nevertheless, accounting for the potential interpretations of texts via their meaning-making resources in the co-text is regarded as the goal for discourse analysis of this kind:

"…we will never understand the function of evaluation in a culture if our studies are based, however quantitatively, on the analysis of ‘deco-textualized’ examples. It is texts that mean, through their sentences and the complex of logogenetic contingencies among them —they do not mean as a selection from, or a sum of, or worse, an average of, the meanings within the clause." (Martin 2003: 177)

In terms of how Appraisal views the text as instantiation of sets of possible meanings, Macken-Horarik observes:

"If we are to understand how evaluation works for a given set of readers/listeners/viewers, we need to develop an analytical framework which is sensitive to the formation and the practices employed by these stakeholders. " (2003: 315)

As has already been stated, this thesis adopts the view presented above through a focus on texts produced in a written community of practice, as a means of tracing the 'mechanisms' through which possible meanings are made.

3.4.1.2 Appreciation or Judgement: comment on some examples In the examples of Table 3.3 above, the fine line between the categories Appreciation and Judgement is evident in some of the examples. As an example, the difference between disrupted and dysfunctional in relation to the target family may seem very slim, but in this case is linked to the generalised, unmarked types of targets for the evaluative adjectives involved, in which dysfunctional evaluates the behaviour of the family members as an inter-relating group in process, and disrupted evaluates the overall composition of the group in toto, as a product of past behaviour. In general, a local grammar, or probe, will help to distinguish values of Appreciation from values of Judgement when the lexical item in question is adjectival: 'It was adjective of you + to (non finite clause with material, or mental process)'. So that, 'it was dysfunctional of you to do that', sounds possible in the grammar; whereas, 'it was disrupted of you to do that,' does not. Another example in this vein (1:12) highlights the uses of the lexical item 'plan' which generally functions as either a process or as a nominal head, thus lending to its Thing function a connotation of having been produced by human activity. The evaluative


attribute teamed with plan is again more significant here, such that, using the example cited above, fluid is normally used to make assessments and evaluations of objects, events or the finished product of human behaviour; whereas, in the counter-example, caring refers to an affectual response in which human agents are implicated: 'plans', having no subjectivity, may not be attributed with Affect. The very metaphoricity of this relationship signals a type of markedness useful in assigning category membership, as well as the local grammar-as-test-probe cited in the previous section. The choice of lexical item, especially evaluative adjective, thus has rhetorical significance in that such values of Appreciation may often be used to provoke 'implicit' Judgements, and so help to 'distance' the evaluator, usually the Addresser, from the Judgements of behaviour they may wish to imply1.

Sentence 1:11 is also interesting for similar reasons, and points to a tendency on the part of this writer to make Judgements which are not explicitly inscribed. Here, 'day' is given a value of Appreciation (pleasant and delightful), while the Addresser claims only that his goal is to have the day he describes. The grammatical identifying relationship is between my goal and to have + [appreciation: positive] day. In the counter example given, the actual positive Judgement of Tenacity implied, is brought to the surface: the identifying relationship in this case is between my goal and to be, thereby locating more closely his goal as part of his own inclination. These distinctions are useful in analysis of textual identity and ideological stance, since preferences for evaluating phenomena in terms of either behaviour or as object are one means of accounting for stylistic differences by different writers.

In order to trace patterns of both the sources and targets of Attitudinal value, and the Addresser's preferred orientation to such targets, this distinction between Appreciation and Judgement values needs to be made. Within Appraisal, the rhetorical functionality of the resources and options of the lexicogrammar in their relation to discourse semantic positionings are the focus of analysis. As in the case of values of Judgement, with Appreciation, an Appraiser need not be specifically mentioned, as the values of the Appraisal are located in the thing or person evaluated. This is in contrast with values of Affect which are located in the subjective experience of either an Appraiser, or 'emoter' (c.f. 3.2.1).

1 This also relates to what Quirk et al (1972: 265) distinguish as dynamic and stative adjectives: "For example, a stative adjective such as tall cannot be used with the progressive aspect or with the imperative: *He's being tall ; *Be tall. On the other hand, we can use careful as a dynamic adjective: He's being careful, Be careful."


3.5 Comparison of attitudinal values favoured by each writerMy comparison of the two texts starts by observing the amount and type of attitudinal values used by each writer, which gives a gross indication of the types of Attitude favoured by each. In order to trace the actual stance of the writer in the message, these values also need to be seen in relation to the sources and the targets of the Attitudes identified, as well as the 'loading' given to different categories. A writer's argument, as a function of rhetorical staging, can also be usefully traced using such an analysis, by noting what targets are appraised in what order, and how these targets fall into semantically-aligned classes, as well as how they have been appraised in sets of contrasting negative and positive values. It seems that quite often an argument or 'position statement' in these types of (email discussion) texts is built up via linked evaluative positions vis-a-vis their targets. The targets of appraisal in this case, can also be regarded as operating textually via signals of lexical cohesion. Conclusions of an explicit nature are not always made in these texts, but implied via stretches of text which are then linked via both semantic and syntactic cohesion (repetition and conjunction) to other stretches of text, and over the text as a whole. This type of dependence on cohesive ties is evident in the provocation of appraisal in both texts, but appears more evident in text2, whose encapsulation of the values of the whole text, for example, is concentrated in its last rhetorical unit, or closing sequence (see section 4.2.2.1).

Analysis of clusterings of Appraisal or attitudinal values in a text has proved to be a useful method of determining the nature and boundaries of the rhetorical staging or phases in the sample texts, and hence they represent useful indicators of norms of "exchange structure", or what I am calling the rhetorical structure potential operating in texts of this kind1.

3.5.1 Preliminary comparison of the two textsA preliminary comparison of the texts shows a difference in word-length, with text1 totalling 595, and text2, 885. In Table 3.4 below, a comparison is made of the two texts in terms of the main differences in word and clause counts. Some of the textual differences tabulated below are discussed in more detail in Module 1. In the analysis conducted for that module, however, the number of sentences of text2 was limited to 28 to make comparison easier to perform. In this module, the whole texts were used, since values of Appraisal were being counted for statistical purposes, as well as

1 See Appendix D for the sequence of appraisal values, and appendix B1 for a visual representation of the clustering of these values in each text.


being used to trace the development of the text organisation which depends on the whole body of the text being used as the main unit of analysis.

Text1 SIMON Text2 SARAHClause complexes 30 34words 595 885clauses 64 94Embedded clauses

21 20

Lexical density- clauses

3.5 3.9

Lexical density-words

38 39

Table 3.4

In Table 3.5 (following page), only a gross comparison of attitudinal values is shown. This was achieved via a calculation of the percentage of attitude values identified for each category, as a function of the total number of attitudinal values identified for each text. A comparison of values as a function of word and clause count is also discussed below, as well as an extended discussion of the patterning of sources and targets of appraisal evident in the two texts. In future research, cross comparisons will involve a larger sample of texts. This would then form some basis for a cross comparison in terms of marked and unmarked structures and evaluative moves within and between the selected texts. In conducting this research, Appraisal analysis will be teamed with other means of investigating stylistic and discoursal patterning in the texts (cf. Module 1).


Text1 Text2APPRECIATIONTOTAL VALUES

37% 15

12% 12

composition 3 5

valuation 8 5

reaction 4 2

JUDGEMENTTOTAL VALUES 59% 24 53% 51

propriety 8 23veracity - 2normality 3 4

tenacity 11 4

capacity 2 18

AFFECTTOTAL VALUES 5% 2 35% 34

happiness - 3

unhappiness - 2

security - 1insecurity 1 12inclination 1 8

disinclination - 2

satisfaction - 2

dissatisfaction - 4

TOTAL overall 41 97

Table 3.5: text1 and text2: comparison of values of Attitude

3.5.2 Comparison of values of Attitude in the textsTable 3.5 shows that in text1 a total of 41 values of ATTITUDE were identified, compared with text2 in which a total of 97 were identified. This tally includes those which are interpreted as showing values of [judgement: provoked/evoked] which rely on an assumed shared value system, or on other values in co-text, as discussed earlier (3.3.3). The number of attitudinal values in text1 expressed as a percentage of the word count is 6.8%. This allows a


rough comparison with text2 in which 97 attitudinal values were identified, with a percentage of 11% as a function the word count. On the other hand, if the number of attitudinal values identified is expressed as a function of the number of clauses in each sample, text1 shows a ratio of 64%, while text2's is 103%: in other words there is an average of at least one attitudinal value for each clause in text2, compared to just over one for every second clause in text1. In such a small sample, such a difference may or may not be considered significant, but a closer look at the ratio of types of attitudinal values used in each text might be more illuminating.

3.5.3 Ratio of types of Attitude In text1 (Table 3.5 above) there are 15 instances of Appreciation, 24 instances of Judgement, but only 2 of Affect. So that, it might appear that this writer was concerned to evaluate behaviour more than the objective world. Values of Affect are almost non-existent, with one value of INCLINATION - which is generally low in intensity on the emotional scale, as it usually expresses volition toward some goal, rather than emotional reaction - and one value of INSECURITY whose source was extra-vocalised, i.e. not sourced in the Addresser (1:20).

A comparison with text2 in the same area, begins to show some differences in orientation. In this text there are 12 instances of Appreciation, 51 of Judgement and 35 of Affect. It is obvious here, especially with respect to the category of Affect, that there are different relative weightings of attitudinal values expressed in these two texts, with [affect: insecurity] accounting for 12 of the 34 identified attitudes of Affect in text2 (or 35% of its values of Affect), and 12.3% of the total values of Attitude identified in text2 overall1. This compares with 2.5% for [affect: insecurity] expressed as a function of all values identified in text1. Other comparisons can be made by reference to Table 3.5 which summarises the main attitudinal values identified in the two texts. It should be noted that analysed values of Affect were further subdivided into negative and positive Affect, which was not done with categories of Judgement and Appreciation.

In order to get a clearer idea of the relative weightings given to each Attitude category in each text, the number of values identified for each category was also normalised to 1,000 words and charted below (Chart 3.1).

1 Percentages are rounded out to the nearest whole number in the tables


3.5.4 Comparison of values of AffectAs noted above, Table 3.5 shows that the greatest overall difference in weighting in the two texts is given to values of Affect, with text1 according only 5% of its evaluative categories to that of Affect, compared to text2's 35%. This may be coincidental to the main topics of the post which comprises text2, but it also seems related to aspects of the writer's argument centred around her conviction that thoughts and feelings should be honestly revealed in discussion groups. This makes it somewhat strange, however, to note that Judgements of Veracity, although present in text2 - as distinct from text1 in which such Attitudes did not appear at all - are still scarce at only 2 instances, or 4% of all its Judgement values, and 2% overall. Within Affect, however, the most prevalent value in text2 is that of Insecurity, and this seems to point quite clearly to the overall theme of the text, even if this is not explicitly stated. The next highest weighting in Affect for text2 is given to values of Inclination - 23.5% of all values of Affect, and 8.2% of all the attitudinal values identified in this text overall. In contrast, text1 shows only 2 values of Affect (similarly, Insecurity and Inclination as discussed above) which represents only 5% of all identified values of attitude in text1. For these reasons, these two values of Affect will be discussed in more detail below, both in terms of the nature of the targets and their sources in these texts, as well as the apparent orientation in text2 towards a theme of 'insecurity'. Differences in relative weighting between the texts can also be seen in Chart 3.1 above.

3.5.5 Ratios of values of Judgement versus AppreciationFor both texts, values of Judgement, and therefore evaluation of human behaviour, seem of more interest than values of Appreciation or Affect, but I suggest that these relative weightings would be found in almost any text taken from this context of interaction.1 As was pointed out earlier, for the writer of text1, the relative weighting of values of Judgement intra-textually is higher than that found in text2, at 59% and 53% respectively, although in terms of [judgement: propriety], text2 uses a higher proportion than text1 does. Further research in this area of interaction and the texts produced in this medium might reveal more precisely whether such patternings of evaluative orientation are indeed fairly typical and thus 'unmarked' for these contexts. As for Appreciation, text2 uses less than half the values of Appreciation as does text1 (12.3%

1 For a different genre, that of teacher anecdotes, McCabe found that 30% of the total Attitude tokens belonged to Affect, 32% to Appreciation, and 38% to Judgement in a corpus of 12 texts (personal communication).


against 36.5%) when calculated as a function of all values used in each text. If this is normalised to values per 1,000 words however (c.f. Chart 3.1), it appears that text2 uses a higher proportion of values Judgement: Capacity and Propriety, whereas text1 uses a higher proportion of values of Judgement: Tenacity. In comparison, the writer of text1 appears more concerned to evaluate using values of Appreciation: Valuation, and Reaction than does text2.

3.5.6 Ratios of values of Judgement Within Judgement, the best basis for comparison between texts is that between values of Capacity and Tenacity. Text1 uses Tenacity as the highest percentage of any single attitudinal value identified (26.8% of all values in text1, or 18.5 per 1,000 words), and text2 accords a similarly high ratio to values of [judgement: capacity] (18.5% of all values, or 20.3 per 1,000 words). This tends to indicate that the writer of text2 is concerned to evaluate human capability, whether negative or positive, while text1 is concerned to evaluate the nature of human reliability and dependability. A similar comparison of Judgement weightings given to the values of Propriety identified in the texts reveals that the writer of text2 seems much more concerned with correctness and morality than the writer of text1. Text2 makes judgements of Propriety in 23.7% of all its value statements (or 26 per 1,000 words), whereas Propriety represents 19.5% (or 13.4 per 1,000 words: cf. Chart 3.1) of text1's overall identified values. It needs to be stressed once more, that these weightings take into account those attitudinal values which were evoked, or provoked by co-textual signals, and so some of these evaluations are not inscribed or made overtly in the texts. This was felt to represent a clearer demonstration of the possible attitudinal values interpretable in the texts, and it also highlights one of the areas in which differences in textual persona can be examined: text2 is rich in attitudinal positioning, but these are not generally explicitly inscribed. The writer uses a series of moves in order to effect her evaluative positions, and these rhetorical strategies which depend on ambiguity of source, target, or attitudinal value seem to be characteristic of this writer's 'style'.

3.6 Sources and Targets of Attitude in the textsWhile the weightings of attitudinal values favoured by each of the writers might be somewhat indicative of their respective interpersonal positionings, a closer look at the identified values of Judgement: Capacity, Tenacity, and Propriety, along with the targets and sources of the evaluative positions shows the orientations of the writers more clearly. Accordingly, this, as well as


a discussion of the targets of the Affect realised in text2 will be undertaken below, based on the data in appendices B1 and D.

3.6.1 Comparison of favoured sources of AttitudeOne interesting dimension regarding the two sets of analyses is that relating to the source of the appraisal values. Approximately 28% of text2's sources of attitudinal values can be traced to the writer herself, when this is confined to those sources which are overtly identified in the text as specifically located in the "I" of the Addresser. In addition, there are several other instances of hidden or implied attributions to the self, as well as a fair number of 'averred: non-sourced' (after Hunston 2000) statements which leave the nature of the source of the attitudes in the text unnamed, as general knowledge or accepted states: as monologistic statements. If these are also taken into account as instances of 'self' as source, then the proportion of appraisers linked to the writer is closer to 86% in text2. In text1 there is a similar large proportion of "I" as appraiser, with 23% of all overt or 'emphasised' sources located there. If other instances of hidden, or averred non-sourced appraising are counted as well, then this proportion climbs to 49% - still a great deal less than in text2, however. The remainder of sources of attitude in text1 is indexed as outside the text - 4 attributions to authorities, 3 to general knowledge and common sense, 4 to the context of the email list itself including a reference to inclusive-we, and 4 to the writer's company management. Such extra-vocalisations tend to make for a less self-centred text, or, in other words, the heteroglossic positioning in the text seems to be more open.

The tracing of sources of Appraisal, especially in terms of the sources of attitude as either intra- or extra-vocalised, addresses the nature of authorial persona obliquely, as a by-product of the strategies for the evaluative co-positioning of interlocutors, and the construction of a dialogic space in the text. As Martin & White observe:

…the typology is concerned with prospective positioning, with the way the text positions itself with respect to potential responses from some actual or imagined interlocutor. Accordingly, then, from the perspective which informs the typology, the issue of internal-sourcing versus external-sourcing is secondary, is only relevant to the degree that the nature of the sourcing affects whether the utterance is dialogistically expansive or contractive. (in preparation)

With these texts, sources of appraisal are felt to be one of the means for characterising the actual 'voice' of the Addressers,


especially when they take up Speaker roles1. This is related to what Goffman (1974, 1981) differentiates as principal and animator, or in Genette's (1980) terms, intradiegetic narrators. However, the terms are not exactly the same: the principal identifies the self as the source of the proposition, the creator or responsible one, whereas the animator is only the vehicle for the statement, and may distance the self from responsibility for it. Principals and animators may be one and the same Addresser. In this sense, the Addresser is always an animator, but may not always be a principal. On the other hand, if an Addresser takes up a Speaker role, then they are animator only, with the principal explicitly located elsewhere. The Speaker role occurs most obviously, when for example, writers relinquish the Addresser role, and introduce quotations or the ideas of another writer, or when they change from the usual registers common in this context to write poetry or engage in performances of interdiscursivity.

At times less obviously, each evaluative proposition can be more or less traced to an internal or external voice. As described above (2.3), under Engagement, three voicings are possible for statements: monologistic, intra-vocalised, and extra-vocalised2. While monologistic statements are those which do not indicate any source for the statement, intra-vocalised statements do indicate some trace of the writer-voice, especially when these are framed by, for example, interpersonal adjuncts, or projecting clauses. This has some rhetorical significance if, for example, the analysis wishes to differentiate between the voicing as reflected in the sources of appraisal in the following two statements:

Ex. 3.1: New members in any group are the lifeblood of the group…(2:8)

Ex. 3.2: I know there are people here who fear me… (2:33)

In contrast to that in example 3.1, the statement in 3.2 can be seen as two separate propositions: I know [s.t.] and

1 In this thesis, a distinction is also sometimes made between the Addresser and the writer. The Addresser in this sense is similar to the implied author whereas 'writer' refers to the real author - those material entities which must be the source of all writing not composed by machine, but who are not actually 'present' in their texts as an entity.2 As discussed previously, monologistic is used instead of monologic in order to differentiate monologistic statements from what might be confused with the common understanding of the term monologue. While these texts are in fact monologues in one sense, one of their values for research into textual interaction is that projection into dialogue (Hoey, 2001) is indicated in these texts by the mode-bleeding and other strategies for signalling involvement, as outlined in Part I of this module.


There are people here who fear me

Each of these propositions derived from example 3.2 could be classed as "averred: non-sourced", or as bare assertions attributed to no-one. On the other hand, the projected clause containing the evaluation and framed by I know, can be classed as sourced to the Addresser 'I'.

This means that, in the case of example 3.1, the statement is unsourced and therefore monologistic: the Addresser does not appear as the principal, but only as the animator of ideas or propositions which do not need to be argued, and which are represented as not contingent on any specific subjectivity. These types of monologistic statement thus have a high degree of rhetorical significance in terms of the evaluative positioning of interlocutors, who are positioned as in agreement, or as sharing the evaluation. Whereas, in the case of example 3.2, rhetorical significance of another kind operates on this statement: here the writer acknowledges the contestability of claiming to know the condition of others' affective states, by, in effect, indexing her own subjectivity.

3.6.2 Comparison of Attitudinal targets, and textual cohesionThe targets of Appraisal, those objects or causes of attitudinal values, function as a tracking device for the unfolding of the discourse and its arguments. Targets appear to be grouped in 'clumps' of semantically-related collocates, and it is possible to trace the development of the argument by following the targets through the text. It also helps in tracking the strategies the writer uses for making the larger points of evaluative positioning in terms of contrasts and parallels, and is related to the interpersonal metafunctional values in texts said to be prosodic or field-like in nature (as contrasted with the ideational: particulate, and the textual: wavelike - c.f. Young et al, 1970). In tandem with other types of analysis, such groupings of targets of Appraisal are useful in characterising register, interactional moves or move complexes (strategies), and the larger rhetorical units within texts - all of which could be grouped under Gregory's (op cit) collective heading of 'phase', as discussed above (section 1.3.1), or Cloran's (1993) notion of rhetorical unit (see for example Hasan 1996: 117) which suggests that texts are composed of one or more rhetorical units and these in turn are composed of one or more messages. This thesis suggests that rhetorical units within and between larger text units can be identified using Appraisal analysis as one of the means of highlighting such rhetorical staging. In the following section, I examine the two example texts by discussing some of the ways in which this might be achieved.


4. Appraisal and discourse organisation

4.0 OverviewIn 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 trace 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 arranged in sets or clusters which 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 determine many of the invoked (provoked and evoked) 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 phase would realise the Valuate turn.

4.1 Attitude and the discourse organisation of text1In text1, 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. This appears as a quoted, framing opening move for the text: the nature of 'task' (see below section 5 for further discussion). In this first passage 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 at this point 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 also has a difference in meaning when applied to a human target: It was difficult of him to do that. Therefore, this utterance has been double-coded as both Judgement and Appreciation.

As noted earlier (3.3.3), instances of ambiguous attitude are regarded as relevant for the marking 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.

4.1.1 'Work' as target of appraisal in text1 In the section which follows sentence 1:5, the writer deals with being in a work group/working in a group. In this section, 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 larger 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, especially 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 intra-textual, as well as inter-textual (within the list as community) and extra-textual (makes reference to the material world of the writer, not shared by his present interlocutors). These references to entities both inside and outside the text, I contend are of great significance 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.

4.1.2 Appraisal and signals of closing 'phase shift' in text1The 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: …thereby 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 seems to be 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 Addresser'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 call "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). 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.

4.1.3 Closing sequence, provoked appraisal and signals of interactivity in text1At 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:

Ex. 4.1: 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).

4.1.4 Values of Judgement: tenacity and propriety in text1Because, 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.

Firstly, at least one of the values of Propriety in text1 is ambiguous, and perhaps an instance of evoked appraisal, and thus of interest to the rhetorical organisation as I see it: Maybe it is our job to survive… (1:15). The actual value of the proposition - negative or positive - is unclear due to the use of modality which distances the writer from the statement, especially in the light of the following counter, diminishing its 'importance': ...but it is hard to see why that would be all-important (1:15). 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.


4.1.4.1 Judgement : tenacity in text1Values of [judgement: tenacity] identified in the text fall 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 (1:20) - 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. 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).

4.2 Attitude and the discourse organisation of text2In 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 values of Affect 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.

4.2.1 Targets of evaluation organising text2 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. In Module Three, it is intended that a chapter surveying the function of negatives in these texts to construe audience attitudes is included (see also 4.2.2.1 below).

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.

4.2.2 Affect: insecurity and text2As 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 it was 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 evaluated as insecure about the group's stability (2:16), and the writer then claims insecurity 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.

4.2.2.1 Values of Judgement organising and constructing the audience of text2Values 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, 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!. As noted above, 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 Addresser 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 Addresser is able to position the Addressee(s) as having the opinion or viewpoint which is negated. In the example presented above, the Addresser 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 on the part of the 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:

Ex. 4.4: 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 here, as well as 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.

4.2.3 Values of Judgement constructing the self in text2 The rest of the Judgement values of capacity in text2 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.

One other exception to her overall assessment of her own positive capacity, 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 counter but, these two initial clause groups in the utterance may be said to serve as [engagement: disclaim] (via experiential negation) to set up the context for the alternative positive self evaluation: but [counter-expect]I am not ignorant to life (2:22). In the proposed report devoted to the use of the negative in texts in my corpus - and perhaps in general - I hope to demonstrate that the negative most often appears within 2 clause complexes of what Engagement terms Counter and Entertain.


5. The construction of an interactive context: The texts as replies to selected initiations.

5.1 Goffman's notion of 'response' and 'reply'Goffman (1981) in Chapter One of his Forms of Talk outlines the differences between what he sees as significant for the characterisation of conversation: the differentiation of Responses and Replies. His interest is directed towards outlining what constitutes the units or moves in any conversation and how these can determine the meaning of what is going on in any interactive situation. In Goffman's model, Responses may occur in any form as a reaction to a prior communicative act, whereas Replies are subcategories of Response -

..in which the alignment implied and the object to which reference is made are both conveyed through words and their substitutes; furthermore, this matter is addressed by the response is itself something that a prior speaker had referred to through words. (op cit: 35)

Furthermore, while Replies address themselves to the reference matter of the prior contribution in any conversational series, a Response may

..break frame and reflexively address aspects of a statement which would ordinarily be 'out of frame', ordinarily part of transmission, not content - for example, the statement's duration, tactfulness, style, origin, accent, vocabulary, and so forth. (op cit: 43)

Goffman in this chapter is concerned to be able to specify the basic conversational unit, and how such units may be structurally linked in interactional situations. If his fundamental distinction between Response and Reply is taken into account, then links between posts in a thread and their relevance to prior contributions should be able to be more precisely traced using linguistic means. In the following sections, some implications of considering texts from the perspective of their response status in the context of an on-going conversation, will be briefly discussed in terms of their relationship to the notion of Appraisal.

5.2 Reference to prior contributions and extra-vocalised quotations in determining the nature of the response The two texts used in this module as examples have been taken out of their interactional context for the purposes of analysis in


order to make a comparison of discourse semantic features. For this reason, the parts of the original posts which were not written by the Addressers have not been considered for appraisal analysis. However, the construction of certain evaluative positionings in these texts has not been made without reference to prior statements, and as such they actually form long turns or (sometimes series of) exchange complexes in the context of a longer thread, or conversation (cf Part 1: section 3.6: dimension II). The bounds of these threads are usually determined by subject line, but sometimes the ideational relevance to the original topic may eventually shift in referential orientation, while the same subject line is nevertheless maintained. This happens as contributions, or posts in response to prior contributions, move away in a variety of directions (cf. Part I, Figure 3.1). Theoretically, such thematic and topical shifts in referential orientation could be mapped by 'content' analysis of sequences of posts in a so-called thread (see for example Ekeblad 1998, 1999).

In Part 1 of this module, discussion was made regarding the features of this mode of interaction and the strategies commonly employed by email listmembers in compensating for the lack of what Halliday (1985 & 1994) terms the 'fluidity' of phonic channel interaction. It was pointed out (c.f. Part I, section 3.6) that contributors may choose to simulate the turn-taking of phonic channel interaction by means of inserting stretches of text from (a) prior contribution(s) into the post they write. In this manner, such overt extra-vocalising quotations serve as reframing moves, indicating to the audience what it is they are responding to. If a Response is to be classed as a Reply, however, some type of relevance needs to be indicated, and these insertions are one of the means of overtly indicating relevance which email listmembers have generally employed.

In the context of this study, the construction of relevance, via the quoting of a selected stretch of prior text as a framing move, and as an indicator of 'relative interactivity' as was contended above in Part 1, will be briefly illustrated. This is in order to more coherently account for the field or ideational orientation of the two texts in question, since it was earlier pointed out (1.3.1) that attitudinal values seemed to be related to the field or topic of the arguments presented in each text. This may in turn have something to do with ideological implications attaching to orientation to field, and thus use of specialist terminology relating to the valorisation of certain institutions, and institutional norms, and their 'orders of discourse' for example. Topic maintenance may also be used as a means of enhancing, or keeping certain ideological positions in play. Similar observations have been made by Martin & Rose (2003: 64 interalia).


5.3 Framing quotation in text1Text1 opens with the following sequence:

Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 08:04:22 +0000From: "Simon" <email>Subject: Re: "Just Say Delete" (Was: Re: a last bouquet)

John:

> The analogies of "diner/coffeehouse" and "informal seminar" are both >ways of representing the importance of informality and a social side as >opposed to a complete task focus.>>Some years ago I did some research for a minor thesis looking at the >effectiveness of task groups within three organizations. Two of the >factors influencing the effectiveness of the groups were Task Leadership >and Socio-emotional Leadership.

The post opens with a [naming: addressing] move, designating John as both the ideal Addressee, as well as the Addresser of the part of the prior post quoted here, and to which Simon is responding. This quotation, as an [extra-voc: quoting: framing]1 move completes the opening sequence and serves to frame what is to come. What is noteworthy in this context is the relevance and referentiality which is maintained throughout the response constructed by the Addresser in the body of the post which follows it. The obvious lexical items which are taken up and used by the writer in the rest of the post have been underlined above. This would demonstrate that this post, as response in context, can be classed as a Reply in a Goffmanian sense, since it directs itself to elaborating on the comments quoted in the framing sequence, and extending and enhancing the ideas presented there (c.f. Halliday 1994: 220). For example, in sentence 1:3, the writer first acknowledges his own view of 'task as analogy', then elaborates by giving further detail - harking back to its roots in tax or an onerous duty to be paid. He then goes on to make an extension for this analogy, by giving its 'definition' an additional element - an alternative view of 'task': In Bion it has more positive connotations (1:4). The theme of 'task as analogy' is continued throughout the text, and an analogy of seminars held in diners in the clause complexes 1:18 -1:20 again makes explicit reference to the propositional content of the quoted material.

1 The typology for labelling units of discourse organisation, or moves of this kind, is still under construction, and its state will be described in more detail in Module 3. An early version may be seen in Don 1997


5.4 Determination of reply related to the opening quotation in text2 In looking at text2 in context, it too uses the device of quoted material from a previous post (the relevance in style) in order to make relevant the observations that follow:

Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 16:13:46 -0500From: Sarah<email address>Subject: Baby Talk or So Happy Together

1Susan, and (Roy - I just got your post)

Susan's:1a"Sarah, I'm sorry if these musings of mine make you feel at all targeted. 1bI thought about not sending them, but as it is a question that has been brought out into the open, then I think I will."

Given this framing context, we can interpret text2 in a slightly different light, since it is in some sense actually addressed to Roy (whose 'honesty in communication' is used as a reference point in the text), as well as to the 'you' (Susan) who appears in the first sentence (2:1). In the quoted excerpt from a prior post, this contributor explicitly apologises for perhaps 'targeting' one of the Addressee(s) of that post, Sarah, who has here picked up the notion of being 'targeted', and uses this as the topic on which she bases the rest of her message.

In terms of evaluative positioning being more likely to engender a response, sentence 1a uses a [naming: addressing] move to first establish Sarah as the Addressee, which in itself is notable for email interaction, in that such [naming: addressing] moves overtly construct an ideal recipient, and thus function at the level of interactive prospection. This refers to the received function of these classes of move which tend to prospect for a response, especially when, as in this case, the original Addresser quoted clearly refers to a self as source of evaluations which are also linked in some way to the Addressee's status in the group. Sentence 1a clearly falls into this category. In other words, the proposition in 1a could be rendered as: I think that these musings of mine might make you feel targeted, in which Sarah is the target of an Appraisal (albeit highly modalized) in which she is characterised as suffering from negative [affect: insecurity]. It might not be so surprising, then, to read Sarah's response as a Reply which directly addresses this appraisal of her Attitude. In other words, the prevalence of values of [affect: insecurity] in the text can be viewed as entirely relevant to the context realised by the framing quotation.


5.4.1 Indicators of relative interactivity and engagement in text2 In terms of Engagement, this (quoted, framing) utterance is clearly dialogistically expansive. A more or less heteroglossic (or rather, 'intertextual' - referring to former texts from the list as community) space is achieved through reference to voices such as the self (these musings of mine) and the Addressee (you feel) - as well as in the sentence which follows, alluding to the group as also being responsible for these musings of mine, when she says that it is a question that has been brought out into the open . It also functions dialogistically to the extent that it leaves open the negotiatory space by apologising (I'm sorry) for something she imagines might or might not be acceptable on the part of her ideal recipient (if these musings...make you feel ). In this way, the quoted excerpt can be classed, in hindsight at least, as a good example of what I have been calling an interactive move, likely to engender a response from the Addressee, or audience member.

5.5 Text as post: one contribution to an ongoing context of interactionBoth texts were once part of a dynamic interactive context, and the posts which realised these texts can be seen as the product of a series of contributions which preceded them, and the initiation of other responses which followed. Both posts were chosen for their formatting in the 'relevance-in' style outlined in section 3.3 of Part I of this module, a style in which parts of a previous post are selected as the relevant chunks which need addressing, or which motivate the response. This module has argued that texts, and perhaps specifically email-list generated texts, can be analysed as series of evaluative positioning moves, or strategies which articulate, or develop the coherence of the message overall, as a function of the interrelationship of its rhetorical units.

Given this perspective, the next step is to work 'outwards' so to speak: to look at the previous contribution(s) which the node-post quotes, or to which it refers, and to look at contributions which later make reference to this post. Those sections quoted from a previous contribution need to be examined within their original co-text, in order to discover what, if any, indicators there are in these specific quoted sections which set them apart from the rest of the parent text. While Goffman (op cit) maintains that the respondee must indicate the relevance they found in any previous contribution, my interest is in finding any recurrent features of these sections of 'relevant chunks' which either mark them as, for example, 'highly involved', or which correlate with other aspects of the interaction, such as personal poster preferences or styles, or especially, local use of Appraisal. It is intended that Module Three


will report on the findings of a study focussed on these areas of investigation, one which attempts to address some wider aspects of the context of interaction of mailing list communities of practice.

An idea of some of the problems and interest areas involved in such a study may be gained in Appendix E, which shows the edited transcripts of 2 series of posts which formed the original context for the two texts examined in this module. In the case of text1, tracing the origin of the conversation was complicated by the fact that each contribution to the thread quoted an earlier contribution, and this also broke subject line boundaries. In other words, the original post using the thread's subject line ("a last bouquet") also quoted earlier posts without that subject line. Another problem associated with this thread, as can be seen by the amended list activity in Appendix E, was that there were a number of other threads occurring at the same time, which also resulted in the conversation stretching over several days. Furthermore, text1 was the final post in a sub-thread: the subject line was sub-headed "Just Say Delete", after which the main thread continued for several days. It was therefore decided to count posts starting from that with the original subject line, and make a sub-count of those which maintained that subject line. This style of tagging posts in a thread has been used throughout the thesis, in order to be able to maintain some aspects of the 'flow' of the original list activity. Basic headers of intervening posts were not removed in order to represent the type of activity sequence in which the thread was embedded.

In the case of text2, the thread in which it appeared ("So Happy Together") was also sub-headed "Baby Talk", but, seen as a function of co-quoting and response, this thread was short. In this case, only those posts relevant to each other have been reproduced in order to show the development of the conversation, those chunks which were deemed relevant by respondees, and their placement in the original post. For both threads, those parts quoted in later posts have been colour highlighted

The next step here would be to analyse whole posts which have been quoted, noting what features are evident or marked in those segments or chunks selected as relevant and quoted in later posts.


6. Conclusion

This short exercise in analysis using the system of Attitude, was made in order to demonstrate some of the ways that this type of analysis can be used to characterise the unfolding of the text, the evaluative positioning which the Addresser favours, and the inter-related nature of field (and hence, experiential and ideational values) and evaluative stances. It was also presented as a way in which such values may be investigated as contributing to further understanding of the workings and basis for rhetorical structure potential in this mode of interaction. This was linked to the need to look at indicators of relative interactivity and the construction of tenor in texts created in this context of interaction, as was discussed in Part I of this module.

In Module Three, this framework, in conjunction with a number of other approaches, will be used to investigate and comment on the analyses of a corpus of texts from a particular written-speech community of practice in order to characterise its conventional patterns of exchange and negotiation, and within this, present a means for investigating the nature of textual persona, or identity, as the creative use of such conventions in making context-dependent meanings. It is envisaged that the framework presented here, together with that presented in Module One, will prove a useful means for describing expository texts in general, characterising the context of interaction of other CMC text-based interfaces, and extend the Appraisal framework to take into account written interactive texts, and the means they provide of checking Appraisal values against the nature of responses made.

=====


mod2.2.3

Documents

appraisal analysis

appraisal framework

unit of text

particular text

systems of appraisal

cotextual configurations

analysing discourse

individual texts