The Three Systems of APPRAISAL: ATTITUDE, GRADUATION and ENGAGEMENT, Seem to Provide The

Module Two

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

1. Introduction

1.1 Overview

Part 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 '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 1978[1]). 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 much on reference to intertextual knowledge: the analyst needs to take the role of ethnographer and the reading position of participant-observer. The Appraisal framework presented here is therefore augmented by reference to that part of heteroglossic space[2] 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 space

Tacit group norms are the product of ongoing social practices which structure the abstract social space in which interaction takes place. Each text can be viewed as an attempt to negotiate legitimate positions within this social space, and to contest the norms in some cases by naming and defining the nature of 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.

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 texts

The texts in this study are edited posts[3], 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 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 paragraphs

In 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 = Affect

Blue = Judgement

Green = Appreciation

Purple = double coded, provoked/evoked Judgements

Example 1.1

1The concept of "task," has a richhistory here[appreciation: valuation]. 2Not only [graduation]is there a

common sense meaning of task as the job to be done,[appreciation: valuation] but it is a technical term in Bion's group psychology. [appreciation: valuation: evoked via reference to valued discourse] 3Ihave been one to see task as analogy -- harking back to its roots in "tax" or an oneroustributeto be paid[appreciation: reaction: negative] [via contrast with next clause?]. 4In Bion, it has morepositive [appreciation: valuation: positive]connotations, and being a work group in accomplishment of a task is not only [graduation: force]healthy but morallygood[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 anylegit 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 sometimesodd[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 nolies, hurtno 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.