Martin & Rose (2007: 26-9):
Attitudes have to do with evaluating things, people’s character and their feelings. …
So these evaluations can be divided into three basic kinds according to what is being appraised: (i) the value of things, (ii) people’s character and (iii) people’s feelings. …
And there are three main types of attitude: expressing emotion, judging character and valuing the worth of things. Technically we’ll refer to resources for expressing feelings as affect, resources for judging character as judgement and resources for valuing the worth of things as appreciation. …In this section we look more closely at the three kinds of attitude we have identified: affect (people’s feelings), judgement (people’s character) and appreciation (the value of things).
Expressing our feelings: affect
As we explore how people express their feelings in discourse, we find that they vary in two general ways. Firstly, we can have good feelings or bad feelings, so affect can be positive or negative. Secondly people can express their feelings directly, or we can infer how people are feeling indirectly from their behaviour, so affect can be expressed directly or implied.
Blogger Comments:
[1] The interpretation of affect as "evaluating people's feelings" confuses the kind of evaluation with what is evaluated. This is, in turn, inconsistent with the notion of affect as "expressing feelings"; see [4] below.
[2] This is inconsistent with the body of work on appreciation. Appreciation is not limited to 'valuing the worth of things'. Appreciation is 'the evaluation of objects and products (rather than human behaviour) by reference to æsthetic principles and other systems of social value' (as explained here). For example, the very important professor is an instance of appreciation, despite appraising a person.
[3] This is inconsistent with the body of work on judgement. Judgement is not limited to 'appraising people's character'. Judgement is 'the evaluation of human behaviour with respect to social norms' (as explained here).
[4] This is misleading in that it misrepresents affect. Affect is not simply a matter of 'expressing feelings'. Affect is 'the characterisation of phenomena by reference to emotion' (as explained here).
It is interesting that you are criticizing JR Martin's misrepresentation of Attitude by referencing the alternative definitions of P.R.R. White. It's interesting because JR Martin and P.R.R. White have written a book together called "The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English". I haven't read this book but plan to in the future. Are you aware of this book? How is it that these two authors who both have different approaches to the fundamentals of Appraisal can still co-write a text on it?
ReplyDeleteThe Language Of Evaluation was largely written by White under Martin's control. Many people contributed to Appraisal Theory, but it was White's PhD thesis that distilled it as an integrated theory. Martin was White's supervisor, and published a paper on Appraisal before White submitted his thesis, thereby giving the false impression that it is brainchild. It is White who set up and maintains the Appraisal website.
DeleteWorking with Discourse was written largely by Rose under Martin's control. As this blog demonstrates, neither of them are competent users of the theory.
I have known Martin and White personally for 33 years, and Rose for 25 years.
Many thanks for your response.
DeleteI'm in a somewhat conflicted situation. As much as I enjoy studying the various aspects of SFL (including the extensions outwards towards Multi-modal CDA and Social Semiotics), I've recently started my first year at Uni with a double major in English & Cultural Studies and so lack the necessary time to go into it deeply.
Currently I'm searching for some sort of coherent modal to analyse all sorts of literary and cultural texts. I was initially excited to use Working with Discourse due to its relative simplicity and naively thought that it was an extension on SFL's clause based analysis.
So, what resources would you recommend a beginner like me who wants to critically analyse texts whilst still maintaining a strong empirical basis?
For understanding the grammar, either the first two editions of IFG (1985 or 1994).
DeleteBut perhaps Appraisal Theory would suit you better, because you can quickly uncover how a text is working the reader with very little time investment. I'd start with the website: http://www.languageofevaluation.info/appraisal/index.html
Is there a particular reason why you recommend the 1st or 2nd editions?
DeleteThey were written by Halliday for beginners. The later editions were reconfigured by Matthiessen to include more theory, because by 2004 there were several other publications that duplicated the task of the original editions.
DeleteMany thanks.
Delete