Mistaking Ethical Behaviours For Tokens Of Appreciation

Martin & Rose (2007: 41):

For this analysis we’ve concentrated on items that don’t directly involve judgement. But the following paragraph gives us pause:

AND SINCE the Constitution states that there is a need for understanding but not for vengeance, a need for reparation but not for retaliation, a need for ubuntu but not for victimisation

Here the Act systematically opposes what we treated as appreciation above to terms which more explicitly involve ethical considerations, i.e. judgements about impropriety of people’s behaviour:

appreciation (healing)      judgement (impropriety)

understanding                vengeance

reparation                       retaliation
ubuntu                            victimisation

Afro-Christian values are constructed as transcending western justice.

Blogger Comments:

[1] Grammatically, this portion of the Explanatory memorandum to the Parliamentary Bill construes a replacive relation between pairs of nominalised processes (with ubuntu interpreted as 'behaving with humanity towards others'):

a	need	for understanding	but not for vengeance
a	need	for reparation	but not for retaliation
a	need	for ubuntu	but not for victimisation
Deictic	Thing	Qualifier
		1	+ 2 extension: variation: replacive

Lexically, the nominalised processes are pairs of ethical and unethical behaviours:

ethical	unethical
understanding	vengeance
reparation	retaliation
ubuntu	victimisation

That is, lexicogrammatically, in this portion of the text, the author proposes replacing unethical behaviours with ethical behaviours — these nominal groups being metaphorical realisations of proposals of what needs to be done.

If these lexical choices are tokens of attitude, then they are all assessments according to ethical values, and as such, are all tokens of judgement.  However, the question here is whether mentioning a positively valued quality, such as 'goodness', functions as an appraisal, as when something is assessed as 'good'.

[2] This again mistakes an appraisable process ('healing') for a standard by which to appraise (e.g. propriety).

[3] This ineffable twaddle misrepresents the inability of the authors to apply appraisal theory consistently as an insight into the different cultural values of an "other" community.

Confusing Metafunctions (inter alia)

Martin & Rose (2007: 40-1):

If we take communal healing as one dimension of value [i.e. appreciation] analysis, then the Act can also be seen to be concerned with repairing social relations:

SINCE the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 (Act No. 200 of 1993), provides a historic bridge between the past of a deeply divided society characterised by strife, conflict, untold suffering and injustice, and a future founded on the recognition of human rights, democracy and peaceful co-existence for all South Africans, irrespective of colour, race, class, belief or sex …

Blogger Comments:

[1] Trivially, the if…then relation here is logically invalid, because whether or not the text can be seen to be concerned with repairing social relations is not conditioned by taking communal healing as one dimension of appreciation analysis.

[2] This confuses what can be appraised (communal healing) with a system of appraisal.

[3] This confuses ideational construal (what the text is concerned with) with interpersonal enactment (appraising by the values of appreciation).  Interpersonal meaning is enacted, not construed.

[4] The text that Martin & Rose mistakenly refer to as 'the Act' is actually part of the 'Explanatory memorandum to the Parliamentary Bill'.

Misrepresenting Appraisal Analysis

Martin and Rose (2007: 40):

The key term for Tutu, judging from the title of his book, is forgiveness, which seems in this context to comprise aspects of both judgement and appreciation. Judgement in the sense that someone is generous enough to stop feeling angry and wanting to punish someone who has done something wrong to them; appreciation in the sense that peace is restored. It also seems that for Tutu, forgiveness involves a spiritual dimension, underpinned by his Christianity; the concept transcends ethical considerations towards a plane of peace and spiritual harmony. In appraisal terms what this means is that the politicised aesthetics of appreciation has recontextualised the moral passion plays of judgement.

Blogger Comments:

[1] This purports to be an appraisal analysis of a text, but instead, is a reverie on the meaning of the word forgivenesss on the basis of the book title No Future With Forgiveness.

[2] No such judgement by Tutu is cited.  The only excerpt from the text that is cited is the title No Future With Forgiveness.  This might be analysed by treating it as an elliptical rendering of we have no future without forgiveness, which can be interpreted as metaphorical for something like we must forgive.  If so, this is a proposal, not a proposition — Tutu is telling his readers what they must do, rather than judging 'someone'.

[3] No such appreciation by Tutu is cited.  This is merely an unsupported inference made by Martin & Rose.

[4] No such considerations, expressed by Tutu, are cited.  Martin & Rose here use the fact that the author is a Christian clergyman to imagine what he might have in mind.

[5] This is a vacuous obfuscation.  This can be demonstrated by the following grammatical analysis of the clause.

in appraisal terms	what this means	is	that the politicised aesthetics of appreciation has recontextualised the moral passion plays of judgement
Matter	Identified Value	Process	Identifier Token

The analysis shows that the clause is identifying, but marked in terms of voice and the direction of coding, being:

• receptive, rather operative, and
• encoding, rather decoding.

The clause construes an identity that encodes what this means by reference to an embedded fact: that the politicised aesthetics of appreciation has recontextualised the moral passion plays of judgement.

The embedded fact is itself another identifying clause, but one which is the opposite of the ranking clause in terms of voice and coding: it is operative and decoding.  It also differs from the ranking clause in being circumstantial rather an intensive.

the politicised aesthetics of appreciation	has recontextualised	the moral passion plays of judgement
Identified Token	Process: identifying: circumstantial: spatio-temporal	Identifier Value

The embedded clause construes an identity that decodes the politicised aesthetics of appreciation by reference to the moral passion plays of judgement.  However, because Martin & Rose have not explained what they mean by either nominal group, this identity decodes an unknown by reference to an unknown.

Consequently, the identity construed by the ranking clause encodes what this means by reference to an identity that decodes an unknown by reference to an unknown.  This is the experiential grammar of obfuscation.

(Since the concern here is not with appraisal analysis, the Matter circumstance in appraisal terms is unwarranted.)

Misunderstanding 'Capacity' And Confusing Prosodic Structure With Logogenesis

Martin and Rose (2007: 40):

Even more borderline perhaps are the generalisations of these positive capacities when Vaughan is referred to as a torchbearer of the 1980s-1990s blues revival and a rockin’ blues purist:

torchbearer, rockin' blues purist

In the prosodic domain of this positive appreciation of the CD, these can arguably be included as positive appreciations; but just as strong a case might be made for reading items such as these as positive judgements of Vaughan’s capacity as an artist, especially in contexts where character rather than performance is being evaluated. The context sensitivity of these borderline items underlines the importance of analysing appraisal in prosodic terms. So it is important to take co-text into account, rather than analysing simply item by item.

Blogger Comments:

[1] To be clear, if appreciation is interpreted as assessment by reference to æsthetic values, and judgement is interpreted as assessment by reference to ethical values, then torchbearer and rockin' blues purist are not borderline cases; both are simply tokens of appreciation, as would be expected in a music review.

[2] Neither torchbearer nor rockin' blues purist is an assessment of capacity:

• torchbearer is not an assessment of what Vaughan can do, but an assessment of what he is; 
• rockin' blues purist is not an assessment of what Vaughan can do, but an assessment of what he is.

[3]  This confuses 'prosodic', a type of structure, with the unfolding of the text, logogenesis.