Exploring evaluative, emotive and persuasive strategies in discourse. AAVV

(described in Section 4).¹ Both kinds of texts deal with facts and information, but differ in that argumentative texts intend to persuade the reader of the validity of a given position on a certain issue. The research aims to gain further insight into how the distribution of different kinds of Engagement expressions is influenced by the language and the main purpose of the texts.

      The paper is structured as follows: Section 2, which describes the theoretical framework, contains a brief description of the Appraisal system and a more detailed description of the system of Engagement. Section 3 states the research hypotheses. Section 4 describes the MULTINOT corpus and the method used for analysing the data. Section 5 discusses a number of unclear cases, some of which might be analysed as belonging to two different categories of Engagement, while others display an overlap of Engagement with Attitude or Graduation; the decisions taken regarding the analysis in these cases are made explicit. Section 6 specifies and discusses the results of the quantitative analysis. Section 7 contains a final discussion and concluding remarks.

2 Theoretical Framework

      2.1. THE APPRAISAL SYSTEM

      Appraisal is a well-known system aimed at analysing the language of evaluation, that is, the linguistic expressions that indicate “the subjective presence of writers/speakers in texts as they adopt stances towards both the material they present and those with whom they communicate” (Martin and White 2005:1). This system was developed within the systemic-functional approach to linguistics and had its origins in work carried out in Australia in the 1980s and 1990s for the Write It Right Project, conceived as an aid for students in schools for the disadvantaged. Studies on Appraisal have been dramatically expanded to the analysis of different languages and registers.²

      Within the Appraisal system, the main categories are Attitude, Engagement and Graduation. Attitude concerns the expression of emotional, moral and aesthetic opinions, as in (1):

      (1)The debtors’ prisons of the nineteenth century were a failure – inhumane and not exactly helping to ensure repayment. (EO_ ESS_001)³

      Graduation concerns the expression of gradability, i.e. the strengthening or weakening of the opinions expressed. Expressions of Graduation, unlike expressions of Attitude, do not have intrinsic positive or negative values but acquire them in context. Graduation is divided into two subtypes: Focus and Force. Focus involves prototypicality, in the sense of proximity or distance to a core or exemplary member of a category. Examples of Focus are the italicised expressions in ‘literally redemptive’ or ‘typically, they are sophisticated financial institutions’. Force consists in the modulation of the impact of what is stated, as in ‘even more delighted’ or ‘shows much promise’.

      Engagement, the system on which this paper focuses, concerns the ways in which speakers or writers position themselves with respect to the content communicated and to possible reactions and responses to their positions. That is to say, Engagement concerns the relation between what is being communicated and other actual or potential viewpoints. Language users may engage or disengage with their own words by quoting, reporting, acknowledging other possibilities, denying, affirming, etc. (Martin and White 2005: 36). The subcategories of Engagement are treated in detail in Section 2.2.

2.2 THE SYSTEM OF ENGAGEMENT

      The system of Engagement as defined above is based on the notions of dialogism and heteroglossia (Bakhtin 1981; Voloshinov 1973), inscribed in a dialogic perspective of communication. Within this perspective, all verbal communication is ‘dialogic’ in the sense that to speak or to write is “to reveal the influence of, refer to, or to take up in some way, what has been said / written before, and simultaneously to anticipate the responses of actual, potential or imagined readers/listeners” (Martin and White 2005: 92). The most general distinction within the system of Engagement is that between Monogloss and Heterogloss. Monogloss consists in “not overtly referencing other voices or recognising alternative positions” (Martin and White 2005: 99). Monoglossic utterances are thus not considered in relation to other alternative perspectives. The distinction between Monogloss and Heterogloss cuts across another distinction in the expression of the speaker/writer’s attitude, namely that between epistemic and effective stance (Langacker 2009: 291; Marín-Arrese 2011). Epistemic stance pertains to the speaker/writer’s position concerning knowledge about the states or events designated, while effective stance concerns the ways in which the speaker/writer tries to influence the course of reality. Monoglossic epistemic stance is expressed by bare assertions, as in (2), and monoglossic effective stance by the imperative mood.

      (2)The Portuguese Crown granted lands in usufruct to Brazil’s first big landlords. (ETrans_EXP_016)

      By contrast, Heterogloss does consider alternative positions. In the case of effective stance, heterogloss includes, for instance, deontic modality, which means obligation, recommendability or permission. The study of Engagement in this paper is restricted to heteroglossic epistemic stance, that is, to the author’s signalling of an explicit position in the transmission of information; effective stance, whose concern is not to inform about the world but to act (or attempt to act) upon it, will not be considered.

      For the study of heteroglossic epistemic stance, which from now on will be labelled with the shorter name ‘Heterogloss’, I have adopted the system proposed in Martin and White (2005). The only difference lies in the category of Entertain, which in Martin and White’s model is not divided into subcategories even if they acknowledge that it contains expressions with different meanings, such as expressions of epistemic modality and evidentiality, and pseudo-questions. I believe, however, that it is worth conferring the status of subcategories to these meanings, in order to view their relative weight in the expression of Entertain as a whole. The subcategories are called Estimate, Infer, Speculate and Opine, and will be defined in 2.2.1. below. The resulting system of Heterogloss, explained in the remainder of this subsection, is synoptically presented in Table 1.

Table 1. The system of Engagement used in this paper. The labels in italics are the additions to Martin and White’s (2005) proposed in this research.

      The remainder of this section is an account of the subcategories of Heterogloss. The account is illustrated with expressions that commonly realise concrete categories, even if the value of each expression ultimately depends on the context in which it occurs. Other expressions, however, are not easily assigned to a given category; some instances of these are treated in Section 5.

       2.2.1 Expansion

      Expansion is a subtype of Heterogloss, which “corresponds to utterances which acknowledge dialogically alternative positions and voices” (Martin and White 2005: 102). There is no strong support of the position presented; rather, other possible positions are acknowledged as deserving consideration. Not surprisingly, Expansion often has the effect of weakening assertiveness. Expansion is subdivided into two categories: Entertain and Attribute.

      The Entertain option consists in “presenting the proposition as grounded in its own contingent, individual subjectivity, [so that] the authorial voice represents the proposition as but one of a range of possible positions” (Martin and White 2005: 98). As stated in the Introduction, Martin and White approach Entertain as a broad category encompassing expressions with different meanings, which have the common function expressed in the definition.