Article published in:
Functions of Language
Vol. 29:2 (2022) ► pp. 169–198

Diachronic changes of least delicate appraisal in parliamentary and congressional language

An SFL-based computational study

| Qassim University

This study investigates least delicate patterns of appraisal in two diachronic corpora of UK Parliament and U.S. Congress speeches over the last two centuries, focusing on diachronic changes and trends of systemic probabilities of least delicate engagement and attitude polarity. Based on computational algorithms that automatically extract appraisal instances and intersections from the two corpora, the comparative analysis carried out in this paper incorporates several statistical methods, including homogeneity or ‘change-point’ tests, Mann-Kendall trend analysis, and time-series Correspondence Analysis. The results indicate that, in both corpora, probabilities of monoglossic as well as attitudinal patterns (as opposed to neutral ones) follow statistically significant upward trends. In addition, positive polarity is increasing steadily, especially in the U.S. Congress. appraisal intersections are also dynamically changing depending on changes in sociopolitical circumstances. More specifically, in the formative and early years during which party conflicts were intensified, heteroglossic patterns are favored. In war and post-war periods, monoglossic patterns are more associated with neutral polarity. In recent decades, during which political polarization hit a peak, monoglossic patterns begin to favor attitudinal polarity. These findings are discussed in terms of possible causal and correlational interpretations, limitations and directions for future research.

Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpora and methodology
    • 2.1Corpora
    • 2.2Appraisal
    • 2.3Computational and statistical methodology
  • 3.Statistical results
    • 3.1Diachronic changes in least delicate choices of engagement in the UK Parliament and U.S. Congress
    • 3.2Diachronic changes in attitudinal polarity choices in the UK Parliament and U.S. Congress
    • 3.3Diachronic patterns of least delicate appraisal intersections in the UK Parliament and U.S. Congress
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 04 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
References
Abercrombie, Gavin & Batista‑Navarro, Riza
2020 Sentiment and position‑taking analysis of parliamentary debates: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computational Social Science 31. 245–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Almutairi, Bandar Alhumaidi A.
2019 Quantifying systemic coupling and syndrome using multivariate statistical methods: An SFL corpus example. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 15(1). 1–38.Google Scholar
Álvarez-Benito, Gloria, Gloria Fernández-Díaz & Isabel Íñigo-Mora
(eds.) 2009 Discourse and politics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Archer, Dawn
2018 Negotiating difference in political contexts: An exploration of Hansard. Language Sciences 68 1. 22–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argamon, Shlomo, Kenneth Bloom, Andrea Esuli & Fabrizio Sebastiani
2007 Automatically determining attitude type and force for sentiment analysis. Paper presented at the LTC 2007, Berlin.
Arya, Apoorva, Vishal Shukla, Arvind Negi & Kapil Gupta
2020 A review: Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Paper presented at the the International Conference on Innovative Computing & Communications (ICICC) 2020, New Delhi.
Bayley, Paul
2004a The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. In Paul Bayley (ed.), 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2004b Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika
2006 Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1995 On the role of computational, statistical, and interpretive techniques in multi-dimensional analyses of register variation: A reply to Watson. Text 15(3). 341–370.Google Scholar
Chilton, Paul
2004 Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chilton, Paul & Christina Schäffner
1997 Discourse and politics. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction, Vol. 21, 206–230. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Decter-Frain, Ari & Jeremy A. Frimer
2016 Impressive words: Linguistic predictors of public approval of the U.S. Congress. Front. Psychol. 7(240). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gentzkow, Matthew, Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy
2019 Measuring group differences in high-dimensional choices: Method and application to congressional speech. Econometrica 87(4). 1307–1340. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gerston, Larry N.
2010 Public policy making: Process and principles. Armonk: M.E.Sharpe.Google Scholar
Glynn, Dylan
2014 Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. In Dylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (Human Cognitive Processing 43), 443–485. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenacre, Michael J.
1984 Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haarman, Louann & Linda Lombardo
2009 Introduction. In Louann Haarman & Linda Lombardo (eds.), Evaluation and stance in war news, 1–26. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1991a Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. In Karin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman.Google Scholar
1991b Towards probabilistic interpretations. In Eija Ventola (ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses, 39–62. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Horák, Aleš & Pavel Rychlý
2013 Methods for detection of word usage over time. In Ondˇrej Herman & Vojtˇech Kováˇr (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh workshop on recent advances in Slavonic natural languages processing, RASLAN 2013, 79–85. Brno: Tribun EU.Google Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
2003 Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics 2(1). 71–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jensen, Jacob, Ethan Kaplan, Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson
2012 Political polarization and the dynamics of political language: Evidence from 130 years of partisan speech. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 43(2). 1–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jenset, Gard B. & Barbara McGillivray
2017 Quantitative historical linguistics: A corpus framework. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kirvalidze, Nino & Nino Samnidze
2016 Political discourse as a subject of interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Teaching and Education 5(1). 161–170.Google Scholar
Křen, Michal
2017 Grammatical change: Trends in contemporary Czech newspapers. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 68(2). 238–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, Bertus van Rooy & Adam Smith
2019 Register change in the British and Australian Hansard (1901–2015). Journal of English Linguistics 47(3). 183–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, William
2008 Triggering Events. In Elizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Topics in English linguistics, Vol. 611, 11–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Li, Zuhe, Yangyu Fan, Bin Jiang, Tao Lei & Weihua Liu
2019 A survey on sentiment analysis and opinion mining for social multimedia. Multimedia Tools and Applications 78(6). 6939–6967. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loerts, Hanneke, Wander Lowier & Bregtje Seton
2020 Essential statistics for applied linguistics: Using R and JASP. London: Red Globe Press.Google Scholar
Mann, Henry B.
1945 Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 13(3). 245–259. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R.
1992 English text: System and structure Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000 Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
2005 Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
2006 Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems. In Geoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and orpus: Exploring connections, 103–142. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Militino, Ana E., Mehdi Moradi & Dolores Ugarte
2020 On the performances of trend and change-point detection methods for remote sensing data. Remote Sens. 12(6). 1008–1033. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Donna
2004 Truth, Justice and the American Way: The appraisal system of judgement in the U.S. House debate on the impeachment of the President, 1998. In Paul Bayley (ed.), 271–300. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mulgan, Richard G.
1974 Aristotle’s doctrine that man is a political animal. Hermes 102(3). 438–445.Google Scholar
Nesbitt, Chris & Guenter Plum
1988 Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause complex in English. In Robin P. Fawcett & David J. Young (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics, Vol. 21, 6–39. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Oteíza, Teresa & Claudia Castro
2019 Dictatorship and the Cold War in official Chilean history textbooks. In Barbara Christophe, Peter Gautschi & Robert Thorp (eds.), The Cold War in the classroom: International perspectives on textbooks and memory practices, 221–247. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Owoyea, Oluwole & Matthew Dabrosb
2017 The analysis of White House occupant and political polarization in the United States. Review of Social Sciences 2(4). 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Read, Jonathon & John Carroll
2012 Annotating expressions of Appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation 46(3). 421–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Vergara, Daniel
2015 Clause combining in research articles in Spanish and English: A systemic-functional analysis. US-China Foreign Language 13(7). 471–482. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rokach, Lior
2019 Ensemble learning: Pattern classification using ensemble methods (2nd edn.). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sheckels, Theodore F.
2000 When congress debates: A Bakhtinian paradigm. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Stadler, Kevin
2016 Direction and directedness in language change: An evolutionary model of selection by trend-amplification. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD thesis.
Stefanowitsch, Anatol
2005 New York, Dayton (Ohio), and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 1(2). 295–301. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli & Marco R. Steenbergen
2004 Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Su, Hang & Monika Bednarek
2018 Bibliography of appraisal, stance and evaluation. Available online at https://​www​.researchgate​.net​/profile​/Hang​_Su3​/contributions
Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll & Manfred Stede
2011 Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics 37(2). 267–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, Maite & Jack Grieve
2004 Analyzing appraisal automatically. Paper presented at the AAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text, Stanford.
Thornbury, Scott & Diana Slade
2006 Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Treimane, Laura
2011 Analyzing parliamentary discourse: Systemic functional perspective. Kalbotyra 63(3). 78–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, Teun A.
1997 What is political discourse analysis. In Jan Blommaert & ‎Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Political Linguistics, 11–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004 Text and context of parliamentary debates. In Paul Bayley (ed.), 339–372. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17(3). 359–383. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vardanega, Moreno
2016 Analysis of sentiment direction based on two centuries of the Hansard Debate Archive. Stirling: University of Stirling unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Vukovic, Milica
2014 Strong epistemic modality in parliamentary discourse. Open Linguistics 11. 37–52. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vuković, Milica
2015 Emphasisers in the UK parliamentary language: A diachronic and a synchronic perspective. Paper presented at the ICIFL5, Podgorica.
Załęska, Maria
2012 Rhetoric and politics: Mapping the interrelations. In Maria Załęska (ed.), Rhetoric and politics: Mapping the interrelations, 1–19. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele, Chris Cléirigh, Paul Dwyer & J. R. Martin
2009 The coupling of gesture and phonology. In Monika Bednarek & J. R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 237–266. London: Continuum.Google Scholar