Cover not available
Article published In:
Functions of Language
Vol. 29:2 (2022) ► pp.199–225

Redefining attitude for studying explicit and indirect evaluations of human behaviour

ORCID logo | University of East Anglia | University of Reading
This article considers the application of the Attitude framework (Martin & White 2005) to study the evaluation of human behaviour. The distinction between inscribed (explicit) and invoked (indirect) attitude is re-examined and systematised to better operationalise the analysis of the evaluation of behaviour. General linguistic evaluation triggers are identified for inscribed and invoked evaluations, and the annotation scheme is applied in a corpus of texts from different registers (a psychiatric manual, educational guidelines and informal online exchanges) concerned with ADHD. Indirect evaluations of behaviour are described as attitudinal inferences derived from (i) the behaviours of the individuals, (ii) the behavioural outcomes, (iii) the impact that the behaviour or its outcomes have on third parties and the actions that the latter may perform as a result. It is proposed that indirect evaluations of people’s behaviour are metonymically inferred through an effect→cause relation drawn across the different parts of an action scenario. The conceptual metonymy explains the directionality observed in attitude analyses (Appreciation attitude type may stand as tokens of Judgment), and it shows the impossibility of evaluating performances without indirectly appraising the human behaver.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.ADHD
  • 3.Data and methodological considerations
  • 4.Evaluation in language
    • 4.1Appraisal
    • 4.2Difficulties in operationalising attitude
      • 4.2.1Appreciation, Judgement and Russian Dolls
      • 4.2.2Systematising the analysis of attitude inscription
  • 5.Redefining attitude for a study of human behaviour
    • 5.1Inscribed evaluations of behaviour
    • 5.2Invoked evaluations of behaviour
  • 6.Invoked evaluations of behaviour as metonymic-based attitudinal inferences
  • 7.Attitudes associated to ADHD
  • 8.Concluding remarks
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21022.vil
References (35)
References
ADHD-Europe. 2009. ADHD-Europe declaration about AD/HD. Retrieved from: [URL]
American Psychiatric Association. 2013. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. APA: Arlington. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartlett, Tom. 2014. Analysing power in language: A practical guide. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2009a. Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(1). 146–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009b. Polyphony in Appraisal: Typological and topological perspectives. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 3(2). 107–136.Google Scholar
Benítez Castro, Miguel-Ángel & Encarnación Hidalgo-Tenorio. 2019. Rethinking Martin & White’s affect taxonomy. In J. Lachlan Mackenzie & Laura Alba Juez (eds.), Emotion in discourse, 301–331. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Canu, Will H., Matthew L. Newman, Tara L. Morrow & Daniel L. Pope. 2008. Social appraisal of adult ADHD: stigma and influences of the beholder’s Big Five personality traits. Journal of Attention Disorders 11(6). 700–710. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, Matteo. 2018. A stepwise method for annotating APPRAISAL. Functions of Language 25(2). 229–258. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fuoli, Matteo & Charlotte Hommerberg. 2015. Optimising transparency, reliability and replicability: Annotation principles and inter-coder agreement in the quantification of evaluative expressions. Corpora 10(3). 315–349. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. Speaking and thinking with metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), 60–76. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenway, Charlotte. W. & Alison Rees Edwards. 2020. Knowledge and attitudes towards attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A comparison of teachers and teaching assistants. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties 25(1). 31–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hidalgo-Tenorio, Encarnación, & Miguel-Ángel Benítez-Castro. 2020. Trump’s populist discourse and affective politics, or on how to move ‘the People’ through emotion. Globalisation, Societies and Education 1–24.Google Scholar
. 2021. The language of evaluation in the narratives by the Magdalene Laundries survivors: The discourse of female victimhood. Applied Linguistics 42(2). 315–341. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hood, Susan. 2019. Appraisal. In Geoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 382–409. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hood, Susan, & J. R. Martin. 2005. Invoking Attitude: The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on Language: A functional perspective, 739–764. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2011. Corpus approaches to evaluation Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan, & Hang Su. 2019. Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics 40(4). 567–593. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lebowitz, Matthew S. 2016. Stigmatization of ADHD: A developmental review. Journal of Attention Disorders 20(3). 199–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malmberg, Kerstin, Tobias Edbom, Hanna-Linn Wargelius, & Jan-Olov Larsson. 2011. Psychiatric problems associated with subthreshold ADHD and disruptive behaviour diagnoses in teenagers. Acta Paediatrica 100(11). 1468–1475. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2003. Introduction. Text 231. 171–81.Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mueller, Anna, Anselm B. M. Fuermaier, Janneke Koerts & Lara Tucha. 2012. Stigma in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. ADHD: Attention Deficit & Hyperactivity Disorders 4(3). 101–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pounds, Gabrina. 2010. Attitude and subjectivity in Italian and British hard-news reporting: The construction of a culture-specific ‘reporter’voice. Discourse Studies 12(1). 106–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden. 1999. Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg. 1998. A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics 30(6). 755–769. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda L. Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 1–20. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Metaphor and metonymy in language and thought: A cognitive linguistic approach. Synthesis Philosophica 32(2). 271–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radden, Günter & Zoltan Kövecses. 1999. Towards a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), 17–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Singh, Ilina, Tim Kendall, Clare Taylor, Alex Mears, Chris Hollis, Martin Batty, Sinead Keenan. 2010. Young people’s experience of ADHD and stimulant medication: A qualitative study for the NICE guideline. Child Adolescent Mental Health 15(4).186–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff. 2008. Appraising glances: Evaluating Martin’s model of APPRAISAL. Word 59(1–2). 169–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Affect and emotion, target value mismatches, and Russian dolls. Refining the Appraisal model. In Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), Evaluation in context, 47–66. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walker, Janet S., Daniel Coleman, Junghee Lee, Peter N. Squire & Barbara J. Friesen. 2008. Children’s stigmatization of childhood depression and ADHD: Magnitude and demographic variation in a national sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 47(8). 912–920. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Peter R. R. 2006. Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse. A new framework for analysis. In Inger Lassen, Jeanne Strunck & Torben Vestergaard (eds.), Mediating ideology in text and image: Ten critical studies, 37–67. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2011. Appraisal. In Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Discursive pragmatics, 14–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cheng, Shi
2023. A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages 0:0 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.