This paper explores a new line of analysis for comparing opinion writing by reference to differences in the
relationships being indicated between author and addressee. It draws on recent work within the appraisal framework
literature to offer proposals for linguistics-based analyses of what has variously been termed the ‘intended’, ‘imagined’,
‘ideal’, ‘virtual’, ‘model’, ‘implied’ and ‘putative’ reader (the ‘reader written into the text’). A discussion is provided of those means by
which beliefs, attitudes and expectations are projected onto this ‘reader in the text’, formulations which signal anticipations
that the reader either shares the attitude or belief currently being advanced by the author, potentially finds it novel or
otherwise problematic, or may reject it outright. The discussion is conducted with respect to written, persuasive texts, and
specifically with respect to news journalism’s commentary pieces. It is proposed that such texts can usefully be characterised and
compared by reference to tendencies in such ‘construals’ or ‘positionings’ of the putative reader – tendencies in terms of whether
the signalled anticipation is of the reader being aligned or, conversely, potentially unaligned or dis-aligned with the author.
The terms ‘flag waving’ and ‘advocacy’ are proposed as characterisations which can be applied to texts, with ‘flag waving’
applicable to texts which construe the reader as largely sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes, while ‘advocacy’ is
applicable to texts where the reader is construed as actually or potentially not sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes and
thereby needing to be won over. This line of analysis is demonstrated through a comparison of two journalistic opinion pieces
written in response to visits by Japanese politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, one published in the English-language
version of the mainland China newspaper, China Daily and one in the English-language version of the Japanese
Asahi Shimbun. It is shown that one piece can usefully be characterised as oriented towards ‘flag waving’ and
the other towards ‘advocacy’.
Bakhtin, Mikhail M.1981. The dialogic
imagination. Texas: University of Texas Press.
Booth, Wayne C.1961. The rhetoric of
fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Carston, Robyn. 1998. Negation, ‘presupposition’ and
the semantics/pragmatics distinction. Journal of
Linguistics 34 (2). 309–350.
Christie, Frances. & James R. Martin. 1997. Genres
and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London & New York: Continuum.
Delogu, Francesca. 2009. Presupposition. In Jef Vershueren & Jan-Ola Östman (eds.), Key
notions for pragmatics, 195–207. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Don, Alexanne. 2017. Stance-taking
and the construal of textual persona in written contexts: Social contact revisited. Linguistics
and the Human
Sciences 13 (1–2). 70–95.
Gibson, Walker. 1950. Authors,
speakers, readers, and mock readers. College
English 11 (5). 164–174.
Halliday, Michael A. K.1994. An introduction to functional
grammar (2nd
edition). London: Edward Arnold.
Halliday, Michael. A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language,
context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic
perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1999. Speaking
with reference to context. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Text
and context in functional
linguistics, 219–329. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Hasan, Ruqaiya. 2010. The
meaning of ‘not’ is not in ‘not’. In Ahmar Mahboob & Naomi Knight (eds.), Appliable
linguistics, 267–306. London & New York: Continuum.
Iedema, Rick, Susan Feez & Peter R. R. White. 1994. Media
literacy. Sydney, New South Wales: Sydney, Disadvantaged Schools Program, NSW Department of School Education.
Kempson, Ruth M.1975. Presupposition and the delimitation of
semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kress, Gunter. 1985. Linguistic
processes in sociocultural practice. Melbourne: Deakin University Press.
Macken-Horarik, Mary & James R. Martin. 2003. Negotiating
heteroglossia: Social perspectives on evaluation (special edition of Text, Issue 23,
v.2). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Martin, James R.2000. Beyond exchange: appraisal
systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation
in text: Authorial stance and construction of
discourse, 142–175. London: Oxford University Press.
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2008. Genre
relations: Mapping
culture. London: Equinox.
Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The
language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London & New York: Palgrave/Macmillan.
Prince, Gerald. 1980. Introduction
to the study of the narratee. In Jane P. Tompkins (ed.), Reader-response
criticism: From formalism to
post-structuralism, 7–25. Baltimore: JHU John Hopkins University Press.
Schmid, Wolf. 2014. Implied
reader. In Peter Hühn, Jan Meister, John Pier & Wolf Schmid (eds.), Handbook
of
narratology, 301–309. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Toulmin, Stephen E.2003. The uses of
argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, Peter R. R.1998. Telling media tales: The news
story as rhetoric. Unpublished PhD dissertation, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales.
White, Peter R. R.2000. Dialogue and
inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and
hedging. In Malcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill & Frances Rock (eds.), Working
with
dialogue, 67–80. Berlin: Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag.
White, Peter R. R.2002. Appraisal-the language of
evaluation and stance. In Jef Vershueren, Jan-Ola Östman & Jan Blommaert (eds.), The
handbook of pragmatics, 1–23. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
White, Peter R. R.2003. Beyond modality and hedging:
A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective
stance. Text 23 (3). 259–284.
White, Peter R. R.2020a. Attitudinal alignments in
journalistic commentary and social-media argumentation: The construction of values-based group identities in the online
comments of newspaper readers. In Michele Zappavigna & Shoshana Dreyfus (eds.), Discourses
of hope and reconciliation: On J. R. Martin’s contribution to systemic functional
linguistics, 21–49. London & Oxford: Bloomsbury.
White, Peter R. R.2020b. The putative reader in mass
media persuasion – stance, argumentation and ideology. Discourse &
Communication 14 (4). 404–423.
White, Peter R. R.2021. Textual anticipation and the
putative reader in persuasive discourse. Journal of Foreign
Languages 44 (1). 1–20.
White, Peter. R. R. & Motoki Sano. 2006. Dialogistic
positions and anticipated audiences-a framework for stylistic
comparisons. In Karin Aijmer & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.), Pragmatic
markers in
contrast, 191–214. Frankfurt: Elsevier.
Zappavigna, Michele. 2014. Enacting
identity in microblogging through ambient affiliation. Discourse &
Communication 8 (2). 209–228.
Zappavigna, Michele. 2019. Ambient
affiliation and Brexit. In Veronkia Koller, Susanne Kopf & Marlene Miglbauer (eds.), Discourses
of Brexit, 85–113. London & New York: Routledge.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Poucke, Margo Van
2024. ‘Do not parade your ignorance’: Negation as a power tool of toxic geek masculinity. SN Social Sciences 4:2
Xu, Qingxin & Xiaoyan Xiao
2024. Deaf translator’s visibility in political discourse: a dialogic positioning perspective. Perspectives 32:2 ► pp. 242 ff.
2023. A novel multi-dimensional analysis of reply, response and rejoinder articles: When discipline meets time. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 65 ► pp. 101286 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.