Cover not available
Part of
Corpora, Grammar and Discourse: In honour of Susan Hunston
Edited by Nicholas Groom, Maggie Charles and Suganthi John
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 73] 2015
► pp. 257–282

Chapter 11. “What we contrarians already know”

Individual and communal aspects of attitudinal identity

ORCID logo
Starting from the assumption that “[e]valuation is personal, private, subjective” (Hunston 2011: 12), this chapter ties evaluation explicitly to the notion of identity. It discusses ‘attitudinal identity’, which concerns positive and negative value judgements and positions, and claims that the construal of attitudinal identities is particularly important in publicly mediated texts. Combining discourse and corpus analysis, the chapter explores how specific features of language use (evaluations, pronouns) are employed by individuals to construe attitudinal personae as well as to align with others and to invite audiences into what I shall refer to as shared ‘communities of attitude’. The empirical focus of the paper will be on the Australian scientific radio programme Ockham’s Razor.
Published online: 30 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.73.12bed
References (66)
References
Anthony, L. 2008. AntConc (Version 3.2.2). Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Baker, P. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bamberg, M. 2009. Positioning emotion – connecting the there-and-then of the story world with the interactive here-and-now. Paper presented at 11th International Pragmatics Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 12-17 July.
Barlow, M. 2009. How to distinguish individual speakers: A corpus-based investigation of idiolects. Ms, University of Auckland.
. 2013. Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 443–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bednarek, M. 2006a. Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2006b. Evaluating Europe – Parameters of evaluation in the British press. In Reconfiguring Europe – the Contribution of Applied Linguistics [British Studies in Applied Linguistics 20], C. Leung & J. Jenkins (eds), 137-156. London: BAAL/Equinox.Google Scholar
. 2010a. Corpus linguistics and systemic functional linguistics: Interpersonal meaning, identity and bonding in popular culture. In New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity, and Affiliation, M. Bednarek & J.R. Martin (eds), 237-266. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2010b. The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2011. Expressivity and televisual characterisation. Language and Literature 20(1): 3-21. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Constructing ‘nerdiness’: Characterisation in The Big Bang Theory . Multilingua 31: 199-229. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Benwell, B. & Stokoe, E. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. 2009. Writing economic history: The narrator and the arguer. In Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse, M. Gotti (ed.), 163-189. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bubel, C. 2006. The Linguistic Construction of Character Relations in TV Drama: Doing friendship in Sex and the City . PhD dissertation, Saarland University. <[URL]>
Bucholtz, M. 1999. “Why be normal?”: Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society 28(2): 203-223.Google Scholar
. 2011. White Kids: Language, Race, and Styles of Youth Identity. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. & Kulick, D. 2005. Identity crisis? Language & Communication25: 107-125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Charles, M. 2000. The role of an introductory it pattern in constructing an appropriate academic persona. In Patterns and Perspectives: Insights into EAP Writing Practice, P. Thompson (ed.), 44-59. Reading: CALS.Google Scholar
Clark, J. 2009. Toronto Twitter community. Neoformix. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Coffin, C. & O’Halloran, K. 2005. Finding the global groove: Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus and a concordancer. Critical Discourse Studies 2(2): 143-163. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crawford Camiciottoli, B. 2009. Collective and individual identities in business studies lectures. In Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse, M. Gotti (ed.), 141-160. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
De Fina, A., Schiffrin, D. & Bamberg, M. 2006. Introduction. In Discourse and Identity, A. De Fina, D. Schiffrin & M. Bamberg (eds), 1-23. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, P. 1989. Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Englebretson, R. (ed.) 2007. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goodwin, M. & Goodwin, C. 2000. Emotion within situated activity. <[URL]>
Gotti, M. (ed.) 2009. Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. & Matthiessen, C.M.I.M. 1999. Construing Experience through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
Hunston, S. 1993. Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In Register Analysis: Theory and Practice, M. Ghadessy (ed.), 57-73. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
. 2000. Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 177-206. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
. 2004. Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In Corpora and Discourse, A. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman (eds), 157-188. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
. 2005. Conflict and consensus: Construing opposition in applied linguistics. In Strategies in Academic Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 19], E. Tognini-Bonelli & G. Del Lungo Camiciotti (eds), 1-16. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. Phraseology and Evaluative Language. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. 1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Writing: Texts, Processes, and Practices, C. Candlin & K. Hyland (eds), 99-121. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2001. Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication 18(4): 549-574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Constraint vs. creativity: Identity and disciplinarity in academic writing. In Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse, M. Gotti (ed.), 25-51. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Jaffe, A. (ed.) 2009 Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. 2009. Stance, style and the linguistic individual. In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Stance, A. Jaffe (ed.), 29-52. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Kaltenbacher, M. 2006. Culture related linguistic differences in tourist websites: The emotive and the factual. A corpus analysis within the framework of Appraisal. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, G. Thompson & S. Hunston (eds), 269-292. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Knight, N. 2010a. Wrinkling complexity: Concepts of identity and affiliation in humour. In New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity and Affiliation, M. Bednarek & J.R. Martin (eds), 35-58. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2010b. Laughing our Bonds off: Conversational Humour in Relation to Affiliation. PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.
Machin, D. & van Leeuwen, T. 2007. Global Media Discourse: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Manne, R. 2010. The rise of the Greens. The Monthly October 2010: 8-13.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R. 2008. Innocence: Realization, instantiation and individuation in a Botswanan town. In Questioning Linguistics, A. Mahboob & N. Knight (eds), 32-76. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Miller, D. 2004. “...to meet our common challenge”: Engagement strategies of alignment and alienation in current US international discourse. Textus: English Studies in Italy 17(1): 39-62.Google Scholar
. 2006. From concordance to text: Appraising “giving” in Alma Mater donation requests. In System and Corpus: Exploring Connections, G. Thompson & S. Hunston (eds), 248-268. London: Equinox.Google Scholar
Moere, A. 2011. Information Aesthetics. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Mollin, S. 2009. “I entirely understand” is a Blairism: The methodology of identifying idiolectal collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 367-392. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, G. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Pennycook, A. 1994. The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal 48(2): 173-178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. 2011. WordSmith Tools version 6. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
Scott, M. & Tribble, C. 2006. Textual Patterns: Key Words and Corpus Analysis in Language Education [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 22]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sealey, A. 2010. Probabilities and surprises: A realist approach to identifying linguistic and social patterns, with reference to an oral history corpus. Applied Linguistics 31(2): 215-235. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spencer-Oatey, H. 2007. Theories of identity and the analysis of face. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 639-656. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, G. & Hunston, S. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In Evaluation in Text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds), 1-27. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Thompson, P. 2009. Shared disciplinary norms and individual traits in the writing of British undergraduates. In Commonality and Individuality in Academic Discourse, M. Gotti (ed.), 52-82. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Tracy, K. 2002. Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Wenger, E. 2006. Communities of Practice: A Brief Introduction. <[URL]>Google Scholar
Wetherell, M. 2007. A step too far: Discursive psychology, linguistic ethnography and questions of identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11(5): 661-682. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, M. 2009. Searchable talk and ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on Twitter. Paper presented at the International Systemic Functional Congress. Challenges to Systemic Functional Linguistics: Theory and Practice, Tsinghua University, Beijing, 14-18 July 2009.
Zappavigna, M., Cleirigh, C., Dwyer, P. & Martin, J.R. 2010. Visualizing appraisal prosody. In Appliable Linguistics, A. Mahboob & N. Knight (eds), 150-167. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M. 2012. Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, D. 1998. Identity, context and interaction. In Identities in Talk, C. Antaki & S. Widdicombe (eds), 87-106. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Jakaza, Ernest
2019. Intersubjective Stance and Argumentation in Zimbabwean Parliamentary Discourse. In Argumentation and Appraisal in Parliamentary Discourse [Advances in Linguistics and Communication Studies, ], ► pp. 97 ff. DOI logo
Jakaza, Ernest
2022. Identity construction or obfuscation on social media: a case of Facebook and WhatsApp. African Identities 20:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Fuoli, Matteo
2018. Building a Trustworthy Corporate Identity: A Corpus-Based Analysis of Stance in Annual and Corporate Social Responsibility Reports. Applied Linguistics 39:6 ► pp. 846 ff. DOI logo
Fuoli, Matteo & Christopher Hart
2018. Trust-building strategies in corporate discourse: An experimental study. Discourse & Society 29:5 ► pp. 514 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.