Cover not available

Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 25:3 (2018) ► pp.335–362

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

A framework for analyzing evaluative language in historical discourse

 | Keio University
Published online: 2 November 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15053.mys
Abstract
History texts are not just disciplinary artefacts for describing, explaining or making arguments about the past. They play a key role in defining present-day group identities and their terms of affiliation. As such, they have generated a great deal of interest among functional linguists interested in how ideology is construed through language. But the ways history texts evaluate the past is not straightforward; they include a complex interplay of discourse participants putting forward a range of views toward the subject-matter. This article presents a framework for investigating evaluative meaning in historical discourse that aims to untangle this complex web of voices, showing how they work together to position readers to take up particular views toward the past. The framework brings together two prominent approaches to the study of evaluation: Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar Appraisal framework and . 2000. Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), 176–207.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar notions of Status Value and Relevance. It posits four levels of evaluation (inter-, super-, extra- and meta-evaluation) that are grounded in insights from the field of historiography and reflect key disciplinary activities of historians.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Overview of the levels of evaluation framework
    • 2.1Inter-evaluation
    • 2.2Super-evaluation
    • 2.3Extra-evaluation
    • 2.4Meta-evaluation
    • 2.5Interaction among levels of evaluation
  • 3.Appraisal theory and the levels of evaluation framework
    • 3.1Attitude
      • 3.1.1Affect
      • 3.1.2Judgment
      • 3.1.3Appreciation
    • 3.2Engagement
      • 3.2.1Inter-evaluative Engagement resources
      • 3.2.2Super-evaluative Engagement resources
      • 3.2.3Extra-evaluative Engagement resources
  • 4.Applying the framework: Inter, super and extra-evaluation
  • 5.Levels of Evaluation and the disciplinary activities of historians
  • 6.Meta-evaluative level
    • 6.1Status
    • 6.2Value
    • 6.3Analysis of meta-evaluation
  • 7.Conclusion
  • References
References (45)
References
Barnard, Christopher. 2003. Pearl Harbor in Japanese high school history textbooks: The grammar and semantics of responsibility. In J. R. Martin & Ruth Wodak (eds.), Re/reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on time and value, 247–271. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barton, Keith C. 2004. Primary sources in history: Breaking through the myths. The Phi Delta Kappan 86(10). 745–753. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernstein, Basil. 2003. The structuring of pedagogic discourse (Vol. IV of Class, codes and control). London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brune, Nick. 2003. Defining Canada: History, identity and culture. Oakville: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coffin, Caroline. 2000. History as discourse: Construals of time, cause and appraisal. Sydney: University of New South Wales PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cortazzi, Martin & Lixian Jin. 2000. Evaluating evaluation in narrative. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), 102–120.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goodwin, Doris Kearns. 1991. Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Hodder Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haskell, Thomas L. 1998. Objectivity is not neutrality: Explanatory schemes in history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 1983. On the surface of discourse. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hood, Susan. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 1989. Evaluation in experimental research articles. Birmingham: University of Birmingham PhD thesis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. Evaluation and organization in a sample of written academic discourse. In Malcolm Coulthard (ed.), Advances in written text analysis, 191–218. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1995. Evaluation and ideology in scientific writing. In Mohsen Ghadessy (ed.), Register analysis: Theory and practice, 57–73. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), 176–207.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1994. Hedging in academic textbooks and EAP. English for Specific Purposes 3(3). 239–256. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Sook Hee. 2015. Evaluative stances in persuasive essays by undergraduate students: Focusing on appreciation resources. Text & Talk 35(1). 49–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Macken-Horarik, Mary. 2003. Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text 23(2). 285–312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 1993. Life as a noun: Arresting the universe in science and the humanities. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (eds.), Writing science: Literacy and discursive power, 221–267. London: Falmer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., Karl A. Maton & Erika S. Matruglio. 2010. Historical cosmologies: Epistemology and axiology in Australian secondary school history discourse. Revista Signos 43(74). 443–463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myskow, Gordon. 2017. Surveying the historical landscape: The evaluative voice of history textbooks. Functional Linguistics 4(7). 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018a. Calibrating the ‘right values’: The role of critical inquiry tasks in social studies textbooks. Visual Communication. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2018b. Changes in attitude: Evaluative language in secondary school and university history textbooks. Linguistics and Education 431. 53–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. In press. Appraisal in history: Construals of significance, fortune, and status. Linguistics and the Human Sciences.
Ngo, Thu & Len Unsworth. 2015. Reworking the Appraisal framework in ESL research: Refining attitude resources. Functional Linguistics 2(1). 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Novick, Peter. 1988. That noble dream: The ‘objectivity question’ and the American historical profession. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oteíza, Teresa. 2003. How contemporary history is presented in Chilean middle school textbooks. Discourse & Society 14(5). 639–660. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oteíza, Teresa & Claudio Pinuer. 2013. Valorative prosody and the symbolic construction of time in recent national historical discourses. Discourse Studies 15(1). 43–64. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Appraisal framework and critical discourse studies: A joint approach to the study of historical memories from an intermodal perspective. International Journal of Language Studies 101. 5–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ricoeur, Paul. 2004. Memory, history and forgetting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schleppegrell, Mary J., Mariana Achugar & Teresa Oteíza. 2004. The grammar of history: Enhancing content-based instruction through a functional focus on language. TESOL Quarterly 38(1). 67–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seixas, Peter. 1997. Mapping the terrain of historical significance. Social Education 61(1). 22–27.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2000. Schweigen! Die Kinder! In Peter N. Stearns, Peter Seixas & Sam Wineburg (eds.), Knowing, teaching and learning history: National and international perspectives, 19–37. New York, NY: New York University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tann, Ken. 2010. Imagining communities: A multifunctional approach to identity management in texts. In Monika Bednarek & J. R. Martin (eds.), New Discourse on Language, 163–194. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff & Jianglin Zhou. 2000. Evaluation and organization in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), 121–141.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Veel, Robert & Caroline Coffin. 1996. Learning to think like an historian: The language of secondary school history. In Ruqaiya Hasan & Geoff Williams (eds.), Literacy in Society, 191–231. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Peter R. R. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 23(2). 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2012. Exploring the axiological workings of ‘reporter voice’ news stories: Attribution and attitudinal positioning. Discourse, Context & Media 12(3). 57–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wignell, Peter. 1994. Genre across the curriculum. Linguistics and Education 6(4). 355–372. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Cheng, Shi
2024. A review of interpersonal metafunction studies in systemic functional linguistics (2012–2022). Journal of World Languages 10:3 ► pp. 623 ff. DOI logo
Jin, Xiaoling
2024. Appraisal analysis of the vague expressions in academic lectures using English as an academic lingua franca in an EMI university. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 34:4 ► pp. 1462 ff. DOI logo
Schleppegrell, Mary J., Sida Sun & Chauncey Monte-Sano
2023. The value of models to support students' voice in middle school social studies argument writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 61 ► pp. 101043 ff. DOI logo
Baguley, Margaret & Martin Kerby
2022. A beautiful and devilish thing: children’s picture books and the 1914 Christmas Truce. Visual Communication 21:4 ► pp. 518 ff. DOI logo
Myskow, Gordon
2018. Changes in attitude: Evaluative language in secondary school and university history textbooks. Linguistics and Education 43 ► pp. 53 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 9 december 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue