Article published In: Functions of Language
Vol. 29:2 (2022) ► pp.199–225
Redefining attitude for studying explicit and indirect evaluations of human behaviour
Published online: 4 March 2022
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21022.vil
https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21022.vil
Abstract
This article considers the application of the Attitude framework (Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The
language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave. ) 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
References (35)
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.
Bednarek, Monika. 2009a. Dimensions
of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics &
Cognition 17(1). 146–175.
. 2009b. Polyphony
in Appraisal: Typological and topological perspectives. Linguistics and the Human
Sciences 3(2). 107–136.
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.
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.
Fuoli, Matteo. 2018. A
stepwise method for annotating APPRAISAL. Functions of
Language 25(2). 229–258.
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.
Gibbs, Raymond W. 1999. Speaking and thinking with
metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), 60–76.
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.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. Introduction
to Functional
Grammar. London: Routledge.
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.
. 2021. The
language of evaluation in the narratives by the Magdalene Laundries survivors: The discourse of female
victimhood. Applied
Linguistics 42(2). 315–341.
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.
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.
Hunston, Susan. 2011. Corpus
approaches to evaluation Phraseology and evaluative
language. London: Routledge.
Hunston, Susan, & Hang Su. 2019. Patterns,
constructions, and local grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied
Linguistics 40(4). 567–593.
Lebowitz, Matthew S. 2016. Stigmatization of ADHD: A
developmental review. Journal of Attention
Disorders 20(3). 199–205.
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.
Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The
language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave.
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.
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.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden. 1999. Metonymy
in language and
thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg. 1998. A
cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of
Pragmatics 30(6). 755–769.
. 2003. Introduction:
On the nature of conceptual metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Linda L. Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy
and pragmatic
inferencing, 1–20. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
. 2017. Metaphor
and metonymy in language and thought: A cognitive linguistic approach. Synthesis
Philosophica 32(2). 271–294.
Radden, Günter & Zoltan Kövecses. 1999. Towards
a theory of metonymy. In Klaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), 17–59.
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.
Thompson, Geoff. 2008. Appraising
glances: Evaluating Martin’s model of
APPRAISAL. Word 59(1–2). 169–187.
. 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.
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.
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.
2011. Appraisal. In Jan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Discursive
pragmatics, 14–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Cited by (4)
Cited by four other publications
Chałupnik, Małgorzata, Jai Mackenzie, Louise Mullany & Sara Vilar-Lluch
Ortega-Robles, Carmen & Encarnación Hidalgo-Tenorio
Wang, Congcong
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.
