Cover not available

Article published In: Language, Context and Text
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.234–259

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

Once more with feeling

Negotiating evaluation

ORCiD logo with link | University of Sydney | Shanghai Jiaotong University
Published online: 22 July 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.00010.mar
Abstract
If we follow one line of development in systemic functional linguistics (SFL), from Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. (English Language Series 9). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar through Martin, James R. 1992. English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar to Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, we arrive at a model of discourse semantics with six major systems: ideation and connexion (ideational meaning), identification and periodicity (textual meaning) and negotiation and appraisal (interpersonal meaning). The complementarity of the latter two systems, negotiation and appraisal is the focus on this paper. Work on negotiation was inspired by Berry’s (e.g. Berry, Margaret. 1981a. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Malcolm C. Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis, 120–145. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, . 1981b. Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network 21. 23–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) development of Sinclair, John McH. & Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar analysis of exchange structure. Later work on appraisal was inspired by Plum, Guenter. 1998. Text and contextual conditioning in spoken English: A genre-based approach, volumes 1 & 21. (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 10). Nottingham: Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar critique of Labov’s work on narrative (e.g. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (Proceedings of the 1966 spring meeting of the American Ethnological Society), 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Labov, William. 1984. Intensity. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics), 43–70. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). The interaction of the negotiation and appraisal systems is first explored in Martin ( 2000a. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) in relation to work on casual conversation by Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. [Reprinted by Equinox 2005].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar. This interaction is further developed here.
Article outline
  • 1.Analysing interaction
  • 2.Dialogue
  • 3.Feeling
  • 4.Negotiating feeling
  • 5.The inner workings of conversation
  • 6.Beyond the clause: where should functional linguists go?
  • Notes
  • References
References (78)
References
Bavelas, Janet B., Linda Coates & Trudy Johnson. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 791. 941–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berry, Margaret. 1981a. Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In Malcolm C. Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis, 120–145. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981b. Towards layers of exchange structure for directive exchanges. Network 21. 23–32.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. Dynamism in exchange structure. English Text Construction 9(1). 33–55. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1988. Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes 11(1). 1–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. 2003a. Part 1 Approaches to the simplex clause. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. (Studies in Language Companion Series 63). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2003b. Part 2 From clause to discourse and beyond. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. (Studies in Language Companion Series 64). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butler, Christopher S. & Miriam Taverniers. 2008a. Introduction. Linguistics 46(4). 679–687. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008b. Layering in structural-functional grammars. Linguistics 46(4). 689–756. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burton, Deirdre. 1980. Dialogue and discourse. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1981. Analysing spoken discourse. In Malcolm C. Coulthard & Martin Montgomery (eds.), Studies in discourse analysis, 146–157. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition 841. 73–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coffin, Caroline. 1997. Constructing and giving value to the past: An investigation into secondary school history. In Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds.), Genre and Institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 196–230. London: Cassell.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
Donegan, Patricia & David Stampe. 2009. Hypotheses of natural phonology. Poznań Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 45(1). 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eggins, Suzanne & Diana Slade. 1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. [Reprinted by Equinox 2005].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2017. How we talk: The inner workings of conversation. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feez, Susan, Rick Iedema & Peter R. R. White. 1994. Media literacy (write it right literacy in industry research project – Stage 2). Sydney: Metropolitan East Disadvantaged Schools Program. [reprinted Sydney: NSW AMES. 2008]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fox, Barbara A., Sandra A. Thompson, Cecilia C. Ford & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2013. Conversation analysis and linguistics. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Strivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 726–740. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17(3). 241–292. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1967a. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 1. Journal of Linguistics 3(1). 37–81. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1967b. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 2. Journal of Linguistics 3(2). 199–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1968. Notes on transitivity and theme in English: Part 3. Journal of Linguistics 4(2). 179–215. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1970. Functional diversity in language, as seen from a consideration of modality and mood in English. Foundations of Language 6(3). 322–361.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1984. Language as code and language as behaviour: A systemic-functional interpretation of the nature and ontogenesis of dialogue. In Robin Fawcett, Michael A. K. Halliday, Sydney M. Lamb & Adam Makkai (eds.), The semiotics of language and culture, volume 1: Language as social semiotic, 3–35. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & William S. Greaves. 2008. Intonation in the grammar of English. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. (English Language Series 9). London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hao, Jing. In press. Nominalisations in scientific English: A tristratal perspective. Functions of Language.
Hepburn, Alexa & Galina B. Bolden. 2013. The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Strivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation, 57–76. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hood, Susan. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1988. On the sequential organization of troubles-talk in ordinary conversation. Social Problems (Special issue Language, interaction, and social problems ) 35(4). 418–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knight, Naomi. 2010. Wrinkling complexity: Concepts of identity and affiliation in humour. New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity and affiliation. In Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.). 35–58. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Evaluating experience in funny ways: How friends bond through conversational humour. Text & Talk 33(4–5). 553–574.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1984. Intensity. In Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applications (Georgetown University Roundtable on Language and Linguistics), 43–70. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William & David Fanshel. 1977. Therapeutic discourse: Psychotherapy as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky. 1967. Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In June Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (Proceedings of the 1966 spring meeting of the American Ethnological Society), 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 2005. Living with Manny’s dangerous idea. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 431–453. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liberman, Mark. 2014. More on Um and Uh. Language Log. [URL]
Lindström, Anna & Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 2013. Affiliation in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Strivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 350–369. Chichester: Blackwell-Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000a. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. In Susan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2000b. Factoring out exchange: Types of structure. In Malcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill & Frances Rock (eds.), Working with dialogue, 19–40. Tubingen: Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2010. Semantic variation: Modelling system, text and affiliation in social semiosis. In Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity and affiliation, 1–34. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2011. Bridging troubled waters: Interdisciplinarity and what makes it stick. In Frances Christie & Karl Maton (eds.), Disciplinarity: Functional linguistic and sociological perspectives, 35–61. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. Systemic functional grammar: A next step into the theory – axial relations. (with Chinese translation and extensions by Wang Pin & Zhu Yongsheng). Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. The discourse semantics of attitudinal relations: Continuing the study of lexis. Russian Journal of Linguistics Vestnik RUDN (Special issue Discourse analysis in the 21st Century: Theory and practice ) 21(1). 22–47. Republished as Attitudinal relations: Continuing the study of lexis. In Leila Barbara, Adail S. Rodriques-Júnior & Giovanna M. V. Hoy (eds.), Estudos e pesquisas em linguística sistêmico-funcional, 53–87. São Paulo: Mercado de Letras. 2017.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2018. Interpersonal meaning: Systemic functional linguistic perspectives. Functions of Language (Special Issue Systemic functional linguistics and interpersonal grammar , edited by James R. Martin) 25(1). 2–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Shooshi Dreyfus. 2015. Scaffolding semogenesis: Designing teacher/student interactions for face-to-face and on-line learning. In Sonja Starc, Carys Jones & Arianna Maiorani (eds.), Meaning making in text: Multimodal and multilingual functional perspectives, 265–298. London: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Mary Macken-Horarik (eds.), 2003. Negotiating heteroglossia: Social perspectives on evaluation. Special Issue of Text and Talk . 23(2).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Guenter Plum. 1997. Construing experience: Some story genres. Journal of Narrative and Life History (Special Issue Oral versions of personal experience: Three decades of narrative analysis , edited by Michael Bamberg) 7 (1–4). 299–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd Edition). London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Michele Zappavigna. 2016a. Exploring restorative justice: Dialectics of theory and practice. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. 23(2). 217–244. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016b. Rites of passion: Remorse, apology and forgiveness in Youth Justice Conferencing. Linguistics and the Human Sciences (Special issue Legal discourse , edited by Wang Zhenhua) 12(2–3). 101–121.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. & Michael A. K. Halliday. 2009. Systemic functional grammar: A first step into the theory. Beijing: Higher Education Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel A. Schegloff & Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), 1996. Interaction and grammar. (Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics 13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oteíza, Teresa. 2017. The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.), Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 457–472. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plum, Guenter. 1998. Text and contextual conditioning in spoken English: A genre-based approach, volumes 1 & 21. (Monographs in Systemic Linguistics 10). Nottingham: Department of English Studies, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In John M. Atkinson & John Heritage (eds.), Structures of social action, 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ruusuvuori, Johanna. 2013. Emotion, affect and conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Sirens (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, 330–349. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schegloff, Emmanuel A. 2010. Some other “uh(m)”s. Discourse Processes. 47(2). 130–174. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selting, Margret & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2001. Studies in interactional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. 1972. A course in spoken English: Grammar. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sinclair, John McH. & Malcolm Coulthard. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya. 2008. Stance, alignment, and affiliation during storytelling: When nodding is a token of affiliation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41(1). 31–57. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tann, Ken. 2017. Context and meaning in the Sydney architecture of SFL. In Tom Bartlett & Gerard O’Grady (eds.) Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 438–456. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Sandra A. & Elizabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2005. The clause as a locus of grammar and interaction. Language and Linguistics 6(4). 807–837.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ventola, Eija. 1987. The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Pinter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walker, Gareth. 2013. Phonetics and prosody in conversation. In Jack Sidnell & Tanya Stivers (eds.), The handbook of conversation, 456–474. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, Peter R. R. 2000. Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. in Malcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill & Francis Rock (eds.), Working with dialogue, 67–80. Tubingen: Neimeyer. 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 1(2–3). 57–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele & James R. Martin. 2018. Discourse and diversionary justice: An analysis of Youth Justice Conferencing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Sun, Mingyue
2024. A Study of Appraisal System and Its Texture/Textuality Mechanisms . International Journal of Language and Linguistics 12:3 ► pp. 111 ff. DOI logo
Taverniers, Miriam
2021. Modelling interfaces with context in SFL. Functions of Language 28:3 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Dongbing
2021. Dynamism in knowledge exchanges: developing move systems based on Khorchin Mongolian interactions. Discourse Studies 23:3 ► pp. 386 ff. DOI logo
Zhang, Dongbing
2024. Towards a responsibility-based model of the move system in discourse semantics: Reasoning from above. Lingua 309 ► pp. 103796 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 november 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