1.2 Appraisal in a functional model of language
1.2.9 Register
Martin 1992b refers to the level of analysis comprised of the social context categories field, mode and tenor as register. Register is a more abstract level of analysis than discourses semantics, since it is concerned with pat- terns of discourse patterns. Hjelmslev makes a useful distinction between connotative and denotative semiotics, defining connotative semiotics as semiotic systems which have another semiotic system as their expression plane. In his framework, denotative semiotics have their own expression plane (for example language is realised through its own expression form – phonology, graphology or signing). In these terms, register is a connotative semiotic realised through language. The SFL model of register categories correlating with metafunctions (in the proportions ideational is to field as textual is to mode as interpersonal is to tenor) is outlined in Figure 1.15.
Field is concerned with the discourse patterns that realise the domestic or institutionalised activity that is going on. Technically speaking a field is a set of activity sequences that are oriented to some global institu- tional purpose. These activity sequences of course involve participants,
Figure 1.15 Metafunctions in relation to field, mode and tenor ideational
interpersonal textual
field mode
tenor
process and circumstances that are themselves organised into tax- onomies which in turn distinguish one field from another. In this book we are mainly concerned with interpersonal meaning and so field analy- sis will not play a central role. That said, we must stress that feelings are always feelings about something – about the activity sequences and tax- onomies enacting one field or another. And communities are formed not simply around shared values but around shared values about com- munal activity. So we will have to address the interface of appraisal resources and field at various points in our discussion. Our discussion of key in Chapter 3 will look in particular at the bonding of appraisal with ideational meaning in the fields of history and the print media.
For relevant work on field, exploring everyday language, technicality and abstraction, on technology and bureaucracy, and on the discourses of humanities, social science and science see Halliday & Martin 1993, Hasan & Williams 1996, Martin & Veel 1998, Christie 1999, Unsworth 2000, Hyland 2000, Martin & Wodak 2003.
Mode deals with the channelling of communication, and thus with the texturing of information flow from one modality of communication to another (speech, writing, phone, SMS messages, e-mail, web pages, letters, radio, CD, television, film, video, DVD, etc.). One important variable is the amount of work language is doing in relation to what is going on. In some contexts language may have a small role to play since attendant modalities are heavily mediating what is going on (eg image, music, action). In other contexts language may by and large be what is going on, sometimes to the point where abstract terms are considerably removed from sensuous experience we might expect to touch, taste, feel, hear or see. This range of variation is sometimes characterised as a cline from language in action to language as reflection.
Another key variable is the complementary monologue through dialogue cline. This scale is sensitive to the effects of various technolo- gies of communication on the kind of interactivity that is facilitated.
The key material factors here have to do with whether interlocutors can hear and see one another (aural and visual feedback) and the imminence of a response (immediate or delayed).
We have no doubt that appraisal resources are sensitive to mode in a number of ways. Our work on written monologic modes here can be use- fully compared with Eggins & Slade’s 1997 studies of evaluation in casual conversation. But at this stage the interaction of appraisal and mode variation is by and large a research frontier. Mode is further explored in Halliday & Martin 1993, Martin & Veel 1998 and Martin & Wodak 2003. For SFL perspectives on the modalities accompanying language see 28 The Language of Evaluation
O’Toole 1994, Kress & van Leeuwen 1996 on images (Goodman 1996, Jewitt & Oyama 2001, Stenglin & Iedema 2001 provide useful introduc- tions), van Leeuwen 1999 on music and sound and Martinec 1998, 2000a, b, c, 2001 on action. As a result of these studies multimodal dis- course analysis has become a very exciting area of work in functional linguistics (Kress & van Leeuwen 1996), inspired in part by the new elec- tronic modalities of communication enabled by personal computing technologies (Baldry 1999). It’s relation to appraisal analysis is flagged in Martin 2001a, Martin 2004.
Because of our focus on interpersonal meaning, tenor is the register variable which is most relevant to our discussion. Halliday 1985b characterises tenor as follows:
Tenorrefers to who is taking part, to the nature of the [communica- tive] participants, their statuses and roles: what kinds of role relation- ship obtain, including permanent and temporary relationships of one kind or another, both the types of speech roles they are taking on in the dialogue and the whole cluster of socially significant relation- ships in which they are involved. [Halliday 1985b/9:12]
His ideas were developed through the 1980s in Sydney, mainly by Poynton, whose pioneering work on gender, affect, naming practices and amplifi- cation in the nominal group laid the foundation for the development of appraisal theory through the 1990s (Poynton 1984, 1985, 1990a, b, 1993, 1996). Drawing on this work, we can identify power and solidar- ity as two key tenor variables – the vertical and horizontal dimensions of interpersonal relations as it were (referred to as status and contact by Poynton 1985 and Martin 1992b).
In post-colonial societies the five most general factors which position us in relation to tenor are generation, gender, ethnicity, capacity and class. By generation we refer to inequalities associated with maturation;
gender covers sex and sexuality based difference; ethnicity is concerned with racial, religious and other ‘cultural’ divisions; capacity refers to abilities and disabilities of various kinds; class is based on the distribu- tion of material resources and is arguably the most fundamental dimen- sion since it is the division on which our post-colonial economic order ultimately depends. Our positioning begins at birth in the home, and all five factors condition access to the various hierarchies we encounter beyond domestic life – in education, religion, recreation and the work- place. At the same time, all factors function as a basis for affiliation – as relatives, friends, lovers, team-mates, colleagues, comrades and so on.
Poynton 1985 outlines important realisation principles for both power and solidarity, principles which unfortunately to date have not been properly explored. For power, she considers ‘reciprocity’ of choice to be the critical variable. Thus social subjects of equal status construe equality by having access to and taking up the same kinds of choices, whereas subjects of unequal status take up choices of different kinds. Terms of address are one obvious exemplar in this area. It is easy to imagine an English- speaking academic addressing an Asian student by their first name, and they in turn addressing the academic as Professor, just as it is easy to image colleagues addressing one another by their first names (as Peter and Jim).
But for an Asian student to address their Professor as Jim would come as a surprise, whatever the expressed naming preferences of the academic in question. Ethnicity, generation and the student–teacher relationship all facilitate non-reciprocal address. From this example we can see that it is not just a question of reciprocity, but also of the different kinds of choices that might be available for interlocutors in dominant and deferential posi- tions. As far as appraisal is concerned, this principle affects who can express feelings and who can’t, what kinds of feelings are expressed, how strongly they are expressed, and how directly they are sourced.
For solidarity Poynton suggests the realisation principles of ‘prolifera- tion’ and ‘contraction’. Proliferation refers to the idea that the closer you are to someone the more meanings you have available to exchange.
One way of thinking about this is to imagine the process of getting to know someone and what you can talk about when you don’t know them (very few things) and what you can talk about when you know them very well (almost anything). In appraisal terms this might involve appreciation of the weather to begin, judgements of politicians, sporting heroes and media personalities as the relationship develops, moving on to emotional reactions to family, friends and lovers as intimacy develops.
Social subjects differ about how much proliferation is appropriate when.
Sitting with a group of British and Australian colleagues at a seafood restaurant in Seattle, Peter and Jim were once surprised to have their waiter sit down and describe his reactions to various items on the menu without being asked for his opinion about a specific item. His attempt to construe good friendly service was read as intrusive by the ‘outsiders’, and allowances had to be made on the part of the visiting social semi- oticians for cultural differences (happily furnished as they were with yet another travel story from America which they would use to bond with family, friends and colleagues back home).
Contraction refers to the amount of work it takes to exchange meanings, and the idea that the better you know someone the less explicitness it 30 The Language of Evaluation
takes. Poynton exemplifies this in part through naming, pointing out that knowing someone very well involves short names, whereas knowing them less well favours longer ones. For outsiders, Stevie Ray Vaughan might be introduced as Texas bluesman Stevie Ray Vaughanfor example, whereas for hardcore fans just his initials will do:
Texas bluesman Stevie Ray Vaughan Stevie Ray Vaughan
Stevie Ray Stevie SRV
With appraisal, contraction affects the amount of work required to exchange a feeling. Imagine a dinner party featuring a colleague renowned for big-noting himself – who embarks, yet again, on a self- promotional excursion. Friends familiar with this behaviour need only to catch one another’s eye to comment; an embarrassed friend might simply address the colleague by name, using intonation to express exas- peration. For those less familiar with the ‘unspoken’ evaluation, a query later in the evening might be required, eliciting perhaps some gossip or a judgemental story genre involving explicitly pejorative terms (Eggins
& Slade 1997).
The general point here is that as far as solidarity is concerned, the better you know someone the more feelings you will share and the less you need to say to share them. And proliferation and contraction are best read as semiotic resources for negotiating intimacy and distance, since relationships are dynamic processes unfolding over time.
As can be seen from the exemplification of power and solidarity realisation principles, appraisal is being treated here as a resource for construing tenor. Technically speaking then it operates in discourse semantics as one of the realisations of tenor. This treatment contrasts with Poynton’s model of tenor which placed affect alongside power and solidarity9in register. This goes back in part to a reference in Halliday 1978: 33 to John Pearce who included the ‘degree of emotional charge’
in a relationship as part of tenor (in Doughty et al. 1972: 185–6). We sus- pect in retrospect that one reason affect was pushed back to this level was the strong interactional focus in work on interpersonal meaning at the level of discourse semantics during the 1980s, when the emphasis was on the semantics of mood and modality in relation to turn-taking (speech function and exchange structure analysis as outlined in
Martin 1992b). In the 1990s, when the focus shifted to the semantics of feeling, it seemed more natural to locate this work in discourse seman- tics as a pattern of lexicogrammatical patterns construing evaluation. In Poynton’s model affect was in any case acknowledged as a tenor variable unlike the others in that its operation was optional, whereas power and solidarity are ever present. As noted, we will treat appraisal as a discourse semantic resource here, which is deployed to construe power and soli- darity. Our expectation is that these two variables, taken together with Poynton’s realisation principles, will be sufficient to generalise appraisal patterns across texts without having to propose an additional affect ori- ented variable at the level of register.