As previously, my purpose here is not to offer a detailed account of the text just analysed. My point, rather, is just to indicate the sorts of insights and lines of further investigation that this type of Appraisal analysis might give rise to.
Such texts are often interesting from the perspective of (a) what sort of textual persona such commentators construct for themselves (b) the axiological or ideological perspective informing the text and which the author typically takes as "natural" and (c) the ideal reader which the text constructs for itself - that is to say, the particular set of assumptions, beliefs, values and expectations which the text assumes of its readers. The just completed analysis offers some interesting insights into these type of questions.
This was a commentary piece written in response to news reports in which that the British Labour Government, and the industry minister in particular, had expressed outrage at the announcement of closures by Corus, and distress and concern for the workers likely to lose their jobs. Tebbit, famous or notorious (depending on your reading position) for his arch-conservative views and previous opposition to the unions, here addresses himself to the announcement of closures and job losses and particularly to the government's reported anger. In order to do this, he employs values of ATTITUDE to construct for himself a particular persona and to position his readers in ways which I explore below
THE closures and cut-backs at steelmaker Corus are a tragedy. My heart is with [authorial Affect] the steelworkers - shopfloor and boardroom alike.
1. The opening value of explicit AFFECT: Potential rhetorical effects (depending on reader positioning) -> This is a man of feeling and empathy; he indicates an inclination towards solidarity with management, and perhaps surprisingly, with workers. Tellingly, by beginning the account in this way, he construes his own, individual emotional response as having some substantial degree of significance in the wider community.
Anyone who has seen white-hot liquid steel pouring out of vats or heard red-hot metal screaming as it is rolled, hammered and cut into shape, knows steelmaking is more than just a job. [Implicit/token of Judgement] It has been at the heart of industry for over a century.
2. Second step, a "factual' token of JUDGEMENT in favour of the workers. Potential rhetorical effects -> The positive view taken of the workers is not self-evident or given in that some evidence for, or explanation of, it needs to be provided. (Contrast this with the negative view of the Government.) The descriptive terms of the various tokens of JUDGEMENT are somewhat intriguing - a strange sort of heroism which, by implication, derives from working in what are depicted as dramatic and demanding working conditions.
No blame should fall on today's workforce. [Explicit Judgement]
3. Once the evidential basis for the positive evaluation of workers (via the previous token) has been established, an explicit positive evaluation is provided; the author absolves the workers of blame. Possible rhetorical effects -> the author constructs himself as (or at least makes a bid to be seen as) possessed of substantial moral authority in the speech community in which he operates - he bids to oblige society (or at least his readers) to absolve the workers of blame. Tellingly, of course, his use of the negative, 'no blame should fall', invokes the positive, that 'blame SHOULD fall'. Hence the notion that the workers would be seen as blameworthy is referenced - that they are blameworthy is constructed as a viewpoint which could be held by some readers, but which is, nevertheless, rejected.
They have given their all as loyal, productive, flexible workers. [Explicit Judgement]
The workers behaviour is evaluated positively by means of a list of positive Judgements. Possible rhetorical effects -> The author assumes a particular moral framework of interconnect requirements by which workers may be evaluated positively and absolved of blame. (a) They should be emotionally and psychologically committed to their job - they must 'give their all" and be 'loyal". (b) They must be "productive", which, on the face of it, is a curious requirement since all workers do produce things, at least to some degree. Underlying it, of course, is the assumption that some workers are not 'productive enough' with the implication that here, at Corus, is a 'reformed' group of workers who produce more than other "less productive" and hence more blameworthy workers. (c) They must be "flexible". Meaning ambiguous/unclear - perhaps workers must be happy to have their working conditions and terms of employed changed, or perhaps they must be prepared and able to rapidly change what they do according, presumably, to the demands of their managers, the vagaries of international markets etc.
Nor should it [blame] be heaped [Explicit Judgement]on the management which turned the high-cost, low-quality, old British Steel Corporation into one of the world's finest [Explicit Judgement] steel makers.
Author absolves management of blame, praises them. Possible rhetorical effects -> As previously, the author claims considerable moral authority. Interestingly, less work has gone into providing evidential support for the positive JUDGEMENT of management than was the case with workers. We are told only that, in the past the British Steel corporation produced "high-cost" and "low-quality" steel, while now it is a "fine" steel maker. We are not advised as to the precise terms from which its 'fineness" derives, nor provided with any evidence for this assessment. As a consequence, the positive assessment of the management is represented as more of a given, as more concensual among readers than the positive assessment of the workers.
There is too much steel being made. Changing technologies and new materials mean less steel in products like cars. Steelworks are closing all over America.
Rhetorical effects -> The action of the global economy is represented as something which is remote from the actions of individual economies. No-one is to blame for the negative affects which follow from, for example, "changing technologies"
They are in trouble in Europe, some surviving only on covert [Explicit Judgement] subsidy and the collapse of the euro.
Explicit JUDGEMENT of European industry policy. Rhetorical effects -> That European industry policies are to be viewed negatively, that they amount to some form of subterfuge,
Joining the euro would only lock us into that problem - not solve it. [potential token of negative Judgement]
Similar rhetorical effects to previous - similar assumptions about negative evaluation of Europe.
Daft Government [Explicit Judgement] regulations and mad [Explicit Judgement] new taxes such as the Climate Control Levy1, which penalises manufacturing by taxing energy, do not help. But when more of a product is being made than used something has to give.
"
Explicit negative JUDGEMENT of the Government for introducing regulations by which manufacturers pay according to the amount of energy they use in a bid to lower emissions of green-house gasses. Rhetorical effects -> The pro-business, anti-environmental ideology underlying such an evaluation is construed as commonsensical and a given, since the proposition that such regulations are "daft" and "mad" is presupposed. The reader is thereby construed as holding these views. The author also assumes considerable social standing by dint of being able to offer such negative assessments of the Government in such a bald, unsubstantiated manner.
The Prime Minister is not just angry. [non-authorial Affect] He is scared. [non-authorial Affect]
Non-authorial Affect. Rhetorical consequences -> The authorial represents himself as being in the privileged position of having access to the Prime Minister's "true" feelings, without needing to supply substantiation - part of his bid for "prophetic" status in the speech community.
When Trade Secretary Stephen Byers says Corus should have consulted him he knows that, bound hand and foot [Explicit Judgement] by our masters [implicit Judgement] in Brussels, he could have done nothing to help. [Implicit Judgement]
Similar to previous. The author claims access to privileged knowledge - he knows the "true" thoughts of the Trade Secretary who, interestingly, is represented as knowing that he is 'bound hand and foot". The writer assumes that the reader views the current arrangement vis-à-vis the EU as one of domination by "them" over us (hence "masters in Brussels)
What he wanted was a delay - of about three months until after election day. Byers' temper tantrums [Explicit Judgement] were more about fear of losing his job than concern about steelworkers losing theirs.[Implicit Judgement]
Explicit negative JUDGEMENT directed against the Minister; presupposition that the Minister's anger is a "temper tantrum"; negative AFFECT attributed to Minister. Potential Rhetorical effects -> Once again the author claims the authority to see into the heart of the Minister; once again a negative view of the government is assumed of the reader in that negative JUDGEMENTS provides without substantiation or qualification.. Potential
1 The name of this tax is, in fact, the "Climate Change Levy".
