Following the work cited in the Overview Section as the source of these materials (see, for example, Iedema, Feez, and White 1994, Martin 1995 or Martin 2000), the term `Judgement' has been chosen to reference attitudinal evaluation in which human behaviour is negatively or positively assessed by reference to some set of social norms. Where Judgement is explicitly indicated (see earlier discussion) we encounter terms such as corrupt, virtuously, dishonest, murderous, tyrant, bully, hero, betray, obstinate, indefatigable, abuse, defraud, courageously, skilled, genius, dunce, stupidity, foolishly, eccentric, maverick. Here the rather general term, `Judgement' has been taken from common parlance and given a more specialised or technical meaning. In a sense, then, we have made a specialist or technical term - `Judgement' - out of a term which didn't have a particularly precise meaning in everyday, vernacular language. So that there's no confusion, I'll use capital letters when I'm using JUDGEMENT, as a technical, linguistic term. I'm doing this for convenience and clarity, so that it's clear when I'm using the term within the specific linguistic framework .
Under JUDGEMENT, we're concerned with language which criticises or praises, which condemns or applauds the behaviour - the actions, deeds, sayings, beliefs, motivations etc - of human individuals and groups.
Perhaps the most obvious examples of JUDGEMENT involve assessments by reference to systems of legality/illegality, morality/immorality or politeness/impoliteness - that is to say, there is an assessment that rules of behaviour, more or less explicitly codified in the culture, have either been upheld or breached. That is to say, such JUDGEMENTS involve an assertion that some set of religious, moral or legal rules or regulations are at issue. They involve assessments of morality or legality. Here, for example, we find such terms as immoral, virtuous, lewd, sinful, lascivious, innocent, unjust, fair-minded, law-abiding, murderous, cruel, brutal, compassionate, caring, dishonest, honest, deceptive and fraudulent. Such assessments, obviously, can carry a heavy weight socially.
Other values of JUDGEMENT involve evaluations by which the person judged will be lowered or raised in the esteem of their community, but which do not have the same legal, religious or moral implications as the first set. Here we have assessments of normality (eccentric, maverick, conventional, traditional etc), of competence (skilled, genius, knowledgeable, stupid, dunce, brilliant, incompetent, powerful, feeble) and of psychological disposition (brave, cowardly, determined, obstinate, zealous, stubborn, committed, lazy etc). These values arguably do not carry quite the same social weight as the first set - negative values of this set will see you lowered in the estimation of society but won't typically see you in trouble with the law or with your priest.
