Below I provide an abbreviated version of the two analyses for the purpose of easier comparison
Text 1. Anti Text |
Target |
Text 2. Pro Text |
Target | |
Judgement |
- Sophie |
Appreciation |
+ outfit | |
Appreciation, |
- Sophie |
Affect, |
+ outfit | |
Appreciation |
- Sophie |
Appreciation |
+ outfit | |
(1) Judgement |
1. - Sophie |
|||
1. Appreciation |
1. + Sophie |
1. Judgement 3. Judgement |
+ couturiere | |
Judgement |
- Sophie |
Judgement |
+ couturiere | |
(possible token of Apprecation, depending on one's fashion sense/knowledge) |
Appreciation |
ambiguous as to +/- | ||
1. Affect |
1. - outfit |
Judgement |
+ Sophie | |
Judgement - reflects on Sophie's intellectual capacity |
- Sophie |
(possible token of neg Judgement), |
- Sophie | |
Judgement - reflects on the capacity of her "advisors" |
- Sophie's staff |
Appreciation |
+ outfit | |
Judgement |
- Sophie |
|||
Appreciation |
- outfit |
Differences in rhetorical strategy and attitudinal positioning emerge are clearly revealed. We notice that text 1 (the anti text) barely concerns itself with the supposed subject of debate, Sophie's outfit. This is directly evaluated at just two points in the text. Rather the text operates largely as a JUDGEMENTAL attack on Sophie - on her fashion competence and, tellingly, even on her moral standing (she is a copy-cat, and a "pallid" one at that.). Some critical observations on Sophie's physical form are included for good measure. In contrast, text 2 (the pro text), DOES primarily concern itself with the outfit and is, accordingly, dominated by APPRECIATIONS. Intriguingly, the negative JUDGEMENTS of Sophie in the anti text are not countered by positive JUDGEMENTS of Sophie in the positive text . Rather, the positive JUDGEMENT in text 2 is largely confined to praise directed towards her couturière. Tellingly when Sophie IS JUDGED in the pro-text, it tends to be negatively.
Now these texts may be, just perhaps, of some interest in their own right. I see them, however, as having a more certain critical linguistic significance when we consider what they might reveal about the ways in which the British media represents the British Royal family and the sorts of evaluations and criticisms which the media permits itself to direct against individual royal family members. At the time these texts were published, Sophie's positions was, for a Royal, a relatively unique one. She was generally agreed to be "in disgrace". Shored up the by the fact that the Queen was known to be most displeased by he daughter-in-law's behaviour, even the most adamantly pro-monarchy publications had roundly condemned the young woman. She, all the commentators agreed, had substantially "let the side down".
It is interesting that in this context, the author of the anti text feels that she has a license to launch the type of character assassination upon Sophie which I outlined above. But even more interesting are the evaluative terms adopted by the pro text. Here it is not so much the currently-under-a-cloud Sophie who is vindicated and defended, but her dress maker. Any rehabilitation of Sophie's is clearly to be only a partial one.
The notes to this point have outlined the system of APPRECIATION in relatively broad outline. The Appraisal framework provides for an analysis of this set of meanings in greater detail and with a greater delicacy of analysis. That is to say, it provides a more fine-grained set of sub-categories of types of APPRECIATION to enable more detailed analysis of APPRECIATION choices. Sections exploring this more delicate level of analysis will be added here later. For now you may like to look at the summary of these categories provided in the Appraisal Outline on the appraisal web site at (www.languageofevaluation.info/appraisal) or you may like to consult Martin 2000 where a full discussion is provided.
