Alignment, persuasiveness and the putative reader in opinion writing

IF 0.1 3区 文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
P. White
{"title":"Alignment, persuasiveness and the putative reader in opinion writing","authors":"P. White","doi":"10.1075/langct.21001.whi","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This paper explores a new line of analysis for comparing opinion writing by reference to differences in the\n relationships being indicated between author and addressee. It draws on recent work within the appraisal framework\n literature to offer proposals for linguistics-based analyses of what has variously been termed the ‘intended’, ‘imagined’,\n ‘ideal’, ‘virtual’, ‘model’, ‘implied’ and ‘putative’ reader (the ‘reader written into the text’). A discussion is provided of those means by\n which beliefs, attitudes and expectations are projected onto this ‘reader in the text’, formulations which signal anticipations\n that the reader either shares the attitude or belief currently being advanced by the author, potentially finds it novel or\n otherwise problematic, or may reject it outright. The discussion is conducted with respect to written, persuasive texts, and\n specifically with respect to news journalism’s commentary pieces. It is proposed that such texts can usefully be characterised and\n compared by reference to tendencies in such ‘construals’ or ‘positionings’ of the putative reader – tendencies in terms of whether\n the signalled anticipation is of the reader being aligned or, conversely, potentially unaligned or dis-aligned with the author.\n The terms ‘flag waving’ and ‘advocacy’ are proposed as characterisations which can be applied to texts, with ‘flag waving’\n applicable to texts which construe the reader as largely sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes, while ‘advocacy’ is\n applicable to texts where the reader is construed as actually or potentially not sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes and\n thereby needing to be won over. This line of analysis is demonstrated through a comparison of two journalistic opinion pieces\n written in response to visits by Japanese politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, one published in the English-language\n version of the mainland China newspaper, China Daily and one in the English-language version of the Japanese\n Asahi Shimbun. It is shown that one piece can usefully be characterised as oriented towards ‘flag waving’ and\n the other towards ‘advocacy’.","PeriodicalId":29846,"journal":{"name":"Language Context and Text-The Social Semiotics Forum","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Context and Text-The Social Semiotics Forum","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/langct.21001.whi","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

This paper explores a new line of analysis for comparing opinion writing by reference to differences in the relationships being indicated between author and addressee. It draws on recent work within the appraisal framework literature to offer proposals for linguistics-based analyses of what has variously been termed the ‘intended’, ‘imagined’, ‘ideal’, ‘virtual’, ‘model’, ‘implied’ and ‘putative’ reader (the ‘reader written into the text’). A discussion is provided of those means by which beliefs, attitudes and expectations are projected onto this ‘reader in the text’, formulations which signal anticipations that the reader either shares the attitude or belief currently being advanced by the author, potentially finds it novel or otherwise problematic, or may reject it outright. The discussion is conducted with respect to written, persuasive texts, and specifically with respect to news journalism’s commentary pieces. It is proposed that such texts can usefully be characterised and compared by reference to tendencies in such ‘construals’ or ‘positionings’ of the putative reader – tendencies in terms of whether the signalled anticipation is of the reader being aligned or, conversely, potentially unaligned or dis-aligned with the author. The terms ‘flag waving’ and ‘advocacy’ are proposed as characterisations which can be applied to texts, with ‘flag waving’ applicable to texts which construe the reader as largely sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes, while ‘advocacy’ is applicable to texts where the reader is construed as actually or potentially not sharing the author’s beliefs and attitudes and thereby needing to be won over. This line of analysis is demonstrated through a comparison of two journalistic opinion pieces written in response to visits by Japanese politicians to the Yasukuni Shrine in Tokyo, one published in the English-language version of the mainland China newspaper, China Daily and one in the English-language version of the Japanese Asahi Shimbun. It is shown that one piece can usefully be characterised as oriented towards ‘flag waving’ and the other towards ‘advocacy’.
观点写作中的一致性、说服力和假定读者
本文探讨了一种新的分析方法,通过参考作者和收件人之间所表示的关系的差异来比较意见写作。它借鉴了评估框架文献中的最新工作,为基于语言学的分析提供了建议,这些分析被称为“预期的”、“想象的”、“理想的”、“虚拟的”、“模型的”、“隐含的”和“假定的”读者(“写进文本的读者”)。本书还讨论了将信念、态度和期望投射到“文本中的读者”身上的方法,这些表述表明读者要么认同作者目前提出的态度或信念,要么可能觉得它新颖或有问题,要么可能完全拒绝它。讨论是关于书面的,有说服力的文本,特别是关于新闻报道的评论作品进行的。有人提出,这样的文本可以通过参考假定读者的这种“解释”或“定位”的倾向来有效地表征和比较——这种倾向是根据所暗示的预期是读者与作者一致,还是相反,潜在地与作者不一致或不一致。“挥舞旗帜”和“倡导”这两个术语被认为是可以应用于文本的特征,“挥舞旗帜”适用于将读者解释为在很大程度上同意作者的信仰和态度的文本,而“倡导”适用于读者被解释为实际上或潜在地不同意作者的信仰和态度,因此需要赢得作者的支持的文本。通过比较两篇针对日本政界人士参拜东京靖国神社(Yasukuni Shrine)而写的评论文章,可以证明这一分析思路。一篇发表在中国大陆报纸《中国日报》(China Daily)的英文版上,一篇发表在日本《朝日新闻》(Asahi Shimbun)的英文版上。研究表明,一件作品可以被有效地描述为“挥舞旗帜”,另一件作品则是“倡导”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
40.00%
发文量
19
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信