A framework for analyzing evaluative language in historical discourse

IF 0.6 3区文学 0 LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS

Functions of Language Pub Date : 2018-11-02 DOI:10.1075/FOL.15053.MYS

Gordon Myskow

{"title":"A framework for analyzing evaluative language in historical discourse","authors":"Gordon Myskow","doi":"10.1075/FOL.15053.MYS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n History texts are not just disciplinary artefacts for describing, explaining or making arguments about the past. They play a key\n role in defining present-day group identities and their terms of affiliation. As such, they have generated a great deal of\n interest among functional linguists interested in how ideology is construed through language. But the ways history texts evaluate\n the past is not straightforward; they include a complex interplay of discourse participants putting forward a range of views\n toward the subject-matter. This article presents a framework for investigating evaluative meaning in historical discourse that\n aims to untangle this complex web of voices, showing how they work together to position readers to take up particular views toward\n the past. The framework brings together two prominent approaches to the study of evaluation: Martin & White’s (2005) Appraisal framework and Hunston’s (2000)\n notions of Status Value and Relevance. It posits four levels of evaluation (inter-, super-, extra- and meta-evaluation) that are\n grounded in insights from the field of historiography and reflect key disciplinary activities of historians.","PeriodicalId":44232,"journal":{"name":"Functions of Language","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Functions of Language","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1075/FOL.15053.MYS","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: 7

Abstract

History texts are not just disciplinary artefacts for describing, explaining or making arguments about the past. They play a key role in defining present-day group identities and their terms of affiliation. As such, they have generated a great deal of interest among functional linguists interested in how ideology is construed through language. But the ways history texts evaluate the past is not straightforward; they include a complex interplay of discourse participants putting forward a range of views toward the subject-matter. This article presents a framework for investigating evaluative meaning in historical discourse that aims to untangle this complex web of voices, showing how they work together to position readers to take up particular views toward the past. The framework brings together two prominent approaches to the study of evaluation: Martin & White’s (2005) Appraisal framework and Hunston’s (2000) notions of Status Value and Relevance. It posits four levels of evaluation (inter-, super-, extra- and meta-evaluation) that are grounded in insights from the field of historiography and reflect key disciplinary activities of historians.

查看原文本刊更多论文

历史话语评价性语言的分析框架

历史教科书不仅仅是用来描述、解释或争论过去的学科人工制品。它们在定义当今的群体身份及其隶属关系方面发挥着关键作用。因此，它们引起了功能语言学家的极大兴趣，他们对如何通过语言解释意识形态感兴趣。但是历史教科书评价过去的方式并不是直截了当的;它们包括话语参与者对主题提出一系列观点的复杂相互作用。本文提出了一个研究历史话语中评价意义的框架，旨在理清这个复杂的声音网络，展示它们如何共同作用，使读者对过去采取特定的看法。该框架汇集了两种主要的评估研究方法:Martin & White(2005)的评估框架和Hunston(2000)的地位、价值和相关性概念。它提出了四个层次的评估(内部评估、超级评估、额外评估和元评估)，这些评估基于史学领域的见解，反映了历史学家的关键学科活动。

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

Functions of Language Multiple-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Functions of Language is an international journal of linguistics which explores the functionalist perspective on the organisation and use of natural language. It encourages the interplay of theory and description, and provides space for the detailed analysis, qualitative or quantitative, of linguistic data from a broad range of languages. Its scope is broad, covering such matters as prosodic phenomena in phonology, the clause in its communicative context, and regularities of pragmatics, conversation and discourse, as well as the interaction between the various levels of analysis. The overall purpose is to contribute to our understanding of how the use of languages in speech and writing has impacted, and continues to impact, upon the structure of those languages.