{"title":"历史话语评价性语言的分析框架","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":"{\"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}","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}
A framework for analyzing evaluative language in historical discourse
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.
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.