Finding the Global Groove: Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using Appraisal, corpus, and a concordancer

Abstract

FINDING THE GLOBAL GROOVE:Theorising and analysing dynamic reader positioning using APPRAISAL, corpus, and a concordancer Within critical discourse analysis (CDA), there has been onBoinB interest in how texts position readers to view social and political events in a particular way. Traditionally, analysts have not examined how positioninB is built up dynamically as a reader proBresses through a text by tracing how earlier parts rif a text are likely to affect subsequent interpretation. This article shows how APPRAISAL tools (as developed within the systemic functional tradition) can be usifully employed within CDA to do this. Using a storyfromThe Sun newspaper website as illustration, we show how due to a cumulative Broove l!f' semantic patterning, the reader is dynamically positioned to interpret a seeminBly neutral statement at the end rif the story in a neBative way. We show how potential analyst 'over-interpretation' can be checked throuBh the use rif a concordancer. We also demonstrate how a specialised corpus can BO some way to BroundinB the APPRAISAL analysis in terms rif the context C!f the tarBet readership and the meaninBs they are routinely exposed to. This we arBue faCilitates an explanatory critique rif the wo/ in which a text is likely to be understood by its tarBet readership in relation to the socio-politicaleconomic context.

Corpora and Language Education

“…Hunston and Thompson 2000), applying Martin and White's (2005) Appraisal System in Systemic Functional Grammar (see Bednarek 2006 for an in-depth study of evaluation in media text). Coffin and O'Halloran (2005) also make use of the Appraisal system for classifying evaluative lexis, first conducting an individual text analysis and following this up with a large-scale computerised analysis.…”

On the function of stance-neutral formulations: Apparent neutrality as a powerful stance constructing resource

“…Hoey (2001 : 43) compared the reader and writer to "dancers following each other's steps" and emphasized the importance of the writer's taking "the trouble to anticipate what the reader might be expecting." Taking into account the reader's reception was previously emphasized as a crucial skill in constructing successful academic texts (Coffin & O'Halloran, 2005;Hyland, 2010;Thompson, 2001;Warchał, 2010). Importantly, one way of achieving this, as the present observations have affirmed, is by making a strategic choice between the deployment of "acknowledge" or evaluation-charged resources.…”

“…To be more specific, the approach I take in this paper is in line with SFL research that considers evaluation to be a process that is built up in a discourse as the text proceeds (Coffin, 2010;Coffin & O'Halloran, 2005;Macken-Horarik, 2003;Martin & Rose, 2003). This paper shares a similar basis with the studies on "labelling discourse" (Charles, 2003;Francis, 1994;Moreno, 2004;Sinclair, 1993;Tadros, 1994), in which the status of a stretch of discourse is labeled not immediately but in a different part of the text, where a piece of discourse not only contributes to a dynamic interpersonal meaning-making process but also serves as a cohesive device (Hoey, 2001;Winter, 1982Winter, , 1992.…”

BP plc 2010 – a case of linguistic legitimation?

“…Moreover, corpus analysis can be employed to find lexico-grammatical patterns of meaning objectively within a single text or across large corpora of texts. Corpus analysis adds rigour here by objectively pointing to regularities in each statement (O'Halloran, 2006), thereby providing a check against subjective overinterpretation (Coffin and O'Halloran, 2005).…”

“…Each statement was uploaded separately to a concordance software package, 'MonoConc Pro', which generated lists of frequently occurring words for each text to facilitate the location of clustering and objectively render patterns of 'stance' (via specified modals) and 'personalisation' (via specified pronouns) more visible (Coffin and O'Halloran, 2005). Essentially this generated volumetric data enabling comparisons between Chairman and CEO, between years and between companies.…”