Volume 28, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Expressions of evaluation in discourse have been studied from a number of different perspectives, all highlighting the fact that evaluation may be expressed cumulatively, through a combination of different linguistic means, and pragmatically, at various levels of implicitness, which often defy precise categorization. This paper argues that, in argumentative discourse, the pragmatics of evaluation includes not only implied but also aspects. A case study centred on the environmental debate over the contested practice of fracking is used to identify the that lie behind the main or on the issue, as expressed by different stakeholders. It is argued that this wider approach to the analysis of evaluation may be particularly suited to uncover the evaluative premises that lie at the core of different and often contradictory environmental positions and policies.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. BBC News
    BBC News5January 2013Viewpoints: fracking’s risks and benefitsAvailable online atwww.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20758673NT
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bednarek, Monika
    2006Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 2008Emotion talk across corpora. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan. 10.1057/9780230285712
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285712 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benamara, Farah, Maite Taboada & Yannick Mathieu
    2017 Evaluative language beyond bags of words: Linguistic insights and computational applications. Computational Linguistics43(1). 201–264. 10.1162/COLI_a_00278
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00278 [Google Scholar]
  5. Colomina-Almiñana, Juan J.
    2018 Pragmatic presuppositions and articulated constituents. Lingua206. 112–126. 10.1016/j.lingua.2018.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  6. Davies, Anna R.
    2006 Nature in place: Public visions of nature-society relationships in the UK. InJ. G. Riyan, Rob Van den Born, H. J. Lenders & Wouter T. de Groot (eds.), Visions of nature, 85–106. Berlin: Lit Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst
    2003A systematic theory of argumentation: The pragma-dialectical approach. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511616389
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616389 [Google Scholar]
  8. Gerritsen, Susanne
    2001 Unexpressed premises. InFrans H. van Eemeren (ed.), Crucial concepts in argumentation theory, 51–79. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Johnson, Ralph H. & Blair J. Anthony
    2006Logical self-defence. New York, NY: International Debate Education Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2004An introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn.London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Hommerberg, Charlotte
    2015 Bringing consumption reviews into relief by combining Appraisal and argumentation analysis. Text and Talk35(2). 155–175. 10.1515/text‑2014‑0033
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0033 [Google Scholar]
  12. Hommerberg, Charlotte & Alexanne, Don
    2015 Appraisal and the language of wine appreciation: A critical discussion of the potential of the appraisal framework as a tool to analyse specialised genres. Functions of Language22(2). 161–191. 10.1075/fol.22.2.01hom
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.22.2.01hom [Google Scholar]
  13. Hood, Susan & J. R. Martin
    2007 Invoking attitude: The play of graduation in appraising discourse. InRuqaiya Hasan, Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen & Jonathan Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective, vol.2, 739–764. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hunston, Susan
    1989 Evaluation in experimental research articles. Birmingham: University of Birmingham PhD thesis.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 2000Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. InSusan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), 176–206.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hunston, Susan & Geoff Thompson
    (eds.) 2000Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: OUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hyland, Ken
    2002 What do they mean? Questions in academic writing. Text22(4). 259–557. 10.1515/text.2002.021
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2002.021 [Google Scholar]
  18. Labov, William & Joshua Valetzky
    1967 Narrative analysis. InJune Helm (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, 12–44. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Lemke, Jay
    1998 Resources for attitudinal meaning: Evaluative orientations in text semantics. Functions of Language5(1). 33–56. 10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.5.1.03lem [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaltenbacher, Martin
    2006 Culture related linguistic differences in tourist websites: The emotive andthe factual. A corpus analysis within the framework of appraisal. InGeoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and corpus: Exploring connections, 269–292. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Macken-Horarik, Mary & Anne Isaac
    2014 Appraising appraisal. InGeoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), 67–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  23. Pounds, Gabrina
    2005 Writer’s argumentative attitude: A contrastive analysis of Letters to the Editor in English and Italian. Pragmatics15(1). 49–88. 10.1075/prag.15.1.03pou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.15.1.03pou [Google Scholar]
  24. 2011 “This property offers much character and charm”: Evaluation in the discourse of online property advertising. Text and Talk31(2). 195–220. 10.1515/text.2011.009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.009 [Google Scholar]
  25. Thompson, Geoff
    2014Affect and emotion, target-value mismatches, and Russian dolls: Refining the Appraisal model. InGeoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), 47–66.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Thompson, Geoff & Laura Alba-Juez
    (eds.) 2014Evaluation in context. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242 [Google Scholar]
  27. Toulmin, Stephen E., Richard Rieke & Allan S. Janik
    1979An introduction to reasoning. New York, NY: Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Toulmin, Stephen E.
    2003The uses of argument. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511840005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005 [Google Scholar]
  29. Vargas, Andrès, Michael Howes & Nicholas Rohde
    2017 The problem of inclusion in deliberative environmental evaluation. Environmental values26. 157–176. 10.3197/096327117X14847335385472
    https://doi.org/10.3197/096327117X14847335385472 [Google Scholar]
  30. Walton, Douglas
    2009 Argumentation theory: A very short introduction. InGuillermo Simari & Iyad Rahwan (eds.), Argumentation in artificial intelligence, 1–22. Berlin: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑98197‑0_1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-98197-0_1 [Google Scholar]
  31. White, Peter R. R.
    2006 Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse: A new framework for analysis. InInger Lassen, Jeanne Strunck & Torben Vestergaard (eds.), Mediating ideology in text and image, 37–67. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.18.05whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.18.05whi [Google Scholar]
  32. Wilson, Matthew A. & Richard B. Howarth
    2002 Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: Establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. Ecological Economics1. 431–443. 10.1016/S0921‑8009(02)00092‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7 [Google Scholar]
  33. Wu, Siew Mei & Allison Desmond
    2005 Evaluative expressions in analytical arguments: Aspects of appraisal in assigned English language essays. Journal of Applied Linguistics2(1). 105–127.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error