Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article considers the application of the Attitude framework (Martin & White 2005) to study the evaluation of human behaviour. The distinction between inscribed (explicit) and invoked (indirect) attitude is re-examined and systematised to better operationalise the analysis of the evaluation of behaviour. General linguistic evaluation triggers are identified for inscribed and invoked evaluations, and the annotation scheme is applied in a corpus of texts from different registers (a psychiatric manual, educational guidelines and informal online exchanges) concerned with ADHD. Indirect evaluations of behaviour are described as attitudinal inferences derived from (i) the behaviours of the individuals, (ii) the behavioural outcomes, (iii) the impact that the behaviour or its outcomes have on third parties and the actions that the latter may perform as a result. It is proposed that indirect evaluations of people’s behaviour are metonymically inferred through an relation drawn across the different parts of an action scenario. The conceptual metonymy explains the directionality observed in attitude analyses (Appreciation attitude type may stand as tokens of Judgment), and it shows the impossibility of evaluating performances without indirectly appraising the human behaver.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. ADHD-Europe
    ADHD-Europe 2009ADHD-Europe declaration about AD/HD. Retrieved from: adhdeurope.eu/images/files/Declaration2010.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychiatric Association
    American Psychiatric Association 2013Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th edn. APA: Arlington. 10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
    https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bartlett, Tom
    2014Analysing power in language: A practical guide. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315851938
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315851938 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bednarek, Monika
    2009a Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics & Cognition17(1). 146–175. 10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed [Google Scholar]
  5. 2009b Polyphony in Appraisal: Typological and topological perspectives. Linguistics and the Human Sciences3(2). 107–136.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Benítez Castro, Miguel-Ángel & Encarnación Hidalgo-Tenorio
    2019 Rethinking Martin & White’s affect taxonomy. InJ. Lachlan Mackenzie & Laura Alba Juez (eds.), Emotion in discourse, 301–331. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.302.12ben
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.302.12ben [Google Scholar]
  7. Canu, Will H., Matthew L. Newman, Tara L. Morrow & Daniel L. Pope
    2008 Social appraisal of adult ADHD: stigma and influences of the beholder’s Big Five personality traits. Journal of Attention Disorders11(6). 700–710. 10.1177/1087054707305090
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054707305090 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fuoli, Matteo
    2018 A stepwise method for annotating APPRAISAL. Functions of Language25(2). 229–258. 10.1075/fol.15016.fuo
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.15016.fuo [Google Scholar]
  9. Fuoli, Matteo & Charlotte Hommerberg
    2015 Optimising transparency, reliability and replicability: Annotation principles and inter-coder agreement in the quantification of evaluative expressions. Corpora10(3). 315–349. 10.3366/cor.2015.0080
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0080 [Google Scholar]
  10. Gibbs, Raymond W.
    1999 Speaking and thinking with metonymy. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), 60–76. 10.1075/hcp.4.04gib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.04gib [Google Scholar]
  11. Greenway, Charlotte. W. & Alison Rees Edwards
    2020 Knowledge and attitudes towards attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A comparison of teachers and teaching assistants. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties25(1). 31–49. 10.1080/19404158.2019.1709875
    https://doi.org/10.1080/19404158.2019.1709875 [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2004Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hidalgo-Tenorio, Encarnación, & Miguel-Ángel Benítez-Castro
    2020 Trump’s populist discourse and affective politics, or on how to move ‘the People’ through emotion. Globalisation, Societies and Education1–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2021 The language of evaluation in the narratives by the Magdalene Laundries survivors: The discourse of female victimhood. Applied Linguistics42(2). 315–341. 10.1093/applin/amaa029
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amaa029 [Google Scholar]
  15. Hood, Susan
    2019 Appraisal. InGeoff Thompson, Wendy L. Bowcher, Lise Fontaine & David Schönthal (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of Systemic Functional Linguistics, 382–409. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/9781316337936.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316337936.017 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hood, Susan, & J. R. Martin
    2005 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, 739–764. London: Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hunston, Susan
    2011Corpus approaches to evaluation Phraseology and evaluative language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hunston, Susan, & Hang Su
    2019 Patterns, constructions, and local grammar: A case study of ‘evaluation’. Applied Linguistics40(4). 567–593. 10.1093/applin/amx046
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx046 [Google Scholar]
  19. Lebowitz, Matthew S.
    2016 Stigmatization of ADHD: A developmental review. Journal of Attention Disorders20(3). 199–205. 10.1177/1087054712475211
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054712475211 [Google Scholar]
  20. Malmberg, Kerstin, Tobias Edbom, Hanna-Linn Wargelius, & Jan-Olov Larsson
    2011 Psychiatric problems associated with subthreshold ADHD and disruptive behaviour diagnoses in teenagers. Acta Paediatrica100(11). 1468–1475. 10.1111/j.1651‑2227.2011.02363.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1651-2227.2011.02363.x [Google Scholar]
  21. Martin, J. R.
    2003 Introduction. Text23. 171–81.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. New York, NY: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  23. Mueller, Anna, Anselm B. M. Fuermaier, Janneke Koerts & Lara Tucha
    2012 Stigma in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. ADHD: Attention Deficit & Hyperactivity Disorders4(3). 101–114. 10.1007/s12402‑012‑0085‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s12402-012-0085-3 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pounds, Gabrina
    2010 Attitude and subjectivity in Italian and British hard-news reporting: The construction of a culture-specific ‘reporter’voice. Discourse Studies12(1). 106–137. 10.1177/1461445609346777
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445609346777 [Google Scholar]
  25. Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Günter Radden
    1999Metonymy in language and thought. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4 [Google Scholar]
  26. Panther, Klaus-Uwe & Linda L. Thornburg
    1998 A cognitive approach to inferencing in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics30(6). 755–769. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00028‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00028-9 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2003 Introduction: On the nature of conceptual metonymy. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Linda L. Thornburg (eds.), Metonymy and pragmatic inferencing, 1–20. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.113.03pan
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.113.03pan [Google Scholar]
  28. 2017 Metaphor and metonymy in language and thought: A cognitive linguistic approach. Synthesis Philosophica32(2). 271–294. 10.21464/sp32202
    https://doi.org/10.21464/sp32202 [Google Scholar]
  29. Radden, Günter & Zoltan Kövecses
    1999 Towards a theory of metonymy. InKlaus-Uwe Panther & Günter Radden (eds.), 17–59. 10.1075/hcp.4.03rad
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.4.03rad [Google Scholar]
  30. Singh, Ilina, Tim Kendall, Clare Taylor, Alex Mears, Chris Hollis, Martin Batty, Sinead Keenan
    2010 Young people’s experience of ADHD and stimulant medication: A qualitative study for the NICE guideline. Child Adolescent Mental Health15(4).186–192. 10.1111/j.1475‑3588.2010.00565.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3588.2010.00565.x [Google Scholar]
  31. Thompson, Geoff
    2008 Appraising glances: Evaluating Martin’s model of APPRAISAL. Word59(1–2). 169–187. 10.1080/00437956.2008.11432585
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.2008.11432585 [Google Scholar]
  32. 2014 Affect and emotion, target value mismatches, and Russian dolls. Refining the Appraisal model. InGeoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds.), Evaluation in context, 47–66. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.03tho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.03tho [Google Scholar]
  33. Walker, Janet S., Daniel Coleman, Junghee Lee, Peter N. Squire & Barbara J. Friesen
    2008 Children’s stigmatization of childhood depression and ADHD: Magnitude and demographic variation in a national sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry47(8). 912–920. 10.1097/CHI.0b013e318179961a
    https://doi.org/10.1097/CHI.0b013e318179961a [Google Scholar]
  34. 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: Ten critical studies, 37–67. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.18.05whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.18.05whi [Google Scholar]
  35. 2011 Appraisal. InJan Zienkowski, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Discursive pragmatics, 14–36. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hoph.8.02whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.02whi [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