1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 7, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 7, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Writing is the main medium of communication between practising architects, their clients and other professionals involved in the construction and regulation of the built environment (Forty 2004; Decq 2013; Binotto 2013; Gerber & Patterson 2013). However, most prior studies of the language used by architects have examined texts from Architecture magazines and journals as opposed to practitioners’ choices relating to Field, Tenor and Mode in response to the social context of the workplace. Our paper investigates the register of Design and Access Statements (DASs), documents which all architects practising in the UK are required by law to submit to their local authorities when making planning applications. We chose the sub-system of A within the theoretical framework of Appraisal (Martin & White 2005) to examine one aspect of the register of DASs: the linguistic resources used to evaluate architectural phenomena in order to justify architectural decisions to local clients and regulatory authorities. We found that inanimate entities in the DASs tended to be judged from an ethical and legal perspective, and were assigned feelings of desire, well-being or satisfaction. As one of the first investigations to relate the linguistic choices of practising architects to a specific situational context, our study should be relevant to all students of register and professional discourse, and particularly those involved in the professional development of practitioners, for example in Schools of Architecture.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25017.lah
2026-01-12
2026-02-17

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.25017.lah
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Agrawal, S., Bajpai, N., & Khandelwal, U.
    (2020) Recapitulation of brand anthropomorphism: An innovating marketing strategy. The Marketing Review, 20(1–2), 143–156. 10.1362/146934720X15929907504139
     https://doi.org/10.1362/146934720X15929907504139 [Google Scholar]
  2. Amossy, R.
    (2009) Argumentación y análisis del discurso: Perspectivas teóricas y recortes disciplinarios. InL. A. Puig (Ed.), El discurso y sus espejos, (pp.67–98). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Atomic Ranch
    Atomic Ranch (2022) I. M. Pei: Mirroring life through functional design. Available fromhttps://www.atomic-ranch.com/modernist-index/i-m-pei/#
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Berman, A.
    (2013) Why does writing matter to architects?Available fromhttps://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/why-does-writing-matter-to-architects
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Binotto, J.
    (2013) My home is my symptom: A psychoanalytic plea for flawed architecture. InA. Gerber & B. Patterson (Eds.), Metaphors in architecture and urbanism: An introduction (1st ed.) (pp.33–46). Bielefel, Germany: Transcript Publishing. 10.14361/transcript.9783839423721.33
     https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839423721.33 [Google Scholar]
  6. Caballero, R.
    (2006) Re-viewing space: Figurative language in architects’ assessment of built space. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110893892
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110893892 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cook, P.
    (2016) Architecture workbook: Design through motive. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 10.1002/9781118965382
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118965382 [Google Scholar]
  8. Costanzo, D.
    (2016) What architecture means. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Decq, O.
    (2013) Préface. InA. Gerber and B. Patterson (Eds.), Metaphors in architecture and urbanism: An introduction (1st ed.) (pp.9–11). Bielefel, Germany: Transcript Publishing. 10.14361/transcript.9783839423721.prf
     https://doi.org/10.14361/transcript.9783839423721.prf [Google Scholar]
  10. Don, A.
    (2007) A framework for the investigation for interactive norms and the construction of textual identity in written discourse communities: The case of an email discussion list [Doctoral thesis]. University of Birmingham, U.K.https://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/lexi_con/lexis-text/thesis/donacphd.html
     [Google Scholar]
  11. (2016) “It is hard to mesh all this”: Invoking attitude, persona and argument organisation. Functional Linguistics, 3(1), 1–26. 10.1186/s40554‑016‑0033‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-016-0033-1 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dias, P., Pare, A., Medway, P., & Freedman, A.
    (1999) Worlds apart. Mahwah: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Duangkaew, E.
    (2017) Honesty and deception in architecture. Available fromhttps://yengies.wordpress.com/2017/08/16/honesty-and-deception-in-Architecture/
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dutta, A. B.
    (2014) Communication in architecture: Realising the importance of communications in architecture. Designers’ Style, 34–35.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Eagan, B., Brohinsky, J., Wang, J., & Williamson Shaffer, D. W.
    (2020) Testing the reliability of inter-rater reliability. InProceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Learning Analytics & Knowledge (LAK’20) (pp.454–461). New York, NY: ACM. 10.1145/3375462.3375508
     https://doi.org/10.1145/3375462.3375508 [Google Scholar]
  16. Eggins, S. & Slade, D.
    (2001) Analysing casual conversation. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Forty, A.
    (2004) Words and buildings: A vocabulary of modern architecture. London: Thames & Hudson.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Geng, Y. & Wharton, S.
    (2019) How do thesis writers evaluate their own and others’ findings? An Appraisal analysis and a pedagogical intervention. English for Specific Purposes, 561, 3–17.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Gardner, S., Nesi, H. & Biber, D.
    (2019) Discipline, level, genre: Integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 646–674. 10.1093/applin/amy005
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Gerber, A., & Patterson, B.
    (2013) Metaphors in architecture and urbanism. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Giuroiu, A.
    (2018) How to write a killer architecture essay: The complete guide. Available fromhttps://www.Architecturelab.net/how-to-write-a-killer-Architecture-essay-the-complete-guide/
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GOV.UK
    GOV.UK (2014) Guidance: Making an application. Available fromhttps://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Design-and-Access-Statement
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Haylock, C.
    (2018) Design statements can get planners on side: Tips on getting planning consent from a past president of the RTPI. Available fromhttps://www.Architecture.com/knowledge-and-resources/knowledge-landing-page/design-statements-can-get-planners-on-side#
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Ho, N. K.
    (2019) Evaluation in English and Chinese marketing communications: An adaptation of the appraisal framework for the genre of luxury fashion promotional texts [Doctoral thesis]. Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland. https://www.ros.hw.ac.uk/handle/10399/4215
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Hood, S.
    (2004) Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing [Doctoral thesis]. University of Technology, Sydney, Australia. https://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/suehoodphd/hoods-phd-links.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Hunston, S. & Thompson, G.
    (Eds.) (2000) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Joint Urban Design Team
    Joint Urban Design Team (2010) Design & access statements briefing note. Available fromhttps://www.scambs.gov.uk/media/7974/das-guidance-note_april2010-low-res.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Keperling, D.
    (2020) Sympathetic additions: Adding on harmoniously. Available fromhttps://practicalpreservationservices.com/sympathetic-additions-adding-on-harmoniously/
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Kloppmann-Lambert, C.
    (2018) Specialised aspects of architectural discourse: Metaphors in the British magazine The Architectural Review. ASp La revue du GERAS, 731, 25–51. 10.4000/asp.5111
     https://doi.org/10.4000/asp.5111 [Google Scholar]
  30. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M.
    (1980) Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee, S. H.
    (2015) Evaluative stances in persuasive essays by undergraduate students: Focusing on appreciation resources. Text & Talk, 35(1), 49–76. 10.1515/text‑2014‑0029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0029 [Google Scholar]
  32. Libeskind, D.
    (2017) We mustn’t forget the emotional impact of the buildings around us. Available fromhttps://edition.cnn.com/style/article/daniel-libeskind-Architecture-emotions/index.html
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Macken-Horarik, M. & Issac, A.
    (2014) Appraising appraisal. InG. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp.67–92). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.04mac
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.04mac [Google Scholar]
  34. Macken-Horarik, M.
    (2003) Envoi: Intractable issues in appraisal analysis?Text & Talk, 23(2), 313–319. 10.1515/text.2003.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.013 [Google Scholar]
  35. Mansilla, P. Ú.
    (2003) Metaphor at work: A study of metaphors used by European architects when talking about their projects. Ibérica, 51, 35–48.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Markus, T. A. & Cameron, D.
    (2002) The words between the spaces: Buildings and language. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin, J. R.
    (2000) Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. InS. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp.142–175). Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0008 [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R.
    (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  39. Marwah, A.
    (2022) Architecture: A mirror of life. Available fromhttps://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/narratives/a6443-Architecture-a-mirror-of-life/
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Medway, P.
    (1996) Virtual and material buildings: Construction and constructivism in architecture and writing. Written Communication, 13(4), 473–514. 10.1177/0741088396013004002
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088396013004002 [Google Scholar]
  41. Mohieldeen, Y. A. A.
    (2017) Honesty & deception. Available fromhttps://kfynm.wordpress.com/2017/08/15/honesty-deception-mohieldeen/
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Myskow, G.
    (2018) Appraisal in history: Construals of significance, fortune, and status. Linguistics and the Human Sciences, 12(1), 1–24. 10.1558/lhs.20869
     https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.20869 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nesi, H. & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009030199
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030199 [Google Scholar]
  44. Ngo, T. & Unsworth, L.
    (2015) Reworking the Appraisal framework in ESL research: Refining Attitude resources. Functional Linguistics, 2(1), 1–24. 10.1186/s40554‑015‑0013‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-015-0013-x [Google Scholar]
  45. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H.
    (2020) Intercoder reliability in qualitative research: Debates and practical guidelines. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 191, 1–13. 10.1177/1609406919899220
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220 [Google Scholar]
  46. O’Donnell, M.
    (2008) Demonstration of the UAM CorpusTool for text and image annotation. InProceedings of the ACL-08: HLT Demo Session (pp.13–16). Columbus, OH: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1564144.1564148
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1564144.1564148 [Google Scholar]
  47. Page, R. E.
    (2003) An analysis of APPRAISAL in childbirth narratives with special consideration of gender and storytelling style. Text & Talk, 23(2), 211–237. 10.1515/text.2003.009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.009 [Google Scholar]
  48. Painter, C.
    (2003) Developing attitude: An ontogenetic perspective on APPRAISAL. Text & Talk, 23(2), 183–209. 10.1515/text.2003.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.008 [Google Scholar]
  49. Pert, A.
    (2014) Build me up: how architecture can affect emotions. Available fromhttps://theconversation.com/build-me-up-how-Architecture-can-affect-emotions-22950
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Quintal, B.
    (2019) 121 definitions of architecture. Available fromhttps://www.archdaily.com/773971/architecture-is-121-definitions-of-architecture
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Read, J. & Carroll, J.
    (2012) Annotating expressions of appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46(3), 421–447. 10.1007/s10579‑010‑9135‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-010-9135-7 [Google Scholar]
  52. Robinson, S.
    (2021) Architecture is a verb. New York: Routledge
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Roldán Riejos, A. M.
    (2010) Building big is thinking big: Conceptual and linguistic networks in Architecture and Civil Engineering. InProceedings of the 8th International Conference on Researching and Applying Metaphor (RaAM8). Amsterdam, Netherlands.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Schmalz, B.
    (2014) The architect’s guide to writing for design and construction professionals. Mulgrave, Australia: The Image Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Schrijver, I. & Leijten, M.
    (2019) The diverse field of professional writing: Current perspectives on writing in the workplace. Hermes, 59(1), 7–14.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Shahid, M.
    (2020) The different emotions architecture (buildings) can express. Available fromhttps://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-fresh-perspectives/a2586-the-different-emotions-Architecture-buildings-can-express/
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Shepheard, P.
    (1994) What is architecture?: An essay on landscapes, buildings, and machines. London: MIT Press
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Simpson-Smith, C.
    (2021) Persuasion in engineering reports: Evaluative resources and targets in practice. Journal of Research in Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 6–21.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. (2022) The invisible author? Factors impacting authorial presence in professional engineering written reports. InProceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE). Sydney, Australia: Australasian Association for Engineering Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Soneira Beloso, B. S.
    (2015) Designing, describing and compiling a corpus of English for architecture. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1981, 459–464. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.466
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.466 [Google Scholar]
  61. Spector, T. & Damron, R.
    (2017) How (and why) architects write (2nd ed.). Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis. 10.4324/9781315670157
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315670157 [Google Scholar]
  62. Taber, K. S., & Watts, M.
    (1996) The secret life of the chemical bond: Students’ anthropomorphic and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 557–568. 10.1080/0950069960180505
     https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180505 [Google Scholar]
  63. Thompson, G.
    (2014) AFFECT and emotion, target-value mismatches, and Russian dolls: Refining the APPRAISAL model. InG. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in context (pp.47–66). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.03tho
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.03tho [Google Scholar]
  64. Türkoguz, S. & Ercan, İ.
    (2022) Effect of visual anthropomorphic stories on students’ understanding of the particulate nature of matter and anthropomorphic discourse. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 231, 206–225. 10.1039/D1RP00057H
     https://doi.org/10.1039/D1RP00057H [Google Scholar]
  65. Watt, E.
    (2021) 8 architecture project stages from concept to construction. Available fromhttps://archimash.com/articles/architecture-project-stages/
     [Google Scholar]
  66. White, P. R. R.
    (2020) The language of attitude, arguability, and interpersonal positioning. Available fromhttps://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/
     [Google Scholar]
  67. (1998) Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric [Doctoral thesis]. University of Sydney. https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/6472485
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Willis, C. & Willis, J. A.
    (1997) Specification writing for architects and surveyors (11th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Wilson, R.
    (2011) Appraisal theory as a linguistic tool for the analysis of market research interview data [Doctoral thesis]. University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/21142/1/658609.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  70. Wiseman, C.
    (2014) Writing architecture. San Antonio, USA: Trinity University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang, W. & Cheung, Y.
    (2023) The different ways to write publishable research articles: Using cluster analysis to uncover patterns of APPRAISAL in discussions across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 631, 101231. 10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101231
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2023.101231 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25017.lah
Loading
Evaluative expression in architectural practice
Register Studies 7, 42 (2025); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.25017.lah
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25017.lah
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.25017.lah
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): appraisal; architecture; Attitude; design and access statements; emotion.; evaluation

Most Cited

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