legitimating tenor relationships

7/26/2019 Legitimating Tenor Relationships

1/22

1

Linguistics and the Human Sciences, Vol 5, No 3 (2009)

Legitimating tenor relationships: Affiliation and

alignment in written interaction

Alexanne Cecilie Don

1 Background

In any group, recognised members or participants contribute to the development of

group norms or legitimate practices of the group through negotiation and interaction

(e.g. Goffman 1981, Locher 2004, Fairclough 1992, 2003, Eckert & McGonnel-Ginet

1998, Bucholtz & Hall 2005). In the context of an electronic mailing list, overt

responses by subscribers who post messages to the list also contribute to the

construction of their own and others identity through legitimated practice. Active

posters can ratify or question any contribution, and in so doing may also act to shame or

applaud other participants at the same time (e.g. Williams 2001). Persons behind the

posting behaviour feel shame or hurt in front of other list-members, even when they

have never met face to face, and hence many responses on mailing lists as well as in

other interactive contexts appear to be inspired by a need to maintain 'face'1 - of self,

other individual members, or the group with whom one affiliates or with whom one

wishes to claim solidarity. Thus, it becomes a matter of associationsas to how one is

defined, i.e. as a means of defining ones identity, and as a means of evaluating and

hence de/legitimating ones membership of any community.This paper is therefore concerned with the broader perspective of how power relations

may be enacted through strategies of positioning in which alignment and affiliation are

signalled and put at risk - especially as a function of the institutionalised processes of

discourse communities and communities of practice in general. Within both smaller

communities and wider social institutions such as academia, business, law and medicine

in which norms or legitimate practices have developed, language use is paramount in

enacting identity, solidarity and intimating group membership (e. g. Iedema 1998;

Iedema & Wodak 1999; MacDonald 2002; Johnstone 2007). Such practices can be

investigated from either a macro, collective perspective, or a micro, interaction-and-

response perspective. Each perspective represents the two ends of a given social

spectrum. This is akin to what Martin (2010: 24) likens to Bernsteins (1996) conceptsof (social) reservoir and (individual) repertoire, and which Martin explains as two

trajectories for investigating the notion of identity, what he terms individuation:

we can think of individuation along two trajectories, basically

asking whether we are classifying identities or negotiating

them. Along the reservoir to repertoire trajectory, we can

conceive of a culture dividing into smaller and smaller

communities as we move from the community as whole,

through master identities (generation, gender, class, ethnicity,


2/22

2

dis/ability) and sub-cultures to the personas that compose

individual members. What we are concerned with here is

power, classification and recognition rules with boundaries

between identities. Reversing direction, we can conceive ofpersona aligning themselves into sub-cultures, configuring

master identities and constituting a culture. Along this

trajectory we are concerned with realisation rules, framing and

controlwith negotiation among and across identities.

It is this negotiation among and across identities, and how such realisation rules may

be identified (andclassified) which forms the focus of the following discussion.

2 Theoretical issues and research aims

In this paper, in order to demonstrate the ways in which relationships and identities may

be negotiated, I focus on one instance of interaction - a series of events from a written

conversation between long-time members of a discourse community engendered by an

email discussion list - from the perspective of the dynamic negotiation end of the

spectrum. At the same time, the positioning enacted in these interactive responsive

contexts are crucially dependent on the wider network of social norms that have been

negotiated within these institutions and communities over time: one needs to have been

recognised as a legitimate member of a community by interacting appropriately or

legitimately in order to be heard, that is, in order to have acquired the necessary

realisation rules cited above. With respect to the extracts used as illustration below, at

the time the interaction occurred, the textual personas concerned had been negotiating(for at least three years) both the boundaries of their individual identities (what Eggins

& Slade (1997: 12) term exploration of differences), as well as what Bernstein (1996:

11-14) calls the framing rules which constituted their legitimated behaviour within

the group - the boundaries of the interaction itself (c.f. Don 2001).

In order to discuss and track the positioning enacted in such an interactive context, this

paper proposes an amended set of parameters of tenor (Table 1 below) for tracking the

ways that interactants construe relationships of affiliation, alignment, and degree of

Status reciprocity in their contributions to group conversation. Tenor is one of three

aspects of register or context of situation under Systemic Functional Linguistics (see

for example, Halliday & Hasan 1985, Halliday 1994), in which resources in the

grammar function at a higher stratum to construe elements of the context of situation.

In addition to Tenor, Systemic Functional Linguistics (henceforth SFL) recognises that

the grammatical resources of Field and Mode are co-articulated in any text to construe a

particular contextual configuration.

The dimensions of tenor on which my classification is based were first outlined by

Poynton (1985), and further elaborated by Martin (1992: 526ff), and the categories I

propose below are based on this previous work. The purpose of this paper is to describe

this set of tenor dimensions and argue for their applicability to all areas of

argumentative discourse through an illustration of one instance of written interaction. A

further aim of this paper is to argue that the terms alignment and affiliation be

theoretically distinguished as relations dynamically realised in interaction, but which


3/22

3

are also usefully considered as distinct processes relating to different sets of positioning

strategies. In turn, such potential positioning strategies are proposed to rely on reference

to a number of interpersonal sub-dimensions outlined in the table below and in more

detail in the remainder of the paper.

Table 1 below outlines this set of tenor dimensions or variables for construing

interactant/writer-reader alignment and affiliation and which will be used to describe

the effects of evaluative acts in the discussion which follows.

Table 1: Tenor variables for constru ing wri ter - reader alignment and aff il iation

I. CONTACT /FAMILIARITY:varies along a cline between:close (affiliated) and distant (unaffiliated)

via a contractionproliferation of explicit and implicit

meanings

II. STATUS /POWER:varies along a cline between:equaland unequalvia reciprocity of:

i. status: tenor (social hierarchy)ii. prominence: mode (publicity)

iii. authority: field (expertise, classification, knowledge)iv. control: genre (skill, manipulation)*v. power: ideology (access)

III. AXIOLOGY /VALUE SYSTEM:varies along a cline between:alignedand disaligned[affiliation]via reference to:

i. logic (true/false)ii. ethics (good/bad)iii. morals (right/wrong)iv. norms (appropriate/inappropriate)v. sense (like/dislike)

Under the Status dimension, for example, an interactant may intimate in/equality by

reference to socially available positions relating to social status, prominence, authority,

control, or power. When, for example, a control sub-dimension (*asterisked Table 1

above) is activated, the interactant may intimate that s/he has better control or skill in

manipulating the genre in play. Such a genre need not be restricted to the written or

spoken mode: it may refer to abilities in controlling physical prowess in playing games,

or individual sporting competitions, or in aesthetic manipulation such as painting or

dance. In the illustrative discussion below, this sub-dimension is particularly salient as

it is tied up in the challenge which one participant issues to another. Importantly, it can

be observed that whereas the Status dimension is not theorised as involved directly in


4/22

4

activating affiliation, the potential construal of affiliationvia implication of equal Status

is not denied. Theoretical delicacy demands that these dimensions be kept separate,

since interactants may be construed as both unequal in Status and yet closely affiliated

(under Contact) by membership of an institution, family, workgroup, etc.

Similarly, under the Axiology dimension, dis/alignments may be set up which are

temporary and which make reference to sub-dimensions or clines related to notions of

logic, ethics, morals, norms, or sense (Table 1 above). For each of the sub-dimensions

of Axiology (or Value system) brought into play, an argument is implied. These

arguments rely on an assumed value system where, for example, logicand the cline

between true and false is assumed to be at stake. As another example, an argument

may make reference to normative positions along a cline between appropriate and

inappropriate as a warrant for that argument. Interactants may claim or const rue

dis/alignmentwith other interactants by reference such assumed values. Together with

other indicators in the co-text, such dis/alignment(s) may also construe concurrent(latent), or emerging affiliation(s): there is no suggestion that these dimensions preclude

each other, but that a number of different reference strategies operate in distinguishing

them.

It should be noted that the categories are presented as labels to refer to types of

orientations in interaction only, and do not have any content of their own as such. So

that, as an example, although the sub-dimensions of Status include an orientation to

ideology, the nature of ideology itself is left undefined for the purposes of the

framework: this label is meant to allow identification of the way that interactants make

reference to access to influence and social power of whatever type to imply relations of

un/equal reciprocity in terms of Status.

Originally, in Poyntons (1985) framework, this set included another variable, Affect2:

Table 1a: Af fect as part of original set of tenor variables

IV. AFFECT:varies along a cline between:marked(positive or negative: involved) and unmarked(uninvolved)via amplificationor intensificationof affectual values

However, although affectual response can colour any utterance, be intensified ordownplayed, or be realised via vocatives, interjections or verbal representations of such

responses (e.g. UGH, Wow!, Mmm, , :-), etc), such instances were for the same

reason considered to require being kept theoretically distinct, and as acting at a different

functional stratum than that of categories of tenor which classify positioning. Affect is

better considered part of Appraisal (outlined further below) and as part of the language

resources used for construing tenor relationships at the level of the discourse semantic,

rather than representing a distinct set of functions of its own. Similarly, under

Appraisal, verbal features for construing alignment of Axiology may often be realised


5/22

5

by Judgement values. Thus, while Affect may be a resource for construing tenor, it is

not a tenor function of itself.

2.1 Emerging versus Latent social networksWhat appears in Table 1 above provides a summary framework which makes reference

to potential ways in which interpersonal relationships may be described and interpreted.

Such dimensions for the potential construal of relationship can be related to what Watts

(1991 in Locher 2004: 27ff) refers to as the latent social network. The latent social

network is a general label used to refer to all aspects of the norms and assumed values

held by any group or wider culture in which interaction takes place and to which

interactants orient. The framework in Table 1 above provides a means of accounting for

the ways writers/interactants can act to position themselves during the unfolding of their

discourse by reference to assumed norms or conventions in the community addressed,

and in so doing contribute at the same time to an emerging social network (Locher2002). This also relates somewhat grossly to the tension obtaining between recognition

rules related to the classification and framing operating in any group (latent network)

and realisation rules which may contest those rules (c.f. Bernstein 1996: 15).

In contrast to the latent social network, an emerging social network is that which is

being negotiated during interaction. More formal contexts of interaction (i.e. those with

strong classification and strong framing, c.f. Bernstein 1996: Ch 1) provide little

opportunity for social networks to change or evolve, and thus for these contexts

emerging social networks may not occur. However, an emerging social network is the

default condition in many contexts of interaction, especially where both classification

and framing are weak in Bernsteins (1996) sense. Whereas positioning is enacted by

claiming sometimes temporary alignmentwith other positions and participants, repeatedinstances (or versions) of such claims to alignment may imply longer term culturally

available positions or social roles (what Knight 2010 has referred to as bonds), and

affiliationswith other group members may be negotiated and maintained thereby thus

contributing to the latent social network, a network where membership of a group

entails unstated assumptions regarding all aspects of the interpersonal relationships

obtaining amongst affiliates. In other cases, where Contact is actual, presumed, or

construed it is the enactment of affiliation that may be referenced or brought into play: a

performance of the latent social network, a celebration of bonds. In this sense, actual

Contact is considered to be a part of the material context of situation (Halliday & Hasan

1985: 99) even if it is not referenced explicitly in the local co-text - such as whereinteractants are long-time group-members, family members, classmates and so on -

whereas presumed Contact occurs in those cases where an interactant behaves as

though Contact were actual, i.e. as if the addressee were an old friend or family

member. Instances of presumed Contact are common in advertisements for example,

and such types of construed Contact need to be kept theoretically distinct to allow for

delicacy in analysis where the interactants, or the readers and writers in a given context

of situation are already known to be distantly affiliated, e.g. strangers.

With respect to affiliation then, it is the latent social network which is called on -

usually through reference to past shared experiences, or through the intimation of

shared knowledge based on familiarity. Continued (actual) contact with members of a

group of people contributes to an emerging social network in which affiliation becomes


6/22

6

more salutary. Similarly, but with respect to the Status dimension, when positions

referencing Status are activated, it is the latent social network (in which interactants are

assumed to hold positions of power or authority with respect to other interlocutors or

other groups) which is at stake. In these instances, the emergent social network is thendependent on whether status positions are reciprocated or complementarye.g. whether

positions of deference are contested or adopted in response to speakers positioning

themselves as higher in status (see Bateson 1972/2000: 67-69) .

The discussion which follows uses a set of extracts from an electronically-mediated

written conversation in order to illustrate how negotiation over identity may be

performed and interpreted as tenor functions. The analysis highlights how positioning is

enacted - through reference to the tenor parameters of Table 1 above - and how

positioning may contribute to the perception of group norms in activating an emerging

social network.

In the sense of the term used here, positioning acts by evaluating a target which isassociated in some way with one of the interactants, and it is this association which

allows for indirect evaluation or positioning of other interactants without naming them.

Association may be consciously applied if affiliation is being negotiated or

strengthened, and in these cases reference to assumed knowledge or intertextuality is

key. On the other hand, persons may be inadvertently positioned by such association

and in this case may react defensively. The effecting of positioning moves also depends

on the association (or coupling c.f. Martin 2000: 161; 2010) of attitude + target in an

evaluative act.

Further implications relating to the set of tenor dimensions outlined here will be

demonstrated in the course of the paper.

3 Data and Approach

Table 1 below summarises the nature and extent of the data set which formed the basis

of an extended analysis using texts derived from an email discussion list active for over

ten years. The extended study (c.f. Don 2007) examined the generic conventions of

contributions to these kinds of written conversations, and so representative sets of posts

for analysis were compiled based on their membership of a thread or written

conversation with maintained topic (labelled SFT, WVN, and TVS: Table 1 below), and

were also chosen to reflect the interactive and argumentative nature of this type ofdiscussion list. In order to provide some indication of convention drift, the threads

were selected from different periods of the list interaction: SFT from early 1996, WVN

from late 1997, and TVS from mid 1999. At the same time, three sets of posts derived

from three different poster identities were also compiled (Simon, Stan, Sally: Table 1

below) in order to examine textual identities as functions of list conventions. These

were taken both from the threads themselves and from other periods of list activity.


7/22

7

Table 1: Compari son of main subcorpora used in the study

words posts mean words per

post

ALL 3 53,742 162 330

SFT 4,610 24 192

WVN 4,880 23 212

TVS 25,350 81 313

SIMON 8,694 25 347

STAN 10,830 38 285

SALLY 12,895 22 586

An Appraisal analysis of the texts was first performed which highlighted the types and

targets of the evaluative moves made by the participants, by classifying these evaluative

moves into Attitude types. Under the Appraisal framework (e.g. Martin & White 2005,

Martin & Rose 2003) Attitude can be sub-classified into three groups of evaluative

resources in English. Resources of Judgementare used to make evaluations of human

behaviour on grounds of either morality (social sanction) or admiration (social esteem).

In contrast, resources of Appreciation evaluate products of human behaviour, while

those of Affect pertain to emotional reactions3. The ways in which these evaluative

moves activate tenor dimensions, or position other interactants is explored in the

following discussion.

List-members on this and other lists develop conventions, or local discourse practices

over time, and part of the goal of this study was to provide a framework against which

stylistic conventions of these discourse communities of practice could be recognised.

Thus the long-term purposes of this research are not limited to the study of the

conventions of mailing list interaction, but to develop a set of parameters of tenor based

on the deployment of evaluative moves in discourse - moves that position other

interactants as equal in Status, aligned over Axiology, and/or affiliated through Contact

through the deployment of various linguistic strategies. This perspective on identity has

something in common with the study of textual style in communities of practice (e. g.

Eckert & McGonnel-Ginet 1998) or discourse communities in general (e. g. Bucholtz &Hall 2005; Auer (ed) 2007; Englebretson (ed) 2007), but it also incorporates a notion of

legitimating response as being a key to identity being ratified4 within such

communities.

In Don (2007) the term rhetorical organisation potentialwas used to describe what is

common or typical to the set(s) of texts. This potential may or may not be realised in

further instances in the discourse community, since these processes of legitimation

operate dynamically through social actors negotiating their own practices via


8/22

8

interaction. As with any corpus, the wider the set of instances, the closer the set can

become to representing the norm. While the study operated on a relatively small corpus

of texts so that the results cannot be said to be definitive, each new instance provides for

a new representation of what is commonly or typically the case. Commonality ortypicality does not cover every legitimate instance, and thus each individual text and the

moves it entails represents either a variation on a theme or a marked case of meaning-

making in context. Any legitimation is then bound up in responses to an instance. For

this reason, the series of posts around which the present discussion is based, has been

selected to demonstrate how response acts to ratify or censure previous instances of

positioning.

3 A highly evaluative post and its implications for affiliation

The discussion of positioning begins with an excerpt from a post taken from a threadwhich continued for over 8 weeks of list interaction. In this post an inscribed attitudinal

peak in the thread appeared. An inscribed Attitude is one which is not hedged so to

speak; the target is explicitly evaluated using lexical items of high attitudinal

saturation5. It is in this contribution that the writer, Stan, explicitly negatively evaluates

another list-member using upscaled lexis of negative attitude. This was the 38 th

contribution of the 56 in the thread, and it was at this point the writer explicitly

negatively evaluates his interlocutor (Ter), by name, using for the first time the device

of a limerick (Example 1 below).

Example 1: extract from [tvs172.38/stan28]

There once was a whiner named Ter

Who claimed to have nary a care

At feelings he'd balk

Despite "playful" talk

None more humorless lived anywhere

Your turn, ol' pal.

This type of move which is highly evaluative of the target and interlocutor Ter is also

likely to enact new relationships with the writers (Stan) audience. Until this post in thethread, the two protagonists had been arguing past each other in a rather defensive

manner. My concern is to examine how others respond to this positioning by either

censuring or ratifying the positioning which the move enacts, and in so doing, illustrate

more fully the ways in which positioning moves may be classified as enacting the

varieties of tenor relationships outlined above.

In this post, poster identity Stanchanges his previous approach to the interaction and

explicitly evaluates6his interlocutor, using three types of negative Judgement:


9/22

9

[judgement: tenacity: negative](a whiner, at feelings he'd balk);

[judgement: veracity: negative: provoked] (who claimed to have nary a care, Despite

playfultalk); and

[judgement: capacity: negative] (none more humorless).

In terms of tenor relationships realised by these strategies and outlined in Table 1

above, this move claims a relationship of disalignment of values or Axiology - by

negatively evaluating the activities he imputes to the target Terry:

- whining (complaining+ irritation+ repetition),

- balking at feelings (not expressing himself clearly and accurately, not knowing his

own emotions),

- claiming not to have a care (lying about his true feelings),

- the pretense of play (hiding anger and pretending play) and

- being humourless;

All of these implied traits represent Terry as someone with values with whom no-one

could align. The fact that Stan here is not talking toTerry as much as to an audience of

onlookers who are familiar with both parties - and the fact that he has made these

evaluative acts in the context of a limerick referring to Terry in the third person, using

the generic convention of past tense to assert the description as knowledge beyond

contest (was, named, claimed, would, lived) - points to a slight difference in the tenor

dimensions which can be described: those of alignmentand those of affiliation.

3.1 Affiliation and Alignment in interaction

My claim is that whereas alignment can be seen as the product of discrete associations

(or couplings) between a target and an attitude engendering an evaluative

(positioning) act, affiliation calls on broader sometimes unstated assumptions and

practices within a group or culture. So that alignment occurs in the contexts of the

emerging social network of a group of interlocutors, whereas affiliation occurs in the

context of the latent social network - which may be called into being, highlighted,

and/or put at risk in evaluative or positioning acts. Thus, acts of alignment may or may

not work as affiliation: they are merely associations which can be detected in the

lexico-grammar and logogenetic unfolding of the text as a whole. Knight (2010)

describes the affiliation set up by friendship as a constellation of bonds occasioned bythe coupling of attitude + entities, and that these bonds may be put at risk in contexts

where a wrinkle occurs in those bond(s), and that furthermore, such bonds are

highlighted in conversation when participants laugh over these threats to affiliation.

My proposal here is that affiliationbe distinguished as one aspect of tenor relations and

that whereas affiliation may be based on shared values, or put at risk by disalignment

over values, affiliation should be viewed as mainly a function of shared experience and

knowledge - that is, it is based on development over time of communal activities of

some sort. Relationships which may be evident in texts potentially point to co-variation

in Contact/familiarity or degree of affiliation, as well as Axiology/value system or

degree of alignmentbetween interlocutors. This is because one can be affiliated through


10/22

10

association within an institution or community of practice yet be disaligned in terms of

Axiology. Similarly, equal relationships of Status, such as in terms of skills, expertise,

or social position may in fact lead to similar experiences which may be construed in

terms of affiliation, but this may not necessarily be the case. So that, while actualmaterial contact or familiarity may be required for realisation rules (Bernstein 1996;

Martin 2010) to be successfullydeployed in any social situation, it is the construal of

these relationships in texts that is the only basis on which these positioning acts may be

analysed and interpreted.

The examples from the limerick extracted above have been chosen for their obvious

construal of disalignment in any context with the target of the attitudes: Ter, he. It

remains, however, for the audience to whom the limerick is addressed to ratify or

recognise the terms of the affiliation so enacted, and to determine of what kind.

At the same time, the very fact that Stan has called into play his own and the audiences

assumed and shared knowledge regarding Terrys past behaviour onlist makes thecontent of the limerick a claim to close Contact - of familiarity with Terry to the extent

that he can make these statements about him - while simultaneously putting any latent

affiliation at risk. In this sense, then, Stan does not disaffiliate with Terry, quite the

opposite: he uses a claim of close Contact - i.e. asserted familiarity - as the basis for his

right to position Terry in this manner, and challenge him to a duel - thereby also

implying unequal Status in terms of genre control. However, he does appear to reject

any friendship that may be based on such shared experience, by naming Terry and

directly making fun of his onlist behaviour in the past. Thus, Stan simultaneously

implies intimate and long-term shared experiences which allow him to describe Terry in

such forthright terms, but uses this to disalign with him regarding shared Values. This

in turn causes the ruffling of the sense of communal bonds that other members of th elist, the actual addressees, obviously feel - as indicated by the posts that follow. These

responding posts (three examples are discussed below in detail) demonstrate that other

list-members feel anxiety, despair and a need to comment on the severity of the

content of the limerick and mainly due to their recognition that the stability of the

affiliative bonds they value are at stake.

Thus, in Table 1 above, two citings of affiliation appear. In the first instance,

affiliation is a product of - or more precisely an implication of - Contact or familiarity.

What this means is that, in the case of close or long-time contact, apparent dis-

alignment of values in the form of insults, arguments, disagreements, etc, may be

absorbed as positive or high degree of affiliation. Without close Contact, however, dis-alignment over any reference to Axiology or value system is tantamount to a position of

dis-affiliation at the same time. Hence the double-binding and irony occasioned by the

content of the limerick is related to a dissonance between implications of affiliation and

extreme disalignment at the same time.

In the excerpt above, rejection of affiliation is underlined by being ironically betokened

with the use of a directive, Your turn, ol' pal. This offer might superficially construe a

relationship ofclose Contact (which is how Simon later legitimates it c.f. Example 4

below), however, in this instance, it appears to position Terry as anything but an old

pal, as it functions as an ironic reference to Stanand Terrys previous disagreements

over friendly interaction. Proposals of this type - i.e. demands for either information


11/22

11

or services, whether congruent in mood or not - construe unequalStatus by means of

the non-reciprocity of the demands and the expectation of compliance (i.e. Status:

social role to demand these services without markers of politeness or deference) On the

other hand, such moves usually construe close Contact/familiarity or high degree ofaffiliation when Contact is assumed: one makes such demands overtly, and without the

benefit of so-called 'politeness markers' only with close associates, friends and family

members - long-term list-members included.

3.1.1 An emergent social network deployed

In terms of a latent networkof presumed social relationships, the Status dimension of

Table 1 is thus also activated by this directive - both that of social roles, and (in the

demanding that his interlocutor play the game), of genre manipulation. This means

that in challenging Terry to a verbal duel, Stan has activated these latent social

dimensions. At the same time, he demands reciprocityin ability to manipulate the genreconventions of limerick-writing - by both the negatively evaluative coupling of attitude

and target in the limerick, and the invitation to respond in kind. In terms of Bernsteins

(1996) notion of framing, Stan is here attempting to control the emerging social

network by deploying the realisation rules of poetry slam7in challenging Terry.

The emergent network is thus presented as one in which Stan possesses unequal

(higher) ability in controlling/manipulating this genre, and unequal (higher) social

Status in his right to demand action. In addition, the social network referenced by Stan

via this limerick is also one in which Stan disaligns with Terry in terms of Values, by

reference to both the social esteem (negative tenacity, negative capacity) and social

sanction (negative veracity) categories of Judgement under Appraisal.

4 Response the key to legitimation of contributions

Whether, however, the emergent networkor the positioning set up by any contribution

is allowed to stand is a matter of response. To become part of the latentor potentially

accepted norms of a group of interactants, every response needs to be legitim ated in

some way. The actual social network therefore, arises in response - for example, any

power or status latent or implied in any text in any interaction needs to be ratified or

legitimated for this power to be realised. Responses to status-referencing acts in which

alignment/disalignment, or in/equality is claimed or implied, will generally only serve

to legitimate the power of the participant if their concerns are addressed.

Thus, disagreement, for example, serves to accord the move as worthy of contest, and

may merely act to increase the latent power of the participant so-engaged. This is

because disagreement - or posts expressing disalignment, disaffiliation (or lack of

familiarity) - may indeed support the Status (power, authority, control, etc) of the

respondant, while not necessarily aligning with their value system (Axiology) nor

necessarily claiming close Contact/familiarity (c.f. Table 1).

Responses then, contribute to the formation of group norms, or what is considered

OK to do or say, and who is allowed to say what. Fairclough (2003: 41) describes "the

'norms' of interaction as a moral order [which] are oriented to and interpreted differently


12/22

12

by different social actors, and these differences are negotiated". Bernstein (1996: 18)

summarises the dynamic nature of these normsby stating that recognition rules

regulate what meanings are relevant and realisation rules regulate how the meanings are

to be put together to create the legitimate text. Hence, the post from which Example 1was excerpted engendered the rest of the responses in the thread, as list-members

reacted by either censuring the severity of the attitudes inscribed, or by attempting to

legitimise the attitude in some way.

5 Responses to the negatively evaluative contribution

5.1 Censuring reactions

Two posts in reaction to the negatively evaluative contribution cited above (Example 1),

will serve here to demonstrate that the explicit negative evaluation of one list-member

(Terry) by another (Stan) was not accepted without question by other list-members. Thestrategies they each use for commenting on the negative positioning evident in Stans

original post (Example 1 above) represent attempts to engage with the content, rather

than the writer. In other words, the three examples of responses presented below

address what Stan has written, rather than Stan himself. Thus we find instances of

(negative) Appreciation of the post as target, which in turn act as tokens of (negative)

Judgement of the writer. In contrast, participants might have reacted by employing

instances of inscribed Judgement to more directly target the writer Stan and his

behaviour. It is salutary to observe too, that Stans original limerick did just that

levelled negative explicit Judgement (attitude) at a named group-member (target)

directly.

The first response, Example 2 below, uses the strategy of a short anecdote to report on

her own reactions. Through this means, she attributes an affectual response

to herself in

the past, and in this way she avoids directly addressing the writer of what she terms the

incredibly aggressive post. In effect, this post changes the topic in order to evaluate

the target contribution:

Example 2: extract from [tvs175.40/san]

My brother-out-of-law John is staying with us and

was in the room when I read this post. I laughed

out loud, not from finding this amusing but in an

amazed, 'whoa' kind of way. He asked what had made

me have that reaction...how could I explain...I

said, "you know that email list I'm in that's

about net dynamics, well there are two men who

have been in it for years. One is a psychiatrist

and one is a sociology lecturer, one is in San

Francisco, I think the other one is too. I don't

know if they've ever met in real life. Well,

they've been having a conflict on the list for a

while now, and the psychiatrist onehas just sent

an incredibly aggressive post to the list about

the other one, I can hardly believe how aggressive

it is. Shit, I wonder what will happen now....."


13/22

13

Several lexical items betoken negativeAffecttowards the post, and areitalicisedin the

passage above: I laughed out loud ; an amazed, 'whoa' kind of way; and a type of

reported inner speech: Shit, I wonder what will happen now....

These three instances of what I term surge-descriptors (descriptions of affect-related

behaviour which betoken inner emotional states rather than labelling of those states)

amplify the affectual response while also signalling high involvement without the

Affect being specifically labelled. The writer also distances herself from the other

participants and the interaction itself by identifying the two protagonists - who are in

her audience - by means of 3rd person epithets: One is a psychiatrist and one is a

sociology lecturer; the psychiatrist one;the other one. Her comments do not therefore

directly address the main participants and protagonists of her narrative, and she also

avoids interacting with them herself.

Thus, on the one hand, she recognises an emergent social networkin which Stan claims

unequal and higherStatus, disaligned Value system, and in which he enacts a rejection

of affiliation with Terry. On the other hand, she wishes to disalign with Stan in this

instance, while refraining from activating the Status dimension with respect to herself

and Stan. In terms of degree of affiliation, she refers to her long time association with

the group as a whole indirectly through the anecdote ( that email list Im on,for years),

but not in terms of her personal contact with either Stan or Terry, except by using

tokens of Affect. Instead, this writer, Sandra, expresses dismay regarding an emergent

social networkin which the argument between two prominent members of the group is

becoming heated, and which threatens the affiliation of the latent social network in

which one of the protagonists has created an incredibly aggressivepost.

Thus, Sandras shit I wonder what will happen next is at one level an expression ofnegative security through use of such resources as exclamative or affect-surge (shit),

an expression of conjecture via mental process (I wonder), and the interrogative leading

out of the text and interaction frame to future possibilities (what will happen next).

These all function as indicators or tokens of this insecurity. But the relationships of

tenor involved are more complicated. That is to say, while tenor may be construed by

tokens of Affect, the Affect by itself is not a tenor relationship.

In Sandras contribution, the target or affector of these comments is the incredibly

aggressive post, but it is cast against the backdrop of the insecurity raised by the risk to

the latent social network in which bonds of affiliation - long time membership of the

group - are being ruffled. The reported anecdote says as much by referring to two menwho have been in it [the list Im on] for years and their conflict.. for a while now.

She knows the general area where they live, but not whether theyve met each other.

She also knows what professions they each pursue, but she does not know what will

happen next. Thus, the contrast between what is known through extended Contact, and

what is unknown due to the receipt of the incredibly aggressive post points to

anticipated fissure of the affiliative bonds engendered by long-time membership of the

list.

In terms of the positioning effected here, the participants are positioned in the anecdote

as long time list-members (affiliated), both professionals (equal Status), but their

behaviour is not directly valuated (as ethically, morally, logically good, correct, true or

anything else). Instead, Sandra appreciates the postas incredibly aggressive: in western


14/22

14

cultures this is likely to be associated with negative value, where an epithet of

incredibly aggressive construes what in Appraisal is labelled negative Judgemen t:

propriety. In this way her own disalignment with Stan along axiological lines is made as

indirectly as possible.

In the following extract on the other hand (Example 3) the writer addresses Stan

directly, but again carefully evaluates the post itself (this post of yours; it), rather than

its writer by negatively appreciating its content. Once more, response is negative

towards the content, realised through the use of (what Appraisal terms Engagement)

values of denyand entertain8(doesnt seemloaded with good will), as well as the use

of scare quotes for the word loaded. The Appreciation is also betokened through the

use of graduation: intensification and amplification (awful lot of; NEGATIVELY

LOADED(caps)).

Example 3: extract from [tvs179.42/nan]

Stan, This post of yours certainly doesn't seem

'loaded' with good will. Ituses an awful lot of

NEGATIVELY LOADED words. The ones that stand out

particularly are: "self-pitying" and "whiner".

I hadn't noticed anything in Terry's post to

warrant such 'insulting' terms.

Nan describes the post by commenting on its discourse, (uses an awful lot of

NEGATIVELY LOADED words; the ones that stand out are..; such insulting terms)

adopting a position of unequal (higher) Status in terms of her right to refer to his

writing, citing two of the offensive words themselves in inverted commas, a strategywhich activates sub-dimensions of both authority and control at once. At the same time,

she does not enter into positioning others in terms of affiliation. Instead, she refers only

to Terrys post, rather than the latent social network/assumed Contact represented by

Stan and Terrys protracted disagreement over the previous two months, or to their

association via list discussions over the previous three years.

On the other hand, it is also possible to posit Nans assumed close Contact with Stan via

her use of assumed meanings and direct address (Stan, this post of yours). There is also

a suggestion of unequal (higher) Status: social role via her self-positioning as able to

assess both Terrys post and the wording of Stans post, and to draw Stans attention to

a discrepancy in his own behaviour towards Terry recalling the role relationships of

teacher to student. Note that this is claimed to be a factor pertaining to the emergent

social network - i.e. dynamic Status roles negotiated via positioning - rather than

anything latent in the social network as accepted Status. In addition, positioning that

references Status dimensions does so in a variety of ways, and that despite construing

an un/equal Status in terms of social role for example, other elements in the same text

may reference un/equal prominence, authority, control, etc. As far as Value system in

concerned, the fact that Stan has used such unwarranted insulting terms points to a

disaligned Axiology via tokens of negative Judgement: propriety (norms, ethics,

sensibility), but one which apparently operates in the context of this post only.


15/22

15

In Examples 2and 3above, both writers contest the positioning (of Terryby Stan) by

referring to their own negative personal reaction to these text objects. Their own dis-

alignment with posterID Stan, in respect to his target, Terry, is implied rather than

stated. At the same time, their very responses - either through reference to groupmembership and Affect, or direct address imply relationships of high affiliation. In

contrast, in the next post discussed ([tvs188.50/simon19b] as Examples 4 and 5) below,

after the affectual responses of other list-members are ratified by alignment and

recognition of latent affiliation, the positioning in the original post is legitimated as

play.

It is worth noting once more that the targets of Appraisal in the three examples of

response to the original negatively evaluative post (excerpted in Example 1 above), are

actually text objects, not the putative writer of these text objects. The Judgements then,

in Appraisal terms, are not explicit/inscribed, since their real targets are not part of the

local co-text, but are invoked, mainly by tokens of Appreciation. While it is obvious toreaders that the real target of Judgement in the previous two excerpts is the posterID

Stans behaviour, and thus the Attitude is one of Judgement [propriety: negative], my

concern is also to provide some means of tracing the development of norms over time

by looking at these types of response more closely. This means that analysis needs to

attend to the resources that are typically employed for invokingAttitude as distinct from

inscribing Attitude. This is because invocations often highlight both latent and

emergent social networks (or positioning) within a group, as well as the ways in which

moral order or norms are played out.

5.2 Ratifying response

After the previous posts appeared, the listowner (posterID Simon) reacted by sending alimerick of his own (Example 5 below), claiming that he had responded to the playful

intent of the message.

In this post Simon uses several such strategies as a means of integrating the negative

evaluation in the earlier contribution by overtly interpreting it as legitimate list activity -

such as play. The very use of the term play references for long-time list-members

several discussions regarding appropriate list behaviour conducted in the past - most

notably the championing of play by the protagonist Terry. In Example 4 below, we note

that Simons reactive post also employs the resources of Affect in order to evaluate

Stans contribution, but in contrast to the previous examples, his response uses repeated

instances of positive Affect towards the limerick.Repetition is a device which acts toamplify an Attitude, and thus the positive Affect reported in response to the original

post is intensified. In addition, both a specific lexical referent (really wanted it to be my

turn) as well as the use of the limerick form itself has been reciprocated in this post.

These serve to signal an alignment in terms of equal Status through an equal ability to

control or manipulate the genreunder the framework outlined in Table 1 above.

Staging and development of an argument also figures in the positioning enacted through

this response. In the first partof Simon's post (Example 4below),he characterises the

anxiety [affect: insecurity] raised by the heated nature of the discussion as likely to

cause a backlashand claims affiliation with other list-members by attributing to them

the same response as his own:


16/22

16

Example 4: extract from [tvs188.50/simon19b]

My first response was like everyone elses: "oh,

that's harsh." I considered the post very much

likely to cause a backlash, which itdid.

Within an hour or so the sense of despair I got

because a couple old timers seemed locked in

unresolvable battle, was replaced with a bit of

jealousy. Stan, you see, had ended his postwith,

>Your turn, ol' pal.

It was an invitation not meant for me. I love

limericks-- don't much mind a San Francisco style

poetry slam-- and really wantedit to be my turn.

The claim of Contact/familiarity is effected through first labelling Stans post ( that, thepost, it) with the attribute harsh, at the same time claiming affiliation witheveryone

else regarding the coupling of this attitude with the target post. Simon then

acknowledges the grounds for the backlashcaused by the negative evaluation contained

within that post. The reasons for this backlash are implicitly linked to his own despair

[Affect: happiness: negative: high] regarding the threat to the assumed affiliations of the

group: a couple oldtimers locked in unresolvable battle.

In Example 5 below, the latter part of Simons same post reciprocates Stans earlier

limerick with one of his own:

Example 5: extract from [tvs188.50/simon19b]

There once was a psych, analytic,

A Freudian internet critic,

His cold common sense,

And a sly arrogance,

For some was far too acidic.

Our Stan who likes object relations,

And long Harley biker vacations,

Says to us, Netdynam,

"Yo group, here I am,

But I'm not here to fill expectations."

You see, I actually did get the invitation for

playfulness contained in Stan's post. But I only

got it after the shock of the rough play had worn

off.

Thus, Simon uses the same device, limerick, to evaluate the actions of 'aggressor' Stan

by referring to the invitation for playfulnessin the previous post. This use of presuming


17/22

17

reference is another strategy for positioning audience members. Presuming reference

implies that readers know what is being referred to, and in this instance it actually labels

the previous contribution as uncontentiously an 'invitation for playfulness', since by

nominalising the behaviour as the invitation for playfulness contained in Stans post, theclause is unarguable and presumed. In the same way, Simon concludes the post with a

reference to the shock of the rough play. It thus positions audience members as sharing

this view of the target post.

5.2.1 Strategies for ratifying censure

Simon reprises the two earlier reactive posts by judging Stans behaviour through a

token of negative Appreciation (harsh), and targeting it, i.e. Stans post, rather than

Stan himself, and by also referencing the negative Affect: unhappiness (despair) raised

by the post. He thus manages to also align with others in terms of Axiology regarding

the content of Stan's post, as well as affiliating with them by claims of sharing theirfeelings and by colloquial reference to couple old-timers(sic). Table 2 below illustrates

how identity chaining9 of lexical items referring to Stans post in this short extract

(italicisedin the extract above (Example 4)) shift slightly from one text-unit to the next

- along with the coupling of targets and Attitude - from negative to positive.

Table 2: Identity Chaining of items related to Stans post in Simons

stanza target:

Stans post

attitude target:

limericks

attitude

1 that harsh

the post likely to cause

a backlash

it did [cause a

backlash]

2 his post [jealousy]

[your turn]

3 it limericks love

an invitation not meant forme

a SanFrancisco-

style poetry

slam

don't muchmind

my turn wanted

4

56 Stans post the invitation

for playfulness

the rough play

In addition, through directly quoting the challenge of the final line (Your turn, ol pal),

Simon recasts the face-threatening directive as invitation, and uses the resources of

marked Affect to do so. That is, he uses the wordjealousy, normally a token of negative

Judgement10, and changes it to invoke positive Affect. It is also at this point that the


18/22

18

referents in the post shiftfrom directly referring to the post as target, to thatpart of

the post (underlined above) which he wishes to highlight and recast as positive.

Simon thus manages to legitimate posterID Stan's explicitly negative positioning of

another list-member by claiming a different set of affective responses to theinteraction

itself as target. Firstly, through use of the term jealousy of the target invitation - in

which the usual saturation of inscribed negative Affect for jealousy(and its tendency

to provoke negative Judgement as well) is reversed by context to one of positive

Affect for the target invitation. Secondly, the affective response is characterised by use

of the item love(positive Affect) of the target limericks, and of wanted(positive Affect)

of the target it to be[his] turn. Reference to a representative set of Simonsposts (c.f.

Don 2007, 2008) shows that on average, this posterID uses just under 5 tokens of Affect

per 500 words per post, but that in this specific post, the frequency of Affect tokens has

increased to just under 15/500 words. This individuated marked use of Affect for this

text indicates that these list events did appear to threaten the latent affiliative bondsassumed by the group.

In summary, the response by posterID Simon in this passage can be seen as an attempt

to accommodate its earlier negativity and the negative responses to it, by re-casting the

content in terms of expression rather than content - with the content as secondary to the

claim to play. This content is thereby ratified by its recognition as legitimate and even

desirable behaviour in terms of the latent social network, or norms of the group. Both

the original negative evaluation of the addressee, and the addressees subordination in

the final demand of Stan's original post, is cast as secondary to the recognised call for

play within the bounds of a recognised conventional core-genre. In this way, Stans

original seemingly aggressive contribution which threatened the cohesion of the group,

has been legitimated and accommodated by re-framing its meanings in terms of thisother response it engendered. Subsequent interaction on the list in this thread involved

further discussion over Stans transgressions by other members, and another long

limerick posted by Stan in response to Simon - and notably no more contributions from

Terry for some time.

6 Conclusion

These types of strategies for either censuring (de-legitimating) or ratifying

(legitimating) the behaviour of other participants in the discussion are made through

reference to relationship dimensions latent in the social networks of the group. Through

an analysis of the deployment of language resources (such as Appraisal) in responses, apartial description can be made of the nature of emergent social networks being

enacted.

The discussion described finer distinctions between categories for the analysis and

tracking of interpersonal positioning in interaction, and used the SFL notion of tenor

relationships as a basis for such distinctions. In addition, it was proposed that resources

which intimate alignmentand affiliationneed to be carefully distinguished in order to

be clearer about what positions are being potentially activated in any text, and these

notions were related to three main orientations or dimensions of tenor: Contact, Status,

and Axiology.


19/22

19

6.1 Implications

In order to provide a means for investigating textual identity, this paper has outlined a

proposal for using the tenor variables or dimensions in play in any text which enact co-

positioning in interaction, and which takes into account the positioning ratification by

other interactants in response. Both initial and response moves contribute to the

institutional or group conventions or norms over time. This type of tracking of

positioning and legitimating behaviour in response is part of a broader project

concerned with an approach to identity analysis identifying two main types of textual

identity: Stylistic and Negotiated.These were first outlined in Don (2007). Briefly,

whereas Stylistic identity is a flat analysis of elements of writer style against the

background of institutional or group style/conventions, Negotiated identity in turn is

dependent on an investigation of what I have termed accumulated positioning and

positioning ratification. To once again cite Martin (2010: 24) this approach asks

whether we are classifying identities or negotiating them. These two perspectivesinvolve firstly, tracking the development of identity via an accumulationof positioning

moves in which a target persona or an entity associated with this persona is coupled

with attitudes of various types. Secondly, it involves determining whether such moves

or evaluative acts are legitimated, ratifiedor challenged in response, and in what ways.

Thus, tracking of moves by tagging positioning by type and degree, plus investigation

of the combinations of these positions in response, allow analysts to describe strategies

or manoeuvres which are typically or markedly used in interaction. Because such

analysis assumes that typicality or markedness can only be read against a context of

continued interaction and shared experience, such analyses requires both phylo-genetic

(i.e. the development of group conventions over time) and logo-genetic (i.e. the

development of meanings during the course of a texts unfolding)11perspectives on thetext(s) involved.

Endnotes

1 The concept of face has a long history, recent notions perhaps borrowed from Japan

and China where group affiliation is paramount and the concept of shameis particularly

relevant in social activity. The most well-worked, and subsequently critically re-worked

frameworks involving the notion of face originate with Brown & Levinsons (1987)

work on politeness.

2 The term Affect is used in the literature in a wide range of linguistic as well as

psychological frameworks. In some cases the term is applied generally to encompass allevaluative meanings, and in others it is used to refer specifically to instances of

emotional language. When Poynton first applied this term to aspects of the tenor in her

texts, the Appraisal framework in which the label Affect has been used to categorise

instances of evaluative language (developed under SFL and in particular by Martin &

White 2005) had not been published.

3 It is assumed the reader is familiar with the Appraisal framework for the purposes of

this paper. While space prevents a more detailed discussion here,

http://www.grammatics.com/appraisalpresents an outline of the Appraisal framework
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisalhttp://www.grammatics.com/appraisalhttp://www.grammatics.com/appraisal


20/22

20

4 See Don 2007 (Ch 5)

5 Attitudinal saturation (or stability) refers to lexical items which are commonly

perceived to be either negative or positive. A highly saturated attitudinal lexical item

would normally be read as either negative or positive in isolation, and would require

local co-textual work in order to reverse this conventional reading. Of course, large

corpus studies are the only way to ratify an individual analysts claim that any item is

commonly either negative or positive. The terms saturation and stability are both

credited to Peter R. R. White.

6 Not necessarily using inscribed Attitude: it is possible that evaluative acts do not

entail inscribed (versus invoked) Attitude, but that the evaluative remarks are explicit

(as opposed to implicit) to the extent that no reader would miss the negative or positive

valeurof the act.

7 A poetry slam is similar in context to theatre sports, and involves contestants

reciting lines of poetry in front of an audience according to various themes and rules

dependent on the nature of the competition.

8 Although statistics have not been compiled, it was observed in the corpus as a whole

that instances of deny coupled with entertainwere common. Some of these instances

dealing with [disclaim: deny] are detailed in Don forthcoming.

9 Identity chaining refers to referents which are in some way related to each other

semantically, and which appear in a text in a sequence. It can be used to examine

notions of cohesion in texts. See for example, Martin 1992: 428ff; Cloran 1999:189.

Also termed tracking system by Martin & Rose (1993: 162)

10 A quick Google search of the term jealousy returns hits which define the term byreference to negative emotions, and controlling, overcoming, or dealing with

jealousy. A reference to a study in theMonitor on Psychology(February 2005, Vol 36,

No. 2) links jealousy with aggression, low self-esteem.

11 See for example, Halliday and Matthiessen 1999: 17-18

References

Auer, Peter (ed) (2007). Style and Social Identities: Alternative approaches to linguistic

heterogeneity. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

Bateson, G. B. (1972/2000). Culture contact and schismogenesis. In Steps to an ecologyof mind.Reprinted Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Bednarek, M. and J. R. Martin (eds) (2010) New discourse on language. London &

New York: Continuum.

Bernstein, B. (1996/2000) Pedagogy, symbolic control and identity. London &

Washington: Taylor & Francis. Reprinted Lanham, Maryland & Oxford: Rowman

& Littlefield.

Brown, P. and Stephen Levinson (1987)Politeness: Some universals in language

usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.


21/22

21

Bucholtz, M. & Hall, K. (2005) Identity and interaction: A sociocultural approach.

Discourse Studiesvol. 7(4-5): 585-614.

Don, A. C. (2001)Participating in mailing lists: Boundaries and identity. Unpublishedposition paper. Availablehttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-

text/boundaries.html

Don, A. C. (2007)A Framework for the investigation of interactive norms and the

construction of textual identity in written discourse communities: The case of an

email list. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, Department of English Language and

Literature, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, U.K. Availablehttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/thesis/donacPhD.html

Don, A. C. (2008) An approach to the analysis of textual identity through profiles of

evaluative disposition.ASFLA 2007 Proceedings. Availablehttp://www.asfla.org.au/category/asfla2007/

Eckert, P. & McConnell-Ginet, S. (1998) Communities of practice: Where language,

gender, and power all live. In Coates, J. (ed)Language and gender: A reader.

Oxford: Blackwell.

Eggins, S. & Diana Slade (1997)Analysing casual conversation. London &

Washington: Cassell.

Englebretson, R. (ed) (2007) Stancetaking in discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia:

John Benjamins.

Fairclough, N. (1992)Discourse and social change. London: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (2003)Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research.

London & New York: Routledge.

Goffman, E. (1981)Forms of talk.Oxford: Blackwell

Halliday, M.A. K. (1994)An introduction to functional grammar(2nded) London:

Edward Arnold.

Halliday, M.A. K. & Ruqaiya Hasan (1985/89)Language, context and text: Aspects of

language in a social-semiotic perspective. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University

Press. Reprinted London: Oxford University Press.

Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian Matthiessen (1999) Construing experience through

meaning. London & New York: Cassell.

Iedema, Rick A. M. (1998) Institutional responsibility and hidden meanings. In

Discourse & Society Vol. 9(4), 481-500.

Iedema, Rick A. M. & Ruth Wodak (1999). Introduction: Organisational discourses and

practices. InDiscourse & SocietyVol. 10 (1): 5-19.
http://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/boundaries.htmlhttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/boundaries.htmlhttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/boundaries.htmlhttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/boundaries.htmlhttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/thesis/donacPhD.htmlhttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/thesis/donacPhD.htmlhttp://www.asfla.org.au/category/asfla2007/http://www.asfla.org.au/category/asfla2007/http://www.asfla.org.au/category/asfla2007/http://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/thesis/donacPhD.htmlhttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/boundaries.htmlhttp://www.grammatics.com/lexi_con/lexis-text/boundaries.html


22/22

Johnstone, B. (2007) Linking identity and dialect through stancetaking. In R.

Englebretson (ed) Stancetaking in discourse. John Benjamins: Amsterdam &

Philadelphia.

Knight, N. (2010) Wrinkling complexity: Concepts of identity and affiliation in

humour, in M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (eds) New discourse on language.

London & New York: Continuum.

Locher, M. A. (2004) Power and politeness in action: Disagreements in oral

communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

MacDonald, M. N. (2002) Pedagogy, pathology and ideology: The production,

transmission and reproduction of medical discourse. In Discourse & SocietyVol

13(4): 447--467.

Martin, J. R. (2000) Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In S. Hunston,

& Geoff Thompson (eds)Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction

of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Martin, J. R. (1992) English text: System and structure. Philadelphia and Amsterdam:

John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. (2010) Semantic variation: Modelling realisation, instantiation and

individuation in social semiosis. In M. Bednarek & J. R. Martin (eds) New

discourse on language. London & New York: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. & David Rose (2003) Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the

clause. London & New York: Continuum.

Martin, J. R. & White, P. R. R. (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in

English. London: Palgrave.

Poynton, C. (1985)Language and gender: Making the difference.Geelong: Deakin

University Press.

White, P.R.R. (1997) Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished Phd

thesis: Department of Linguistics, Sydney University.

White, P.R.R. (website)An Outline of Appraisal. [available:http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal]

Williams, Ross (2002) unpublished paper: The dynamics of shaming in an email list.

[retrieved 1/9/2009from http://www.lingo.info/eldon/Shaming.pdf]
http://www.grammatics.com/appraisalhttp://www.grammatics.com/appraisalhttp://www.lingo.info/eldon/Shaming.pdfhttp://www.lingo.info/eldon/Shaming.pdfhttp://www.lingo.info/eldon/Shaming.pdfhttp://www.grammatics.com/appraisal

legitimating tenor relationships

Documents