Scarica Transitivity, Modality, and Engagement in Text Analysis: A Linguistic Approach e più Slide in PDF di Linguistica Inglese solo su Docsity!
Lexical metaphor
Metalanguage (language that explains language)
typical metaphorical more congruent less congruent literal
Lexical metaphors: an example Identifying process My lawyer = a shark “My lawyer is a shark” Lexical metaphors exploit simultaneous similarity and difference with the correspondent literal expression. The metaphorical expression has some elements of similarity with the literal expression, but also some elements of difference. It is thanks to this ‘clash’ that we actually perceive its ‘metaphoricity’. My lawyer is a shark element of similarity: aggressive, ruthless element of difference: lawyer = human shark = animal
Metaphors are a question of word choice: to express a meaning we have a choice between a more congruent and a more metaphorical wording. If we choose one instead of the other the effect is different Etymology of “Fall in love”
- fall (v. ) To fall in love is attested from 1520s. Meaning
- fall - pass suddenly and passively into a state of body or mind; fall into a trap ; she fell ill ; They fell out of favor ; fall in love ; fall asleep ; fall prey to an imposter ; fall into a strange way of thinking ; she fell to pieces after she lost her job
Some common lexical metaphors in English
- He has no direction in life; he is lost; we are at the crossroads; she will certainly go places; don’t let anyone stand in your way > LIFE IS A JOURNEY
- I can’t digest the entire book; those ideas are half-baked; that’s food for thought; let me stew over that one > IDEAS ARE FOOD
“Politics is conflict” A study by Jonathan Charteris-Black has focused on a corpus of post-war manifestos of the two major political parties in the UK. He found that it is common for both parties to include the use of terms such as fight, battle, protect, threat to illustrate policies We will defend the fundamental rights of parents (Conservative) We will defend the agricultural environment (Labour)
Politicians and Rhetoric. The Persuasive power of metaphor Jonathan Charteris-Black writes that metaphors are powerful vehicles of persuasion. Used as a bridge between the familiar and the literal, they transfer meaning from what is easily understood to more complex concepts that are harder to grasp. By drawing on deeply rooted cultural schemata politicians are able to represent their beliefs and their policies as heroic tasks and themselves as epic heroes. Likewise, they are able to demonize their enemies and depict opposing policies as villainous.
March 2017 attack in London “Although it was a “lone wolf” assault of the sort seen several times during the past year in France and Germany, the British-born killer may have had helpers.” unpredictable, solitary, cruel “The Trail of Terror Across Westminster Bridge” visible, durable in time
«Piers Morgan calls for Blitz spirit over coronavirus: GMB host says ‘we are at war’ and ‘need to deal with the outbreak in the same way our predecessor did’» «NHS and private hospitals join forces to fight the coronavirus crisis» Metaphor = DISEASE AS ENEMY Referring to Blitz Krieg. Common term in German and English-language journalism during World War II. During the invasion of Poland (1939), western journalists adopted the term Blitzkrieg to describe a particular style of warfare.
The Queen Speech, April 6: “WE will be with our friends again, we will be with our family again, we will meet again” Vera Lynn “We will meet again” 1939The song is one the most famous of the Second World War era, and resonated with soldiers going off to fight as well as their families and sweethearts. In 1943 the song gave its name to a musical film. During the cold war, this song was included in the package of music and programs held in underground radio stations of the BBC’s Wartime Broadcasting Service designed to provide public information and morale-boosting broadcasts for 100 days after a nuclear attack
Transitivity – From theory to practice
Metalanguage: An overview of the Transitivity model
Transitivity is concerned with the semantic structure of clauses and refers to who does what to whom, and in what kind of circumstances. An analysis of Transitivity therefore concerns actions in relation to participants A Transitivity analysis aims at analysing the choice of types of processes and participants involved Certain process types are better used in certain text types
Instructional/procedural text in regional English:
Don’t touch or pull at it especially in public Don’t borrow one from your mate or lend yours to them Make sure it is nice and tight but comfortable Make sure it is the right way round If it is stained or dirty, throw it in the bin If it is damp and mouldy, change it Don’t go commando! 1)What is/are the predominant process type/s in the text? Material and Relational 2)What process type/s is/are absent from the text? Mental, Behavioural
When you write a procedural and/or instructional text, use whenever possible MATERIAL and RELATIONAL processes
Transitivity and text-types: compare the following texts
- I first laid all the planks or boards upon it […], I got three of the seamen’s chests, which I had broken open, and emptied, and lowered them down upon my raft Robinson Crusoe by Daniel Defoe
- In nine cases out of ten, a woman had better show more affection than she feels. […] he began to feel the danger of paying Elizabeth too much attention. […] Consider Mr Collins’s respectability, and Charlotte’s prudent, steady character […] she may well feel something like regard and esteem for our cousin Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
- A continuous rise in complexity towards Cambrian life was one of Darwin’s predictions A science-book
The author of article (2) uses two types of Process: a relational-attributive and a verbal. The text does not construct a narrative, it provides a description. The –er role of the verbal Process is the Israeli Foreign Office. Palestinians do not feature in either –er or –ed roles.
INTERPERSONAL MEANINGS
Focusing on speakers
Interpersonal meanings explore aspects of interaction between speakers. The way we interact when we speak depends on and also influences the relationship we have with other speakers and the language choices we make. Every afternoon my friend packs her bag and leaves her Cardiff office at about 5 o’clock. As she leaves, her business partner says goodbye Margaret , (she replies good- bye Mike ) her secretary says goodbye Ms Walker , (she replies goodbye Jill ) and the care- taker says Bye Mrs Walker (to which she responds goodbye Andy ). As she arrives home she is greeted by Hi mum from her son, Jamie, hello dear, have a good day? , from her mother, and simply you’re late again! from her husband. Later in the evening the president of the local flower club calls to ask if she would like to join. Good evening, is that Mrs Billington? she asks. No, it’s Ms Walker, but my husband’s name is David Billington , she answers. What can I do for you? Finally a friend calls Borodar Meg, how’s things?
Focusing on writers
Interpersonal meanings explore aspects of interaction also in writing. When we write we may decide to occupy different positions in relation to what we say (= proposition); we may endorse a proposition explicitly or implicitly, we may decide not to do so and take some distance, or we may decide to appear objective. We generally write alone but when we write we inevitably engage with other people’s opinions or writings, but we can do so in different degrees. Last week I have received a lot of e-mails. My favourite shop in London Liberty wrote to me to say that their Christmas shop was open and addressed me as «Dear Madam»; my students in Unibo wrote asking questions about their final dissertation and addressed me as «Professor Turci», one Erasmus student wrote asking about their learning agreement and addressed me as «Dear Monica». Dr. Smith (a fake name) is a colleague of mine, he sent an e-mail to me and other colleagues to say we need to submit our chapter for a book he is editing and addressed us as «Dear Colleagues». Dr. Smith is also a friend of mine – we did our PhD in the same university and at the same time - and wrote various e-mails telling me (again) I was late in giving him my chapter, that he is keeping fit and that he is worried about face-to face teaching at his university. He addressed me as «Dear Mokie»
To sum up:
Polarity and Modality:
Polarity is a choice between “yes” and “no”. But “yes” and “no” are not the only possibilities in exchanges. There are intermediate degrees, various kinds of indeterminacy that fall in-between. Examples are ‘sometimes’ and ‘maybe’. These intermediate degrees, between the positive and
negative poles, are known collectively as MODALITY.
Modality definition: The grammatical system that is used by speakers and writers to make assessments from the point of view of probability, usuality, temporality, typicality, willingness, inclination, capacity and obligation. Grammatical resources to express modality: Modal adjuncts Modal operators Multi-word expressions
Modality types Modalization (Epistemic modality) = degrees of possibility or probability and usuality Modulation (Deontic modality) = degrees of obligation and inclination or willingness
Modal verbs and semi-modal verbs:
In English, a single form may be used to express more than one type of modality.
We are going to focus attention on questions pertaining writers/ speakers
We are going to focus on modality, their types and values
We are going to talk about SPEAKER’S ORIENTATION in relation to a proposition and make connections with their social roles
We are going to talk about techniques of ENGAGEMENT that is to say techniques to connect with what others have said or written
We are going to talk about speakers’ EVALUATIONS
We are NOT going to talk about the informational content of text
While shall is quite uncommon in English as a modal of obligation, in regulatory texts, it is highly favoured
Both modalization and modulation can be expressed not just through Modal Adjuncts and Modal Verbs but also through multi-word expressions. Modalization: «It is usual for» «It is likely that» Modulation: «It is necessary» «It is required that» «x is supposed to» «x is willing to»
Value of modality = modality value concerns the extent to which a writer or speaker commits him/herself to the validity of what s/he is writing
or saying. This can be high, median or low.
ORIENTATION OF MODALITY: Orienting Speakers and Writers
SOURCE OF MODALITY: the speaker/ writer/ narrator or someone whose views are being reported. To identify the source of modality is important in all text types: literature, opinion articles, science discourse, etc. PROPOSITION : the content of a sentence
- How do writers/ speakers position or “orient” themselves in relation to a proposition?
- How do writers/ speakers show that they accept responsibility for what they say/ write?
- How do writers/ speakers indicate the strength of their own or others’ opinions?
- How do writers/speakers show that they align to or disalign from others’ opinions?
*If shall is used in a legal document its value is high ★if may is used for degrees of probability its value is median
What is an analysis of the source of modality for? The analysis of the source of modality and its orientation provides linguistic clues for
understanding writers/speakers’ social roles, their attitudes towards theirs cultural context and the power relations they entertain with their audience in the communicative/situational context.
Explore Orientation in 12 Angry Men All the jury agrees that the boy is guilty, all except one (Henry Fonda). We can say then that the jury is aligned with the exception of one. At the end of the scene, one member of the jury signals that because of the incident of the knife, he might change his mind. He says: «you know, it is interesting that he found a knife exactly like the one the boy bought» Q: How do the speaker position or “orient” themselves in relation to a proposition? A: The proposition is « he found a knife exactly like the one the boy bought». This is preceded by another clause that explicitly provides the speaker’s opinion in relation to the proposition «It is interesting» Q: How do writers/ speakers show that they accept responsibility for what they say/ write? A. The speaker thinks that the finding is interesting, but he is cautious; he does not say «I am interested in the fact that …..» but he says «It is interesting». By doing so he objectifies his interest and takes distance The reaction of the juror after the incident of the knife shows that this is a complex character: he is small, has a tiny voice, but he shows (maybe unexpectedly) that he is capable of questioning his own beliefs. At this point he is not ready to take a stand against the other characters (= disalign) and for this reason his expression of interest is objectified. He remains aligned with the majority of the jurors «it is interesting that he found a knife exactly like the one the boy bought» an example of Explicit Objective Orientation of Modality
Point of view: explicit, implicit, no point of view (apparently)
Consider the following examples:
- I think it is the same knife writer’s/speaker’s point of view is explicitly expressed (“I think”)
- It could be the same knife writer’s/speaker’s point of view is implicitly expressed by “could” (low value modalization)
- It is the same knife no modality, no point of view; this statement looks like a fact, not a matter of opinion
Which one between 1 and 2 would you say instantiates speaker’s/writer’s explicit orientation? From a grammatical point of view, what is the difference between the two examples? Tip: consider the different logical structure In example 1 “I think” provides an explicit instantiation of writer’s/speaker’s orientation/opinion. “I think” projects a proposition; orientation is provided by the projecting clause “ I think” – so here orientation is encoded in a clause that is separated from the proposition. In example 2 we have a simple clause: this is the proposition and it also instantiates orientation with the modal «should». The writer’s orientation is expressed by the modal “could”.
Explicit Orientation: subjective vs objective
_1. I think it is the same knife
- It is possible/interesting that it is the same knife, but I am not totally convinced_ Both examples contain explicit orientation. But there is a difference between the two. The difference is not in the clause that expresses the proposition, but in the clause that expresses the orientation (highlighted). In 1 the pronoun “I” shows that the orientation is the subjective position of the writer. In 2 the pronoun “It” shows that the orientation is objectified and that the writer takes distance. 1 is an Explicit Subjective Orientation 2 is an Explicit Objective Orientation
Implicit Orientation: subjective vs objective
_1. It can be the same knife
- It is probably the same knife_ In 1 the writer expresses his opinion in relation to the proposition with the modal verb “can”; can is a finite verb and hence grammatically is close to the subject providing a subjective example of orientation. In 2 the writer expresses his opinion with the modal adjunct “probably”; unlike the modal verb, this is not grammatically connected to the subject and hence provides a more objective case than 1 Finites are marked by tense, polarity and modality
- Those boys broke in the apartment
1 and 2 are questions. The preferred response for a question is an answer and therefore they demand communicative act. In 3 the writer/speaker expresses the proposition as his/her point of view (a tentative point of view), opening him/herself to other possible points of view. It is one voice inviting the participation of other voices in the communicative act, voices that can confirm or deny the writer’s proposition. In 4 the proposition “it is too late” belongs to an external voice to the writer. The textual voice therefore explicitly opens up to other voices. BUT in 5 there is no recognition of dialogic alternatives. What we hear is not an opinion. This is a bare description. A bare description does not invite, require or even welcome discussion. 1,2,3,4 = heteroglosses 5 = monogloss
Heteroglossic engagement
Deny no , didn’t , never Disclaim Counter yet , although , amazingly , but
Contract Pronounce I contend that , the facts of the matter are , indeed Proclaim Endorse the report demonstrates / shows / proves that
Entertain
Expand Acknowledge X argues that , the report states , it is said Attribute Distance X claims to have shown
Dialogic contraction
Follain punctures the well-known myth that the mafia started as Robin Hood-style groups of men. He shows [[that the Mafia started as armed bands protecting the interests of the landlords]]. He also demonstrates how the mafia has forged links with Italy’s ruling Christian Democrats The space for dialogic alternatives is present; the textual voice engages with another voice. However, after opening up, the author closes this dialogic space down. In the example, the reporting verbs used are “show” and “demonstrate”. These introduce the following propositions as facts not as opinions. The introduction of these facts are meant to discourage alternative voices and to position Follain – whose voice the author engages with - as supreme authority
Dialogic expansion
Tickner said the royal commission was a waste of money. His attack came as the Aboriginal women involved in the case claimed that they were not given full justice The textual voice introduces other voices: Tickner’s and those of Aboriginal women. Differently from the previous example, the author does not close the dialogic space. The textual voice introduces the voice of Tickner and of Aboriginal women presenting their propositions as personal opinions (rather than facts) that can be debated. In this way he keeps the dialogue open to other possible opinions
Heteroglossic engagement in student’s history writing
THE APPRAISAL SYSTEM
Appraisal = the act of examining someone or something in order to judge their qualities, success or needs
o Engagement : position of the speaker’s/writer’s voice with reference to other voices/propositions in a text o Attitude : the values by which speakers/writers pass judgements and associate emotional responses o Graduation : a system for grading evaluation
What is ATTITUDE?
Language of evaluation concerns:
- Evaluation of emotions
- Assessment of people’s behaviours according to normative principles
- Constructions of the value of things according to normative principles
It regards the way voice or voices in the text construct evaluations both in implicit and explicit ways. Ex. The preposterous idea that privatization puts profit before safety was commonplace long before Nats was born
Types of Attitude:
- Affect personal emotion I am disappointed and ashamed that you behaved in such a manner.
- Judgment appraisal of other’s behaviours He is a skilled musician.
- Appreciation evaluation of phenomena This essay is well-structured.
I am disappointed [AFFECT] and ashamed [AFFECT] that two of our most admired and respected [JUDGEMENT] sportsmen could behave in such a manner. To play for your country is an honour and a privilege, not a right. Those who are chosen to represent Australia should not only be talented [JUDGEMENT] but they should be above reproach [JUDGEMENT]. Sport is supposed to teach honour, fair play, teamwork, leadership and social skills [JUDGEMENT]. It is not supposed to "create" or support greed and egos [JUDGEMENT]. Gambling is not what we want our children to be learning from their heroes [JUDGEMENT] and mentors.
Appreciation = the system of evaluation of products and processes.
It encompasses values which fall under the general heading of aesthetics, as well as non-aesthetic category of ‘social valuation’ which includes meanings such as significant and harmful. While Judgment evaluates human behaviours, Appreciation evaluates natural objects, manufactured objects, texts as well as more abstract constructs such as plans and policies. Humans may also be evaluated by means of Appreciation, rather than Judgement, when viewed more as entities than as participants who behave.
With Appreciation we provide evaluation of things and natural phenomena: what such things are worth, i.e. how we value them. Appreciation can be divided into the following values :
- Reaction to things i.e. do things catch our attention? aesthetic impact
- Composition of things i.e. balance and complexity compositional
- Value of things i.e. how innovative, timely, authentic valuational
Like both Affect and Judgement, values of Appreciation have either positive or negative status
EXPLICIT or INSCRIBED appraisal vs IMPLICIT or EVOKED appraisal
Compare the following:
- My classmates helped me to revise for my exams
- My classmates generously helped me to revise for my exams What makes the difference here is the word “generously” that explicitly evaluates what remains only implicit in the first sentence. Implicit appraisal in this case is about the network of value systems in our culture that judges ethically positive to help fellow human beings. Explicit (inscribed) appraisal needs the appraiser and appraisee to be expressed overtly and appraisal to be recovered in the text. However, when this is not the case, it does not mean that there is no appraisal. Propositions as a whole can have an implicit (evoked) emotional/evaluative impact without either an explicit appraiser or appraisee, or an explicit marker of appraisal. In this case, the context of culture is of key importance to understand what kind of evaluation has been made.
There are instances of overlapping between JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION. e.g. These hotels were excellent, because they were very clean On the surface, “excellent” refers to “hotels” as things (APPRECIATION), but what implicitly makes hotels excellent in this context is people’s behaviour, their hard work (JUDGEMENT). Therefore, this is an example of Inscribed +ive APPRECIATION- Quality and also Implicit +ive JUDGEMENT social esteem + capacity + tenacity However if we have These hotels were excellent because they were very central we have only Inscribed +ive APPECIATION- Quality because this quality does not depend on people but on hotel’s location.
Imagining GRADUATION – FORCE : raising or lowering the volume of attitude
Within graduation, we are concerned with values which scale other meanings. Graduation is connected to evaluations and evaluations are often a matter of degree. This means that they can be gradable. The most common type of graduation is GRADUATION – FORCE. This consists of a set of resources used for the strengthening or weakening of: Feelings People’s behaviour Worth of things
AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION are all gradable resources. We can grade them up or down: Extremely intelligent Really intelligent Quite intelligent Fairly intelligent Somewhat intelligent
She is very generous AMPLIFICATION It is merely sufficient MINIMIZATION
