evaluative meanings in literary texts the first step towards appraisal stylistics

Nina Nørgaard (ed.) 2008. Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use. Odense Working Papers in Language and Communication vol. 29 (ISSN 0906-7612, ISBN: 978-87-90923-47-1)

Evaluative Meanings in Literary Texts:

The first step towards Appraisal Stylistics

Xuanwei Peng

Abstract This paper applies Appraisal Theory to literary texts, a preparation for setting up a framework of Appraisal Stylistics (AS). The paper chiefly comprises two parts. The first main part takes “To His Coy Mistress” as a sample case, and exemplifies the textual characteristics of appraisal meanings in literary texts. The textuality has two aspects of three dimensions. One aspect comes from the distribution of (1) the foregrounding appraisal components along (2) the text process into appraisal strings and bonds. The other aspect results from integrating larger appraisal components into a complete whole as (3) the central underlying motivation facet. The setup of appraisal textuality is the first fundamental step towards Appraisal Stylistics, a discipline under Functional Stylistics.

1. Introduction

This paper aims to apply Appraisal Theory (AT for short; e.g. Martin and White 2005) to

analyzing a sample literary text, so as to prepare for a discipline of Appraisal Stylistics. For

this purpose, the paper will integrate, and seek favour from, insights from Narratology and

Cognitive Linguistics.

So far, almost all aspects of SFL have experienced applications to literary studies (e.g.

Halliday 1971, 1982; Birth and O’Toole 1988; Toolan 1990, 1996; Taylor and Toolan 1996;

Toolan et al 1992; Hu 2000; Zhang 2005); but to date the newly-advanced AT has only

witnessed a journalistic stylistic comparison (White 2006), and a very few analyses of literary

works (e.g. Rothery and Stenglin 2000; Macken-Horarik 2006). There is an effort in

Cognitive Poetics by Tsur (2002) who focuses on ‘emotion’ in poetry, an attempt that but

covers part of the Affect meaning under AT. This paper will manifest that AT should be one

radical approach to literary stylistics. Three points will be discussed: (i) the relevant

theoretical issues to apply and the sample text to be analyzed, (ii) the foregrounded appraisal

Systemic Functional Linguistics in Use, OWPLC 29, 2008 666

fabric by linear distribution of appraisal components in the sample text, and (iii) appraisal

motivation: a third dimension by holistic integration. 2. The relevant theoretical issues and the sample text

These include (i) the general definition of appraisal meaning, (ii) the framework to abide by,

and (iii) the principles to observe.

Appraisal concerns “the subjective presence of writers/speakers in texts as they adopt

stances towards both the material they present and those with whom they communicate”

(Martin and White 2005: 1). It comprises three broad categories: (i) Attitude, the central

conception in AT that includes “three regions of feelings”: Affect, Judgement, and

Appreciation; (ii) Engagement, the “resources of intersubjective stance” comprising

Monogloss and Heterogloss; and (iii) Graduation, the “up-scaling and down-scaling”

prototypicality (Focus) and intensity (Force).

For the present purpose, some fundamental postulates are taken as the point of

departure. First, key terms from Narratology (e.g. Genette 1980, 1988; Chatmann 1978;

O’Neill 1994), such as ‘Narrator’, ‘Narratee, ‘Narrated’, ‘Author’, and ‘Reader’, are

integrated into the contextual frame, as presented in Figure 1 (see also Martin and White 2005:

25). Since ‘context’ determines ‘author’, which in turn creates ‘text/discourse’, the arrows

share the same direction. ‘Narrator’ is supposed to have his own context erected by the

‘author’, so the arrows also share the same direction. ‘Narratee’ is decided both by the ‘text’

that makes him and his own context assumed in narration; ‘reader’ in interpretation and

reconstruction is both determined by his own context and the whole ‘text/discourse’ in general,

so he receives control from both directions.

TEXT(Narrator + Narratee)

Narrated

Narrato

r'sContext Narratee's

Context

Source/Author Context Reader/

Target

Context

Author Reader

Narrator Narratee

Figure 1. The general interpretative framework to be adopted


The discussions apply three principles, namely, the Foregrounding Principle (FP), the

Underlying Principle (UP), and the Social Interactive Principle (SIP). The FP is responsible

for the distribution of discrete appraisal components into a textual fabric; that is, FP adopted

in this paper follows the synthetic British tradition of both Formalistic and Structural-Func-

tionalist approach, which is, however, based on cognition here (see Vanpeer 1986). The UP is

also the Motivation Principle (MP) as it concerns the underlying general appraisal motivation

to orient all the foregrounded components into respective strings and bonds, and hence a

fabric. Apparently, these two sides of the appraisal meanings of a literary text co-work to

contribute to appraisal styles.

Meanwhile, FP and UP are determined by a third, more general principle: SIP. That is,

communication engages aspects of participants, a process that configures, negotiates, balances,

as well as constrains all parties, hence interactive. So SIP is an Intersubjectivity Principle (ISP)

dominating over the other two: Socio-interaction determines the recognition of the UP that

concerns making and obtaining the general appraisal motivation thread. All the three underlie

the analyses to be carried out below.

Now I present the sample text for the present analysis (see the Appendix). The title is

“To His Coy Mistress” (2000 [1681]; “Mistress” for short) by Andrew Marvell (1621-1678),

added with line numbers and designations for the attitudinal elements (bold-faced: Judgement;

squared: Affect; Shadowed: Appreciation).

The text was analyzed by Gregory (1978) who tries to “further exemplify and seek to

develop the theory and method of interpretative stylistics”. Instead of “what does it mean?”,

he studies “what is it?” and “how is it?”, which is in line with Functional Stylistics.

This paper also sticks to those doctrines by Gregory while following AT, but within the

elaborated scheme developed in Figure 1. It will exemplify three aspects of appraisal

textuality with “Mistress”. The descriptive methodology is the one widely used in SFL (e.g.

Halliday and Hasan 1989). The analysis tries to reveal the various ideological natures bound

to those appraisal constituents, including lexical items and rhetorical devices for textual

organizations.


3. Appraisal Textuality: The foregrounded fabric by linear distribution

There are two foregrounded dimensions of textual appraisals. To be specific, the textual

process alternatively commits one categorical constituent after another. In this process, two

dimensions co-occur: one the categorical chains and bonds, and the other linearly proceeding

line; the latter weaves up the former, the two of which form one aspect of appraisal textuality:

the appraisal fabric foregrounded along the text. The analysis will try to make clear (i) the

numbers of appraisal constituents, (ii) the reasons for the calculation if needed, and (iii) the

social factors behind the foregrounded elements.

3.1. Attitudinal characteristics in “To His Coy Mistress”

Let me begin with Affect in Attitude. Affect “is concerned with registering positive and

negative feelings: do we feel happy or sad, confident or anxious, interested or bored?” (Martin

and White 2005: 42). It embraces four subcategories, i.e. Inclination, Happiness, Satisfaction,

and Security. Inclination concerns the emotional issue of intention and desideration;

Happiness “involves the moods of feeling happy or sad”; Satisfaction “deals with our feelings

of achievement and frustration in relation to the activities in which we are engaged”; and

Security “covers our feelings of peace and anxiety in relation to our environs, including of

course the people sharing them with us” (Martin and White 2005: 48-50).

The Inclination line comprises 9 elements in “Mistress”: “love” (line 8), “refuse” (9),

“love” (11), “love” (20), “lust” (30), “embrace” (32), “willing” (35), “fires” (36), and

“am’rous” (38). Of these, “refuse” is negative Inclination, or Disinclination: not willing to

commit the proposed act; the other 8 are all positive. All except “fires” are of the Inscribed

attitudinal function, that is, systemic feature accumulated in uses; “fires” gains provisional

Inclination meaning in the relevant context, hence Invoked (Martin and White 2005: 61-68).

The Happiness line includes just 2 elements: “love” (4) and “sweetness” (42). Notice

that “love” in 4 is different from the other three occurrences of “love” in 8, 11, and 20 in that

it reveals an emotional state of both parties, as suggested by the plural possessive pronoun

“our”; so it should be Affect of Happiness, particularly Affection of Disposition.


The Satisfaction line has 4 items, which are comparatively less typical than those

sorted out above: “complain” (7), “please” (9), “sport” (37; Invoked), and “pleasures” (43).

Here “complain” stands for Dissatisfaction, while the others are all Satisfaction; “sport” is an

Invoked entity of Satisfaction, that is, to enjoy or amuse themselves.

The Security line is made up of 4 Invoked elements, which are less salient as well:

“worms” (27), “grave” (31), “private” (31), and “strife” (43). The item “worms” is interpreted

as Insecurity in this context since worms of such kind usually scare people, even just one

glimpse of them. A similar situation applies to “grave”. And the item “private” is also

classified as Security for its enclosed situation, i.e. one without interference from outsiders.

And “strife” accounts for a state of disquiet.

It is interesting to note that only 4 elements are related to the narratee: “refuse”, “will-

ing”, “please”, and “private”, and the other 15 of the total 19 to the narrator. This could large-

ly explain why the narrator ‘uttered’ these lines of the text. It also differentiates human beings

from animals in that animals could do nothing but be angry and even proceed with violence

when their intention could not be realized, but a sensible man has an elaborate and delicate

way of persuasion, whether by words or by acts, for seeking goods-&-services or information.

Next to Affect is Judgement. Judgement “deals with attitudes towards behaviour,

which we admire or criticize, praise or condemn” (Martin and White 2005: 42). It is divided

into Social Esteem (SE) and Social Sanction (SS). SE has “to do with ‘normality’ (“how

unusual someone is”), ‘capacity’ (“how capable they are”) and ‘tenacity’ (“how resolute they

are”); SS has “to do with ‘veracity’ (“how truthful someone is”) and ‘propriety’ (“how ethical

someone is”)” (Martin and White 2005: 52). They have an immediate association with Critical

Discourse Analysis; but they are more advantageous within the AT scenario that is highly

theorized and provides a general framework for facilitating more comprehensive and

exhaustive analyses.

For the present text, 8 items match each of them, that is, Normality (1 item): “quaint”

(29; also Quality, see below); Capacity (4 items): “devour” (39), “languish” (40), and “power”

(40), “strength” (41; Invoked); Tenacity (2 items): “coy” (the title) and “coyness” (2);

Propriety (1 item): “crime” (2). Of these elements, “quaint, “languish”, “coy”, “coyness”, and


“crime” indicate the obstacle for realizing the narrator’s intention, but “devour”, “power”, and

“strength” create the fanciful scene he imagines for his dream. Here, “coy”, “coyness”, and

“crime” are related to the morality of the lady’s ideology, and “devour”, “power”, and

“strength” are meant to destroy it. This opposition forms a tension of intersubjectivity out of

the forces from the two sexes, exemplifying an important facet of social interaction.

The most important category in this text is Appreciation because it has the best

number of all, and also there are numerous rhetorical devices that work for it. Appreciation

“involves evaluations of semiotic and natural phenomena, according to the ways in which

they are valued or not in a given field” (Martin and White 2005: 43). It comprises three

general classes. They are (i) Reaction: Impact (did it grab me?) and Quality (did I like it?); (ii)

Composition: Balance (did it hang together?) and Complexity (was it hard to follow?); and (iii)

Valuation (was it worthwhile?).

There are both lexical and rhetorical constituents for Appreciation. According to the

above conceptions, the lexical items under Quality should be “rubies” (6; Invoked), “beauty”

(25), “marble vault” (26; Invoked), “quaint” (29; also Normality), “fine” (31), “youthful” (33),

“morning” (34; Invoked), and “rough” (43). The set of nominal expressions, “(thine) eyes”

(14), “thy forehead” (14), “(each) breast” (15), “the rest” (16), and “(every) part” (17) are

entities of invoked quality since each obtains a feature that the narrator admires.

Meanwhile, “(slow-)chapped” (40) and “tear” (43) should be Balance as both are

motivated for breaking the composition of something under consideration. Moreover, the

items under Valuation include “praise” (13), “gaze” (14; Invoked), “adore” (15), “deserts” (24;

Invoked), “(echoing) song” (27; Invoked), “virginity” (28), “honour” (29), “dust” (29;

Invoked), “ashes” (30; Invoked). Here “echoing song” is interpreted so for its implied

worthiness for winning a girl’s heart. “Deserts”, “dust”, and “ashes” seem to share a

characteristic of Quality: I don’t like it anymore! Altogether there are 24 features.

In contrast to the Affect elements that are mostly associated with the narrator, the

majority of the Appreciation elements are concerned with, or directed at, the narratee:

“rubies”, “beauty”, “marble vault”, “quaint”, “fine”, “youthful”, “morning (dew)”, “(thine)

eyes”, “thy forehead”, “(each) breast”, “the rest”, “(every) part”, “praise”, “gaze”, “adore”,


“deserts”, “(echoing) song”, “virginity”, “honour”, “dust”, and “ashes”. These constituents

could to a large extent account for why the narrator longs for the mistress. Incidentally, the

total attitudinal scores discussed so far are (19+8+24=51).

3.2. Rhetorical devices for Attitudes in “To His Coy Mistress”

There are numerous rhetorical devices in the text, each of which has one or more than one

appraisal feature, particularly attitudinal characteristics. Let me begin with Metaphor.

According to Cognitive Linguistics, Metaphor arises in mapping from one conceptual

domain to another; the domain being utilized to map is called Source Domain (SD), and that

being mapped upon is Target Domain (TD). Metaphors in this sense may construe the

meaning of Appreciation because the images they invoke are motivated to grab readers with

un-expectancy (Impact) and amazement of complexity in images (Complexity). For example,

the narrator takes “love” (TD), in 11, as vegetable (SD), which sounds surprising. Here,

LOVE IS A PLANT that may grow.

Other metaphors include: “time’s winged chariot” (22; 2 metaphors: time is bird that

has wings and flies fast, and time is a chariot; 3 values), “sits on” (34; 2 values), “like morn-

ing dew” (34; 1 value), “like am’rous birds of prey” (38; we are amorous birds of prey; 2

values), “our time devour” (39; time is a thing to be devoured; 2 values), “slow-chapped

power” (40; time is a huge animal that has chapping power; 2 values), “roll into one ball”

(41-42; a couple are like a ball when sporting; 2 values), and “tear our pleasure with rough

strife through the iron gate of life” (43-44; 2 metaphors: pleasure is a thing and life is an iron

gate; 3 values).

A word is needed for the value numbers. Here “like morning dew” expresses Quality

and should not be counted again except for Impact since the key item “morning” has already

been included into the lexical set of Quality. Another Simile, “like am’rous birds of prey”,

should be both Impact and Satisfaction. Moreover, the first and the last ones in the above list

also indicate the feature of Satisfaction since they concern the satisfying proposal. The

remaining items have two features: Impact and Complexity, just like the LOVE IS A PLANT

metaphor. Then the metaphors here have 19 features of both Affect and Appreciation.


Parody may as well associate more than one image: the current narrated image and the

original one imitated. Parody is an imitation by following the pattern of other works. There

are three cases in “Mistress”. First, lines 13-18 find a similar pattern in the poetic lines by

Abraham Cowley, a contemporary of Marvell’s. Second, the last two lines of the poem refer

to an origin in the Bible: lovers should not behave like Joshua (from the Old Testament) who

makes “the sun [s]tand still”, but like David to ask the sun to go out of the nuptial chamber

like a bride, and also like a warrior to jubilate and gallop. Third, the whole poetic text is creat-

ed by following a poem with a similar theme by Asclepiades in the third century BC. This

technique might devaluate the novelty of the images, but adds complexity to the Appreciation

meaning of the work, an aesthetic principle that is most welcome in literary creation because

such techniques create imaginative spaces, immediately associate numerous images in the

writer’s mind, and hence have potentiality for multipliable interpretations. Most important of

all, the instances typically represent the narrator’s, hence the writer’s, moral value and the

historical heritage of ideology. These attitudinal values amount to 6 features of Impact and

Complexity.

Antithesis is another rhetorical device, which expresses Impact and Complexity here.

Antithesis “conjoins contrasting ideas”. For example, lines 5-7 “conjoins” three pairs of anti-

thetical concepts, namely, contrasted participants: “[t]hou” to “I”, circumstances: “the Indian

Granges’ side” to “the tide of Humber”, and processes: “find (rubies)” to “complain”. These

contrasted pairs can be explained in terms of Composition of Balance: experiential entities ar-

ranged in equilibrium, along with the meaning of Impact to some extent. Others appear in

7-10, and the paired opposition entities are: “I” to “you”, “love” to “refuse”, and “ten years

before the Flood” to “the conversion of the Jews”; in 19-20: “you deserve this state” to “[n]or

would I love at lower state”; in 21-24: “at my back” to “yonder all before us”, and “[t]ime’s

winged chariot hurrying near” to “lie [d]eserts of vast eternity”; in 29-30: “your quaint

honour” to “all my lust”, and “dust” to “ashes”; and in 45-46: “make our sun stand still” to

“make him run”. These oppositions alone could build up a line of Composition, i.e. the mean-

ing of Complexity. The total Antithetical expressions are 9, and the Appreciation values

amount to (12×2 = 24).


Hyperbole and Parallelism are another two efficient means for appraisal. Hyperbole

refers to an “exaggerated description intended to elicit alienation, revaluation, or any kind of

emotional reaction, e.g. “snail’s pace”, “dead tired”, “heart of steel”. So it may involve all

aspects of Attitude. For example, the exaggerated durations, as in 7-8, 11-12, 13, 15, 16, 17

and 18, emphasize the prolonged time that the narrator could stand awaiting the coy lady.

Each is implicitly suggestive of Dissatisfaction of Annoyance besides the Impact and Com-

plexity motivations (7×3=21). Others include 23-24 (“[d]eserts of vast eternity”: Intensifica-

tion + Impact), 35-36, and 45-46. The 35-36 case has already witnessed a feature of passion

(Inclination) above, but the whole expression may be holistically motivated with Impact and

Complexity, which are also loaded in 45-46. The total appraisal features in terms of Hyper-

bole is (21+2+2+2×3=31).

The cases of Parallelism in “Mistress” are good means for making Intensification,

along with Impact and Complexity. Parallelism comprises successive sets of negation and

addition. Successive negation is exemplified with 25-26: “thy beauty shall no more be found”

and “nor, in thy marble vault shall sound my echoing song”. And successive additions occur

in 13, 15, 16, 17, “and” 18, “while” in 33 and 35, and “let us” in 37 and 41. Each set gains 1

score, and the entire features are (4×3=12). Notice that the five successive additions in 13, 15,

16, 17, and 18 have a more powerful intensity than others, but I have no way to mark their

statistic degree. This is one instance of the humanistic trait of linguistic analysis, which could

not be completely carried out in the scientific way.

Two more techniques used in “Mistress” are Symbol and Irony. The item “rubies” is

an example of Symbol. It functions as an amulet that, as is said, is able to protect a girl’s

virginity. It suggests that the mistress herself should be precious (see above) and is reluctant

towards her lover’s pleading acts. Irony is represented in 31, where “fine” is positive from the

girl’s perspective, but the context evokes a negative reading. The symbolic case should be

counted twice: one being Quality, as mentioned earlier, and the other Complexity for its

cultural implication. So it gains 1 score here. The irony case does not count since it is

rendered for negative reading by its positive surface value.

In short, these rhetorical devices may contribute to all aspects of appraisal. Some of


them could elicit readers a sudden association with the past stories, tales, myths, events,

episodes, anecdotes and the relevant images and resources which are meant to arrest the

readers attention all of a sudden (Impact) and also enhance the relevant Complexity. That is

again the places where cultural values are discerned (Martin 1992: 492-590). The total scores

by these rhetorical devices amount to (19+6+24+31+12+1=93). 3.3. Engagement and Graduation in “To His Coy Mistress”

The next general category beside Attitude is Engagement. Engagement “deals with sourcing

attitudes and the play of voices around opinions in discourse” (Martin and White 2005: 35). It

has two general categories, i.e. Contract and Expand. Contract includes Disclaim and Pro-

claim. Disclaim is further divided into Deny (as in “no”, “didn’t”, “never”) and Counter

(“yet”, “although”, “but”); Proclaim includes Concur (Affirm: “naturally”; Concede: “admit-

tedly… [but]”, “sure…[however]”), Pronounce (“I contend”, “the fact is…”, “indeed”), and

Endorse (“the report shows that…”). Expand engages Entertain (“perhaps”, “it’s probable

that”, “must”, “would”) and Attribute, the latter is either Acknowledgment (“he argues that”,

“it’s said that”) or Distance (“he claimed that”).

First of all, both Deny and Counter appear in this text. Deny is exemplified with “no

more” (25), “nor” (26), “none” (32), and “rather…than” (39-40). Lines 25-26 have two

negative items: “no more” and “nor”; they emphasize the serious unexpected but imaginable

consequence of “this coyness” of “his mistress”. The item “none” in 32 continues the

reasoning: The mistress should then suffer from the fact that no one would love her any more.

The “rather … than” pattern is a selective construction: denying one choice and embracing the

other. Meanwhile, there are two Counter instances: “[b]ut” (21) and “though” (45). As noted

above, “[b]ut” in 21 is used to pick up the presupposed concession (“no” in 2); but it is a

counter to what has been afore-stated. The counter element “though” in 45 assumes a coming

act of sporting. Disclaim facilitates the narrator’s expression of motivation.

The Proclaim of Pronounce has 4 items: “no (crime)” (2), “nor” (20), “nor” (26), and

“not” (45). The negation item “no” in 2 is collocated with a negative Judgement “crime”

(together with the subjunctive “[h]ad we” in 1); this suggests a meaning of Concede, since the


latter part of the text, i.e., the second stanza in particular (notice the item “but” at the

beginning), concedes with the harm or disadvantage of her coyness. The item “nor” in 20 has

a similar function: “nor…at lower rate”. Here “nor” claims the narrator’s explicit resolution

for having her. The line gives an answer to the mistress’s coyness and her waste of youth

(remember “youthful hue” in 33). Therefore, both negative items may be categorized as

Concede, but are oriented towards the opposite of concession: “no” in 2 presupposes a

concession in what follows while “nor” in 20 expresses the narrator’s unchanging love

attitude towards the narratee. There is a third Concur in 45-46, i.e. “not…yet”. It points to an

immediate act as the countermeasure, which corresponds well to the expectation of the

narrator. So the utilization of negative items is not something random: they work for the

relevant attitudes.

There are many items for Expand of Entertain, as typically in the 15 (finite) modal

operators (cf. Gregory 1978: 103): “would” (3, 7, 20), “shouldst” and “should” (6, 9, 11, 13,

18), “shall” (25, 26, 27), “may” (37), “can” (45), and “will” (46). It is interesting to note that

the hypothetical modal operators “would”, “should(st)”, and “shall” are distributed along the

first two stanzas, and they reveal possibility, resolution, and assumption. Hence, the meaning

of Entertain agrees well with the evaluative themes of the text. The last three, i.e. “may”,

“can”, and “will”, are meant to draw the reader back to reality. The item “may” describes the

provisional possible capability of the young couple, “can” their ability, and “will” his decision.

The narrator is now proposing how they should act and behave (Stanza III) after presenting

his love will (Stanza I) and the possible consequence of the girl’s reservation (Stanza II). One

more item for Entertain is the beginning Subjunctive construction: “[h]ad we but world

enough, and time”, which is a conditional Entertain for what to come, an issue that deserves

space for further exploration.

Generally, the whole text is made up of the narrator’s utterances. The narrator is

represented by the first personal pronoun (“I” and “my”); he is addressing a second person,

the narratee: “thou”, “you”, “thou”, “thine”, “thy”, and “your”. There is no response from the

narratee, but the reading still sounds like a Heterogloss, only with the addressee’s feedback

absent from the text. It may be evidenced from the we-inclusive narration. This is a case of


intersubjectivity in the Phenomenological sense. But it is also a Monogloss from the

perspective of author vs. reader, as the possessive pronoun “his” in the title suggests. This

Heterogloss and Monogloss natures cannot, either, be statistically counted.

Finally, we consider the meanings of Graduation apart from those expressed by some

of the rhetorical devices, as laid out above. Graduation “attends to grading phenomena

whereby feelings are amplified and categories blurred” (Martin and White 2005: 35). It

comprises Force and Focus. Force “covers assessments as to degree of intensity and as to

amount”: the ‘intensity’ is technically called Intensification, as in “slightly or very (sad)”,

“slightly or greatly (disturbed)”; and the ‘amount’ is named Quantification: “small or large

(problem)”, “a few or many (problems)” (Martin and White 2005: 140-141). Focus “applies

most typically to categories which, when viewed from an experiential perspective, are not

scalable”, but “bounded, either-or categories”, as in “(a) true (father)” (Sharpen) and “(a

father of) some sort” (Soften) (Martin and White 2005: 137-138).

Then the following elements are all Force of Intensification, “but” (1), “(vast)er” (12),

“more (slow)” (12), “always” (21), “vast” (24), and “do” (32), because all of the modified

categories, that is, “grow”, “grow”, and “eternal deserts”, may be “scalable”. According to the

poetic text of (1), even if “[m]y vegetable love should grow [v]aster than empires”, and “grow

more slow (slower)”, the love will not become a little smaller, but grow as large as an empire.

The comparisons point to the growing process and emphasize the narrator’s true love to the

lady. “Vast” is employed to refer to the possible sad consequence because of time: when

“winged, chariot time” pushes us to a moment where a “vast eternity of [d]eserts” lies, then

which place should we stay? The reasoning thus goes to the valueless outcome of the girl’s re-

straint. Finally, the Force of Quantification items include: “each” (15), “every” (17), “at least”

(17), “all” (23), “all” (30), “every” (36), “all” (41), “and all” (41), all of which work to en-

hance the enthusiastic emotion of the narrator. Here the Force scores are 14, and the whole of

Engagement and Graduation amounts to 39 scores.

To sum up, I have figured out all the appraisal elements in “Mistress”, along with their

ideological associations. The total appraisal values are (144+39=183). It is imaginable that

there is also a linear line weaving up back and forth among those categorical elements, a


time-bound, on-line process responsible for knitting them into something textual, something

that could not be properly interpreted within the domain of the clause.

4. Appraisal Motivation: A third dimension by holistic integration

This section tries to deal with the underlying Motivation dimension from the perspective of

integration at a more general level, which is to figure out the central attitudinal theme of the

text. But before we proceed, a theoretical issue needs clarification. According to Lakoff (e.g.

1987), Motivation is NOT something “casual” or “arbitrary”, but that which could “make

sense of” it. Motivation in this sense is expectancy valued, that is, it is a cognitive mechanism

that attains valued goal under assessment. It “lies between predictability and arbitrariness”

(Goldberg 1995: 69). Here, appraisal motivation is the author’s/writer’s true evaluation that

guides the foregrounded appraisal elements and hence the fabric along the “surface” of dis-

course.

We first consider the appraisal organization in each stanza and their shared formula-

tion pattern. Notice that the first two lines of the beginning stanza contain two points: a reality

of their love relationship, i.e. an annoying detainment, and a concessive comment on the

lady’s coyness (no crime); in terms of a subjunctive mood (Had we but…), the concessive

comment presupposes what to develop in the second stanza. The first point is immediately

followed by the boy’s complaining (dissatisfaction) in 3-7, the whole stretch of which con-

tains an antithesis with three contrasted pairs (see above). It is interesting to note that this

stretch functions as a condition for the ensuing part of the stanza. That is, even though you

(the mistress) are reluctant and I am of course dissatisfied with your coyness, I will love you

no less; rather, my love will increase with time. The last two lines of the first stanza contain a

positive comment and a summary of resolution. The comment feeds back to the beginning

comment, and the summary refers to all the previous resolution and complaint, reminding the

lady that his love is not something momentary but sincere and persistent, and that is why he

complains: love usually goes with complaint, or even hatred. Apparently, lines 7-20 are about

a series of envisaged acts against the lady’s coyness and refusal.

A similar pattern appears in the second stanza, and the only difference lies in that the


beginning lines (21-24) are merely an unwanted scene. The consequence of that possible

condition (25-32) is something horrible about their physiological and spiritual state. The last

two lines of this second stanza may be separated, again, as a comment, marked by “I think”.

This stanza is dominated by a meaning of quality: beautifulness vs. ugliness. Notice that the

whole stanza bears a relation to the concessive comment expressed in the beginning two lines

of the first stanza.

The final stanza also starts with a condition, a reality of their present state of health

and inclination (33-36), followed by a proposal of act (physiological behaviours in 37-46): to

satisfy their desire by sporting. The last two lines are about a comment too. Here the first part

of the comment (i.e. 45: “we cannot make [o]ur sun stand still”) may be regarded as a

summary developed from the general attitude of the second stanza. Therefore, the three

stanzas share a common pattern of persuasion: condition result (comment), with slight

difference in the way each is laid out.

We put these structural summary components along the outer edge of an ellipsoid

(Figure 2), so as to show the structural organization of the text per se. The bold-typed

ellipsoid, along with which the poetic line numbers are noted, symbolizes the on-line,

dynamic process of the text, and this characteristic is further designated with the inner dotted

ellipsoid with arrows.

1

com

men

t &su

mm

ary

ofre

solu

tion

conditio

n

(assumed)

comm

ent

condition

(reality)

comment

prop

osal

ofac

tion

(com

mitt

ing

satis

factio

n)

resolution:assum

edm

enta lactivities

refusalvs. complaint

but

detainmentannoyingno crime,

(exagerated

consequence

possible results)

coynessfor

2Title 34

6

7

13

89

1011

1214

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

272829

302526

3231

3334

3536

4041

3738

3942

4344

4546

5

Attitude:Affect

JudgementAppreciation

GraduationEngagement

(A)Assumption I:

Had we but worldenough, and time, This coyness, lady, were no crime

Assumption II: your continuing, idle attitude and my forever unfailing and even permanently growing love

Reality (exagerated though) the reality and the possible,severe consequence of your coyness

(C)

(B)

(D) Proposal: Now let us sport while we may(Let us roll all our strength, and all Our sweetness, up into one ball) The central theme:

Affect of Inclination

Figure 3. The central Inclination line

and the sub-lines of persuasion Figure 2. A representation of the

textual appraisal organization


Let me elaborate the above figure. Gregory (1978: 103) offers a syllogistic summary of each

stanza: “Had we but X then we would Y (first stanza/strophe), but we haven’t (second

stanza/antistrophe), so let us Z (third stanza/epode)”. Pay attention to the relationship of the

three sub-themes of appraisal meaning, with that expressed in the first two lines of the initial,

also the beginning, of the text. It starts with a seemingly very casual attitude towards the girl’s

coyness. The narrator’s utterances even, to an extent, sound like something that comforts her:

“This coyness, lady, were no crime. It is a tolerant manner”. But the tolerance is based on an

assumptive condition that they had endless time and space. Hence, two perspectives of

possibilities develop: (i) your continuing, conservative attitude and my forever unfailing and

even permanently growing love, and (ii) the reality and the possible severe consequence of

“your coyness”. These two hence form a persuasive background for a practical proposal: “Let

us roll all our strength, and all [o]ur sweetness, up into one ball”. We categorize this process

the central attitudinal concern (embodied in D) of the text. I adopt the Blending Frame in

mathematics to represent it. Here (D) is not only one sub-theme of appraisal meaning; it is

also the central, general Inclination motivation of the text. It is blended from the previous

assumptions and the possible, envisaged outcome of virginity preservation.

Finally, let me consider what has been explicated so far. Since all the appraisal

elements along the text process are interwoven into one another, the strings are interrelated,

and hence form an organic whole as an appraisal net along the textual process. Meanwhile,

the underlying general motivation of the narrator, namely, his inclination (longing for sporting)

that commands the on-line organizations of the appraisal strings and bonds, may be separately

laid out in the analytic sense so that the textual organization process guided by the attitudinal

meaning, could be made clearer (see Figure 4).


Judgement:coyness

GENERALMOTIVATION:

longing forsporting

Inclination

Affect:love

Appreciation:beauty

commanding attitude

aspects of appraisal construed

Figure 4. Aspects of attitudinal meanings organized along the text

To sum up, I have so far figured out the three dimensions of appraisal meaning organization in

the sample text, and witnessed the application of the Foregrounding, Motivation, and

Intersubjective principles for the textuality constructions, the latter of which constitutes one

important aspect of text semantics. 5. Conclusion

The paper has tried to set up a textual appraisal model out of (i) the various foregrounded

appraisal components and their organization fabric, and (ii) the macro-textual organization

patterns of a more general evaluation motivated by the writer, that is, their integrated structure

along the text process. I could then turn to a theoretical account for Appraisal Stylistics, which

requires a lot of pages to develop. Xuanwei Peng, professor of linguistics School of Foreign Languages and Literatures Beijing Normal University [email protected]


Note This study is supported by China National Foundation of Philosophy and Social Sciences under the project “Application of Appraisal Theory to Literary Stylistics and Explorations in Appraisal Corpus” (07BYY063) and Programme for New Century Excellent Talents in University under the Chinese Ministry of Education (NCET-05-152). I am most grateful to those who were present at my presentation, particularly Professors Michael Halliday, Michael O’Toole, Michael Toolan, and Robin Fawcett, who offered me valuable suggestions, comments, and discussions. Before the Congress, Professor Jim Martin advised me timely to refer to the relevant paper by Professor Michael Gregory, which was sent to me by Dr. Sumin Zhao. Most importantly, Jim read an early draft of this paper and gave me much generous help.


References

Birch, D. and M. O’Toole (eds.) (1988). Functions of Style. London: Pinter.

Chatmann, S. (1978). Story and Discourse. Narrative structure in fiction and film. Ithaca:

Aornell University Press.

Genette, G. (1980). Narrative Discourse. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.

Genette, G. (1988). Narrative Discourse Revisited. Trans. by Jane E. Lewin. Ithaca, New York:

Cornell University Press.

Goldberg, A. (1995). Construction. A construction approach to argument structure. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press.

Gregory, M. (1978). “Marvell’s ‘To His Coy Mistress’”. Poetics 7(4): 101-112.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1971). “Linguistic function and literary style: An inquiry into the

language of William Golding’s The Inheritors” in S. Chatmann (ed.) Literary Style.

A symposium. New York: Oxford University Press: 362-400.

Halliday, M. A. K. (1982). “The de-automatization of grammar: From Priestley’s An Inspector

Calls” in J. M. Anderson (ed.) Language Form and Linguistic Variation. Papers

dedicated to Angus McIntosh. Amsterdam: John Benjamins: 129-159.

Halliday, M. A. K. and R. Hasan (1989). Language, Context, and Text. Aspects of language in

a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hu, Z. (2000). Theoretical Stylistics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Macken-Horarik, M. (2006). “Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative”.

Http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/textSpecial/macken-horarik-narrative.pdf.

Martin, J. R. (1992). English Text. System and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Martin, J. R. and P. White (2005). The Language of Evaluation. Appraisal in English.

Hampshire and New York: Macmillan.

Marvell, A. (2000 [1681]). “To His Coy Mistress” in M. H. Abrams (ed.) The Norton

Anthology of English Literature. Seventh Edition, Volume 1. New York and London:

W. W. Norton & Company: 1691-1692.


O'Neill, P. (1994). Fictions of Discourse. Reading narrative theory. Toronto: University of

Toronto Press.

Rothery, J. and M. Stenglin (2000). “Interpreting literature: The role of APPRAISAL” in L.

Unsworth (ed.) Researching Language in Schools and Functional Linguistic

Perspectives. London: Cassell: 222-244.

Taylor, T. J. and M. Toolan (1996). “Recent trends in stylistics” in J. J. Weber (ed.) The Stylis-

tics Reader. From Roman Jakobson to the present. London: Edward Arnold: 87-91.

Toolan, M. (1990). The Stylistics of Fiction. A literary-linguistic approach. London:

Routledge.

Toolan, M. (ed.) (1992). Language, Text and Context. Essays in stylistics. London: Routledge.

Toolan, M. (1996). “Stylistics and its discontents; or getting off the fish ‘hook’” in J. J. Weber

(ed.) The Stylistics Reader. From Roman Jakobson to the present. London: Edward

Arnold: 117-135.

Tsur, R. (2002). “Aspects of cognitive poetics” in E. Semino and J. Culpeper (eds.) Cognitive

Stylistics. Language and cognition in text analysis. Amsterdam: John Benjamins:

279-318.

Vanpeer, W. (1986). Stylistics and Psychology. Investigating of foregrounding. Wolfeboro,

New Hampshire: Croom Helm.

White, P. (2006). “Dialogistic positions and anticipated audiences – a framework for stylistic

comparison” in K. Aijmer and Simon-Vandenbergen (eds.) Pragmatic Markers in

Contrast. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science and Technology: 189-214.

Zhang, D. (2005). Language Functions and Style. Beijing: Higher Education Press.


Appendix: the sample text To His Coy Mistress 1 Had we but world enough, and time, 2 This coyness, lady, were no crime. 3 We would sit down and think which way 4 To walk, and pass our long love's day. 5 Thou by the Indian Ganges' side 6 Shouldst rubies find: I by the tide 7 Of Humber would complain. I would 8 Love you ten years before the Flood, 9 And you should, if you please, refuse 10 Till the conversion of the Jews; 11 My vegetable love should grow 12 Vaster than empires, and more slow; 13 An hundred years should go to praise 14 Thine eyes, and on thy forehead gaze; 15 Two hundred to adore each breast, 16 But thirty thousand to the rest; 17 An age at least to every part, 18 And the last age should show your heart. 19 For, lady, you deserve this state, 20 Nor would I love at lower rate. 21 But at my back I always hear 22 Time's winged chariot hurrying near. 23 And yonder all before us lie 24 Deserts of vast eternity. 25 Thy beauty shall no more be found, 26 Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound 27 My echoing song; then worms shall try 28 That long preserv'd virginity, 29 And your quaint honour turn to dust, 30 And into ashes all my lust: 31 The grave's a fine and private place, 32 But none I think do there embrace.

33 Now therefore, while the youthful hue 34 Sits on thy skin like morning dew, 35 And while thy willing soul transpires 36 At every pore with instant fires, 37 Now let us sport us while we may, 38 And now, like am'rous birds of prey, 39 Rather at once our time devour, 40 Than languish in his slow-chapp'd power.41 Let us roll all our strength, and all 42 Our sweetness, up into one ball; 43 And tear our pleasures with rough strife, 44 Thorough the iron gates of life; 45 Thus, though we cannot make our sun 46 Stand still, yet we will make him run.

evaluative meanings in literary texts the first step towards appraisal stylistics

Documents