Home Lexical realization of attitudinal meaning and its coding in discourse analysis
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Lexical realization of attitudinal meaning and its coding in discourse analysis

  • Song Chengfang

    Song Chengfang received his PhD in linguistics from Peking University and the University of Sydney and currently holds the post of lecturer in the School of International Studies in the University of International Business and Economics. His research interests include functional grammar, discourse semantics, and functional stylistics.

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: April 24, 2015

Abstract

This paper addresses how to identify and code lexical items which explicitly realize attitudinal meaning. Such items are the kind of linguistic resources about whose coding discourse analysts feel confident (Martin 2003), but these have unfortunately received less scholarly attention than indirect realizations of attitudinal meaning such as metaphors and factual statements. In the process of annotating a small-scale corpus of 15 short stories published in English, it is observed that words with connotation, which are not regarded attitudinal lexis, also express opinions; some lexical items make hybrid realizations of logically related attitudinal meanings; and some verbs, traditionally called speech act terms, construe attitudinal meaning in a different way. Drawing on data collected from the small-scale corpus, this paper firstly proposes a distinction between typical realization and combinational realization of attitudinal meaning to account for the differences between attitudinal lexis and words with connotation; and then puts forward two further distinctions between independent and correlational realization and between projected and projecting realization of attitudinal meaning. This helps to explain the differences between lexical items realizing one attitudinal meaning and words realizing two attitudinal meanings, and between verbs that indicate speech behavior and other lexical items which do not.

Funding statement: Funding: The research is sponsored by a grant for young researchers from the Humanities and Social Sciences Foundation of the Ministry of Education, China. (Grant No. 11YJC740089), and supported by Program for Innovative Research Team in UIBE and the start-up fund for new staff members from the University of International Business and Economics (Grant No. 12QD18).

About the author

Song Chengfang

Song Chengfang received his PhD in linguistics from Peking University and the University of Sydney and currently holds the post of lecturer in the School of International Studies in the University of International Business and Economics. His research interests include functional grammar, discourse semantics, and functional stylistics.

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my thanks to the three anonymous reviewers who have offered helpful comments and suggestions in the revision of this paper, and to Mr. Mark Buck who has helped on language improvement.

References

Almutairi, Bandar Alhumaidi A.2013. Visualizing patterns of appraisal in texts and corpora. Text & Talk33(4/5). 691723.10.1515/text-2013-0031Search in Google Scholar

Arndt, Horst & Richard W.Janney.1991. Verbal, prosodic, and kinesic emotive contrasts in speech. Journal of Pragmatics15. 521549.Search in Google Scholar

Bednarek, Monika.2008. Emotion talk across corpora. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230285712Search in Google Scholar

Channell, Joanna.2000. Corpus-based analysis of evaluative lexis. In SusanHunston & GeoffThompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 3855. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Don, Alexanne Cecilie. 2007. A framework for the investigation of interactive norms and the construction of textual identity in written discourse communities: The case of an email discussion list. Birmingham: University of Birmingham dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Eggins, Suzanne & DianaSlade.1997. Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.Search in Google Scholar

Garza-Cuarón, Beatriz. 1991. Connotation and meaning. Charlotte Broad (trans.). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110867916Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K.1973. Explorations in the functions of language. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K.1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K.1992. How do you mean? In MartinDavies & LouisRavelli (eds.), Advances in systemic linguistics: Recent theory and practice, 2035. London & New York: Pinter.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K.2004. Introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. Revised by Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Hare, Richard M.1961. The language of morals. Oxford: The Clarendon Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hoey, Michael.1983. On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, Susan & James R.Martin.2007. Invoking attitude: The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In RuqaiyaHasan, ChristianMatthiessen & JonathanWebster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective, vol. 2, 739764. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & JohnSinclair.2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In SusanHunston & GeoffThompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 74101. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Kövecses, Zoltán. 2000. Metaphor and emotion: Language, culture, and body in human feeling. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William.1972. Language in the inner city: Studies in the black English vernacular. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Lamb, S. M.1964. On alternation, transformation, realization and stratification. In C. I. J. M.Stuart (ed.), Report of the fifteenth annual (first international) round table meeting on linguistics and language study (Monograph Series in Languages and Linguistics 17), 105122. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Leech, Geoffrey.1974. Semantics. Middlesex: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 4th edn. 2004 [2003]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Louw, Bill.1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In MonaBaker, GillFrancis & ElenaTognini-Bonelli (eds.), Text and technology: In honour of John Sinclair, 157176. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.64.11louSearch in Google Scholar

Manes, Joan & NessaWolfson.1981. The compliment formula. In FlorianCoulmas (ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech, 115132. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R.2003. Introduction. Text23(2). 171181.10.1016/S0039-6028(03)00788-XSearch in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. & DavidRose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause, 2nd edn. London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James R. & Peter R. R.White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.1991. Lexico (grammatical) choice in text generation. In Cécile L.Paris, William R.Swartout & William C.Mann (eds.), Natural language generation in artificial intelligence and computational linguistics, 249292. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.10.1007/978-1-4757-5945-7_10Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, Frank R.1981. Semantics, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Peng, Xuanwei.2005. Scalar model of evaluative meaning system in contemporary Chinese lexis and the basic evolutionary types. Nankai Linguistics1. 6875.Search in Google Scholar

Potter, Jonathan & MargaretWetherell.1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Poynton, Cate.1990. Address and the semiotic of social relations: A systemic-functional account of address forms and practices in Australian English. Sydney: University of Sydney dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Shott, Susan.1979. Emotion and social life: A symbolic interactionist analysis. The American Journal of Sociology84(6). 13171334.10.1086/226936Search in Google Scholar

Song, Chengfang.2010. Exploring attitudinal meaning: An extended semiotic model. Sydney: University of Sydney dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Stankiewicz, Edward.1964. Problems of emotive language. In Thomas A.Sebeok, Alfred S.Hayes & MaryCatherine Bateson (eds.), Approaches to semiotics: Cultural anthropology, education, linguistics, psychiatry, psychology (Transactions of the Indiana University Conference on Paralinguistics and Kinesics), 239276. The Hague: Mouton.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, Geoff & SusanHunston.2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In SusanHunston & GeoffThompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 127. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Vološinov, Valentin N.1973. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Ladislav Metejka & I. R. Titunik (trans.). New York: Seminar Press.Search in Google Scholar

Winter, Eugene O.1982. Towards a contextual grammar of English: The clause and its place in the definition of sentence. London: George Allen & Unwin.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-4-24
Published in Print: 2015-5-1

©2015 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 14.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2015-0005/html
Scroll to top button