Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language
2
Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language, Susan Hunston, Routledge, London and New York (2011). 166 pp. Professor Susan Hunston is principally known for two things: her career-long interest in the language of evaluative texts and her commitment to the value of large-scale corpora for linguistic description and analysis. In this book, these two aspects of her academic thought and work are drawn together. The result is an absorbing account of the inter- connections between phraseology and evaluation, suggesting numerous areas in which understanding is still partial, and in which further research is therefore warranted. Two issues which spring to mind as one begins the book are the difficulty of reaching a watertight definition of evaluation, and the viability of investigating it purely through the use of corpus data. I shall return to these two issues in my concluding comments, after first giving an impression of the overall contents of the book. This book belongs to the Routledge series on advances in corpus linguistics, but rather than opening with an introduction by the series editors, the text begins with a chapter which offers initial definitions of fundamental terms, such as corpus linguistics and phraseology, as well as providing an overview of the book’s organisation. This seems to be in keeping with the briskness of the book as a whole: there is little that could be considered extraneous detail or unnecessary embellishment. Instead, the author presents her arguments in an economical way, making explicit at all points what she is seeking to demonstrate. Chapter 2, in effect, continues the introductory phase of the book by offering an initial treatment of appraisal, stance and evaluation. Here, Hunston brings in appraisal theory (Martin and White, 2005), and throughout shows a willingness to highlight what she sees as strengths in the work of these and other scholars, such as Charles Filmore. She is also ready to be self-critical and to point out what she has come to regard as flaws in her own earlier work on evaluative language. This is in refreshing contrast to the intellectual competitiveness and self-justification of some other scholars. In Chapter 3, the focus shifts to ‘status’ in written texts e broadly the relationship between propositions in the text and how the writer positions them vis-a `-vis external reality. For instance, if a text states that “seven people have been taken to hospital”, this is taken to be a statement of ‘what is’, but if we read that “the hospital may be closed down next year” this is understood to construe ‘what might be’. This kind of analysis is contrasted with the (Martin and White, 2005) approach to texts via ‘engagement’. Status is primarily about the relationship between propositions in the text and the external world, whereas engagement concerns the interplay between the standpoints of writer and reader. It would seem, therefore, as Hunston illustrates (pp. 44e49), that analyses of the same text, based on these two concepts, can be carried out independently in a complementary way. Chapter 4 begins with an excellent summary of Sinclair’s view of lexical meaning, and of semantic prosody (the way in which apparently neutral words can be perceived with positive or negative associations through frequent occurrences with particular collocations) as a defining characteristic of individual lexical items. This is just one example among many where Hunston’s deep familiarity with the literature allows her to provide a clear and insightful summary in a small space of words. This chapter is one of those which relies principally on concordance-based evidence, rather than on an analysis of texts. It deals with ‘stance’, the linguistic means through which a writer conveys his or her position and argumentational logic to a reader. Chapter 5 constitutes possibly the most original section of the book. It uses both qualitative and quantitative methods to investigate ways in which modality is expressed in texts through means other than modal verbs e hence the term “modal-like expressions” in the chapter heading. On the basis of her analysis, Hunston is able to offer three reasons why such expressions are important e among which is the contention (p. 86) that “modal-like expressions are not simply an alternative to modal verbs but that they construct a more complex interaction between speaker and hearer.” An example of such an expression would be “it’s essential to” (in contrast to “you must”). Chapter 6 looks at status-indicating nouns such as ‘assumption’ and ‘conclusion’ which label textual propositions for the reader. Hunston argues that in effect such nouns contribute to “evaluation of status” which “reifies propositions” (p. 116). In an interesting discussion of the noun ‘fact’ she notes how people orientate themselves around what are perceived as ‘facts’, but ends (almost poetically) by observing that the shadow of negotiability hangs over anything which is currently construed as a ‘fact’, and that therefore “the possibility of being ‘de-facted’ is always present” (p. 116). Chapter 7 deals with ‘local grammars’ and ‘grammar patterns’ in relation to evaluation. The term ‘local grammar’ is associated with the late John Sinclair and can be used when description focuses either on a particular text-type or on 266 Book reviews / System 39 (2011) 264e276
-
Upload
brian-poole -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
14
Transcript of Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language
266 Book reviews / System 39 (2011) 264e276
Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language, Susan Hunston, Routledge, London andNew York (2011). 166 pp.
Professor Susan Hunston is principally known for two things: her career-long interest in the language of evaluativetexts and her commitment to the value of large-scale corpora for linguistic description and analysis. In this book, thesetwo aspects of her academic thought and work are drawn together. The result is an absorbing account of the inter-connections between phraseology and evaluation, suggesting numerous areas in which understanding is still partial,and in which further research is therefore warranted.
Two issues which spring to mind as one begins the book are the difficulty of reaching a watertight definition ofevaluation, and the viability of investigating it purely through the use of corpus data. I shall return to these two issuesin my concluding comments, after first giving an impression of the overall contents of the book.
This book belongs to the Routledge series on advances in corpus linguistics, but rather than opening with anintroduction by the series editors, the text begins with a chapter which offers initial definitions of fundamental terms,such as corpus linguistics and phraseology, as well as providing an overview of the book’s organisation. This seems tobe in keeping with the briskness of the book as a whole: there is little that could be considered extraneous detail orunnecessary embellishment. Instead, the author presents her arguments in an economical way, making explicit at allpoints what she is seeking to demonstrate.
Chapter 2, in effect, continues the introductory phase of the book by offering an initial treatment of appraisal,stance and evaluation. Here, Hunston brings in appraisal theory (Martin and White, 2005), and throughout showsa willingness to highlight what she sees as strengths in the work of these and other scholars, such as Charles Filmore.She is also ready to be self-critical and to point out what she has come to regard as flaws in her own earlier work onevaluative language. This is in refreshing contrast to the intellectual competitiveness and self-justification of someother scholars.
In Chapter 3, the focus shifts to ‘status’ in written texts e broadly the relationship between propositions in the textand how the writer positions them vis-a-vis external reality. For instance, if a text states that “seven people have beentaken to hospital”, this is taken to be a statement of ‘what is’, but if we read that “the hospital may be closed down nextyear” this is understood to construe ‘what might be’. This kind of analysis is contrasted with the (Martin and White,2005) approach to texts via ‘engagement’. Status is primarily about the relationship between propositions in the textand the external world, whereas engagement concerns the interplay between the standpoints of writer and reader. Itwould seem, therefore, as Hunston illustrates (pp. 44e49), that analyses of the same text, based on these two concepts,can be carried out independently in a complementary way.
Chapter 4 begins with an excellent summary of Sinclair’s view of lexical meaning, and of semantic prosody (theway in which apparently neutral words can be perceived with positive or negative associations through frequentoccurrences with particular collocations) as a defining characteristic of individual lexical items. This is just oneexample among many where Hunston’s deep familiarity with the literature allows her to provide a clear and insightfulsummary in a small space of words. This chapter is one of those which relies principally on concordance-basedevidence, rather than on an analysis of texts. It deals with ‘stance’, the linguistic means through which a writerconveys his or her position and argumentational logic to a reader.
Chapter 5 constitutes possibly the most original section of the book. It uses both qualitative and quantitativemethods to investigate ways in which modality is expressed in texts through means other than modal verbse hence theterm “modal-like expressions” in the chapter heading. On the basis of her analysis, Hunston is able to offer threereasons why such expressions are important e among which is the contention (p. 86) that “modal-like expressions arenot simply an alternative to modal verbs but that they construct a more complex interaction between speaker andhearer.” An example of such an expression would be “it’s essential to” (in contrast to “you must”).
Chapter 6 looks at status-indicating nouns such as ‘assumption’ and ‘conclusion’ which label textual propositionsfor the reader. Hunston argues that in effect such nouns contribute to “evaluation of status” which “reifies propositions”(p. 116). In an interesting discussion of the noun ‘fact’ she notes how people orientate themselves around what areperceived as ‘facts’, but ends (almost poetically) by observing that the shadowof negotiability hangs over anythingwhichis currently construed as a ‘fact’, and that therefore “the possibility of being ‘de-facted’ is always present” (p. 116).
Chapter 7 deals with ‘local grammars’ and ‘grammar patterns’ in relation to evaluation. The term ‘local grammar’ isassociated with the late John Sinclair and can be used when description focuses either on a particular text-type or on
267Book reviews / System 39 (2011) 264e276
a very specific grammatical area. The discussion on pattern grammar calls to mind earlier work on verb valency(Allerton, 1982) and also seems to share some features with work on construction grammar. The chapter also containsone of several dryly humorous asides by the author. In commenting on the notion that words have no meaning inde-pendent of co-text she notes that “Dictionary compilers.find it inconvenient not to assume that words have meanings”(p. 120).
Chapter 8 deals with the role of phraseology in expressing strength of evaluation. Here, Hunston makes thevaluable point that the consistency of evaluative phraseology plays a role in the coherence of a text. Yet, although thischapter includes interesting discussion of quantity of evaluative language (density) and strength of evaluation(intensity), Hunston ends by saying that while she has here surfaced a few “promising leads”, it is “only the tip of theiceberg” which has been revealed. Chapter 9 provides a conclusion. Here (p. 170), Hunston sets out her hope for thebook e that it has demonstrated “that the act of evaluation plays an important role in a number of communicativeareas, including persuasion and the construction of knowledge.” In my view, this has certainly been achieved, althoughthere might be some who would wish to query the scope of the term ‘evaluation’ as used here.
Let us now return to the two issues mentioned at the beginning of this review. Hunston offers a wider definition ofevaluation than would the lay person, and this includes both explicit estimation of value (which is clearly central) andepistemic status, the positioning of propositions in the text in relation to, say, facticity or possibility. One mightconclude that, under this definition, almost all texts contain some measure of evaluation, except perhaps for the veryshortest ones, such as a sign saying ‘cafeteria’. Furthermore, the approach described here does not always seem todistinguish between what might be called evaluation-as-process and evaluation-as-outcome. Regarding the feasibilityof investigating evaluation purely through concordance evidence, in fact, Hunston by no means restricts herself to thisform of data. Instead, longer texts and text extracts are employed as evidence or illustration, bringing home the factthat in addition to an attention to phraseology, investigation at a discourse level is also needed in order to reveal thelinguistic realisations of evaluation. This is evident, for instance, in Chapters 2 and 3.
Hunston’s approach to texts draws on the terminology of systemic functional linguistics, and there are thereforereferences towork byMichael Halliday. In addition to her own earlier works (and to collaborativeworkwith Gill Francisand with Geoff Thompson), there are also frequent citations of publications by Hyland, Sinclair and Martin and White.
In my view, this is an excellent book, which has potential value for a variety of scholars and teachers. In addition tocorpus linguists, those interested in construction grammar or verb valency will find much to ponder in these pages.There are, too, insights herewhich ought to be of benefit to those designingmaterials for, or teaching, classes in Englishfor academic purposes. Lastly, critical discourse analysts (who are sometimes criticized for the relatively superficial useof linguistic description in support of their textual interpretations) could usefully adopt some of Hunston’s techniquesand terminology. The complexities and ambiguities of identifying and labelling stretches of text which ‘do’ evaluationare such that readers will almost inevitably find themselves in disagreement or intellectual disarray at certain points, butthis book is thought-provoking and original, and deserves to attract a considerable readership.
References
Allerton, D. J. (1982). Valency and the English Verb. London: Academic Press.
Martin, J. R., & White, P. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Brian PooleEnglish Language Institute of Singapore (ELIS), Ministry of Education,
Block P, Level 1/2, 2 Malan Road, Singapore 109433, SingaporeE-mail address: [email protected]
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.04.006
![Computational and Corpus-based Phraseology: Recent ...1182740/FULLTEXT01.pdf · In the follow -up [7] a similar method of analysing the frequency of adjectives adja - cent to denominatio](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5f8376f04c77f5385d0a5558/computational-and-corpus-based-phraseology-recent-1182740fulltext01pdf.jpg)
![Words, Corpus and Back to Words · Corpus linguistics and contrastive phraseology (German-Spanish): The multi word units of [PREP+N] structure. The case of entre lágrimas and under](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5fbeea04500ad3035629b8d1/words-corpus-and-back-to-words-corpus-linguistics-and-contrastive-phraseology-german-spanish.jpg)