马丁评价理论简介
评价理论简介
Appraisal TheoryIt is within the general theoretical framework of SFL that Martin and White‟s (2005) Appraisal Theory evolved. The basic idea of SEL is that “language i s a resource for mapping ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning onto one another in virtually every act of communication” (Martin and White, 2005: 7). Appraisal Theory focuses on interpersonal meaning at the discourse level for three reasons. Firstly, the realization of an “attitude tends to splash across a phase of discourse, irrespective of grammatical boundaries - especially where amplified”; secondly, a given attitude can be “realized across a range of grammatical categories and we need to move out of lexicogrammar to generalize the evaluative meaning common to this kind of scatter”; and finally, there is grammatical metaphor “whereby meaning is not cooked twice as it were, introducing a degree of tension between wording and meaning” (Martin and White, 2005: 10). As Martin and White suggest, appraisal can be located as an interpersonal system at the level of discourse semantics. At this level it co-articulates interpersonal meaning with two other systems of negotiation and involvement, as can be shown in the following figure:Figure3.4Interpersonal semantic systems and tenor variable(Martin and White,2005:34)solidaritypowernegotiationappraisalAs can be seen from the figure, appraisal is one of three major discourse semantic resources construing interpersonal meaning (alongside involvement and negotiation). In this sense, we can firmly say that appraisal is mainly concerned with semantic sources for construing evaluative meaning in the interpersonal dimension at the discourse level.The notion of appraisal is used to cover the “resources for modalising, amplifying, reacting emotionally (affect), judging morally (judge-ment) and evaluating aesthetically (appreciation).” (Martin 1995b: 28). In SFL terms, the appraisal system realises tenor at the level of discourse semantics and is constituted by three semantic categories: ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT, and GRADUATION, with further sub-divisions:Figure3.5An overview of appraisal resources(Martin and White2005:38)monoglossENGAGEMENTheteroglossAPPRAISALAFFECT…ATTITUDEJUDGEMENT …APPRECIATION …FOCUSFORCEATTITUDE is concerned with “values by which speakers pass judgements and associate emotional/affectual responses with participants and processes” (W hite 2001a: 1). APPRAISAL system holds the view that evaluations can be divided into three basic kinds – (i) the value of things, (ii) people‟s character and (iii) people‟sfeelings (Martin and White, 2005). Accordingly, ATTITUDE system involves three semantic regions which are termed AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION.AFFECT construes emotion with the person experiencing the emotion being the Emoter and what evokes the emotion being the Trigger (Martin and White, 2005). JUDGEMENT construes attitude about character and is subdivided into two broad categories: judgements of social esteem (normality, capacity, tenacity) and judgements of social sanction (veracity, propriety) APPRECIATION construes attitudes about texts, performances or natural phenomena and is organised around three variables: Reaction, Composition, and Valuation. Reaction concerns the impact of the text/process on our attention (reaction: impact) and its emotional impact (reac-tion: quality). Composition concerns perceptions of proportionality/balance (composition: balance) and detail (composition: complexity) in a text/process. Valuation has to do with our assessment of the social significance of the text/process (Martin and White, 2005).GRADUATION is concerned with gradability and is divided into force and focus. Focus applies most typically to categories which are not scalable and functions to sharpen or soften the specification to indicate strong or weak sense of prototypicality. Force is divided into intensification and quantification. Assessments of degree of intensity can operate over qualities (e.g. slightly foolish), over process (e.g. It greatly hindered us), or over the verbal modalities of likelihood, usuality, inclination and obligation (e.g. it’s very possible that). The term …quantification‟ is employed to indicate assessment of amount that applies to entities. The system of GRADUATION can be shown in figure 3.6.Figure3.6System of GRADUATION(Martin and White,2005:154)ENGAGEMENT system adjusts a speaker‟s commitment to what he or she is saying (Martin 2000), and is related to what has traditionally been described as epistemic modality. Under the system, the following options are seen as enabling the textual voice to vary the terms by which it engages with alternative voices and alternative positions.Dialogic Contraction includes resources for disclaiming and proclaiming. Disclaim covers “mean ings by which some dialogic alternative is directly rejected or supplanted, or is represented as not applying ” (Martin and White, 2005: 117) and is accordingly divided into two sub-types: deny (negation) and counter. According to Martin and White (2005), Proclaim includes the formulations which act to limit the scope of dialogistic alternatives by representing a proposition as valid or plausible in order to rule out alternative positions. Proclaim is divided into three sub-types: concur, endorsement, pronounce. The category of c oncur involves formulations which “overtly announce the addresser as agreeing with, or having the same knowledge as, some projected dialogic partner” (Martin and White, 2005: 123). Endorsement refers numbermass/presencetimeQUANTIFICATIONPROXIMITYspacetimeDISTRIBUTIONspacequalityINTENSIFICATIONFORCE processisolatinginfusingFOCUSEXTENTto those formulations by which “propositions sourced to external sources re-construed by the authorial voice as correct, valid, undeniable or otherwise maximally warrantable” (Martin and White, 2005:126). Pronounce covers formulations which involve “authorial emphases or explicit authorial interventions or interpolations”(Martin and White, 2005:127).Dialogic Expansion includes those resources for entertaining and attributing a proposition. Entertain means that the writer “represents the proposition as one of a range of possible positions” (White, 2002a:2). Under this sub-system the term attribution mainly deals with those formulations which “disassociate the proposition from the text‟s internal voice by attributing it to some external source” (Martin and White, 2005: 111) and is further divided into the two sub-categories of acknowledge and distance. Acknowledge covers those locutions which have no overt indication as to “where the authorial voice stands with respect to the proposition” (Martin and White, 2005: 112. Distance, in contrast, involves formulations by which there is an “explicit distancing of the authorial voice from the attributed material” (Martin and White, 2005: 113).Figure3.7The ENGAGEMENT System(Martin and White,2005:134)denydisclaimcountercontractaffirmconcurconcedeproclaimpronounceendorseentertain。
评价理论简介
Appraisal TheoryIt is within the general theoretical framework of SFL that Martin and White‟s (2005) Appraisal Theory evolved. The basic idea of SEL is that “language is a resource for mapping ideational, interpersonal and textual meaning onto one another in virtually every act of communication” (Martin and White, 2005: 7). Appraisal Theory focuses on interpersonal meaning at the discourse level for three reasons. Firstly, the realization of an “attitude tends to splash across a phase of discourse, irrespective of grammatical boundaries - especially where amplified”; secondly, a given attitude can be “realized across a range of grammatical categories and we need to move out of lexicogrammar to generalize the evaluative meaning common to this kind of scatter”; and finally, there is grammatical metaphor “whereby meaning is not cooked twice as it were, introducing a degree of tension between wording and meaning” (Martin and White, 2005: 10). As Martin and White suggest, appraisal can be located as an interpersonal system at the level of discourse semantics. At this level it co-articulates interpersonal meaning with two other systems of negotiation and involvement, as can be shown in the following figure:Figure 3.4 Interpersonal semantic systems and tenor variable(Martin and White, 2005: 34)As can be seen from the figure, appraisal is one of three major discourse semantic resources construing interpersonal meaning (alongside involvement and negotiation). In this sense, we can firmly say that appraisal is mainly concerned with semantic sources for construing evaluative meaning in the interpersonal dimension at the discourse level.The notion of appraisal is used to cover the “resources for modalising, amplifying, reacting emotionally (affect), judging morally (judge-ment) and evaluating aes thetically (appreciation).” (Martin 1995b: 28). In SFL terms, the appraisal system realises tenor at the level of discourse semantics and is constituted by three semantic categories: ATTITUDE, ENGAGEMENT, and GRADUATION, with further sub-divisions:Figure 3.5 An overview of appraisal resources (Martin and White 2005: 38)APPRAISALATTITUDE is concerned with “values by which speakers pa ss judgements and associate emotional/affectual res ponses with participants and processes” (White 2001a: 1). APPRAISAL system holds the view that evaluations can be divided into three basic kinds –(i) the value of things, (ii) people‟s character and (iii) people‟sfeelings (Martin and White, 2005). Accordingly, ATTITUDE system involves three semantic regions which are termed AFFECT, JUDGEMENT and APPRECIATION.AFFECT construes emotion with the person experiencing the emotion being the Emoter and what evokes the emotion being the Trigger (Martin and White, 2005). JUDGEMENT construes attitude about character and is subdivided into two broad categories: judgements of social esteem (normality, capacity, tenacity) and judgements of social sanction (veracity, propriety) APPRECIATION construes attitudes about texts, performances or natural phenomena and is organised around three variables: Reaction, Composition, and Valuation. Reaction concerns the impact of the text/process on our attention (reaction: impact) and its emotional impact (reac-tion: quality). Composition concerns perceptions of proportionality/balance (composition: balance) and detail (composition: complexity) in a text/process. Valuation has to do with our assessment of the social significance of the text/process (Martin and White, 2005).GRADUATION is concerned with gradability and is divided into force and focus. Focus applies most typically to categories which are not scalable and functions to sharpen or soften the specification to indicate strong or weak sense of prototypicality. Force is divided into intensification and quantification. Assessments of degree of intensity can operate over qualities (e.g. slightly foolish), over process (e.g. It greatly hindered us), or over the verbal modalities of likelihood, usuality, inclination and obligation (e.g.it’s very possible that). T he term …quantification‟ is employed to indicate assessment of amount that applies to entities. The system of GRADUATION can be shown in figure 3.6.Figure 3.6 System of GRADUATION (Martin and White, 2005:154)ENGAGEMENT system adjusts a speaker‟s commitment to what he or she is saying (Martin 2000), and is related to what has traditionally been described as epistemic modality. Under the system, the following options are seen as enabling the textual voice to vary the terms by which it engages with alternative voices and alternative positions.Dialogic Contraction includes resources for disclaiming and proclaiming. Disclaim covers “meanings by which some dialogic alternative is directly rejected or supplanted, or is represented as not applying” (Martin and White, 2005: 117) and is accordingly divided into two sub-types: deny (negation) and counter. According to Martin and White (2005), Proclaim includes the formulations which act to limit the scope of dialogistic alternatives by representing a proposition as valid or plausible in order to rule out alternative positions. Proclaim is divided into three sub-types: concur, endorsement, pronounce. The category of c oncur involves formulations which “overtly announce the addresser as agreeing with, or having the same knowledge as, some projected dialogic partner” (Martin and White, 2005: 123). Endorsement refersto those formulations by which “propositions sourced to external sources re-construed by the authorial voice as correct, valid, undeniable or otherwise maximally warrantable” (Martin and White, 2005:126). Pronounce covers formulations which involve “authorial emphases or explicit authorial interventions or interpolations” (Martin and White, 2005:127).Dialogic Expansion includes those resources for entertaining and attributing a proposition. Entertain means that the writer “represents the proposition as one of a range of possible positions” (White, 2002a:2). Under this sub-system the term attribution ma inly deals with those formulations which “disassociate the proposition from the text‟s internal voice by attributing it to some external source” (Martin and White, 2005: 111) and is further divided into the two sub-categories of acknowledge and distance. Acknowledge covers those locutions which have no overt indication as to “where the authorial voice stands with respect to the proposition” (Martin and White, 2005: 112. Distance, in contrast, involves formulations by which there is an “explicit distancing of the authorial voice from the attributed material” (Martin and White, 2005: 113).Figure 3.7 The ENGAGEMENT System (Martin and White, 2005:134)。
评价理论
4.评价理论的构成
自言 介入（Engagement） 借言
评判
评价系统 态度（Attitude） 情感
鉴赏
语势 级差（Graduation）
焦点
4.1 介入 介入是表明语篇或作者的声音来源的一系列语言资源， 它关注的是言语进行人际或概念意义的协商的方式。
在词汇语法上的体现：
（1）表示可能性的情态：perhaps, it may… , I think… , surely （2）表示观点来源：he alleged, scientists have found evidence suggesting that （借言） （3）声称：In fact, I am compelled to conclude （4）期待之中：predictably, of course （5）意料之外：amazingly
1. J.R.Martin 马丁博士（1950~），国际著名系统功能语言学学家，悉 尼大学教授、语言学系系主任，“语言评价理论”和“积极 话语分析”创始人。 研究兴趣：系统理论、功能理论、语篇语义学、语域理论、 语类理论、多模式系统、积极/批评话语分析、教育语言学和 社会符号学。 2003年因其对语言学和语文学的贡献荣获澳大利亚“百年 纪念奖章”。曾任Text杂志“评价系统”专刊主编。 发表论文140篇,出版著作数十部。 代表性著作：English Text（1992）；Working with Discourse（2003）。
Martin指出，通过告诉听话人或读者对某些 人和事物的感受，便可以利用评价资源去协商和 调节社会关系。
也就是说，评价理论所关心的是说话人利用 其话语介入到语篇之中从而使语义随说话人的立 场而变化。 简而言之，评价理论讨论的是语篇或说话人 表达、协商、自然化特定主体间的关系以及意识 形态的语言资源。运用评价理论可以分析作者和 说话人的态度和立场。
评价理论
第二是评价理论与其他语言学、文学理论以 及哲学等领域的跨学科交叉研究，成果颇 为丰富。 彭宣维(2011)以评价理论的诸范畴作为元 范畴考察西方文学批评史上对文学艺术在 批评和审美观念上的评价取向，认为文学 性就是评价性。 魏在江(2011)研究了语用预设的评价功能， 认为语用预设的隐蔽性与隐性评价机制完 全是吻合的。
刘世铸、张征(2011)从社会心理学和语料 库视角探讨了评判的结构模式和语义构型。 其它还有对级差和分级资源的探讨(Hood ＆ Martin 2005: 195-220; 张佩雯 2010， 等)，以及对评价框架、对话视角、互文性 等方面的研究(吴安萍、 李发根 2009; 黄雪 娥 2011，等)。
国内研究综述
评价理论在中国的传播始于张德禄1998年 在《外语教学与研究》上发表的《论话语 基调的范围及体现》一文。由于当时评价 理论的框架还不够成熟, 论文发表后并没有 引起众多学者的注意。直到 2001年王振华 对评价理论系统作了详细介绍后, 评价理论 在中国的研究才算是真正的开始了。
第一是对评价理论本身的理论探讨 朱永生(2009)从概念意义的角度论述评价 的功能及其隐性表现方式。 王振华(2004b)以系统功能语言学关于“物 质过程”和“评价系统”的观点为视角， 在物质过程及其成分的评价价值的框架中， 讨论语言实证的系统功能语言学方法，然 后用物质过程及其成分的评价价值框架反 观小说人物形象的形成过程。
徐珺(2011)把评价理论与商务翻译相结合， 探讨将评价理论用于商务翻译实践的有效 性和可行性。 此外，还有学者从哲学上评价论及价值哲 学等不同角度对评价理论进行思考(陈令君 2007;胡文辉 2010)，也有一些研究把评价 理论与修辞学、句法学相结合研究修辞格 和句法结构的评价意义(布占廷 2010;吴安 萍、 钟守满等 2010)。
评价理论在中国的发展(2000年—2016年)
评价理论在中国的发展（2000年—2016年）本文主要从理论发展和实践性研究两方面回顾评价理论在我国的发展。
数据显示，评价理论在我国这16年间发展迅速。
理论方面不仅有对评价理论三个系统的研究，还有提出了评价理论的发展前景的。
在实践方面，评价理论已经应用到各种类型的语篇分析中，号包括，对外语教学和翻译等的研究。
本文目的主要是回顾评价理论在我国的发展以期从中分析未来研究方向。
1.引言评价理论上世纪90年代马丁、怀特等人发展起来的理论，是对系统功能语言学人际意义的新发展。
2000年，马丁发表了“英语的评价系统”标志着评价理论的诞生（刘世铸，2010）。
在评价理论发展的约17年间，很多学者对评价理论做出了贡献，例如，White，Susan Hood，Coffin等人。
评价理论包括三个次系统：态度系统、介入系统以及级差系统。
态度系统指的是作者或说话者对文本、过程现象等做出的情感反应，又包括情感，判定与鉴赏三个系统；介入系统指的是语篇中可协商的各种资源，语篇对话空间的拓展及紧缩，又包括扩张和紧缩两个系统；级差系统是对态度系统和介入系统的分级，又分为语势和聚焦两个系统。
在中国，对评价理论发展的第一人就是张德禄。
1998年，张德路在《外语教学与研究》发表的《论话语基调的范围和体现》这篇论文把评价理论引荐到中国。
然而，当时评价理论本身不够成熟，并且处在正式诞生之前，因此，张德路的这篇论文没有引起很多人的关注。
在2001年王振华发表在《外语界》上的文章《评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展》，对评价理论从其产生的背景到评价理论的三个系统都做了详细的描述，自此，评价理论在中国得到很大重视。
中国许多学者对评价理论的发展做出了很大贡献，其中包括张德禄（1998），李战子（2004，2005，2006），刘世铸（2004，2007，2009，2010，2011）等。
本文将回顾评价理论在中国的发展历程包括理论与实践两方面。
评价理论
评价理论马丁创立的评价理论appraisal theory 的初衷应该是对韩礼德三大元功能中的人际元功能在词汇层面的发展。
下面根据本人对评价理论的理解，对“人品与物值的界限”作点小小的脚注：许多评价理论爱好者说，在选择评价词语时往往不知道把所选的词语归于裁决系统还是鉴赏系统。
这个问题，其实评价理论的创始人J·R·M artin也注意到了。
马丁(Martin &Rose, 2003: 35—7)在working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause一书中专辟一节讨论这个问题。
他认为解决这个问题的办法是通过语境。
在马丁建议的基础上，我觉得一个评价词语是裁决类还是鉴赏类，首先看它评价的是人的行为(如能力)还是人的行为所致的结果(如业绩，即performance)。
其次看它是含有伦理道德意义还是含有美学价值。
若评价的是人的行为，并涉及伦理道德，评价词语属于裁决类；若评价的是行为导致的结果，具有美学价值，那就是鉴赏类。
例如“于丹热”是社会对于丹《论语心得》等的写作和在中央电视台‘百家讲坛”栏目中的表现的评价，她写作和演讲的内容引起社会的兴趣，社会是在“鉴赏”她写出和讲出的内容，井非她写作和言讲的行为。
因此，”于丹热”属于鉴赏系统。
评价理论总结：简而言之，评价系统就是一整套运用语言表达态度的资源。
包括下大主系统:态度、介入和级差。
态度是指心理受到影响后对人类行为，文本/过程，及现象做出的裁决和鉴赏。
态度系统的中心成分是情感系统。
裁决系统和鉴赏系统都是以情感系统为基础的。
情感系统是对行为、文本/过程、及现象的心理反应，分‘品质”情感( Affect as quality')、过程”情感(Affect as process')和评注情感( Affect as comment')。
裁决系统根据伦理道德的标准来评价语言使用者的行为，由两个子系统实现:社会评判( social esteem)和社会约束(social sanction)。
评价理论研究发展概述
评价理论研究发展概述发布时间：2021-09-03T03:33:26.286Z 来源：《学习与科普》2021年8期作者：张晟[导读] 为人际意义态度的研究提供了系统的分析工具，是系统功能语言学的进步。
北京理工大学珠海学院广东珠海 519085摘要：评价理论是对系统功能语法中人际功能的补充和发展，本文通过对国内外外评价理论应用发展的综述，回顾了评价理论的发展，国内外学者都将评价理论应用于不同类型的语篇中，证明了评价理论可以应用在不同领域，展现了强大的生命力，对今后进一步拓展评价理论提供了基础和方向。
关键词：评价理论；理论应用；研究综述引言评价理论源于系统功能语言学的元功能理论和语境理论。
元功能概念在系统功能语法中起着至关重要的作用。
系统功能语言学中有三种元功能，即概念元功能、语篇元功能和人际元功能。
概念元功能包括人类在外部世界和内部世界的经验建构。
人与人、人与社会的关系体现在人际元功能中。
语篇元功能强调不同语篇资源的组织方式，强调语篇的衔接。
评价理论建立在人际元功能缺失的基础上。
在人际元功能范围内，没有一个固定的系统来研究语篇中的态度。
马丁的评价理论弥补了系统功能语法中人际功能态度分析的不足，为人际意义态度的研究提供了系统的分析工具，是系统功能语言学的进步。
20世纪90年代，评价理论起源于马丁和怀特发起的“正确写作”计划。
项目语言部分的研究后来发展为评价理论。
马丁教授将评价理论定位为系统功能语言学的一部分，它处于语篇语义学的层面（Martin，1995）。
Martin&Rose将评价定义为一种评估，即态度协商，即情绪和价值指示的强度以及读者的一致性（Martin&Rose，2003）。
这样，评价理论为语篇分析提供了一个新的视角。
Martin和White将评价系统划分为三个子系统，即态度、介入和级差（Martin&Rose，2003）。
态度是第一个出现在头脑中的项目，它可以进一步分为情感、评判和鉴赏。
评价理论态度系统概述与研究意义
评价理论态度系统概述与研究意义评价理论是系统功能语言学内的一个重要研究范畴，其概念最早由悉尼大学著名的语言学家马丁博士提出。
评价理论源于韩礼德的系统功能语法分析，马丁与其他研究者在语法分析的基础上进行更加系统化的研究，从单纯的语法层面提升到语篇层面，形成了完整的语言评价理论系统。
1 评价理论马丁博士的论文Beyond Exchange：Appraisal Systems in English详细阐述了评价理论的基本观点。
评价理论以词汇语法为框架，使系统功能语言学从人际意义出发，对人际功能有更深层次的理论意义研究。
评价理论从语篇的角度出发，去探寻语言框架下发言者或作者如何来表达特定语境下某些词汇的含义，如何做出评价和协商，以及用什么样的语言学方法表达出此种含义。
因此，在这个评价过程中，会涉及到意识形态是否对评价有所影响，会不会引起发言者或作者的态度变化。
马丁曾经提出：评价理论就是在语篇协商的过程中所表现出来的各种态度，所涉及到的情感强度以及表明发言者或作者的价值或关联读者的各种方式。
它涉及文本所揭示出来的各种态度、情感的强度以确定各种价值来源的手段。
因此评价理论研究的是说话者或作者把自己的情感介入语篇之后，如何使语义发生变化，从而体现出其态度或立场。
2 态度系统的构成和内涵评价理论一共包括三大子系统，介入（engagement）、态度（attitude）和级差（graduation）。
介入系统包括自言（proclamation）和借言（attribution）两个部分，是对态度来源的深层次研究；级差系统包括语势（force）和焦点（focus）两部分内容，主要研究态度的增减和变化情况；态度系统分为三个部分，情感（affect）、评判（judgment）和鉴别（appreciation）。
态度指的是发言者综合各种资源，在情感影响之下把参与者和和过程、现象联系在一起，并且做出判断和鉴别。
2.1 情感评价理论的“态度”系统中，情感从语义来源的角度来解释情感反应和变化，例如喜怒哀乐等，并且具备不同的情感意义。