Affect is about either irrealis or realis.In terms of irrealis, such concepts as fear and desire are involved.As for realis, such notions as un/happiness, in/security, and dis/satisfaction are concerned.In both cases, affect can arise out of surge (of behavior）and disposition.Judgment is about social esteem or social sanction.Social esteem is related to such concepts as normality (fate), capacity and tenacity (resolve); social sanction is about notions like veracity (truth）and propriety (ethics).Appreciation has to do with such concepts as reaction (impact), reaction (quality), composition (balance), composition (complexity), and valuation.A general picture of the evaluation system can be diagramed as in Figure 3.11.
Figure 3.11 A topological perspective on evaluative resources (After Martin, 2000: 165)
In Figure 3.11, engagement is the system of options for indicating the speaker’s degree of commitment to the evaluation being expressed, and can be expressed through modality and other related systems.For Martin (2000), engagement is represented through the angles of perspective, attribution, and expectation.Amplification is the adjustment of the degree of attitude, including such measures as “enrich”, “intensify” and “measure”.
3.3.2.2 Planes of evaluation
Hunston (2000: 176-207）suggests two planes of discourse for evaluation: the autonomous plane and the interactive plane.Both planes involve what is evaluated and how it is evaluated.However, the autonomous plane and the interactive plane are different from each other.On the interactive plane, the text reflects (and constructs）the ongoing interactions between the writer and the reader: the writer signals to the reader what the role of any particular proposition is in the larger meanings being expressed in the text as a whole.Evaluation on this plane therefore relates to the function of the proposition in the text, e.g.whether it is taken as expressing the writer’s opinion or the opinion of someone else.On the autonomous plane, the text is examined in terms of its content rather than of its construction.Evaluation on this plane relates to the writer’s angle on the world.In plain words, the interactive plane and the autonomous plane mainly convey connotative meanings and denotative meanings respectively.
Hunston’s theory may be useful to the analysis of the modality supplementing patterns of MV + MSA in that MV and MSA combine to construct the ongoing interactions between discourse participants.Consider the following:
(109）Mr.David Steel: Reverting to what the right hon.Gentleman said about demonstrations in a Committee room next week, may I ask him to note that the idea refers merely to a demonstration of television equipment? Will he include a repeat of a listening demonstration of the radio experiment conducted by the House some years ago, because many hon.Members have entered the House since then and it is only right that they should be given a chance to hear those programmes?
Mr.Short: There is always a danger that the tapes have been destroyed, but I shall certainly look into the possibility.I do not know where the tapes are, or who has them.
Example (109）is from a political interview, in which the use of MSAs can be found.By means of the theory of Hunston (ibid), this example can be analyzed as follows in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 The interactive plane of evaluation for MSAs
What is evaluatedHow it is evaluated
merely
My asking him to note…require him to note…only…
only
Their being given a chance…judge the necessity of their being given a chance…
always
Danger that the tapes…judge the existence of the danger…
certainly
My looking into the…judge the obligation of my looking into…
Hunston (2000）points out that there are two types of statement: focusing and informing.Focusing statements mainly describe and explain the current text itself, while informing statements generally set up an alignment between the words of the text and the world.Based on this argument, to a large extent, informing statements may be matched with those statements where modality supplementing patterns such as MV + MSA occur.Thus, modality supplementing may be diagramed in terms of interaction as follows in Figure 3.12.
Figure 3.12 Modality supplementing through informing statements
In SFL, the symbol { indicates the simultaneous choice.Thus, modality supplementing may be regarded as the processes of world-creating + world-reflecting, assumption + hypothetical + recommendation, and fact/event + interpretation/hypothesis + assessment.Seen in this way, modality supplementing is not just interactive, but expresses a variety of interpersonal roles as well.It should be noted that there are basically two sources for statements: self and other.For those statements that derive from self, the speaker/writer may aver, emphasize or hide his/her own contributions.For instance, the MSA personally could act as a means of averral, the MSA always as a means of emphasis, and the MSA possibly as a means of concealing personal views.For those statements that come from other, the responsibility can be either delegated or reclaimed.The MSA supposedly is a good device for associating the responsibility with another person, whereas the MSA in one’s opinion helps the speaker or writer to reclaim the responsibility concerned.
3.3.2.3 Operating principles
White (2005）holds that attitudinal signaling, dialogicality and intertextuality act as three operating principles in the evaluation of discourse.
